Graham only GOP member to support pro-abortion, pro-homosexual nominee
A U.S. Senate committee today gave Elena Kagan, President Obama's pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Supreme Court nominee, the go-ahead to advance on her agenda.
The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee featured all of the pro-abortion Democrats standing with Kagan and all Republicans opposing her except South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
The nomination now will go to the full Senate, where it still is uncertain whether pro-life GOP members will mount an effort to keep her from a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, where her influence could be felt for the next few decades.
The opposition to Kagan in the 13-6 vote was led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who said Kagan's answers to the committee included "political spin."
"Throughout her career, Ms. Kagan has placed her politics above the law. She has never been a judge, never tried a case before a jury and has practiced law for only three years," he warned.
Sessions described her as the least-experienced nominee in 50 years.
He also pointed out she was a key part of efforts to allow unlimited "partial-birth" abortions, and she worked to limit gun rights, in addition to her work to expand the rights of homosexual activists.
If she is to be defeated now, it appears that a filibuster – with some help – would be necessary.
Kagan has been criticized by pro-life and pro-family advocates for working, while in the Clinton administration, for partial-birth abortion as well as her campaign to accelerate and legitimize homosexual behavior at Harvard while on the payroll there.
And they note that during Judiciary Committee hearings, she suggested that "precedent" could trump the original intent of the Constitution's authors.
Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, is offering constituents a "take action" option on his website, while a "Stop Kagan Campaign" also is under way.
"We will continue to put every member on notice – Republicans and Democrats – that a vote for Kagan is a vote against the U.S. military, a vote against the Constitution, a vote against free speech and a vote for ultra-partisan extremism and activism on the bench," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND who is orchestrating the "Stop Kagan" effort that has generated tens of thousands of individual letters to senators.
The "Stop Kagan Campaign" allows any American citizen to generate 100 individually addressed letters to every U.S. senator, each including the name of the sender and all delivered by FedEx for the low price of just $24.95.
Kagan's critics have pointed out she has only moderate support among Americans and issues that have been exposed in the last several weeks raise significant questions about her.
For example, she was revealed to have "manipulated" the opinions of two doctor's organizations to soften their testimony that partial-birth abortions never are medically needed.
According to Farah, Kagan disqualified herself from serving on the Supreme Court with her statement under oath that she has no view of "natural rights."
"In all my years of observing Washington, I don't think I've ever been more stunned and disappointed by the testimony of a Supreme Court nominee than I was with Elena Kagan," said Farah. "This is someone, who, from her own testimony, doesn't believe in the Declaration of Independence, which we just celebrated and commemorated for the 234th time in our nation's history. This is someone who claims she doesn't have a view about 'natural rights' – those that real Americans believe are unalienable and God-given."
Farah is asking all of his constituents to join his "Stop Kagan Campaign", which delivers personalized, individually addressed, anti-Kagan letters to all 100 U.S. senators by FedEx for only $24.95.
The statements by Kagan came in an exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Farah said most of the press failed to cover her responses, which he deemed as newsworthy as any she made during the hearings:
Coburn: Do you believe it is a fundamental, pre-existing right to have an arm to defend yourself?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I very much appreciate how deeply important the right to bear arms is to millions and millions of Americans. And I accept Heller, which made clear that the Second Amendment conferred that right upon individuals, and not simply collectively.
Coburn: I'm asking you, Elena Kagan, do you personally believe there is a fundamental right in this area? Do you agree with Blackstone [in] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense? He didn't say that was a constitutional right. He said that's a natural right. And what I'm asking you is, do you agree with that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, to be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution. And my job as a justice will be to enforce and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Coburn: So you wouldn't embrace what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have certain God-given, inalienable rights that aren't given in the Constitution that are ours, ours alone, and that a government doesn't give those to us?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I'm not saying I do not believe that there are rights pre-existing the Constitution and the laws. But my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.
Coburn: Well, I understand that. I'm not talking about as a justice. I'm talking about Elena Kagan. What do you believe? Are there inalienable rights for us? Do you believe that?
Kagan: Senator Coburn, I think that the question of what I believe as to what people's rights are outside the Constitution and the laws, that you should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief.
Coburn: I would want you to always act on the basis of the belief of what our Declaration of Independence says.
Kagan: I think you should want me to act on the basis of law. And that is what I have upheld to do, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, is to act on the basis of law, which is the Constitution and the statutes of the United States.
"This woman apparently thinks our rights descend from our Constitution, which is crazy," said Farah. "The Constitution is there to protect our unalienable, God-given human rights – not to define our rights or to invent them."
The campaign to deny Kagan confirmation in the Senate, however, began long before the hearings.
"This woman, as president of her university, banned the U.S. military from recruiting on campus," Farah reminds. "Just contemplate rewarding that kind of vehemently anti-American action with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan must be stopped."
He devised the "Stop Kagan Campaign" based on previous successes in generating heavy volumes of mail to members of Congress.
"It's a phenomenal bargain," says Farah. "It makes it easy for you to sound off on this historically bad nomination. It's a small investment. And I am convinced that if enough Americans take advantage of it, Kagan will be stopped – even by this Senate."
But time is short, Farah says. America is distracted by a floundering economy, a disastrous oil spill and a government that creates new crises on a daily basis, he explains.
Calling Kagan "an activist who wants to govern from the bench," Farah says there's a way to give senators a "spine transplant" and prepare them for the most contentious confirmation fight since Clarence Thomas.
"Kagan is a radical antimilitary and proabortion zealot," said Farah. "This selection by Barack Obama reveals once again his extremist agenda of leaving America undefended, elevating alternative lifestyles to sainthood and exterminating the most innocent human life with reckless abandon and persecuting anyone who tried to stand in the way. In a nutshell, that's who Elena Kagan is."
Farah's goal is to inundate senators with 100,000 letters calling for her rejection for a lifelong appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The letter campaign is based on previously successful efforts in which nearly 10 million "pink slips" were delivered to members of Congress opposing nationalization of health care, cap-and-trade legislation, hate-crimes laws and other bills, as well as the current campaign to stop amnesty in the U.S. Senate.
The letter to the senators reads:
"In a few months, the American people will have a chance to speak at the polls again. Almost every analyst and every public-opinion survey suggests the electorate is angry about the direction of the country. I strongly urge you not to show contempt for the will of the people and the Constitution by confirming the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan.
"Kagan is not what Americans want and she is not what the country needs.
"At a time when federal central control is strangling the American economy, she calls for more regulatory authority not just in Washington, but for the president himself.
"At a time when American security is facing internal and external threats and our nation is still engaged in two foreign wars simultaneously, she advocates banning military recruitment on campuses because of her compulsion to see open homosexual behavior flaunted in the ranks.
"At a time when Americans have been stripped of their ability to write their own laws protecting the lives of the unborn, she advocates the creation of task forces to investigate and prosecute peaceful pro-life activities.
"At a time when Americans are recognizing the unique blessings of their Constitution, she advocates the consideration of foreign laws in shaping Supreme Court rulings.
"For all of these reasons and more we will surely learn about in the days ahead, please reject the nomination of Elena Kagan."
The youth-led pro-life group Live Action released a new undercover video today showing staff at an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood clinic using manipulative and medically inaccurate counseling to convince a young woman to have an abortion. This is the third undercover video Live Action has released showing abusive counseling practices at Planned Parenthood of Indiana.
When the woman, purportedly 10-weeks pregnant, asks the clinician, named "Sarah," when her baby's heart begins to beat, Sarah replies, "It's around I think the 8th or the 9th week that you can hear the heartbeat." The heart actually begins beating 3 weeks and 1 day after conception, according to Moore and Persaud's well-known textbook The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. The Planned Parenthood clinician also insists, "It's not a baby, it's a fetus," which, she claims, is "not like a person."
In the video, Sarah assures the woman that "having an abortion is safer than carrying to term." The woman asks, "The abortion won't hurt me from having more kids in the future, will it?" and the counselor replies, "Nope." But a 2009 study from the Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey recently found that a previous abortion increased a woman's risk of pre-term birth by 20%, and a 2003 report from the Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research notes a 55% increased risk of future miscarriages for women who have abortions.
Lila Rose, UCLA student and president of Live Action, says the new footage places Planned Parenthood well outside the medical mainstream. "Planned Parenthood's counseling is based on its abortion-first mentality rather than the medical facts that women need," observes Rose. "Planned Parenthood gives vulnerable women misinformation to sell them the abortion." Indiana informed consent law requires that women receive accurate medical information before undergoing an abortion.
The undercover video is the third released by Live Action in the "Rosa Acuna Project," a multi-state undercover investigation of medical misinformation and manipulative counseling at Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in America. In the undercover "Mona Lisa Project," Live Action released footage of two Planned Parenthood Indiana clinics agreeing to cover-up the sexual abuse of a child. Indiana lawmakers have since sought to defund the state affiliate of over $3 million it receives annually in government grants.
"Citizens and lawmakers in Indiana must stop Planned Parenthood from using millions of dollars of taxpayer money to exploit young women," states Rose.
At his weekly pen and pad briefing on Monday at the Capital, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, said that last week's revelation by the National Right to Life's legal counsel that the new health care law will allow some states to use federal funds for abortion is unacceptable.
"It must not stand," Pence said when asked by CNSNews.com what Republicans are doing in response to the news.
"We are calling on this administration and the leaders in Congress to take immediate action to prevent taxpayers dollars to be used in that way," Pence said.
"The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable," House Republican John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers."
Pence said it showed the ineffectiveness of the Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama ahead of the congressional vote on the law to assuage so-called pro-life Democrats that the federal government would not fund abortions.
"It's appalling," Pence said, adding that the executive order was only "a piece of paper signed by the most pro-abortion president" and ended three decades of legal precedent in the United States that has banned the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions.
Contact: Penny Starr Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 19, 2010
The Montana Personhood Amendment Initiative CI-102 volunteers received news yesterday that they were just 6,000 signatures short of the required 48,674 signatures to put Personhood on the 2010 ballot.
"These are all volunteer signatures, which is an amazing feat in and of itself." commented Chet Gallagher, Personhood volunteer. These folks, both with the Montana ProLife Coalition and Personhood Montana, were working nonstop evenings and weekends to collect signatures, while most campaigns hire professionals. The hardworking volunteers see this as a stepping stone to victory in 2012."
The Montana ProLife Coalition and Personhood Montana see the victory in submitting well over the required number of signatures, though not all signatures were certified as valid. Personhood volunteers collected nearly double the signatures that they collected in 2008, and as the trend continues, organizers are confident that Montana will see Personhood on the ballot in 2012. It has been reported that the CI-102 initiative broke records for volunteer signatures in Montana.
"All unpaid volunteers, this grassroots prolife network will work to influence the November elections and bills during the 2011 legislative session," pledged Dr. Annie Bukacek, amendment organizer. "The killing of innocent humans is not compatible with a civilized society. We have barely begun the fight for the rights and liberties of unborn babies, and we will keep working at it until their personhood is established in our Montana Constitution."
"Jesus Christ is building a movement for personhood rights of babies across the country," explained Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA. "He will continue to build in Montana, and they will stand ready. Although this year Montana citizens will not have the opportunity to end baby murder, we know will we have the chance in the very near future to protect every Montana citizen, no matter how small."
Contact: Dr. Annie Bukacek Source: Personhood USA Date Published: July 20, 2010
Billionaire investing mogul Warren Buffett has been secretly backing a campaign to combat the decrease in doctors who are training as abortionists and to bring abortion into mainstream medicine, revealed the New York Times this week.
In her NYT magazine cover story, journalist Emily Bazelon describes how abortion "rights" activists are working to "recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one."
The piece, entitled "The New Abortion Providers," claims that abortionists and the pro-abort lobby are trying to dispel the image of the "greedy, butchering 'abortionist'." "The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it's a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned," writes Bazelon.
The strategy, she says, aims at moving abortuaries away from stand-alone facilities into hospitals and encourages family physicians to offer abortions within their practices.
She describes two training programs for abortionists that are central to this strategy. The first, called the "Family Planning Fellowship," is a two-year post-residency program designed to further equip doctors for providing abortions and contraception. She says this fellowship is now being offered at 21 university campuses. The second is called the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, which aims to supply medical schools with funds to train ob/gyn residents in providing abortions. So far, this program has funded 58 campuses in the U.S. and Canada.
Both programs are run out of the University of California at San Francisco, and both are directed by Uta Landy, the former director of the National Abortion Federation. Bazelon spoke with Jody Steinauer, the associate director of the Fellowship program, but she said that Landy declines all interviews out of fear that publicity would scare off potential universities, or their lone donor.
"The money for the Ryan and the Family Planning Fellowship comes from one foundation and from one family," writes Bazelon. "The donor has chosen to remain anonymous, which helps to explain why there's been so little publicity about the pro-choice strategy of bringing abortion into academic medicine. It has been covered by a veil of semisecrecy."
But as the two training programs have grown, this anonymous donor has become more widely known, she says. "In the course of my reporting, two doctors who had not done the fellowship themselves, but who work in universities, volunteered to me that the money for the programs comes from the Buffett Foundation," she wrote.
According to Bazelon, the Buffett Foundation's tax records reveal that most of its spending is allocated to "abortion and contraception advocacy and research." The Foundation has given tens of millions to Planned Parenthood and Ipas, as well as millions to other pro-abortion groups like Catholics for Choice. Buffett has pledged to give away 99% of his estimated $47 billion assets, with most of it going to the Gates Foundation, which is infamous for its avowed emphasis on population control.
Despite Buffett's and the rest of the pro-abortion movement's efforts to bring abortion into the mainstream of medicine, however, pro-life leaders insist that abortionists are by nature at the bottom rung of medicine, where debauched doctors end up when they are too incompetent for any other area.
"No one goes to medical school with the intent of working in a Planned Parenthood or some other abortion clinic," said Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics Inc., last month, after an Ottawa abortionist was disciplined for his incompetence in treating 25 of his clients. "The wash-outs from the leftovers of medicine wind up working in these abortion clinics."
Contact: Patrick B. Craine Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 19, 2010
Oklahoma District Judge Noma Gurich ruled today that a pro-life ultrasound law will remain under an injunction keeping it from taking effect until at least January 21. The order is a continuation of one issued in May.
The setback is just the latest of many difficulties the law has encountered.
The law, which passed the Oklahoma legislature in March, would require abortionists to show to women and describe in detail an ultrasound of their unborn child within the hour before anesthesia is administered for the abortion. Such a description must include the dimensions of the child, whether the child has a heartbeat or not, and what external members and internal organs the child has.
Democratic Governor Brad Henry vetoed the law, saying that it should contain an exception for victims of rape and incest and that it was an unconstitutional intrusion into women's privacy, before the legislature overrode the veto in April. Governor Henry often clashes horns with the Oklahoma legislature over pro-life issues: he recently vetoed measures prohibiting health insurance providers in Oklahoma from subsidizing elective abortion, and other pro-life measures.
Judge Gurich blocked enforcement of the law, however, after the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) of New York filed a suit against the state in May. The CRR argues that the statute interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by compelling doctors to give unwanted speech and by intruding on the patient's privacy.
Pretrial hearings for the suit are now scheduled for January 21.
Proponents of the the law say it would prevent abortuaries from lying to women about developmental facts regarding their unborn child. Such deception has been documented at multiple Planned Parenthood locations by the pro-life media group Live Action. Critics of the law also say it is too invasive because it requires doctors to use a vaginal rather than abdominal ultrasound when this would make the image clearer.
Republican state Senator Steve Russell criticized such arguments. "We speak of invasiveness," Russell said. "[In abortion] an unborn child is forced to have an instrument forced into its body, killing it."
"We speak of the poor and underprivileged. No one is more vulnerable than a child in the womb. They have no voice except ours."
Contact: James Tillman Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 19, 2010
Americans United for Life (AUL) has issued a report shedding new light on Elena Kagan's role in manipulating key medical testimony on partial-birth abortion, saying that she failed to admit her actions in Senate confirmation hearings and calling on lawmakers to investigate.
It was revealed last month that an amendment to a statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists on partial-birth abortion, which Kagan is believed to have added, tampered with medical testimony that proved crucial to later litigation.
"Because of the lack of other reliable scientific data, the ACOG Policy Statement, as Kagan amended it, was relied upon by federal courts to invalidate the laws of 30 states and an act of Congress," wrote AUL. "This seriously compromised the integrity of the U.S. federal judicial process for more than a decade."
Thus Kagan's apparent willingness to politicize the American judicial system "at the highest level," says AUL, "raises serious questions."
An ACOG panel in October of 1996 drafted a medical report on partial-birth abortion, which stated that they "could identify no circumstances under which [partial-birth abortion] would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Kagan, however, in a December memo called the draft a "disaster" and wrote the following statement, which was included in the final draft of the ACOG report: "An intact D&X [dilation and extraction, or partial-birth abortion], 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 a doctor should be allowed to make this determination."
AUL's report notes that Kagan's intervention with the ACOG "was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern of behavior." Memos point to Kagan similarly tampering with testimony from the American Medical Association, also regarding partial-birth abortion.
In a Senate confirmation hearing June 30, when Senator Tom Coburn directly asked Kagan whether she "had no efforts at all to influence" ACOG's statment, Kagan answered, "My only dealings with ACOG were about talking with them about how to ensure that their statement expressed their views. I was a, you know, a staffer with no medical knowledge."
Yet AUL points to a June 1996 memo that appears to belie her testimony, showing that she took a much more active role on the issue than she was willing to admit.
Prior to the first draft of the ACOG statement, Kagan told Clinton in that memo that ACOG officials in a meeting with her "went through every [medical] circumstance imaginable ... and there just aren't many where use of the partial-birth abortion is the least risky, let alone the 'necessary,' approach."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), after hearing Kagan's testimony, said he was "stunned by what appears to be a real politicization of science."
Upon receiving AUL's report, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated agreement that there was a "contradiction" in Kagan's representation of her role in the partial-birth abortion language.
"President Clinton seems to have been disposed to sign the ban, and Ms. Kagan seems to have persuaded him to reverse that position," said Sessions in a statement Thursday. "In her testimony, Ms. Kagan clearly presented herself as a neutral staffer in the process, though this record suggests she was an active player in working to keep partial-birth abortion legal."
Bill Saunders, senior legal council with AUL, warned this week that the memos reveal that Kagan could be "every bit as bad if not worse" than U.S. appeals court judge Diane Wood.
Wood, another name on Obama's supposed short list for the Supreme Court, had been widely considered the most radically pro-abortion of the choices. She opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, and authored the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that sided with National Organization for Women's attempt to silence Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League and other groups.
Saunders told LifeSiteNews.com that Kagan's abortion advocacy, in addition to her "over-the-top support for judicial activists" such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall and Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak, point to Kagan being a "very extreme" Supreme Court candidate. "Even where [Clinton] wanted to be a little bit moderate on partial-birth abortion, [Kagan] convinced him not to do that," he noted.
"She should be required to explain herself better than she has because her answers at the hearings just don't seem to line up with the record," he said.
A team of lawyers at Americans United for Life has compiled a comprehensive assessment of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Obama's Supreme Court pick, the end result of a year's work evaluating available data.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 16, 2010
Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland's State Health Insurance Plan.
Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions. As CNSNews.com reported on July 14, Pennsylvania will receive $160 million in federal funds for its high-risk insurance pool, which will also cover abortions.
During the debate over the health-care bill, President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress, saying: "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."
The day the House voted to pass that bill, President Obama also signed an executive order purporting to prevent federal funding of abortions in the programs it created.
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), the chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Friday that the fact that Maryland will now use federal dollars to fund abortions under a program mandated by the health-care law signed by President Obama represents a "broken promise.
"This is one more example of a broken promise in ObamaCare," said Pence. "It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life and it is reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions."
Pence urged Congress to enact new legislation to stop abortion funding through the health-care law.
"I call on Congress to act quickly on critical legislation by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to stop the administration from using ObamaCare to fund abortions."
In a July 7 press release, the sate of Maryland announced that it had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to offer federally subsidized insurance plans to people with pre-existing conditions as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the health-care law signed by President Obama in March.
Under the terms of that law, either HHS itself or state governments contracting with HHS must offer such plans in each of the 50 states to people with pre-existing conditions. These plans must operate until 2014 when all states are required under the law to run insurance exchanges that will offer federally subsidized insurance plans to state residents earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level.
Maryland said it will use its existing high-cost insurance pool--the Maryland Health Insurance Plan (MHIP)--to administer the federal high-risk plan, which it calls the MHIP Federal Plan.
The press release, issued by MHIP, said Maryland will receive $85 million in federal money to administer this plan and pay claims.
According to a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) fact sheet published by MHIP, its new Federal Plan will offer the same benefit package as its state-funded plans. "The MHIP Federal Plan offers the same benefit package as other MHIP plan options," that document states. All five of MHIP's plans cover abortion, including one plan that requires no co-pay if the abortion is performed at an out-patient abortion clinic, according information found on page 53 of the 2010 MHIP Certificate of Coverage.
Maryland's federally subsidized plan for people with pre-existing conditions will be available in September 2010.
Contact: Matt Cover Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 16, 2010
Attributes Increases to New Socio-Political and Theological Movements
As a result of increased attention due to January's earthquake crisis in Haiti and other external factors, Bethany Christian Services (www.Bethany.org), the nation's largest adoption agency, is seeing significant growth and interest in the U.S. adoption market, with overall international and domestic adoption placements up 26 percent over the same time period in 2009.
The organization is reporting Intercountry Adoption placements up 66 percent and Intercountry Adoption inquiries ahead by more than 5,000 requests during the same six month time period of 2009, totaling an unprecedented 10,567 inquiries. Bethany ascribes these increases in part to the Haiti crisis and the need to find safe homes for children who lost one or both parents during the earthquake.
Domestic Infant Adoption inquiries are also higher than in 2009 with 8,037 in the first half of 2010. Additionally, Infant Adoption Home Studies have increased 15 percent and formal Infant Adoption applications have increased 23 percent over 2009.
In addition to the Haiti crisis, Bethany attributes the increase in adoption to new movements within Christian churches, which are creating new attitudes for young couples. Bethany has been instrumental in bringing more families forward to adopt by partnering with organizations such as Catalyst, Saddleback Church, Q Conference, Southern Baptist Denomination, and Christian Alliance for Orphans.
"The figures Bethany released show strong improvement as we confront the global orphan crisis, but the need still remains as there are still an incredible number of orphaned children who wait for their 'forever family'," said Bill Blacquiere, president and CEO at Bethany Christian Services. "It is our vision that every child has a loving family, so we are working to find new families and identify supportive local communities. We all must contribute to take measurable and immediate action in order to find more families who can provide loving homes."
Bethany has been at the forefront of partnering with church leaders to support foster care, adoption, and orphan care programs within their ministries. Most recently, the Southern Baptist Convention announced a new Adoption Fund, which subsidizes the cost of adoption for pastors by $2,000. In addition, Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum focused heavily on orphans and adoption and other popular conferences, such as Catalyst, Together for Adoption, the Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit and Adopting for Life, have put adoption at center stage.
Operation Rescue calls for an independent auditor in light of connections between Gov. Culver, Attorney General Miller and Planned Parenthood
Operation Rescue has filed a formal request with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller for a state audit of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, (PPH).
A Governmental Accounting Office report issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2010, revealed that $2.3 billion dollars in taxpayer money has been doled out to Planned Parenthood organizations nationwide from 2002-2008, yet Planned Parenthood's own financial reports show that only $657.1 million has been spent. That leaves $1.8 billion dollars in tax funds with unaccounted for.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, based in Des Moines, Iowa, has been the recipient of Title X funds as well as money from other federal programs. Thousands of tax dollars have been disbursed directly to PPH through the Iowa Attorney General's office. It is likely that some of the missing $1.8 billion has made its way to Iowa.
"We believe the public has a right to know where their tax money is going. It is time that Planned Parenthood gives an account for the money that it has siphoned from hard-working taxpayers," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
"We are especially concerned about possible misappropriation of funds after discovering that PPH is overbilling insurance companies for their remote-controlled abortion pill distribution scheme, known as telemed abortions."
Evidence of overbilling by a number of Planned Parenthood affiliates has surfaced in California, where a state audit discovered that Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties had overbilled the state $5,213,645.92 for birth control pills alone. A Federal whistleblower lawsuit filed by former Chief Financial Officer of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles revealed that the state of California was overbilled for a total of $180 million by Planned Parenthood affiliates in that state.
"There is enough history of Planned Parenthood bilking taxpayers and other financial improprieties to justify this request for an audit of PPH," said Newman.
Operation Rescue released an investigative report on PPH's telemed abortion scheme in March, 2010, then filed a complaint concerning its dangers with the Iowa Board of Medicine the following month. That investigation is ongoing.
OR also filed a formal complaint with the Attorney General's office requesting a criminal investigation telemed abortions. Miller indicated that his office was unlikely to investigate. Operation Rescue then discovered connections between Miller and PPH, including a PPH abortionist who sits on one of Miller's advisory boards. In addition, Gov. Chet Culver, recently met with PPH officials and received their endorsement of his re-election campaign.
"In light of Miller's and Culver's connections with PPH, we are asking for an independent audit to be conducted by someone not associated, either personally or politically, with Miller or Culver," said Newman. "That is the only way the public can be assured of an honest accounting."
The Washington Board of Pharmacy is apparently going to revisit its regulation requiring every pharmacy to dispense all legal prescriptions. The controversy arose when a small pharmacy chain refused to dispense Plan B contraception based on the religious beliefs of the chain's owners and fears it could act as an abortifacient. To coerce the company into dispensing Plan B, the Board passed the regulation described above. The company sued and a trial court ruled that it violated the company's right to freedom of religion. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, claiming that as a general applicable regulation, it did not violate the 1st Amendment–ignoring, or better stated, knowing and not caring–that the only companies likely to oppose contraception dispensing would be owned by people with religious objections. Thus, based on the appeals court ruling, it appeared as if all conscience rights of pharmacies were to be quashed.
My concern had to do with lethal prescriptions for assisted suicide, legal in Washington. If pharmacies could be forced to dispense contraception based on the regulation, but also, drugs intended to kill. But now, the Pharmacy Board has decided to revisit the issue and agreed to revise the rule. From the story:
The state Board of Pharmacy and pharmacists suing it over Plan B want out of court. The litigants asked federal district court Judge Ronald Leighton last week to put their legal fight on hold pending the resolution of a new rule-making process. The move angered advocates of unfettered access to Plan B emergency contraception. They contend the delay signals an undoing of a 2007 victory: the passage of rules requiring pharmacists to dispense a drug unless another pharmacist is available in person or by phone to step in.
The pharmacy board voted last month to reopen the rule-making process to consider "facilitated referral," which is essentially the "refuse and refer" rule that the board embraced in 2006. Under that rule, pharmacists with moral objections to Plan B – some consider it tantamount to abortion because it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg – could refuse to dispense it as long as they took steps to help patients get it elsewhere.
That would still force pharmacies to be complicit in objectionable (to them) dispensing, and hence, I would prefer that the conscience rights of pharmacies be fully protected–with the condition that it publicly and clearly publicize and post signs in the stores which prescriptions it won't fill. In other words, a pharmacy that doesn't wish to participate in the killing of a patient in assisted suicide should not be forced to have anyblood on its hands–even if indirectly. Still, this is good news because it permits those in support of conscience to make their case and help craft a noncoercive approach to dispensing controversial drugs and medications.
An abortion can triple a woman's chances of contracting breast cancer, according to a study conducted in Sri Lanka.
The research, performed by scientists at the University of Colombo, showed abortion is the greatest reported risk factor for the disease, according to the Daily Mail in London. The study is the fourth in the last 14 months to demonstrate such a link, the newspaper reported June 24.
A cancer research organization in Great Britain criticized the study's size.
Joel Brind, a professor at New York University and an expert on the abortion-breast cancer link, said the sample of 100 women who have had breast cancer and 203 who have not, is "still a good study, just not quite as powerful. I would emphasize that it is typical of studies that have come out early in countries where breast cancer and abortion are not yet that common, like studies in the 1980s in China, Japan, Australia and even the U.S."
Though not all research has shown a connection between an abortion early in life and breast cancer later, there are more than two dozen peer-reviewed studies in various countries that have shown evidence of a link, according to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Date Published: July 16, 2010
Republican Congressman Todd Akin and Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor have sent a letter signed by 180 members of Congress to House and Senate leadership urging them to eliminate language from the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill that would permit abortions on military bases.
"DoD medical facilities should remain focused on providing the best possible care for our military service members and their families, not providing abortion on demand," said Akin and Taylor.
The Blagojevich-appointed Democratic Senator Roland Burris offered an amendment to the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act on May 27 that would permit abortions in domestic and overseas military facilities. It passed the Senate Armed Service Committee by a vote of 15-12.
The amendment would strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which states that no facility of the department of defense may be used for an abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother. The law has been in place since 1996.
Akin said that "at a time when we are engaged in two wars, it is unfortunate that Senator Burris has decided to insert this contentious issue into the DOD Authorization."
Akin has said that such a bill would demand that all taxpayers be co-conspirators in killing children through abortion.
Rep. Gene Taylor pointed out that in the past "military medical personnel firmly rejected previous efforts to turn our nation's military medical facilities into abortion clinics."
President Clinton signed a memorandum permitting abortions at military facilities in 1993.
Even before the current ban on abortion in military facilities was passed in response to the Clinton memorandum, military physicians commonly refused to perform or assist in elective abortions.
This led the administration to seek civilians who would do what military doctors would not. "If the Burris Amendment were enacted," the letter warns, "not only would taxpayer funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources could also be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so that abortions could be performed."
More importantly, the letter states that "military treatment centers - which are dedicated to healing and caring for life - should not facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life: a child in the womb."
A similar amendment was offered in the house in 2006, where it failed by a vote of 191-237. This amendment offered abortion only on overseas bases; the Burris Amendment is more expansive in allowing abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases.
The Defense Authorization bill passed by the House does not contain the language of the Burris Amendment. Senator Chris Smith has said that he does not expect the House to accept the bill if it returns from the Senate with the Burris Amendment.
"We will stand very firm," Smith has said. "I believe there will be an overwhelming vote in the House to keep our military hospitals as nurturing centers, not abortion mills."
A repeal of the military's ban on openly homosexual service members has also been attached to the FY2011 defense bill.
Contact: James Tillman Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 14, 2010
1) Myth: Ella is an "emergency contraceptive," just like Plan B, but it works longer and more effectively.
Fact: Ella works very differently than Plan B, which is also referenced to as a "morning after pill." Plan B can prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus, thereby causing its demise. However, Plan B cannot terminate an already implanted embryo, whereas Ella can. Ella is a different type of chemical compound than Plan B (Levonorgestrel). Plan B is a kind of progesterone, and progesterone is needed by the uterine lining to grow and feed the embryo. Ella is a selected progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). An SPRM blocks progesterone receptors and thereby starves a developing baby of this needed protein. According to the FDA, only one SPRM has been approved for drug use in the United States: RU-486 (Mifepristone) -- a known producer of abortions for first-trimester pregnancies.
2) Myth: Ella is not capable of causing abortions.
Fact: According to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU equivalent of the FDA, numerous studies show that Ella causes abortions in animals, including rats, rabbits, guinea pigs and macaques (similar to monkeys). Additionally, the EMEA indicated that Ella "is embryotoxic at low doses, when given to rats and rabbits." Given Ella's molecular similarity to RU-486 and this animal data, it is reasonable to conclude that Ella will abort human pregnancies.
3) Myth: Ella does not cause an abortion because it does not interrupt an established, implanted pregnancy.
Fact: Ella can cause the demise of an embryo that is already implanted in its mother's womb, in addition to preventing implantation after fertilization. Ella also appears to have a powerful ovulatory blocking capability.
4) Myth: Ella is safe for women's health.
Fact: The FDA looked at limited data on safety information and should conduct further studies on the effect of Ella on women's health. In addition to the studies looked at for approval, since Ella works similarly to RU-486, there is compelling reason to believe that it will likely have similar side effects. It may cause excessive bleeding and increase vulnerability to infection. The FDA has admitted that six women died as a result to RU-486 within six years of its approval. It is possible that other serious side effects of RU-486 have occurred but have not been reported. Women who take Ella should be aware of its potential side effects.
5) Myth: Since Ella is only being approved for use for five days it can not interfere with a pregnancy since implantation usually occurs between 6-10 days after fertilization.
Fact: Nothing would prevent providers from prescribing, or women from using, Ella off-label. Indeed, Planned Parenthood openly admits that providing emergency contraception beyond the 3-day FDA approved timeframe. Additionally, the Planned Parenthood website describes two off-label uses for RU-486: the organization prescribes the RU-486 abortion regimen at a lower dose than is approved by the FDA and they prescribe it after the 49-day FDA approved timeframe. The FDA is not able to prevent off-label and unapproved use of the drug. Once approved, the drug can be used off-label outside of FDA guidelines. Furthermore, a woman in early pregnancy can unknowingly take "Ella" within 5 days of a separate sexual encounter and unintentionally and unknowingly have an abortion because she believes emergency contraception will not harm an implanted fetus.
6) Myth: Ella is safe for women who are breastfeeding, and for their unborn and born children.
Fact: The FDA admits at least one case in which a baby exposed to Ella in utero had visual development problems and delayed gross motor skills. Despite this information, the FDA Advisory Panel did not suggest further studies on the potential for Ella to produce birth defects, either for babies in utero or those drinking their mother's breast-milk. Additionally, the EMEA stated that "Extremely limited data are available on the health of the foetus/new-born in case a pregnancy is exposed" to the drug, as well as "it has not been possible to evaluate the teratogenic (birth-defect) potential of ulipristal acetate (Ella)."
Contact: Jeanne Monahan Source: FRC Date Published: July 15, 2010
A relatively little-known video made last year provides a fascinating look at billionaire Bill Gates and his philanthropic endeavors. In an interview with Chris Anderson of the show TED, the Microsoft mogul is asked whether by aiding the world's sick he is not in fact "adding enormously to the problem of overpopulation in the world."
Gates is enlivened by the question, and responds: "Okay, this is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me," he says. "When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did because I thought population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face.
"You've got to help mothers who want to limit family size, have the tools and education to do that. That's the only thing that really counts."
What got Gates into funding general health, and not only reproductive health, was the finding that, as he puts it: "the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health."
Gates admits that it seems counterintuitive, but explains that parents in impoverished nations are having many children in order to "have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them."
Gates noted that the highest population growth is concentrated in countries with the "worst health conditions." He explains: "the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there's a perfect correlation, that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down."
Contrary to Gates' fears about overpopulation, however, demographers are in fact increasingly concerned about a worldwide depopulation as the world (and especially the West) experiences the effects of plummeting birthrates following the advent of the contraceptive mentality handed down from the sexual revolution.
In fact, in February, University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan decried the promotion of abortion as "women's health" in the Third World, telling Canada's National Post that it "seems to be based on the now discredited theory that poverty in the Third World is based on overpopulation."
"I don't think any serious scholar believes that anymore," he added.
While many population control advocates say cutting the Third World population would solve the hunger epidemic, the Popular Research Institute, which specializes in population issues, has noted that world food experts, such as the World Food Program, say there's no shortage of food, but a problem of distribution. PRI emphasizes that the real problems leading to hunger are: poverty, war, natural disasters, environmental exploitation, and poor agricultural infrastructure.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, will receive an award from abortion giant Planned Parenthood at a reception Thursday evening. The award will be given in recognition of her efforts in passing the federal health care legislation, and, in particular, for her help in ensuring that the Stupak abortion funding ban was not inserted in the bill.
A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood confirmed with LifeSiteNews.com that Pelosi would be receiving the Champion for Women's Health award, which recognizes "efforts to support women and their reproductive health."
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) will also receive the award.
In a statement, PP lauds Pelosi for having been "instrumental" in the passage of the federal health care bill, which was strenuously opposed by every major pro-life organization in the U.S., as well as the U.S. Catholic bishops, because of its abortion mandate. The statment also praises Pelosi for having "led her female colleagues in Congress as they stood strong against attempts to insert the Stupak abortion ban into the bill."
"With their steadfast commitment to passing health care reform and making sure that women will be able to get the health care they need, the women leaders we honor today set the course to change the lives of millions of women for generations to come," said PP President Cecile Richards.
While Pelosi and the Obama administration have repeatedly claimed that the health care law would not fund abortion, pro-life groups have warned that such claims are clearly contradicted by the facts. They have also warned that the last-minute Executive Order (EO) issued by Obama in exchange for the votes of the few remaining "pro-life" Democrats led by Bart Stupak does little more than "reiterate" what is already in the bill.
Immediately after the bill was passed in March Richards issued a statement dismissing the EO as a "symbolic" gesture, and announcing that "monumental progress" had been made in strengthening "women's health."
Ironically, at the very height of the health care debate, even as the U.S. bishops were stepping up their efforts against the bill and its abortion funding, Pelosi publicly invoked one of the most prominent Catholic saints – St. Joseph, who is also revered by Catholics as "patron" of the unborn - to help pass the health care bill.
"Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker," Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill in March. "It's a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America, and that's exactly what our health care bill will do."
This is not the first time that Pelosi has attempted to reconcile her pro-abortion views with her professed faith.
Contact: John Jalsevac Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 15, 2010
Gov. Jay Nixon announced today that a bill, which expands the requirements made on abortion clinics, would go into effect without his signature.
The expanded 24-hour abortion consent law requires clinics to offer women the chance to have an ultrasound, as well as listen to the preborn baby's heartbeat.
The law goes into effect Aug. 28.
The state will provide printed materials, detailing the risks associated with abortion. It also includes the statement, "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."
The brochure will also list available alternatives and what the preborn child looks like throughout the pregnancy.
In addition to enhanced informed consent provisions, the new law makes Missouri the fifth state to opt-out of abortion funding in the new federal health care law.
Trial over attempt to require handling of abortifacients canceled
A trial scheduled to begin just days from now on whether the state of Washington can force pro-life pharmacists to violate their own conscience and religious beliefs by requiring them to dispense abortifacients has been canceled.
The announcement about the pending July 26 trial in the lawsuit against the state and its officials over new rules from its pharmacy board comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which was preparing for the battle over conscience rights.
A stay order was issued by a federal court halting the proceedings when state officials agreed to begin a process that would result in modifications to allow pharmacists to refer patients seeking such death-dealing drugs to other pharmacies where there isn't a conflict with religious or personal beliefs, ADF said.
The lawsuit was launched in 2007 to safeguard the rights of pharmacists and pharmacies against state rules that were intended to force them to stock and distribute the drugs.
According to ADF, the "new regulations will protect conscience rights while also benefitting patients by mandating that all referrals are 'facilitated.'" That means a referral to another location where the products are available, ADF explained.
"Pharmacists and other health-care workers shouldn't be punished for looking out for their patients' health – and for abiding by their beliefs," said Steven H. Aden, the senior legal counsel who worked on the case for ADF.
"The pharmacy board was right in determining that facilitated referrals work to protect the patients' best interests and that, at the same time, pro-life pharmacists shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience. This is a win-win situation," he said.
Kristen Waggoner, one of nearly 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, said the new rules "should ensure that customers receive prescribed drugs in the most efficient manner possible while at the same time respecting the conscience rights of pharmacists, who should never be forced to participate in the risk of destroying human life just to be able to preserve their professional licenses."
The order from U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton said the trial was stayed "to allow the board time to complete its rule-making processes."
"This court will lift the stay and set trial on an expedited basis upon plaintiffs request at any point in the future if plaintiffs reasonably believe at any time during the rule-making process that the proposed rules do not allow them to engage in a facilitated referral instead of stocking or dispensing Plan B," the ruling said.
The case had claimed the state was violating the constitutional rights of pharmacists by ordering them to stock and hand out the "morning-after" abortion pill.
"Plaintiffs, pharmacists and a pharmacy owner, have a conscientious objection to stocking and dispensing Plan B, the morning after pill," the judge noted officially. He earlier had refused a state request to dismiss the case.
The district court earlier issued an injunction against the state regulations.
On appeal from the state, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state of Washington failed to demonstrate that the abortion-inducing drugs, including the so-called "Plan B" drug, weren't readily available already.
The lower court's original order found "the regulations appear to target religious practice in a way forbidden by the Constitution" and "appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception."
The case developed when Kevin Stormans, an owner of Ralph's Thriftway, received a telephone call about the availability of Plan B. After discovering the abortion-inducing results, Stormans, a Christian, decided his store would not stock the product.
Activists then launched a picketing campaign against him and filed complaints with the Washington Board of Pharmacy. Eventually his company, along with two individual pharmacists, was forced into the court action.
About that time, Democrats in Congress suggested fines of up to $500,000 if the pharmacists follow their conscience and decline to dispense abortifacient chemicals.
"Pharmacists are professionals, not vending machines," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said at the time. "The FDA has been known to make mistakes in approving drugs, and doctors have made mistakes in prescribing. Pharmacists provide a line of defense to ensure that patients' lives and health are protected and can make patients aware of ethical concerns.
"Yet this bill would punish pharmacists up to $500,000 for acting on their ethical duty," she said.
The bill, called the "Access to Birth Control Act," was pushed forward by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Among the groups supporting the requirement were NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.
The plan was to let "any person aggrieved" file a civil lawsuit for "appropriate relief, including actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and cost."
Plan B essentially is a very high dosage of birth-control chemicals taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent ovulation or implantation. If ovulation is prevented, no egg is fertilized and no pregnancy occurs. But if ovulation has taken place and the egg is fertilized, the morning-after pill works to block implantation by the early embryo in the mother's womb. The embryo is aborted, making dispensing prescriptions for the pill a matter of conscience for pro-life pharmacists.
Pharmacists For Life International, a group that opposes abortion, cites a study showing seven of 10 pharmacists believe they have a right to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs that violate their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.
Contact: Bob Unruh Source: WorldNetDaily Date Published: July 15, 2010
The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new "high-risk" insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March -- and has quietly approved a plan submitted by an appointee of Governor Edward Rendell (D) under which the new program will cover any abortion that is legal in Pennsylvania.
The high-risk pool program is one of the new programs created by the sweeping health care legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) that President Obama signed into law on March 23. The law authorizes $5 billion in federal funds for the program, which will cover as many as 400,000 people when it is implemented nationwide.
"The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. "This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama's assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion -- but it will not be the last."
An earlier version of the health care legislation, passed by the House of Representatives in November 2009, contained a provision (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) that would have prevented federal funds from subsidizing abortion or insurance coverage of abortion in any of the programs created by the bill, including the high-risk pool program. But President Obama opposed that pro-life provision, and it was not included in the bill later approved by both houses and signed into law. An executive order signed by the President on March 24, 2010 did not contain effective barriers to federal funding of abortion, and did not even mention the high-risk pool program.
"President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention," Johnson said.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has emphasized that the high-risk pool program is a federal program and that the states will not incur any cost. On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that "states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government."
Details of the high-risk pool plans for most states are not yet available. But on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release (see: tinyurl.com/icrelease) announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency's proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania. "The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014," according to the release. "The plan's benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month."
The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that "elective abortions are not covered." However, that statement proves to be a red herring, because the operative language does not define "elective." Rather, the proposal specifies that the coverage "includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of" several specific statutes, the most pertinent of which is 18 Pa. C.S. § 3204, which says that an abortion is legal in Pennsylvania (consistent with Roe v. Wade) if a single physician believes that it is "necessary" based on "all factors (physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age) relevant to the well-being of the woman." Indeed, the cited statute provides only a single circumstance in which an abortion prior to 24 weeks is NOT permitted under the Pennsylvania statute: "No abortion which is sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child shall be deemed a necessary abortion."
As a result, "Under the Rendell-Sebelius plan, federal funds will subsidize coverage of abortion performed for any reason, except sex selection," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Pennsylvania proposal conspicuously lacks language that would prevent funding of abortions performed as a method of birth control or for any other reason, except sex selection -- and the Obama Administration has now approved this."
A group of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who initially withheld support from the federal health care bill, because of concerns about pro-abortion effects, cited President Obama's March 24 executive order in justifying their votes to pass the bill over objections from NRLC and other pro-life groups, which argued that the executive order did not contain effective barriers to federal subsidies for abortion. As USA Today reported on March 25, "Both sides in the abortion debate came to a rare agreement on Wednesday: The executive order on abortion signed by President Obama, they said, was basically meaningless. 'A transparent political fig leaf,' according to the National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson. 'A symbolic gesture,' said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards."
The U.S. will subsidize a new $500-million United Nations agency that conservatives say will likely promote an abortion agenda.
In what the United Nations deemed as a historic move, the U.N. General Assembly unanimously voted on July 2 to approve "U.N. Women," an agency intended to accelerate progress in achieving gender equality and women's empowerment.
While funding for the new agency's agenda will come primarily from voluntary contributions, the administrative costs of running the agency will come from the U.N.'s core budget, to which the U.S. is a major contributor.
The U.N. Committee on Contributions advises the General Assembly, under Article 17 of the United Nations Charter, on how much members will pay, based on each nation's capacity.
Currently, the United States pays for 22 percent of the U.N.'s core budget.
The new agency is drawing negative reaction from conservative leaders concerned that the U.N. will use taxpayer dollars to take a step toward a worldwide right to abortion.
"This will be a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, told CNSNews.com. "It's a jobs program for women with elitist views and, like every other U.N. agency, will be plagued by waste, fraud and abuse. To help women who really need it, funding should go straight to the people and programs doing the work, not a bureaucratic middle-man that will host expensive conferences and lavish salaries."
She called the agency's workings a "surreptitious" effort, believing that the agency's agenda extends much further than promoting abortion.
"The priority of the leaders who orchestrated the development of this 'uber-agency' is sexual and reproductive rights. That means abortion and sexual license -- homosexual, lesbian, prostitution, etc.," she told CNSNews.com.
Furthermore, she said that the agency would move to forcefully impose its views on the rest of society.
"This agency would use power and money to coerce countries to accept their policy and legal demands. With a high-level position of Under-Secretary-General and offices within countries, it can work top-down and bottom-up to pressure governments to do what it wants," she said.
Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, believes that abortion will have a prominent role in the new agency.
"Certainly promoting a right to abortion will be a part of the agenda of this agency," he told CNSNews.com.
U.N. Women consolidates four U.N. women's agencies into one super agency that will be concerned with matters it sees as important to women.
It will operate under the direction of an under secretary general, which the Secretary General of the United Nations appoints.
"I have made gender equality and the empowerment of women one of my top priorities — from working to end the scourge of violence against women, to appointing more women to senior positions, to efforts to reduce maternal mortality rates," said Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Ruse said that the U.N. uses the term "maternal mortality rates" as a "stocking horse" for abortion.
He also challenged that the deaths resulting from pregnancy complications are much lower than the U.N. claims.
"For years, and this is a very important point, the United Nations has used a figure of 500, 000, that 500, 000 women die each year of pregnancy related causes. We have never believed that figure. It's a big figure. It scares people and the purpose of scaring people is to say 'Well, the answer to this is legal abortion,'" he said.
The terms "reproductive health" and "reproductive rights" are the "code words" the U.N. uses to promote the abortion agenda, Ruse told CNSNews.com.
Contact: Christopher A. Guzman Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 14, 2010
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention released a new study last month showing that most teens are virgins – which American Life League (ALL) has said contradicts propaganda disseminated by sex-education giant Planned Parenthood.
"This study has huge significance for our nation's public and even private schools - many of whom have been regurgitating Planned Parenthood's dangerously inaccurate sex-education curriculum," said Judie Brown, president of ALL.
In the 2006-2008 period, 58 percent of never-married teen girls and 57 percent of never-married teen boys between the ages of 15 and 19 reported that they had never had sexual intercourse.
The numbers did not substantially change since a similar report was released in 2002. The reason most often cited for abstaining was that it is "against religion or morals."
ALL says that the CDC report, entitled "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Child Bearing, National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)," debunks Planned Parenthood's constant mantra that most teens will not abstain. In particular the pro-life organization points to the words of Planned Parenthood Federation of America vice president of medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, from a YouTube video directed toward teens: "Admit that you are a sexually active individual like most of us, and that you are going to have sex and that you need to take precautions in order to stay healthy."
ALL says that the report builds a solid case against Planned Parenthood's promotion of sex education devoid of morality or religious influence – except for the "secular humanism" espoused by Planned Parenthood.
The report also revealed that "the vast majority of never married teenagers had not had intercourse in the month before the survey (76% of females and 79% of males, unchanged from 2002.)"
The number of "sexually experienced" teens peaked in 1988 at 51%. The steady decline in sexually active teens coincides with the popularity and availability of abstinence education in the 1990s and into the 2000s.
In a significant interview with Zenit, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life dismissed scientific arguments in favour of abortion. Monsignor Carrasco, previously chancellor of the Academy, has succeeded Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella as its president. (Pictured - shows Professor Jerome Lejeune, the founding president, and Madame Lejeune, with Pope John Paul II who set up the Academy.)
Asked by Zenit "How can the embryo be defended from the scientific point of view?" Monsignor Carrasco replied: "The problem is not scientific. The embryo is very well defended from that point of view. The problem is essentially of a socio-political and ideological nature and here scientific arguments don't count. It is a realm in which what counts is power and if the one who has power has no desire to dialogue or, at least to reflect somewhat, then he doesn't have much to do with other guidelines."
This is fighting talk and it's good to hear. Monsignor Carrasco goes on to challenge politicians and political lobbyists to be tougher in their defence of the unborn:
" ... in the end what remains is the political weapon and the political weapon that we citizens have today is weak. Those who know politics can do much more and that is their very grave responsibility. Speaking in soccer language, lets say it's that they have the ball."
Monsignor Carrasco ridicules the concept of the right to abortion, saying:
"I don't know when we will arrive at the right to steal but behind these laws what exists is a relativistic logic". And the new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life boldly suggests that defenders of the unborn should change the language of the debate. In a poignant passage in the Zenit interview he says:
"One of the problems we have with regard to the embryo is that it isn't seen. Instead of embryo we should speak of a child who is in the initial phase of development. Because we cannot see him, he is in a situation of tremendous danger, at tremendous risk."
Monsignor Carrasco announces in the interview that the Academy starts work this September studying post-abortion syndrome.
"The mission is not to demonstrate that this syndrome exists but to see what it is exactly and what it is like."
Again, this is forthright language. I pray that the work of the Academy on post-abortion syndrome will help women and men worldwide and provide an invaluable new resource to bodies like Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline (ARCH) launched earlier this year in Britain.
Alveda King working for recognition of civil rights of unborn
The "Freedom Rides" are not over!
Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., is launching a series of bus rides from Alabama to Georgia, starting July 24, to advocate for the civil rights of the unborn.
The "Pro-Life Freedom Ride" is modeled after the original civil rights protests from the 1960s.
King was only 10 when the original freedom riders boarded a bus in Washington, D.C., May 4, 1961. They were protesting segregation in public transportation in Southern states.
Both black and white riders wanted to raise awareness of continuing obstacles to desegregation despite a Supreme Court ruling that said segregated seating of interstate passengers was unconstitutional.
When the riders reached Alabama, they divided into two groups. One group took a bus to Anniston, Ala., and the other Birmingham. The goal was to travel to New Orleans, with black riders in the front and white riders in the back.
Neither group made it. Both buses ran into mobs that took their rage out on the freedom riders. The bus in Anniston was stoned and later firebombed outside of town. The bus to Birmingham also was stopped, with the freedom riders being beaten by locals.
Despite the setbacks, more freedom riders joined the next leg of the trip to Montgomery, Ala. Police protection helped the riders reach Montgomery safely, but once inside the city limits, the riders were attacked again and beaten at the Greyhound terminal.
Martin Luther King flew to Montgomery to hold a protest at a church there. Outside, another mob of nearly 2,000 people surrounded the church, and King called U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who, with federal marshals, intervened and helped blacks inside the church escape further harm.
The original freedom riders did not get to New Orleans, but now they had the attention of the nation.
Alveda King was too young to ride at the time, but she was very aware of everything going on.
"As a child of the movement … at the feet of my uncle Martin Luther King Junior, and my father the Rev. A.D. King, I was aware of everything," she said.
King added that in 1963, her home in Birmingham was firebombed although she and her family escaped..
That changed Alveda King.
She said she became more than aware of what was going on. Later that year, she participated in a first-of-a-kind children's civil rights march protesting racial inequality.
King said the 2010 freedom rides are focusing on drawing more African-Americans into the pro-life movement and increasing awareness of legal protection for unborn children. She also wants to raise the level of consciousness of all Americans concerning the injustice against the unborn.
Her colleague, Priests for Life national director Father Frank Pavone, also will participate in the freedom ride.
Pavone said he hopes the event will increase national interest in the rights of the unborn.
"This is a novel approach … the event connected with the freedom rides will be an opportunity for groups and leaders to come together and inspire everyone to work more effectively," Pavone said.
King met Pavone at a conference in New York where they were both speaking. King said she heard Pavone reading from her uncle's work, "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail."
In the letter, King warned against the impact of infanticide against a community when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Alveda King believes the same statement applies to abortion, and she now works with Pavone as a pastoral associate at Priests for Life.
Both King and Pavone said they are in regular contact with current civil rights leaders, and that they are working to build bridges and common ground by communicating their pro-life activities.
When asked if her famous uncle would have supported the pro-life movement, Alveda King was not shy in her response: "There is no way this non- violent compassionate man could agree to the violent murder of babies."
King and Pavone will be joined in Birmingham with other members from the Priests for Life pastoral team July 23, and they will host a "Freedom Concert" at the local civic center.
African-American leaders from across the nation are expected to participate as well.
Priests for Life will hold a peaceful demonstration at a Planned Parenthood abortion business July 24, then board the freedom bus for about a two-and-a-half-hour ride to Atlanta.
That afternoon, Priests for Life and the new freedom riders will hold a prayer vigil at the tomb of Martin Luther King.
Pavone said plans are for the ride to be the start of a new movement to raise awareness for the civil rights of unborn children.
Contact: Thom Redmond Source: WorldNetDaily Date Published: July 13, 2010
