Once upon a time, the idea of euthanasia and assisted suicide were only theoretical. Then came the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. This decision has resulted in a multi-layered profound change in society. Our society used to be a culture of life, and the idea of killing by choice did not exist. Killing by choice was defined and recognized by everyone as murder pure and simple.
Illinois now has a Final Exit billboard in Hillside. What does this mean? It means self murder, as abortion, is now considered a choice in Illinois. "My Life. My Death. My Choice." is boldly proclaimed on billboards paid for by the Final Exit Network (FEN).
Wanting to be a compassionate people, the euthanasia advocates recognized they needed a face-lift. They used to be called the Hemlock Society, a group founded by Derek Humphrey to promote the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Now, funded by elitist including George Soros, their name changed to Compassion and Choices, with the same agenda, but with unlimited money.
This is a metamorphosis from Kevorkian's death machine in the back of his van, and the efforts of Australian physician Philip Nitschke, who travels the world teaching people how to commit suicide with his concoctions, "the peaceful pill". Australian Dr. Nitschke even believes, the peaceful pill should be made available to anyone who wants to die, including "troubled teens". A troubled teen? Would that be someone who's been turned down for the prom? Or perhaps someone who has lost their best friend in an accident? How about if they've had a disagreement with their parents? Is this the trouble teen the Doctor is targeting? How about a clinic right in the school to guide the troubled teen to the choice ...
But a new wrinkle in time has dawned. The message that used to be delivered from a van, or a peaceful pill, has sophisticatedly entered the professional world. Well funded by elitist, with a promotion from well respected medical journals, the euthanasia movement has removed it's wrinkles.
Illinois has a FEN billboard, as we've previously mentioned; because all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering. The statements of the billboards are smoothing out the wrinkles of the euthanasia movement, in a highly emotional yet professional way. The message "My Life. My Death. My Choice" advertises and promotes a person's right to have total control of their life and their death, with a very subliminal yet overt message. What a humanistic statement. But then, perhaps our country has already become humanistic in its' thinking.
Just as abortion on demand was framed by the word choice, so too, the euthanasia movement presents a clear and present danger, by also framing its' issue on choice. Illinois may be faced shortly with a legislative choice. Let's wait and see.
The USA has abdicated good ethics by allowing IVF to go virtually unregulated. The consequences are profound and growing. Rather than being a medical treatment for otherwise infertile married couples, IVF has become a lifestyle enhancer permitting parents to shop for the child they want like a breed of dog, rent wombs, eugenically select out unwanted children, expose young women to the pronounced, if rare, dangers to life, limb, and fertility by selling or donating their eggs, and is insinuating the crass values of naked consumerism into family life in which the unwanted are tossed away like so much medical waste.
And now we are developing a profoundly sexist market in gender selection IVF. From the story:
MEET the doctor who is making Scots’ dreams of designing the perfect baby come true. Dr Jeffrey Steinberg reveals five couples from Scotland have travelled to his US clinics in the past year to have a £13,000 procedure which allows them to choose the sex of their child. Sex selection in countries such as Scotland is banned unless there’s a medical reason, which provides Dr Steinberg’s clinics in New York and Los Angeles with brisk business from abroad. Now couples who suffer from gender disappointment are taking out loans and even remortgaging their homes to use in-vitro fertilisation to balance their families and get the girl or boy of their dreams.
Well, so much for unconditional love. And if the doctor makes a mistake, what’s next; “wrongful gender” lawsuits?
The doctor is “saddened” that Scotland believes in gender equality:
Despite this Dr Steinberg, who is a proud dad to two girls and a boy which, he explains, were conceived “the old fashioned way”, is baffled by the British ban on sex selection. He started training to become a doctor in Cambridge and feels saddened that Britain’s scientific trailblazers had to take a step back. He said: “They were at the forefront of in vitro technology. They’ve fallen so far behind but from the political end.” But he believes there’s no point in blocking change. What sparks fear today may seem normal tomorrow.
Those rationalizations–We’re falling behind! Don’t fear change, you’ll get used to it!–excuse anything. And once the remaining few vestiges of ethical control over IVF are swept away, the next step, I predict, will be to force IVF professionals to do whatever a customer (since a lot of this isn’t medical in the sense of treating illness or dysfunction) wants–as we have already begun to see imposed against doctors who wish to restrict their fertility treatments to the truly infertile who are married.
The answer isn’t opening more doors to preference sex selection, but closing the doors that are now wide open. Hmmmm. California could ban preference IVF sex selection by voter initiative. Now, there’s an idea!
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Date Published: August 7, 2010
Joanna Smith's article, "Deception Used In Counseling Women Against Abortion", suggests that when a pregnant woman who is leaning towards abortion walks into a pro-life counseling office to receive information about her options, she is misguided and deceived into making a pro-life decision.
An unbiased opinion will not be found in pro-life counsel. That means they are doing a good job.
A deceptive counsel will not be found either. The facts speak for themselves, unlike at an abortion clinic where women are given:
* Fabricated medical information * Pressure to have an abortion * and in some cases, disregard to serious legal offenses.
...all in an effort to influence a pregnant woman into an abortion...the clinics money-maker.
Smith makes an attempt to diminish a pro-life crisis pregnancy centers credibility in her article,
Aid to Women (the crisis pro-life counsel in question) describe themselves as non-judgmental sources of support for women with unplanned pregnancies, but use misleading information to discourage them from choosing abortion.
The point (that the pro-life counseling drives home is that) a woman will, without a doubt, suffer severe emotional pain following an abortion because it is always – always —the wrong decision.
I certainly hope they are driving that point home. Murdering your offspring is always a wrong decision. A decision that comes with significant emotional, physiological, and medical consequences.
She gives a terrifying description of the procedure itself. She shows pictures of an aborted fetus, limbs lying in a bloody mess.
Those pictures (warning - graphic images) should be shown. Those pictures are not shown at abortion clinics. In fact, Live Action discovered in their undercover video that women at an abortion clinic are told that the pictures are fakes.
Smith also points out that the pregnancy center will show a woman seeking an abortion, pictures of the baby's development at 6 weeks. Women should see what is happening and how their baby is developing. In most cases, women who seek abortion, do so in a frightened state of mind. How will I take care of the baby? How will I live my life? How will I live my dreams? It's been reported that 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their baby choose to make a pro-life decision, rather than an abortion.
I see no deception here.
Women in pro-life counsel are given information on the physical and psychological risks of abortion – including breast cancer, emotional trauma and infertility. Abortion is presented as a dangerous decision, while both adoption and parenting are seen as positive choices with minimal risk.
I see no deception here, either.
The erroneous information that pregnant women are given at abortion clinics have been well documented. Including telling pregnant women seeking counsel:
* That a heartbeat cannot be detected until the 8th or 9th week (the heart starts to beat in as little as 22 days from conception) * avoiding use of the term "abortion", instead calling it a surgical procedure to remove the contents of the uterus * continually telling women that it is not a baby, but merely a fetus * misinforming that abortion is a "very safe procedure", safer than carrying to term * and in this case, failing to report sexual abuse
The only deception in the pro-life vs pro-choice battle is that abortion is a solution. Unplanned pregnancy can be stressful. Becoming informed about real solutions is necessary when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is a terrible offense that complicates a woman's life ten-fold.
Life is a blessing. Life is the solution.
Source: Laces for Life Date Published: August 7, 2010
Students for Life of America has discovered that this fall the NC Board of Governors is requiring all students who are enrolled in a University of NC public institution to have health insurance.
Students who do not already have private health insurance are required to buy a state selected policy from Pearce & Pearce, Inc. This mandated policy covers up to $500 toward elective abortions and has 80% PPO coverage for elective abortions.
The Pearce & Pearce policy costs students $744 per year or $375 per semester. The State of North Carolina will not be paying into the policy; rather, the students who are required to purchase the insurance will be required to pay the entire cost.
As a result, NC students will be forced to pay for elective abortions, regardless of their personal views on the issue.
Sarah Hardin, President of NC State U's Students for Life group was shocked at the news:
When I learned a week ago that this mandatory health coverage included the coverage of an elective abortion, I was dumbfounded. As a pro-life student at NC State, I am dismayed that my classmates will not only be forced to purchase health insurance, but will also be forced to pay into a pool that will go to aborting the children of other NC students.
Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life of America, is outraged with the discovery:
The fact that NC students are going to be forced to pay for elective abortions is appalling. Students should not be put in a situation like this in order to attend an educational institution. We demand that the NC Board of Governors reverse their policy and remove the abortion mandate immediately. Paying for abortions should not be a pre-requisite to learning."
This morning, SFLA released a new website, www.noabortioninhealthcare.com, dedicated to raising public awareness and mobilization around this issue. The website asks Americans to sign a petition against the forced abortion mandate and call the Chairman of the North Carolina Board of Governors, Hannah Gage, with the same message.
Source: Students for Life of America Date Published: August 10, 2010
After Solicitor General Elena Kagan was confirmed on Thursday as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice, pro-life groups reacted to the move, with one calling it “deeply troubling.”
Fifty-year-old New York native Elena Kagan was confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 5 by a 63-37 vote which prevented a last minute delay or filibuster by Republican senators.
Kagan's lack of experience as a judge as well as her questionable stance on abortion has been a source of concern for pro-life leaders, many of whom reacted to the news on Thursday with alarm.
“Elena Kagan will emerge as one of the Supreme Court’s most agenda-driven, reliably pro-abortion Justices,” Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life Action said.
Commenting on what she believes to be a lack of thoroughness on the part of the Senate in evaluating Kagan, Yoest said that it “is deeply troubling that the Senate voted to confirm Ms. Kagan without fully investigating her role in manipulating medical evidence during the partial-birth abortion debate in 1996-97.”
“The American people want fair and impartial judges, and Justice Kagan’s negative impact will be felt for decades to come,” she asserted.
Adding to the criticism on Thursday was Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser who called Kagan's confirmation “tragic.”
“Today the Senate confirmed to the highest court a candidate without judicial experience and with a concerning history of promoting a pro-abortion agenda over the rule of law and the Constitution,” Dannenfelser said. “From the outset of the Senate hearings, the SBA List called upon Senators to hold Elena Kagan to the standard of interpreting the Constitution, as opposed to advancing a personal ideological preference.”
“Her confirmation is tragic news for women, the unborn and the American pro-life majority,” the SBA List president added.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins also commented on Aug. 5, saying that "Elena Kagan will bring a radical judicial philosophy and a history of sharp-edged political maneuvering to the nation's highest legal bench.
"She has shown repeatedly that she will do exactly what she says a judge should not - creatively reinterpret the written text of the Constitution according to her own convictions,” Perkins asserted.
Kagan is slated to be sworn into her lifetime position as the nation's 122th Supreme Court Justice this Saturday.
Source: CNA/EWTN News Date Published: August 5, 2010
Six abortion clinics filed a federal lawsuit Friday, challenging two laws which recently passed by overwhelming margins the Louisiana legislature.
One law requires ultrasound exams be given to women considering abortion.
Benjamin Clapper, director for the Louisiana Right to Life Federation, believes the ultrasound bill will withstand legal scrutiny.
“On one hand, we’re frustrated that it slows down the progress towards offering women solid, good information,” Clapper said, “but, on the other hand, we know that the public is going to be educated about this information.”
Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, said there’s a sense of desperation among abortion activists, especially in light of unique and advancing technology.
“It’s making it very difficult to hide information from women,” Mills said. “I’m kind of surprised they decided to come against the Woman’s Right to Know law. I believe the court will come down in favor of life and in favor of Louisiana legislative action.”
Source: CitizenLink Date Published: August 9, 2010
Although age must have been a factor in Justice Stevens stepping down from the United States Supreme Court, no doubt his leaving was timed to allow his replacement to be chosen by a president of a similar ideological bent. While Stevens could have rolled the actuarial dice for another year or two of Obama's term, the prospect of electoral disaster for Democrats in the Senate this November, leading to an uphill confirmation battle for future Obama nominees, could very well have hastened his departure.
Obama described Justice Stevens as "brilliant, non-ideological, pragmatic" and one who "applied the Constitution and the laws of the land with fidelity and restraint." The "non-ideological" Justice Stevens's legacy includes, among other things, defending abortion rights and expanding constitutional protection for homosexual activity. In a similar "non-ideological" vein, Obama nominated Elena Kagan, the current Solicitor General and former dean of Harvard Law School, as Stevens's replacement. On August 5, 2010, the Senate confirmed Ms. Kagan by a vote of 63 to 37.
Since May 2009, Kagan has served in the Obama Administration and has no doubt been well-groomed for her role as supreme court justice in the eyes of the one who nominated her. Her lack of real-world experience on either side of the bench left little in the way of a paper trail by which the Senate could gauge her principles and judicial philosophy. However, during her confirmation hearings, pro-life groups uncovered and exposed evidence of her extreme pro-abortion bias, which led her to use her position in the Clinton White House to manipulate the factual record in the first partial birth abortion case, directly affecting the outcome of that case. See www.aul.org/initiative/scotus-nominee/.
"Although less than 50% of the country supported her confirmation, little could be done to stop it with a Democrat-controlled pro-abortion Congress," states Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation. The balance of power on the Court will not shift, and Kagan may not initially have the judicial experience to be the calculating strategist that Stevens was. Even so, the right to life will still not be championed by a majority of the Court.
Contact: Dana Cody Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation Date Published: August 6, 2010
Charges against the first person arrested under Chicago's new "bubble zone" ordinance have been dismissed.
Staff at the Planned Parenthood clinic called police when they saw a man in a prayerful pose. Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen represented him.
"The city of Chicago arrested Joe Holland, who was a graduate student at Northwestern University in chemistry, for being in disorderly conduct for standing outside of an abortion clinic -- in this case the Planned Parenthood in Chicago -- and praying," Breen explains.
The attorney believes the case could have been a test of the bubble zone law, which prohibits pro-life protesters from approaching within eight feet of a person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to display a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling."
But Breen reports that according to witnesses and an available video, Holland did nothing "to justify arresting him [or] booking him. He was placed in a squad care, taken to the police station. He was kept for five hours in the police station. This man did nothing wrong."
The video shows that Holland approached no one, so the bubble zone ordinance does not apply. And because it is not illegal to pray on a sidewalk, the charge has been dismissed. Meanwhile, David Avignone, a pro-lifer who faces similar charges, has a court date August 30.
Breen points out that the Thomas More Society has challenged the constitutionality of the bubble zone ordinance in federal court, a proposition with which the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois agreed.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 9, 2010
Pro-life groups are rallying behind the Chicago branch of the Catholic Campaign Human Development (CCHD), praising the organization for instituting real reform that they say should be taken as an example by CCHD nationwide.
CCHD, the U.S. bishops' domestic anti-poverty program, has come under intense fire in the last year after reports that they have been funding numerous groups that promote abortion, contraception, same-sex "marriage" or other activities at odds with Catholic teaching.
But the Chicago diocesan office "went on the offensive for reform" after director Rey Flores came on one year ago, said Mary Strom, executive director of the Women's Center, which is a Chicago-based network of crisis pregnancy centers. Flores committed himself to defunding any group opposing Catholic teaching, particularly on life and family issues, and to giving funds to local pro-life groups, contrary to previous CCHD practice.
"Rey actually reached out to his greatest critics," said Strom, "and he challenged them to recommend groups that they felt met the goal of CCHD and were worthy of receiving grants."
Normally, 75 percent of the CCHD funds collected in a diocese are sent to CCHD's national office for distribution nationwide; but with many concerned about the use of funds by CCHD national, Flores has made it possible for people to mail in their donation and request that the funds stay in Chicago. Donations can also be directed specifically to life and family initiatives, economic development, or human development.
Flores has been successful so far in reducing the national cut to 50%.
Cardinal Francis George, the Archbishop of Chicago and president of the U.S. Bishops' Conference, has supported the changes, changes which are particularly significant in light of the fact that Chicago is where CCHD first started in 1969; Chicago also still receives the largest collection among the dioceses every year.
Through CCHD's support, Strom's Women's Center will be upgrading to a 4D ultrasound machine. "It's such a great teaching tool," said Strom. "It gives the women the opportunity to know the truth before they make such a devastating choice."
They have also awarded a grant to Aid for Women, which operates the only pro-life pregnancy resource center in the downtown area. Susan Barrett, the center's executive director, said they recently had a gathering of the Chicago CCHD grantees and she was impressed by the quality of the groups. "It was very impressive, and definitely all the organizations seem to be in line with the values and teachings of the Church," she explained.
In addition to pregnancy resource centers, they have also committed to supporting pro-life activism. The Pro-Life Action League, which is specifically dedicated to witnessing and sidewalk counselling outside abortuaries, also received a $15,000 grant this year. Founder Joe Scheidler, renowned as one of the pro-life movement's pioneers, had nothing but praise for the reforms at CCHD Chicago, emphasizing that they are working to change their whole image.
Scheidler noted that his group has boycotted CCHD in the past, but said they are now intent on supporting Flores' efforts. While he realizes that Catholics will continue to be wary of CCHD, Scheidler said his group is "trying to publicize the fact that there's been a big change [in Chicago]."
"Hopefully within a few years other dioceses will follow suit and clean it up," he added.
All three pro-life leaders insisted that their work is fundamental to CCHD's aim to "end the root causes of poverty," pointing out that single motherhood is the greatest indicator of poverty.
Barrett explained, for example, that they offer a mentoring program through which they help women develop a plan for their future. "Quite often there are economic reasons for why they are considering abortion, … and so we're trying to address that," she said.
Ann Scheidler, Joe's wife and League vice president, explained that for women seeking abortion, sidewalk counselling is "almost the only place that they are treated with dignity." "The sidewalk counsellor gives her that dignity that she needs to be able to hold her head up and take control of her life and be empowered to make the choice for life," she said.
"I hope that [the reforms] will spread to the national level and I think there will be a lot of good fruits that result," said Strom. "People need to be supportive of this type of effort. … [Flores has] taken a lot of heat on both sides, and I think he's done a great job of really focusing on the whole picture."
Michael Hichborn of American Life League, who has been a key member of the Reform CCHD Now coalition, said they are encouraged by the steps being taken in Chicago. "Chicago CCHD is taking real reform seriously and has already taken steps to ban several pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and pro-Marxist groups from funding," he said.
Contact: Patrick B. Craine Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: August 6, 2010
A week after the Advertising Standards Authority issued a statement refusing to credit complaints about Marie Stopes TV abortion advertisements, the country's largest abortionist group is at the center of a controversy again. The Daily Mail has revealed that Marie Stopes employees are being offered free abortions as a regular part of the organization's employee benefits package.
Marie Stopes International (MSI) employs 430 people in nine centers around Britain, with the bulk of its funding coming from the British taxpayer, to the order of £30 million annually.
A Marie Stopes employee told the Daily Mail, "What you get as a benefit of working here is access to medical services, not just abortions. It's because we are a medical services provider that people who work here get access to those services.
"It's not odd. It's there if you have got a need. It's a positive thing."
The MSI website says, "Team members, their partners and dependants will be able to access MSI's core services (abortion, male/female sterilisation, and family planning) without charge."
The complete benefits package includes a retirement pension, five weeks paid holiday a year, a cut-rate gym membership, reduced rates at theme parks and an annual medical check-up for £10. Also included are a loan of up to £2,600 to defray public transport costs, childcare vouchers and life insurance.
Anthony Ozimic, of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), called it "macabre" and "sick" to provide employees with abortions, saying, "Abortion is the killing of unborn children, not a job perk."
Ozimic said that when viewed in conjunction with Marie Stopes' successfully skirting the advertizing restrictions on abortion adverts, the abortion offer for employees shows that the organization "is a cynical abortion business, not the supportive sexual health service it claims to be."
London-based Marie Stopes International is a non-governmental organization that boasts of being active in abortion and contraception distribution in 42 countries and claims to be responsible for the great majority of abortions in the UK and abroad. Marie Stopes is especially active in developing countries, spreading the population control dogma that the cure to poverty is to have fewer children. In Nepal, the local Marie Stopes affiliate committed 70 percent of all abortions between 2004 and 2007. The group was also responsible, between 2001 and 2006, for 50 percent of all female sterilizations and 45 percent of all (male and female) sterilizations.
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: August 9, 2010
Two abortionists facing possible revocation of their medical licenses in Kansas have surrendered their licenses.
Late-term abortionists Shelley Sella and Susan Robinson faced 11 allegations before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts for alleged illegal actions. Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue tells OneNewsNow that was while they worked for late Wichita abortionist George Tiller.
"So both of these ladies have now cancelled their Kansas licenses, and that places them outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the state of Kansas," the pro-life activist explains. "So it looks to us like they dumped their licenses so that they would be out of reach of any discipline."
Both women reportedly are now operating a late-term abortion facility in Albuquerque and are under the watchful eye of pro-life prayer warriors there.
"Both [Sella and Robinson] had a tendency to be involved in abortions of questionable legality and shady abortion practices in the past," says Sullinger. "We know that their current employer in Albuquerque, Curtis Boyd, boasts of having done thousands of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade -- so these are people who all have a back history of flouting the law."
According to Operation Rescue, the women are aborting babies in Albuquerque weeks and sometimes "just days before their due dates."
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 9, 2010
Yesterday afternoon, in a wake of national attention to the case, the Thomas More Society secured a dismissal of all charges against the first arrestee under the city's "bubble zone" ordinance, which prevents certain types of picketing activity outside local abortion clinics. Joseph Holland, a Northwestern University graduate student, was arrested outside Planned Parenthood's Near North Side facility on July 3 after the facility's staff called the police and claimed he violated the ordinance by praying on the public sidewalk.
"We are pleased that the City of Chicago has dismissed these false and baseless charges against Joe Holland," said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. "The First Amendment protects prayer on a public sidewalk in Chicago the same as in any other city in the country. We hope that the city will cease the suppression of pro-life speech under the 'bubble zone' ordinance and dismiss the lone remaining case, brought against David Avignone, who was arrested a few days after Joe."
The "bubble zone" ordinance prohibits approaching within eight feet of a person without consent "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling." Witnesses and a video of the incident showed Holland standing stationary and praying, but not leafleting, picketing or sidewalk counseling.
Thomas More Society attorneys are also representing David Avignone, the second arrestee under the "bubble zone" ordinance, who was arrested the same week as Holland. Avignone's first court appearance is August 30.
Contact: Stephanie Lewis Source: Thomas More Society Date Published: August 3, 2010
Dick Van Dyke, legendary Emmy-award winning actor, is speaking up in support of adult stem cell research. He will be a spokesperson for the Cell Therapy Foundation, and will focus on educating the public that adult stem cells are leading to new therapies for many diseases. Mr. Van Dyke said:
"I am truly impressed by the potential that adult stem cell research has already shown and am hopeful that by getting the message to more people, we can fund additional research that could positively impact thousands of lives around the world."
Dick Van Dyke is known for numerous movie and TV projects that showcased his singing, dancing, and comedic talents. He is also an avid graphic artist and animation hobbyist, and will use those interests in publicizing adult stem cells as well.
Combining all of those gifts, here is one of his great scenes from Mary Poppins...
A Senate committee has forwarded to the full chamber legislation that would entrench repeal of a ban on federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.
The Appropriations Committee approved an amendment by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D.-N.J., that would codify President Obama's 2009 reversal of the Mexico City Policy. The July 29 vote in support of the overall State and Foreign Operations spending bill that included the amendment was 18-12.
If the amendment bill is passed and signed by President Obama, then a future pro-life president would not be able to reinstate the Mexico City Policy with an executive order. It would require congressional action -- a much taller hurdle.
When it was in effect, the policy prohibited international family planning organizations from receiving federal funds unless they agree not to perform or counsel for abortion or lobby in order to liberalize the pro-life policies of foreign governments. Opponents call it the "global gag" rule.
Obama struck down the policy during his first week in the White House in 2009. A subsequent president could reinstate the policy, however. If Lautenberg's amendment becomes law, new congressional action and a presidential signature would be required to overturn it.
The Mexico City Policy has had a see-saw history. Initiated by President Reagan and announced at a conference in Mexico City in 1984, it remained in force until 1993, when President Clinton rescinded it on his second full day in the White House. President George W. Bush reinstated it exactly eight years later.
Only two organizations -- the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International -- refused to abide by the Mexico City Policy during the recent years it was in effect and consequently were refused the funds, according to Democrats for Life of America. There were 650 organizations that accepted federal money under the restrictions, Democrats for Life reported.
Reaction to the committee's action broke down as expected, with pro-life advocates opposing it and pro-choice activists favoring it. Among the organizations in support of Lautenberg's amendment are Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-choice America, the ACLU, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), Sierra Club, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
Among the groups that back the Mexico City Policy are the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and the Family Research Council.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the spending bill includes other concerns for pro-lifers. He pointed to its inclusion of $55 million for the United Nations Population Fund, which had its funding blocked during the final seven years of the Bush administration for its support of China's coercive population control program. Perkins also cited a $24 million increase for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which he said has been "illegally lobbying to legalize abortion in Kenya's new constitution."
Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Date Published: August 3, 2010
Kenyans head to the polls Wednesday to vote in a referendum that will determine the East African nation's future: whether it will accept a constitution that will open the door to expanding legal abortion, or reject it and draft a new constitution that conforms more to the nation's pro-life values.
Despite an aggressive grassroots campaign by an ecumenical grand alliance of the nation's Christian churches, polls show that Kenyans will likely vote to approve the draft constitution on Wednesday.
Bloomberg news reports that a poll released by TNS Research International suggests Kenyans will vote 68 percent to 25 percent to approve the new constitution. The pollster interviewed 1600 individuals selected at random from Kenya's eight provinces between July 23-25; the poll has a margin of error of 2.45 percent.
Strategic Research, another polling firm, found that 66 percent of Kenyans would vote "yes" in the referendum, while 20 percent would vote "no." The group, which polled 2400 Kenyans selected at random between July 26-28, said their findings showed those pushing for a "yes" vote have a majority in every one of Kenya's provinces.
Nevertheless, Kenya's Christian leaders have been waging a hard-fought underdog campaign, having been outspent by their own as well as the U.S. government, and largely snubbed by Kenyan media.
But Marie Smith, Director of the U.S. Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, which has been following the Kenyan churches' campaign efforts, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that the outcome of the referendum is not a done deal, as it has been represented in Kenya's press.
"It's not over til it's over, and we won't know when it's over for a couple days," said Smith, explaining that the Kenyan government will have to hand-count many ballots as well as process electronic ballots in some areas.
"The press has totally shut out the 'no' campaign," said Smith, a fact that she said has made it difficult to get a trustworthy picture about where exactly Kenyans stand on the constitution.
While Kenyan news sources made a big deal over the conservative American Center for Law and Justice offering $10,000 to the "no" effort in Kenya, they have paid far less attention to the Obama administration's $23 million dollar "education effort" in Kenya through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
This effort, which includes pay-offs to advocacy groups in Kenya lobbying for the constitution's approval, has prompted a sharp rebuke from several U.S. Congressmen, who have called into question the legality of the Obama Administration's involvement in the Kenya referendum. The congressmen have cited a U.S. statute, the Siljander Amendment, that forbids USAID funding efforts overseas that lobby for or against abortion.
Article 26 of the proposed constitution would broadly permit abortion if the "health of the mother is in danger," "or if permitted by any other written law."
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said on Friday the U.S. ought to have a "narrow role" in the August 4 referendum, to help guarantee a fair, free, and non-violent process. Instead, he said, the Obama Administration has committed the U.S. to "take sides by supporting, facilitating and funding projects designed to identify and motivate votes."
"And because the proposed constitution significantly alters existing abortion law in Kenya, expending U.S. taxpayer funds used in support of the 'Yes' campaign is also illegal," affirmed Smith.
"This Administration appears to have disregarded current law and is instead advocating for the ratification of a proposed constitution in Kenya that will expand access to abortion," said Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.).
But whatever the outcome of the referendum, the "No" effort has done much to develop an unprecedented level of cooperation among Christian churches in Kenya, forging a new bond in defense of life.
Church leaders from different churches gathered last Friday at the Holy Family Basilica in Nairobi for an event hosted by John Cardinal Njue, the Catholic primate of Kenya. The various churches signed a document signifying their unified opposition to the draft constitution, as well as their intention to trust in Divine Providence, and to pray for a peaceful resolution, no matter which way the constitution is decided.
"We the Christian shepherds in Kenya reiterate our advice to all Kenyans to reject this proposed constitution in its entirety," said the document, signed by 30 churches. "It is true that there are many positive improvements in the proposed draft, but the good has been mixed with evil sections that affect the moral life and rights of this country in irreversible and fundamental ways. The proposed constitution does not safeguard the sacredness of human life, the sound and moral education of our children and religious equality."
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: August 3, 2010
The above headline is straight from Malcolm Ritter and the Associated Press, a story out today that highlights some of the real successes and promise of adult stem cells, as opposed to the wishful thinking and hype of embryonic stem cells [see www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/08/02/health/AP-US-MED-Stem-Cells.html?_r=1].
The lead story is Dr. Thomas Einhorn at Boston University Medical Center, injecting a patient's bone marrow into a broken ankle that wouldn't heal; four months later the ankle was healed.
Einhorn, chairman of orthopedic surgery at Boston University Medical Center, credits "adult" stem cells in the marrow injection. He tried it because of published research from France.
As the AP piece notes, it's an example of many innovative therapies doctors are studying with adult stem cells; stem cells taken from body tissue and umbilical cord blood, not embryos. As the AP story notes:
For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today.
An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.
A few of the examples highlighted include multiple sclerosis, heart damage, juvenile diabetes, and blindness from chemical burns.
Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.
Many of the treatments, including new ones being tested in clinical trials now, rely on the idea that stem cells can form other cell types. That seems to be the case for Einhorn's ankle-repair technique, with the adult stem cells forming new bone and blood vessels. But adult stem cells also seem to have abilities to stimulate tissue repair or suppress the immune system. According to Dr. Rocky Tuan of the University of Pittsburgh:
"That gives adult stem cells really a very interesting and potent quality that embryonic stem cells don't have."
To learn more and see some examples of adult stem cell success stories, watch the three videos at Stem Cell Research Facts (see http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.org).
Contact: By David Prentice Source: National Right to Life Date Published: August 2, 2010
The Obama Administration, caught in a spotlight of publicity generated by mid-July releases from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), today issued a formal regulation that will prevent federal funding of elective abortions in just one of the new programs created by the health care bill signed into law by President Obama on March 23.
At issue is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP), also known as the "high-risk pool" program, which is one of many programs created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The high-risk pool program is completely federally funded ($5 billion), and may cover up to 400,000 people when fully implemented.
"Without blinking, the Obama Administration had approved high-risk pool plans submitted by at least three states that would have funded virtually all abortions – until NRLC raised the alarms starting on July 13," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "In the regulation issued today, the Administration tells states that elective abortions may not be covered in the high-risk pool program – but simultaneously, the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, issued a statement on the White House blog explaining that this decision 'is not a precedent for other programs or policies given the unique, temporary nature of the program . . .'"
"This entire episode demonstrates what National Right to Life said in March – there is no language in the new health care law, and no language in Obama's politically contrived March 24 executive order, that effectively prevents federal subsidies for abortion on demand," Johnson said. "This means that unless Congress repeals the health care law or performs major corrective surgery on it, there will be years of battles, as each new program is implemented, over how elective abortion will be covered – and the White House is suggesting that today's policy will not necessarily be applied when implementing the other programs, some of which will cover far larger populations."
"Lawmakers who voted for the gravely flawed bill must be held accountable, because we warned them that it left numerous doors open for federal subsidies for abortion," Johnson said.
On July 23, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report confirming that neither the PPACA (the health care law signed by Obama), nor the March 24 executive order on abortion, nor the longstanding Hyde Amendment, prevent the use of funds in the new high-risk pool program from being used to cover all abortions, but added that the law does give the Secretary of HHS authority to impose "any other requirements determined appropriate by the Secretary" with respect to the high-risk pool program. Click here to view the CRS report.
In a July 22 report, www.FactCheck.org found that NRLC's initial July 13 warning, which focused initially on abortion coverage in the HHS-approved plan submitted by Pennsylvania, was well founded. "It would be easy to miss the fact that Pennsylvania's official solicitation called for coverage of all state-legal abortions," FactCheck.org observed. The FactCheck.org report is posted here: www.factcheck.org/2010/07/taxpayer-funded-abortions-in-high-risk-pools/
On July 14, the Associated Press confirmed an NRLC report that New Mexico was enrolling people in the new program with a prospectus that explicitly covered "elective abortions." On July 16, NRLC confirmed that Maryland was also signing up enrollees based on a document that pointed to abortion coverage.
Some pro-abortion advocacy groups, and some members of Congress have suggested that the Administration should allow the new high-risk pool program to pay for abortions with "private funds." NRLC's Johnson commented, "It is a political scam to suggest that a federal program can pay for abortions, or anything else, with 'private funds.' When a federal program pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion. To claim otherwise would be particularly absurd with respect to the high-risk pool program, since 'the program is entirely funded by the federal government,' as Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the White House Office of Health Reform, noted in her statement posted on the White House blog today. Any funds collected from enrollees become federal funds once the government has them, and when they are spent, that is federal spending."
150-plus Bipartisan House Members Co-Sponsor 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'
A sweeping bill to permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion in every federal program was introduced today by Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL).
The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion funding. The bipartisan bill has over 150 original cosponsors and will reduce the need for numerous separate policies to prevent government funding for abortion.
"For decades, a patchwork of short-term policies have prevented abortion funding in many programs authorized by Congress, but it is time for a single, government-wide permanent protection against taxpayer funding for elective abortion," Smith said. "Abortion is lethal violence against children and exploitation of women. This legislation would establish a comprehensive policy prohibiting public funding for elective abortion in all federal programs."
Lipinski said recent the health care legislation showed the existing laws to prevent taxpayer-funded abortion are too weak.
"The health care bill made it clear that the current way we prevent taxpayer funding of abortion through annual riders is dangerously fragile," Lipinski said.
"To guarantee that taxpayers are never forced to pay for abortions and the innocent unborn are protected, we must make the longstanding ban on federal funding for abortion permanent and government-wide. Protecting the sanctity of life, and preserving the individual's freedom not to be complicit in any way in abortion, is a matter of principle for me and tens of millions of Americans."
Most of the existing funding policies are limitation amendments attached to annual appropriations bills (sometimes referred to as riders), which have to be reapproved every year. This "ad hoc" approach usually results in several distinct bans on abortion winning approval each year.
This new legislation will make permanent the policies that currently rely on regular re-approval, including amendments like the well known Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act. It also would make permanent other existing laws, such as: the Helms amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas; the Smith FEHBP amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees; the Dornan amendment, which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia, and; other policies such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Peace Corps and Federal prisons.
"The comprehensive approach eliminates the need for the numerous funding protections and limitations approved every year and ensures that no program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard," Smith said. "According to every reputable poll, large majorities of Americans want no complicity whatsoever in paying for abortion."
The bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause that is part of the Hyde amendment. The conscience clause ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against health care providers, including doctors, nurses and hospitals, because the providers do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
"The conscience clause is a critical part of the law which protects health care providers who do not want to take part in the abortion business." Smith said. "Without it, people could be forced to participate in something they strongly believe to be morally wrong. Without it, faith-based hospitals could lose funding."
Activists will pray on the public sidewalk Saturday, August 14 as part of an event called "A Time to Stand" even if it means arrest and going to jail. atimetostand.org
This event follows the recent arrest of a man in Chicago for praying in front of an abortion clinic there.
For years the pro-life community was allowed to pray, counsel and hold demonstrations on that sidewalk and surrounding area in front of the Washington, D.C. Planned Parenthood (see photo).
Now law enforcement officials are threatening to arrest people for simply praying on the public sidewalk and on June 8, Rev. Patrick Mahoney (pictured above) was arrested for praying and reading the Bible.
Although Planned Parenthood says the land is now "private" they have not produced one piece of evidence, documentation or notice showing the sidewalk is no longer public.
The American Center for Law and Justice, who is representing Rev. Mahoney, met with D.C. City officials who confirmed the sidewalk still remains public.
The pro-life community wants to make it clear they will not be bullied or intimidated into surrendering their First Amendment rights even if that means going to jail for prayer and peaceful witness.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the , states,
"On August 14, we are going to embrace free speech, the First Amendment and religious liberty and pray on the public sidewalk leading up to Planned Parenthood. We will not be bullied or intimidated into silence.
"It is tragic that peaceful Americans are being threatened with arrest and actually being arrested for simply praying on a public sidewalk and offering women help who are facing a crisis pregnancy.
"It is unconscionable that the City of Washington, D.C. would ban and prohibit prayer and the First Amendment on a public sidewalk while protecting abortion and Planned Parenthood.
"With the recent arrest of a man praying in front of an abortion clinic in Chicago, the question must be asked, is this future of free speech and abortion under the Obama Administration?"
Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney Source: Christian Defense Coalition Date Published: August 3, 2010
Over 200 physicians who have served U.S. soldiers have signed a letter to U.S. senators protesting a Senate bill amendment that would use U.S. military medical facilities as abortion clinics. The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association organized the letter and today sent it to the senators urging them to vote no on a National Defense Authorization Act amendment by Sen. Roland Burris that would remove restrictions on performing abortions in military facilities.
CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, who received the Gorgas Award for distinguished service in the American military, said, "If enacted, requiring military physicians to perform abortions threatens military readiness. Morale will suffer among those already serving. Morale is a key component of military effectiveness. Furthermore, just as we have seen a marked decrease in young doctors entering OB/Gyn training for fear of being forced to do abortions, this requirement will discourage young doctors from joining the military."
"In addition to facilitating further destruction of unborn life, the provision will place military physicians with life-honoring convictions in the unenviable position of either disobeying orders, abandoning their conscience, or seeking objector status."
Current law in effect since 1996 prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense (DoD) medical personnel or in DoD medical facilities (except when the life of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest). A separate provision prohibits the use of DoD funds for abortion except to save the life of the mother. In 2006, the House rejected by a vote of 191-237 an amendment similar to the Burris amendment. The Burris amendment, which would allow abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases, is even more expansive than the rejected 2006 amendment. The letter from military physicians urges senators to "vote NO on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (DoD) (S.3280) because it contains Sen. Roland Burris' amendment to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the US Code."
CMA Director of Global Health Outreach Col. Donald Thompson, MD, who recently retired from the Air Force, said, "This provision would put conscientious military medics on the losing side of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in key areas crucial to good order and discipline in the military. Chain of command, avoidance of fraternization and carrying out lawful orders are key to an effective combat force, yet this provision would require military physicians, nurses and support staff to leave their ethical convictions at the door when they join the military. When a senior officer in the chain of command 'thinks that this should be done,' then that is the same as a direct order to the subordinate. Favors and perks go to those who 'feel' the same as the boss.
"Our military exists to fight our nation's wars, not to be a ideological playground. If this provision stays in the NDAA, it will drive out of the military those who are most likely to serve their nation by going in harm's way."
A pro-life family ministry believes patience and prayer have worked to dramatically reduce abortions at a once-thriving abortion clinic in Granite City, Illinois.
The facility once averaged terminating just over 13,000 pregnancies per year, but that has been reduced to a little more than 4,000 annual abortions. Angela Michael, spokesperson for Small Victories Ministries, explains that the organization began its daily prayer vigil 18 years ago. Since that time, they have witnessed business at the Hope Clinic for Women continue to plunge.
Angela Michael (Small Victories Ministries)"This abortion mill is known for late-term abortion, and...also, no parental consent is necessary," Michael reports. "So we see, unfortunately, young, little girls being brought across state lines. A lot of these girls are victims of rape and incest, and no one is reporting this abuse."
The ministry was recently instrumental in providing evidence against an Arkansas man who brought a 13-year-old girl to the clinic to destroy the evidence through abortion. Because fewer babies are being killed, the clinic's number of abortionists has dropped from four to two, and it has been unsuccessful in finding a new doctor throughout its seven-year search.
"We know it's not us. I know God uses us and he works through us, but it's the Lord, and the Lord is dealing with this abortion mill," Michael regards.
During the 18 years of vigilance, the pro-life spokesperson has observed a dramatic reduction in abortions and has noticed faith conversions take place in some of the mothers. Also, a number of adoptions have been arranged. She feels the ministry's success should serve as motivation to others on the front lines in the pro-life movement.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 3, 2010
A journalist for the New York Times recently reported that billionaire Warren Buffett is taking steps to make sure that medical schools are producing more abortionists so that the practice will ultimately be integrated as a "seamless part of healthcare for women -- embraced rather than shunned."
Most doctors do not want to be abortionists, not only because it is a dirty business, but also because their professional purpose is to preserve the quality of life -- not death.
"These procedures are out of the mainstream of medicine," notes Dr. Donald Thompson, director of global health outreach for the Christian Medical Association (CMA). "There are no standards of care. It's a shame, but a veterinarian's office has more oversight than an abortion clinic."
Buffett is trying to work with his money behind the scenes to stop the decrease in doctors who are willing to do abortions while also attempting to bring abortion into mainstream medicine.
Dr. Donald Thompson (CMA)Central to his strategy are two training programs: Family Planning Fellowship, a two-year post-residency program designed to further equip doctors for providing abortions and contraception, and the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, which supplies medical schools with funds to train OB-GYN residents in providing abortions.
But Thompson does not think Buffett will ever reach his goal.
"I don't feel abortion will ever become an accepted part of standard medical care," he suggests. "It's well-known and available because of a lot of money and a lot of political pressure that's coming from those who have an extremist social agenda."
As for whether or not Buffett's money will make a significant difference, the CMA global health outreach director believes the billionaire would have "to dangle a huge financial carrot because of the stench that many people associate with abortions."
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 3, 2010
While the White House continues to claim that a ban on abortion funding was always understood to apply to the whole federal health care law, abortion leaders, who once hailed the health care bill as a "huge victory," are still expressing shock at the Obama administration's last-minute ban of elective abortion funding in federally-funded high risk insurance pools.
The thoughts of various abortion lobby leaders were collected in a Politico piece Friday detailing the pro-abortion confusion that followed a statement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which said that abortion would not be covered in the high risk pools established by the new federal health care legislation. The statement, prompted by a National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) investigation that revealed that Pennsylvania's proposed plan was set to federally fund elective abortions, was confirmed in new regulations issued by the HHS Friday.
While Politico's Sarah Kliff called the incident "a reminder [to abortion groups] of the health reform battle they lost," the groups' reaction to the health care bill's passage, and their current outrage, suggest that the abortion lobby never believed the health care battle was lost in the first place. After the bill was signed in March, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, called the bill "a huge victory," noting it "will significantly increase insurance coverage of reproductive health care, including family planning." Richards also dismissed Obama's Executive Order, which purported to extend Hyde-amendment restrictions to the health care bill, as a mere "symbolic gesture."
And while the HHS statement itself suggested the ban was merely reiterating current law, both Factcheck.org and the Congressional Research Service concluded that no such abortion funding ban existed for the high-risk pools prior to the HHS statement.
For pro-aborts who had claimed victory in the battle over health care – a battle during which Planned Parenthood had boasted frequent and close contact with the White House - the HHS statement was a clear instance of backpedaling.
"This is not the outcome we expected," Laurie Rubiner, Planned Parenthood vice president for public policy, told Politico. "We now know we need to be vigilant to make sure there aren't other areas of the law where there is silence. There is a whole host of areas that we're going to be watching like a hawk."
Despite the patchwork approach to banning abortion funding, the White House continues to portray the outcome of the fiasco as simply maintaining the status quo - a line used in debate prior to the bill's passage to justify the bill's weak abortion-funding language.
Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform, claimed in a blog post Thursday that "in reality, no new ground has been broken." "This policy meets the president's commitment throughout the health reform debate to neither expand nor scale back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion and ensures that no federal funds will be used to cover abortion services other than the exceptions mentioned above," wrote DeParle.
A White House official also told Politico that "the president is committed to neither expanding nor scaling back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion."
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said that the Obama administration has been caught trying to have it both ways: courting the pro-abortion lobby, while attempting to appease widespread opposition to public funding of abortion.
"The Obama administration is trying to play both sides. It tried to sneak funding for abortion in one program. Then, when caught, they announced a 'ban,' but at the same time declared the ban as 'temporary' and 'not a precedent' for what it will do in other programs," said Wright in a statement Friday. "This leads to one obvious conclusion: temporary fixes don't work. Congress needs to pass a permanent ban on abortion funding."
Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), two top pro-life leaders on Capitol Hill, introduced legislation Friday that aims to close the loopholes once and for all with a permanent Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding that would pertain to all U.S. law.
"In announcing the temporary ban, the White House affirmed that the 'President is committed to neither expanding nor scaling back current restrictions on federal funding for abortion.' This new bill fits that promise, as it will uphold current laws, making permanent what has been for too long temporary," said Wright.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 30, 2010
There's a move afoot in Congress to ban use of federal money for abortions.
Susan Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee explains that her organization disclosed on July 13 that at least three states -- Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland -- were posed to use federal funds for abortions under healthcare reform.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that neither the healthcare law signed by President Obama, nor the president's executive order, nor the Hyde Amendment would prevent the use of funds in the new federal high-risk pool program from being used to cover all abortions," says the activist.
ObamaCare 3Muskett believes those in Congress who voted for healthcare reform need to be held accountable -- and that, she says, is up to voters. The new law, she argues, should be revoked or given major corrective surgery.
"[Voters] need to find out their congressman's position on this. Are they going to now work to remedy this?" she asks. "And those who voted for this law have to be held accountable because we warned them about this repeatedly during the enactment of the law."
Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey), a longtime defender of the unborn, has introduced a bill that would bar use of federal tax dollars for abortion.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: August 2, 2010
The leader of a public interest law group has filed a complaint before the U.S. Supreme Court at the behest of pro-life organization Declaration Alliance, asking that the high court disbar Elena Kagan for falsifying testimony regarding the Clinton-era partial-birth abortion ban attempt.
The complaint was submitted by Larry Klayman, the founder of corruption watchdog Judicial Watch, who also called for Kagan's actions to be investigated by the Justice Department.
Kagan has admitted that while serving as an Associate White House Counsel in the Clinton administration, she altered the wording of original testimony submitted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) regarding the necessity of partial-birth abortion.
In that document, the ACOG had originally reported that it found that partial birth abortion was not medically necessary to save the life of a woman; however, in the final version submitted by ACOG, Kagan had inserted language to say the procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." This altered report was then relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in striking down legislation banning partial birth abortion.
Americans United for Life has also pointed to further documentation suggesting that Kagan also sought to manipulate similar testimony from the American Medical Association.
"Elena Kagan, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, has defrauded the U.S. Supreme Court," stated Klayman upon filing the complaint. "As a result, her membership to practice before the Court should be revoked and the matter referred to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. How can Ms. Kagan be confirmed by the U.S. Senate for a seat on the high court, when in reality she should not even be allowed to practice in front of it?
"The rules of legal ethics require her disbarment and I intend to pursue it, to set an example that prospective and sitting judges, or anyone in the legal profession or otherwise, are not above the law."
From a July 30 Washington Times piece by Rita Diller of American Life League:
Where's the money? That's the question on everyone's mind after reading the recently released Government Accountability Office report. The GAO numbers on money paid out to Planned Parenthood between 2002 and 2008 reveal an unaccounted-for $1.3B.
No answers have been forthcoming. In typical Planned Parenthood style, the abortion giant has done nothing to shed light on the question. In fact, it has done just the opposite....
After weeks of investigation by ALL's Stop Planned Parenthood project, it appears the reason the GAO was not able to account for the expenditure of the great majority of the government money received is that PP will not produce its internal audits for the GAO to analyze.
Because of this, the GAO had to rely on reports filed by PP affiliates under the Single Audit Act, and those reports grossly underreport the amount of government money expended by PP.
The American taxpayers are left with more questions now than before:
- Why didn't Planned Parenthood hand over its internal audits to the GAO as it did in 2001 in the face of a similar inquiry into its spending?
- Why is the organization allowed to disregard the request of 31 U.S. senators and representatives to account for its expenditure of government funds? What is Planned Parenthood hiding?
- Why do we continue to fund PP to the tune of $349M annually and not hold it accountable for how it spends that money?
- Most important, why is an organization that kills more than 300k innocent unborn children each year sanctioned and funded by our government?...
... PP's national office used to publish 2 annual documents that gave elected officials and the general public an understanding of its operations. After all, because taxpayers provide at least one-third of Planned Parenthood's income, it is only right that we should at least know how the money is being used.
The first of those documents was PP's annual service report. It gave the reader a real inside look at PP's operation. Although that report has very valuable data and is still used within the organization today, the last time it was released to the public was 1992.
Planned Parenthood likes to portray itself as a trusted health care provider with a loyal following of clients. Yet that 1992 service report revealed that PP lost 43% of its customers in 1991. A look at other reports reveals it lost 41.9% of its customers in 1990 and 42.2% in 1989. This is not the picture of an organization with a loyal client base.
That 1992 report also told us that 42.7% of abortions at Planned Parenthood in 1991 were committed on minority women. This was despite the fact that minority women accounted for just 26% of the group's regular customers. In addition, previous service reports showed minorities accounted for 44.5% (1990), 40.7%(1989), 40.5% (1988), and 44.5% (1987) of abortions. In other words, Planned Parenthood's own data show that it targets minorities for abortion.
When these facts about client loyalty and the targeting of minorities for abortions were highlighted by pro-life groups, PP stopped making the service reports public.
Fast-forward to 2010. For the past several years, those opposed to Planned Parenthood have been making public the facts and figures from PP's annual reports. These facts have shown the ever-increasing number of abortions performed: 244,628 (2003), 255,015 (2004), 264,943 (2005), 289,750 (2006) and 305,310 (2007), and the huge increase in taxpayer funds going to the organization (from $265.2M in 2004 to $349.6M in 2008).
In the midst of all the controversy over the GAO report... it appears that PP... has decided simply to stop issuing its annual report.
We don't know how many abortions Planned Parenthood facilities performed in 2008 or 2009 because it is not releasing the numbers. We don't know the extent of government funding during its 2008-09 or 2009-10 fiscal years because it is not releasing the numbers.
If PP - a tax-exempt organization bankrolled to a staggering extent by the government - won't hand over its internal audits or let the public know the details of its operations, our government should stop handing over the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to the organization....
Contact: Jill Stanek Source: JillStanek.com Date Published: August 2, 2010
Following Friday's news that a U.S. company has been given the go ahead to experiment with embryonic stem cells on human patients, a former head of the Pontifical Academy for Life told Vatican Radio that the trials are unacceptable. He said that regardless of whether the result of testing is positive or negative, "morally it remains a crime."
Biopharmaceutical developer Geron, which has its headquarters in California, announced last Friday that it was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin testing injections of an embryonic stem cell derivative in treatments for severe spinal-cord injuries.
Geron celebrated the FDA's approval which, they said, gives them the ability to legally "move forward with the world's first clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell (hESC)-based therapy in man."
The clearance had been blocked since last January after preliminary trials on animals resulted in the growth of small cysts in treated regions. Further testing led to the FDA's recent approval.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, who led the Pontifical Academy for Life for more than three years, told Vatican Radio in an interview released on Saturday that the use of human embryos in treatments should be rejected, "not only from the Catholic moral code but by whoever respects the human individual."
Bishop Sgreccia noted that researchers carry out their experiments under the assertion that embryos remain only "a human being in the making." But considering that embryos are "sacrificed" for the treatments, he said, "from an ethical point of view (it) can only receive a negative judgment."
Looking at the results of embyronic stem cell testing, he said, it can be seen that, to date, the expected results have not been obtained. This, said Bishop Sgreccia, is due to the fact that embryonic stem cells are meant for the creation of a human being, not just other cells.
"In any case," he added, "in the remote possibility that there was a positive result, morally it remains a crime."
Source: CNA/EWTN News Date Published: August 2, 2010
Personhood ColoradoThe campaign for passage of the Colorado Personhood Amendment has been launched.
The battle for Amendment 62, which would define life as beginning at conception, will begin with radio ads and will eventually include television. But spokesperson Leslie Hanks reports that an all-star lineup is backing the proposal, including former U.N. ambassador and presidential candidate Dr. Alan Keyes, local pastor and former CEO of Promise Keepers Bishop Phillip Porter, California's personhood co-sponsor Pastor Walter Hoye, and Live Action's Lila Rose.
human embryo babyHanks understands the fight for passage will be a tough one.
"We're David against Goliath. We are fighting the abortion industry right here in Colorado where the whole thing started," the pro-lifer notes. "We were about the first state to liberalize the abortion laws in America, and we feel like whatever started here needs to end here."
About 130,000 Colorado voters signed pro-life petitions, making the state the only one to have a Personhood Amendment on the November ballot this year. Hanks concludes that success in passing the measure this year will depend on a strong grassroots effort.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Date Published: July 31, 2010
