Later Abortions Linked to Psychological Problems: Study

     
   
Springfield, IL, A study from of women who had abortions has found that women undergoing later abortions face increased psychological risks, are more likely to be ambivalent about having an abortion and are more likely to need counseling and support. The study, "Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms," was published in the August issue of the Journal of Pregnancy.
 
The results came from an online survey of 374 women who answered a detailed questionnaire about the circumstances leading to their abortions, their previous mental health history, or physical or sexual abuse and emotional state following abortion. The small study is the first to compare the experiences of women having early abortions compared to women having later abortions (in the second or third trimester).
 
The study, lead by Prof. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, found that women having abortions after 13 weeks were more likely to report that:

- their partner desired the pregnancy (22.4 percent of women who had later abortions vs. 10.3 percent of women who had early abortions);
- that they were pressured by someone other than their partner to abort (47.8 percent vs. 30.5 percent);
- their partner didn't know about the abortion (23.9 percent vs. 12.5 percent);
- they had left their partner before the abortion (28.3 percent vs. 15.6 percent);
- physical health concerns were a factor in having the abortion (29.8 percent vs. 14.7 percent).
 
Ambivalence about the abortion, unwanted abortion and poor pre-abortion counseling were also commonly reported in the late-term abortion group. Nearly 40 percent said they desired the pregnancy and only 30 percent said both they and their partner supported the abortion, while less than 14 percent said they received adequate pre-abortion counseling or information on alternatives or physical and emotional risks.
 
"In general, these results are indicative of more ambivalence and conflict surrounding the decision and the likelihood of less stable partner relationships among women who obtain later abortions," the authors wrote. "Logically, women who are unsure about how to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy are more likely to put off the decision to abort, perhaps hoping their circumstances will improve and enable them to carry to term."
 
A survey of American and Russian women who had abortions, published in the Medical Science Monitor in 2004, found that 64 percent of the American respondents reported feeling pressured to abort, while more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the decision and more than 80 percent reported receiving inadequate counseling beforehand.
 
Emotional Effects of Abortion
 
The study also found high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for women having both early and late abortions, with 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group meeting the American Psychological Association's criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).
 
One possible cause may be a high number of women having unwanted abortions due to the reactions of those around them, the authors said. "Concern regarding reactions of others to having a child" was the mostly frequently cited reason for abortion for both early (69.1 percent) and late (62 percent) abortions.

The authors wrote, however, that many likely had abortions "despite ambivalence or actually desiring to continue the pregnancy." Feelings of ambivalence or having an unwanted abortion are known risk factors for psychological problems after abortion.
 
Additionally, women having later abortions were more likely to report having disturbing dreams, reliving the abortion, having trouble sleeping and experiencing intrusion, a PTSD symptom that involves having recurring memories, flashbacks or hyperactivity when confronted with reminders of the trauma.
 
The previously mentioned Medical Science Monitor survey found that 65 percent of American women who had abortions reported experiencing symptoms of PTSD, which they attributed to their abortions. Other studies have also linked abortion to increased rates of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders and other mental health problems.
 
The authors said that their study is best viewed as a "pilot" study on which to base future research on the psychological impact of late-term abortion, and called for more counseling and support for women undergoing later abortions.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Man Arrested After Threatening to Gun Down Pro-life Activists at Late-Term Abortion Clinic

Abortion clinic cleared "SWAT style" by police, stopping abortions for nearly two hours

     

A man was arrested Saturday, August 28, outside Southwestern Women's Options, a late-term abortion clinic operated by Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after he threatened to shoot two pro-life women who were offering help to abortion-bound women.
 
The unidentified man and his wife were escorting their daughter into the abortion clinic when the wife and daughter walked over to the pro-life women to discuss alternatives to abortion. The man became angry and ushered his family members toward the clinic.
 
"When we come out, I'm going to put a bullet in your head if you talk to her," the man told the pro-life women, whose identities are being withheld for their security.
 
Witnesses said that the man then lifted his shirt to show the women a dark object that was partially tucked into his trousers. The women recognized the object as a gun and called the police.
 
"The police responded appropriately and took him away in handcuffs," said former Operation Rescue intern Bud Shaver, who arrived on the scene in time to witness the arrest and the clearing of the clinic by police.
 
"They cleared Boyd's clinic to search for the gun SWAT style. Everyone, including staff, had to come out with their hands up."
 
The area was cordoned off and the clinic was closed to patients for nearly two hours while police conducted their investigation.
 
It is currently unknown if a gun was recovered by police or what charges were brought against the man.
 
Death threats against pro-lifers have been viewed with greater concern in the wake of the shooting death of activist Jim Pouillon of Owosso, Michigan, who was gunned down last year as he held a pro-life sign outside a local high school. The killer admitted that he murdered Pouillon because he did not agree with his public abortion protests.
 
Shaver told Operation Rescue that he has been threatened a number of times since he has been in Albuquerque, but the police never responded in the way they did on Saturday.
 
"We are thankful that no one was injured and that the police took appropriate action," said Newman. "Violence against pro-lifers has become something that we have to guard against every day. Those who reach out to women in front of abortion clinics should not be afraid to continue to do so, but should always have security and an awareness of their surroundings in mind."
 
Click here to view the photos.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Planned Parenthood Files to Block Public Records After Tip from Iowa Board of Medicine

     

An open records request for public documents has been denied by the Iowa Medical Board, which tipped off Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that the request for public records had been made. Planned Parenthood then filed a suit against a medical watchdog group to block the release of the documents.
 
Operation Rescue was contacted by the Citizen's Information Center located in Boston, Massachusetts, a group that conducts research on the medical industry through public records. They sent OR a copy of a law suit filed against the CIC by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland on August 9, 2010, in Polk County, Iowa, asking the court to enjoin the release of public records to the CIC. As of this writing, no court hearing date has been set and no injunction has been issued.
 
Along with the petition, the CIC sent Operation Rescue a series of emails that clearly show that their public records request was forwarded to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland by an Iowa Board of Medicine staff member.
 
Operation Rescue has released a copy of the suit filed by Planned Parenthood against the CIC as well as a series of e-mail communications that were provided to the CIC by Amy Van Maanen, Director of Licensure & Administration at the Iowa Board of Medicine. (Links below)
 
On August 9, 2010, attorney for Planned Parenthood Mike Falkstrom sent an e-mail to Kent Nebel, Director of Legal Affairs for the Iowa Medical Board. Falkstrom stated:
 
Kent,
 
We're filing to enjoin the release of records today. I apologize for the delay, there were scheduling issues with taking affidavits and I was unable to get them until last week. I appreciate your patience.
 
Thanks!
Mike Falkstrom
 
"That e-mail implies a working relationship and prior communication between Mr. Nebel and the Planned Parenthood attorney concerning the open records request. Why would the IBM work with Planned Parenthood to obstruct a citizen from accessing public records? What is the IBM helping Planned Parenthood to hide?" asked Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
 
The file in question is the medical license application for Planned Parenthood abortionist Susan Haskell, an osteopath who is involved in the controversial remote-controlled dispensing of abortion drugs known as telemed abortions.
 
Operation Rescue confirmed with the IBM that medical license applications are in fact public records.
 
"We have obtained medical license applications from a number of states on our own and the usual procedure is for the medical boards to redact any personal information, such as home addresses and phone numbers. We have never seen a case where access to a medical license application was denied," said Newman.
 
In a conversation with Operation Rescue on Friday, Kent Nebel indicated that he was required by law to inform Haskell that an open records request had been made for her license application in order to give her the opportunity to obtain an injunction. He cited Iowa Code Section 22.8.
 
OR was told that this code requires the IBM to give notice to the physicians when public records requests are made, however 'notice' requirement in 22.8.1 is clearly a requirement to notify the records requester that the custodian of records has filed for injunctive relief.
 
"It is a misreading of the statute to say that the subject of the records must be notified," said Newman.
 
As for any potential "harm" claim that may come from the release of public records, any private information can be easily redacted, as is the practice in nearly every other state. Medical license applications are public record for reasons of accountability. Under Iowa law, "inconvenience or embarrassment" are not legitimate reasons to deny public records requests or to get an injunction.
 
"If Haskell doesn't want her applications inspected by the public, which has a legal right to do so, maybe she shouldn't working in the medical field where she knows certain information will be considered open record," said Newman.
 
"We believe that Mr. Nebel acted improperly by forwarding the CIC open record request to Planned Parenthood and denying the CIC the records that were legally requested. This incident diminishes our confidence that the Board is capable of acting properly on complaints before them involving Planned Parenthood's dangerous telemed abortion pill distribution scheme."
 
As for the petition itself, Planned Parenthood makes numerous of unfounded assumptions about the CIC that Operation Rescue is told are completely false and border on paranoid hysteria.
 
"Planned Parenthood has no idea who this private watchdog group is, so they jumped to the unfounded assumption that it is an 'anti-abortion' group bent on engaging in illegal activity. They really have no idea why the CIC even wants the records, so they manufactured some fictional conspiracy. They worry the CIC may use the information to 'slander' Haskell, yet they are doing worse to the CIC by attacking their reputation in this outlandish and completely baseless petition. It is the very definition of hypocrisy," said Newman.
 
Operation Rescue plans to release additional documents at a later date that we believe shows a protective and apparently improper relationship between the Iowa Attorney General's office and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
 
"There is evidence that the Iowa Attorney General may be involved in collusion and even corruption to protect Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from accountability to the laws of the State of Iowa," said Newman. "We plan to release that additional documentation soon and allow the public to decide."
 
Click here to view the petition: PPH v. CIC

View the email exchange between PPH and the IBM

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Are Atheist Doctors More Likely To Hasten Death of Patients?

     

A new study is out that claims atheist physicians are more likely than those of a religious persuasion to hasten the deaths of patients.  From the story:

    Terminally-ill patients would be well advised to find out the religious beliefs of their doctor, according to research showing the effect of faith on a doctor's willingness to make decisions that could hasten death. Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry…

    The chances of a doctor making an ethically controversial decision expected or partly intended to end life was largely unrelated to the doctor's ethnicity, but was strongly related to his or her specialisation. Specialised doctors in hospitals were almost 10 times as likely to report this than palliative care specialists.

Well, that takes a little unpacking. Patients or surrogates should always be in the loop on medical treatment or withdrawal decisions: Doctors should not "decide" to end life-sustaining treatment that is biologically efficacious–and of course, they should never kill.  Similarly, they should not decide to force unwanted treatment on patients–either through omission or commission–who would rather let nature take its course.

My take: I have noticed in the assisted suicide debate that many proponents are atheist or Unitarian.  But that certainly isn't a universal.  Religious people also support hastening death and unilaterally terminating treatment based on quality of life judgmentalism, while many atheists (such as Nat Hentoff) and clear secularists, oppose hastening death either through imposition of futile care theory, health care rationing, or participating in direct actions to kill.

I think it would be offensive in the extreme to ask a physician about his or her religious beliefs.  They are quite irrelevant and none of the patient's business.  I don't care if a physician is a Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or secularist.  What matters is that he or she accept human exceptionalism and adheres to the Hippocratic tradition of valuing each individual patient equally, giving each optimal care, and never participating in the intentional taking of human life.  Unfortunately, these days, those are questions that can no longer be taken for granted and hence, they are issues about which wise patients will inquire.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Thank you Fr Euteneuer for your formidable pro-life leadership!

     

My thoughts and prayers are very much with Fr Thomas J Euteneuer (pictured) this evening (August 27th), who stepped down today as president of Human Life International (HLI). Equally, I am praying for the board of directors of this magnificent organization, founded by Fr Paul Marx, which funds and carries out pro-life work in 105 countries worldwide. It is second to none in its international work in so many countries in defence of unborn children and in its vision of what's entailed in building a true culture of life.

My good friend Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, director of HLI's Rome office, is taking the reins as acting president until a new appointment is made. This means that Human Life International will be in completely safe hands during its interregnum - demonstrating the strength and resourcefulness of this outstanding pro-life group.

In a moving message on HLI's website Fr Euteneuer writes:

    " ... after traveling more than 1.1 million miles, authoring two books, visiting 58 countries and making thousands of public appearances, I am ready for a break! I intend to continue to do pro-life work wherever I may be called to serve, and my bishop agrees that this is a vital charism of my priestly life. A true pro-lifer is not oriented to a job so much as to the daily task of fighting the culture of death and building the culture of life! ... "

Thank you Fr Euteneuer for your formidable leadership in our historic struggle against, arguably, the greatest evil which has ever befallen humanity. As you take up your new mission, those you have inspired in so many other parts of the world will be continuing to develop the work you've done so much to establish on firm foundations.

You became universally known as the face of Human Life International. Your humility and courage in explaining the truth about the battle against abortion was, for me, beautifully expressed by 17-year old Catholic Miss Angela Rose after watching you debate with American talk show host, Sean Hannity (see below).

    "This is what a priest should be like…humble, always ready to stand up for the faith and suffering humiliation all the while. We need more advocates like Father Euteneuer in the Church!"

Contact: John Smeaton

Source: SPUC
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Poll: 57% of Likely Voters Oppose Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

     

We often hear that majorities support ESCR.  And there is little doubt in my mind that that is true (for reasons we need not get into here).  But supporting ESCR as a legal matter is not the same thing as wanting taxpayers to fund it.  Indeed, the latest Rasmussen Poll finds that a solid majority oppose the federal government paying for ESCR in the wake of the court ruling enjoining the Obama funding policy.  From the poll:

    Only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say funding for such research should be left to the private sector. While 55% of voters who identify themselves as pro-choice support government funding of stem cell research, 83% of pro-life voters are opposed.

This is a very American reaction that may accept something as legal, but which respects the deep and honestly held moral differences people in this country hold over a very controversial issue.  Consider: ESCR is not the same issue as abortion–abortion legalization is about the autonomy rights of women, but in ESCR no woman is being forced to do anything with her body.  And yet, until recently most polls showed majorities in support of abortion rights–as most also supported barring federal funding of abortion (the Hyde Amendment).

In any event, I don't think this issue will cut one way or the other in November.  The Dickey Amendment that bans federal funding of embryonic destructive research can't be credibly used in a partisan fashion.  Indeed, it–along with Hyde–is one of our most bipartisan laws. After all, each year since 1996, Democrat and Republican Presidents have signed the Dickey Amendment (including President Obama), relied upon by the court in its ruling (as they also have the older Hyde Amendment regarding abortion).  Dickey (and Hyde) have been passed by both Republican and Democratic Congresses (including those led by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid).

Moreover, the IPSC breakthrough took out whatever political sting the ESCR issue once had–particularly since it was wielded mostly as sword against President Bush, and he's long gone.  The early wild hype of ESCR proponents has proven wildly overstated.  Adult stem cells are chugging along, and people are learning of it despite the mainstream media's under-reporting (to put it mildly and tactfully) the tremendous successes of adult stem cell therapies in early human trials.

I am not saying there won't be political fight over ESCR funding in the wake of the court ruling. I think there will be. I am just saying that however that fight ends up, I don't think it will matter much politically in the November election.  People have other things on their minds.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Do they really want to make abortion 'safe'?

     

State governments regulate pharmacies, veterinary clinics, nursing home facilities, funeral homes and even hair salons. That being true, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a state to have common sense standards for medical facilities?

It would seem reasonable that the government would have regulatory oversight over a medical facility that routinely performs a surgical procedure that carries with it possible serious risks.

When the procedure in question is abortion, however, the proponents of the procedure are anything but reasonable.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli rendered a legal opinion on Aug. 20 that the Old Dominion State has the authority to regulate, for health reasons, facilities that perform first trimester abortions "so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations."

In the opinion, Cuccinelli gave the Virginia Board of Health the power, if it chooses, to require abortion providers to meet hospital-like standards.

"The state has long regulated outpatient surgical facilities and personnel to ensure a certain level of protection for patients," a spokesman for Cuccinelli told the Washington Post. "There is no reason to hold facilities providing abortion services to any lesser standard for their patients."

If the Board of Health chooses to act upon Cuccinelli's opinion it could require doctors who perform abortions at facilities to have hospital privileges at a local hospital. Additionally the board could mandate professional training for counselors and require facilities conform to certain structural criteria.

The A.G.'s opinion only applies to facilities performing first trimester abortions. Second and third term abortions are already required to be performed in a hospital.

I read Cuccinelli's opinion and thought that while not legally binding, it was solid and measured in its reasoning. Even so, abortion proponents went apoplectic.

"This new policy would single out abortion clinics and burden them with onerous and unnecessary restrictions," NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said in a press release.

Because Cuccinelli is well-known to be pro-life, abortion-right activists said they were not surprised by the A.G.'s opinion.

"We've been waiting for the attorney general to take on abortion providers..." Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, told the Washington Post.

Abortion activists predicted the sky would fall if the Board of Health acted upon Cuccinelli's opinion. The Washington Post reported that activists indicated "the regulations could prompt the shutdown of 17 of the state's 21 clinics performing abortions."

When abortion proponents reject health regulations for clinics -- regulations designed to ensure the safety of women -- something is terribly wrong with their thinking.

If the Virginia Board of Health does act upon Cuccinelli's opinion, and I think it should, it will simply require clinics to comply with standards that will facilitate a woman's safety in case there are complications due to an abortion that results in an emergency situation.

"The potential complications of abortion procedures," Cuccinelli wrote in his opinion, "include hemorrhage, cervical laceration, uterine perforation, injury to the bowels or bladder and pulmonary complications.

"Furthermore," Cuccinelli added, "these complications 'must be immediately and adequately treated.'" The A.G. quotes from the "Manual of Clinical Problems in Obstetrics and Gynecology" to stress just how serious these complications can be.

If a woman experiences any complications, time is of the essence. Being able to get out of a clinic quickly and to a nearby hospital are critical to an injured woman's survival.

Cuccinelli's opinion is also based on a precedent established by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000. The court upheld the state of South Carolina's right to regulate abortion clinics for health reasons in "Greenville Women's Clinic v. Bryant."

The A.G. cited a portion of the Fourth Circuit's decision. Cuccinelli wrote, "Recognizing that the state has a valid interest 'from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus,' the Court found 'there is no requirement that a state refrain from regulating abortion facilities until a public-health problem manifests itself.'"

If a state is going to regulate pharmacies, veterinary clinics, nursing home facilities, funeral homes and hair salons on the basis of public health and safety, then they must provide common sense oversight to abortion providers for the same reason.

Abortion activists have long maintained that they want abortion to be "legal, safe and rare." There is no doubt they want it legal, but given the activists' apoplectic reaction to the Virginia A.G.'s opinion I wonder how much they care about it being safe and rare.

Contact: Kelly Boggs

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Court: Mental disability not a death sentence

     

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has ruled against family members who wanted to end the life of a man with mental disabilities.

The court ruled that state law requires life-preserving treatment for people who are not near death and have not refused treatment. Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and an allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) tells OneNewsNow the court stood with 53-year-old David Hockenberry, who has had acute mental disabilities since birth.

"His guardians -- his parents -- decided that they wanted to withhold medical treatment for him when he had pneumonia," Wenger explains. "They went to the courts to try to get the medical treatment stopped because basically they thought he'd be better off dying from pneumonia than being treated for pneumonia."

The trial court disagreed, so Hockenberry was treated and recovered from the illness within a few weeks. However, his parents appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court in order to deny medical treatment in the future.

"Having a disability shouldn't be a death sentence when a treatable medical condition arises," the ADF-allied attorney contends.

In this case, Wenger thinks the court did the right thing in ruling in favor of life for the disabled, so his group is "pleased and gratified that there are such good rulings so we don't have to continue walking down that frustrating, slippery slope."

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 28, 2010

Only 33% Believe Taxpayer Money Should Be Spent on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    

Monday's surprise decision by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to grant an injunction stopping federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was based on the likelihood that the those challenging the Administration's policy would succeed in their lawsuit because the policy did violate federal law.  Federal law blocks funding of ESCR if the embryos are destroyed.  He wrote in his ruling that ESCR is "research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed."  The Administration has decided to appeal that ruling, and Senator Tom Harkin (D- Bahamas Iowa) wants a hearing (that seems to be the answer to everything in the Beltway).

Rasmussen just released a poll today showing that the ruling actually reflects the mainstream (for an unexpected change).  57% oppose the President on this, this is major swing since March of 2009 when 52% agreed with President Obama's decision.

Interesting.  Only 24% believe it is morally wrong, and 69% still believe it is somewhat likely that ESCR will result in cures but yet an overwhelming majority is against taxpayer funding of this type of research.  Only 55% of those who self-identify as pro-choice agree with the federal funding of ESCR.  I'm among the 18% that doesn't believe it will yield results.  Why?  Because it hasn't already, but other types of stem cell research have borne fruit.  People complain that there hasn't been results because of the lack of federal funding, but as with anything in the free market – it would receive funding if it was thought to be a good investment.

So this looks like it is mainly a pocketbook decision than a  moral one unfortunately, and largely based, I think, on the recession and the necessity to curb government spending.  Fiscally I'm glad people recognize this, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government tasked with funding this research.  Ethically, I'm disturbed that only 52% of those who are pro-life see the moral problem with ESCR.

They should understand that with any type of medical research there should be boundaries and respect for human life, even at earliest stage of development.

Contact: Shane Vander Hart

Source: Caffeinated Thoughts
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Appellate Court Overturns Elder Walter Hoye's Conviction

    

An appellate court overturned Elder Walter Hoye's criminal conviction for violating Oakland's "Mother May I" law restricting sidewalk counseling. In a jury trial in 2009, Hoye was found guilty of two counts of unlawfully approaching women seeking abortions at an Oakland abortion clinic; the court sentenced him to 30 days in jail and an $1100 fine.

Hoye was represented by LLDF attorneys Katie Short and Allison Aranda and volunteer attorney Michael Millen.

In its published opinion, the Appellate Division of the Alameda Superior Court agreed with Hoye's attorneys that the trial court had erred in two respects. First, the trial court refused to instruct the jury that it had to unanimously agree on the particular incident for which Hoye was to be found guilty. Because the district attorney's office presented evidence of several separate interactions between Hoye and persons entering the clinic, it was unclear whether the jury had all agreed on a single instance where Hoye allegedly violated the ordinance.

Second, the trial court refused defense requests to provide a definition of "knowingly approach," a critical element of the "crime" for which Pastor Hoye was convicted. By failing to provide a definition, the court stated, the trial court left the jury unaware that the ordinance does not apply to stationary speakers who address and proffer literature to persons passing by.

However, this may not be the end of the road for the case. "The District Attorney's office could decide to retry Pastor Hoye," Short explained. "However, it would be well advised to wait until after the Ninth Circuit rules in our federal constitutional challenge to the ordinance, which is scheduled for a hearing in October."

In the meantime, Hoye is heartened by this turn of events "It is my hope that this victory will encourage Pastors to both take a public stand against abortion in the pulpit and to minister the love of Christ to the men, women and children going into an abortion clinic from the public square. It's time for men of God to come together and end the incontestable evil of abortion, anywhere and everywhere it exists."

Contact: Allison Aranda

Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Michigan avoiding abortionist investigation

     

A Christian legal organization wants answers from a Michigan abortionist and state officials on records found behind one of his clinics.

The Thomas More Society wants to know why abortionist Alberto Hodari has not been punished since records were not the only thing found in the trash container. TMS president Tom Brejcha reports that "they also found...fetal remains -- just thrown out as if they were garbage."

The attorney explains that pro-lifers who made the discovery turned the evidence over to the local district attorney and the state health department. After a lengthy period, an inquiry was made as to the status of the investigation, but Brejcha explains that the response indicated that the "complaint was noted and that it was deemed unsubstantiated by the evidence...submitted." So other than discovering that "not enough evidence was presented," the state says it can tell the pro-lifers nothing about the investigation.

Tom Brejcha (TMS)The state claims privacy, says Brejcha, but the legal firm contends that putting the records in the garbage makes the issue a little more public.

"If any other physician had done that kind of thing, they'd be hailed up before the disciplinary board and reprimanded, if not sanctioned [or] worse," the law firm president suggests.

The Christian legal organization has filed suit against the state because "Hodari's actions should not be cloaked in secrecy under law." Personal information can be removed from the files, but Brejcha feels the public needs to know the type of "substandard, haphazard medical practices [that] are being permitted in Michigan."

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Hospital withholds food, water from Christian pastor

Order requires seriously injured patient to ask for drink to live

     

It's been more than a week since pastor Joshua Kulendran Mayandy has been given food or water at a Brampton, Canada, hospital where he is being treated for a brain impairment following a heart attack.

The medical facility's officials are following a determination that he will get his next sustenance only when he can ask the doctor for it.

The Sri Lankan Mayandy, who arrived in Canada 10 years ago to pastor a small church, complained of chest pain and was hospitalized after collapsing with a heart attack May 29.

He was revived successfully, although the apparent brain damage from the attack left him in a coma for a time. He was placed in intensive care where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness has reported he has regained movement in his arms and legs and that he recognizes the family he is living with.

According to Bernard Stephenson, another local pastor and friend who visits Mayandy daily, the injured man can speak some words.

But staff with Brampton Civic Hospital, which is part of the William Osler Health Center, disagree. According to Stephenson, doctors asserted all along that there was no hope of recovery.

Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns.

The disagreement over his condition and capacity triggered in Ontario the involvement of the region's "Consent and Capacity" board, which by law determines the proper medical treatment for patients unable to make decisions themselves.

The system requires a strategic decision-maker for patients. Because that usually is a family member, it posed a problem for Mayandy because of the distance to his family in Sri Lanka.

As a result, Stephenson said, the hospital removed Mayandy's feeding tube, prompting his church supporters to file a complaint and get a court-appointed attorney.

The attorney contacted Mayandy's sister, Malika Arumugan, but the "consent board" determined she did not understand the situation. Instead, the board appointed a friend to represent the pastor.

     

The board's ultimate decision, after hearing from "all parties," ruled that Brampton Hospital could remove Mayandy's feeding tube and other modes of life-support, including intravenous fluids.

"We are satisfied, based on the evidence we heard and the agreements of all parties, that the patient remains treatment incapable with respect to all treatments," said the determination letter, signed by Jill Presser as presiding member of the board.

The board further ruled that Mayandy would need to ask for food and water for it to be given.

"As an example only, if the attending physician hears Pastor Mayandy make a capable request for food or water, he will be fed and hydrated."

The conclusion was that Mayandy would not recover.

However, Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the board's decision simply is euthanasia by omission.

He also claims the hospital put pressure on Mayandy's friend, whose name has been redacted from the decision letter, to support its decision.

"Joshua, who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death. This is not the case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability," Schadenberg said.

He also believes Mayandy's friend and strategic decision-maker, chosen by the board, was pressured into supporting the hospital's position before he appeared before the Consent and Capacity board.

Schadenberg said, "It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a substitute decision maker to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that person's willingness to a agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person."

Mark Handelman, an attorney for Brampton Civic Hospital, said, "Justice was seen, and justice was done."

He said the decision was unanimous and denied that any pressure was applied to Mayandy's friend.

Schadenberg, however, points out that Ontario is "$20 billion in debt."

"There are unwritten rules. One of them is that long-term care is simply too costly," he said.

Schadenberg said by law he cannot intervene in the case unless Mayandy's board-appointed "friend" grants him permission.

Meanwhile, he said, time is running out for Mayandy, who can breathe, move and speak a little but cannot convince doctors he is worth saving.

Contact: Thom Redmond

Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Operation Rescue Responds to Formation of Telemed Committee

     

Today the Iowa Board of Medicine issued a press release announcing the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the use of telemedicine in Iowa.

The following is a statement from Operation Rescue President Troy Newman in response to that announcement:

      We were aware that the Iowa Board of Medicine formed this ad hoc committee because we attended the Board meeting on Aug. 20 where it was announced.

      We are glad that telemedicine will be studied and hope that the committee will especially focus on the misuse of telemedicine by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which distributes dangerous abortion pills through a remote controlled push button system that denies the patient access to examination by a licensed physician as well as any meaningful doctor/patient relationship.

      However, due to the way nearly 30 citizens were treated at the last Board meeting, we have concerns that the Board may not give our concerns for the health and safety of women fair consideration.

      At the Aug. 20 meeting in which the Board solicited public comment on telemedicine, the Board, without notice, limited access to the meeting to only six people, then limited the total length of comments on telemedicine to only 10 minutes. The rest of the citizens, some who drove several hours to be heard, were forced by the Board to stand outside in the rain. There were health care professionals, attorneys, clergy, and leaders of a number of different groups that represented the concerns of thousands of Iowans that simply were not heard, or were limited in some cases to mere seconds of comment. Despite whatever the Board may say, that act clearly communicated to us that the Board is completely uninterested in hearing our concerns.

      In addition, we have received documentation regarding the relationship between certain IBM staff members and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that further erodes our confidence that the Board is capable of sound judgment regarding any issue related to Planned Parenthood. We plan to release our documentation on Monday.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Attorney: AG Holder trying to intimidate pro-lifers

    

A West Palm Beach abortion counselor and prayer warrior is among six being sued nationwide by Attorney General Eric Holder, but a conservative group believes Holder is abusing his power.

Mary Susan Pine, who has been witnessing outside the clinic in West Palm Beach for 20 years, and her group F.A.C.E. Life face an injunction that would prevent Pine from entering any clinic driveway and would prevent her group from keeping women from entering the abortion facility.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow the case is politically motivated and is based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which was passed in 1994. He believes the complaint is baseless.

Matt Staver"In this particular case, I think what the attorney general is doing is trying to placate his radical abortion constituency," Staver suspects. But the National Abortion Federation insists this case is part of a promised crackdown against pro-lifers following the shooting death of late-term abortionist George Tiller last year.

The six pro-lifers have limited resources to fight the allegations, so the Liberty Counsel founder decides that "this attorney general is trying to pick on little people, trying to intimidate pro-lifers," but he assures that his group "will not stand by and allow that to happen."

He notes that the federal office has limited resources and ought to be using those resources to fight important issues like terrorism. But Holder, says the Liberty Counsel attorney, is not doing that. "We will not allow the attorney general to abuse his power," Staver pledges. "It is a misappropriation of the attorney general's power and priorities."

Pine, who is being represented by Liberty Counsel, has been accused of standing in an abortion clinic driveway and blocking a car's entrance -- an allegation she denies. Staver contends the FACE law would not deal with that type of situation anyway.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Congress may move to fund deadly research on human embryos

     

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Obama Administration to stop paying for scientific research that kills human embryos.

But the fight isn't over.

The judge ruled that using federal taxpayer dollars for stem cell research that involves the killing of human embryos violates a law passed by Congress in 1996.

That law, known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment after the two Congressmen who introduced it, says that no federal funds can be used for research in which a human embryo is destroyed or harmed. National Right to Life was deeply involved in the original fight to pass the amendment.

But now the amendment itself is under attack. It's expected anti-life members of Congress will try to overturn the judge's ruling by repealing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, perhaps in September or in a lame-duck session of Congress after the November 2nd elections.

Pro-Lifers will keep fighting with everything we've got to protect the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and all pro-life policies that protect human life.  There are many kinds of promising stem cell research that do not involve the killing of a human embryo. Pro-Lifers should strongly oppose the killing of any human being so their stem cells can be removed and used in scientific experiments.

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Abortionists face more legal woes in 3 states

     

California

In CA, a lawsuit has been filed against abortionist Andrew Rutland for malpractice and wrongful death in the case of Ying Chen who died in 2009 during a botched abortion at a filthy and ill-equipped acupuncture clinic in San Gabriel. The suit was filed by Chen's boyfriend, Zixiang Hu, on behalf of their 2-year-old daughter after the coroner's office reclassified Chen's death as a homicide.

The CA Medical Board has been after Rutland for months and recently amended their disciplinary petition against him to reflect the fact that Chen's death is now officially a homicide. It is hoped that this will help the Board gain a permanent revocation of Rutland's medical license when it meets to consider his shoddy abortion practices in February, 2010.

Michigan

MI abortionist Alberto Hodari is the subject of a lawsuit filed last week by the Thomas More Society of Chicago for the release of government documents explaining why Hodari was never disciplined for the illegal dumping of the human remains of aborted babies in 2008.

Monica Miller of the Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered the remains of aborted children in dumpsters outside several of Hodari's Detroit-area abortion mills along with private patient medical records. Hodari was placed on probation for illegal dumping of medical records, but was never disciplined for the illegal disposal of human remains.

Hodari faces possible disciplinary action after Caitlin Bruce filed a complaint with the MI medical board over an abortion Hodari forced on her in 2008. Bruce has also sued Hodari over her horrific ordeal where she says she changed her mind about the abortion and tried to leave, but was held down by a male assistant while Hodari forced the abortion on her. Additional malpractice suits are also pending against Hodari.

Hodari also recently divorced and has placed all of his 7 abortion clinics up for sale.

Massachusetts

Abortionist Rapin Osathanondh faces trial for manslaughter on September 7, 2010, in Barnstable County, MA, nearly 3 years to the day after he killed Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion. Osathanondh's Hyannis abortion mill was understaffed and ill-equipped for emergencies when Ms. Smith suffered complications to the powerful anesthesia that the abortionist improperly used. She died at the clinic.

Operation Rescue worked with Laura's mother, Eileen Smith, to bring Osathanondh to justice. Since then, Osathanondh has surrendered his medical license and closed his 2 abortion clinics.

Please join Operation Rescue in praying for strength for the Smith family during this trial and that Osathanondh will be properly brought to justice in that court of law.

Source: ProLifeBlogs
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Obama administration hid pro-abstinence study while program funding was slashed

    

In response to public pressure, the Department of Health and Human Services has disclosed a taxpayer-funded study that reflects positively on abstinence education, having first kept the full study under wraps while funding for such programs was slashed.

The National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents in 2008 found that about 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement, "It is against your values for your adolescent to have sexual intercourse before marriage," as well as "Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do." A majority of adolescents in the survey responded similarly.

Though the survey was presented at two conferences last year, when Lisa Rue, a researcher at the University of Northern Colorado, asked for a copy of the full survey, her request was denied. She tried again, the second time filing under the Freedom of Information Act. That request also was denied.

"The second denial from the Obama administration leaves me to reflect on the role of cultural values with regard to prevention science," Rue wrote in an editorial. "If we are truly interested in learning how to prevent two critical epidemics currently devastating our country (out-of-wedlock child bearing and sexually transmitted infections), then the nationally representative findings provide momentum and support for accessing cultural values of parents and children which promote optimal health choices for adolescents."

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, as well as pro-family news outlets called on concerned citizens to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to view the full study. The response was so vast that the HHS website reportedly was temporarily down Aug. 20. By the evening of Aug. 23, the full study was posted on the HHS website.

The NAEA said the episode calls into question whether the recent sex education policy decisions by the current administration and Congress truly reflect cultural norms or clear evidence-based trends.

"We are greatly concerned that the sex education policy being implemented by this administration does not reflect the values of what most parents and teens clearly want," Huber said Aug. 24.

Congress and the administration cut all abstinence-centered program grants from the 2010 budget, and funding for 176 abstinence programs is set to expire Sept. 30. Nearly 2 million students in those programs will be put at risk, the NAEA said.

"Our state has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation," said Larry McAdoo, executive director of an abstinence program in Mississippi that will lose funding. "I do not understand why our services to needy teens would be cut short. Mississippi's teens need more resources, not less.

"Our abstinence program equips youth with the skills necessary to make healthy choices. Soon, however, Mississippi's youth will be left without any resources to counter the sexual messages with which they are continually bombarded."

Among additional results of the study:

-- General parent views about sex and abstinence were more conservative among blacks, Hispanics, parents from lower-income households and parents attending religious services more frequently.

-- The majority of parents surveyed favored their adolescents receiving abstinence messages from multiple sources. Ordered from most preferred to least preferred, parents favored abstinence messages delivered at a place of worship (85 percent), a doctor's office or health center (85 percent), school (83 percent), a community organization (71 percent) and the Internet (55 percent).

-- Adolescent frequency of attending religious services was strongly associated with more conservative general views about sex and abstinence among adolescents, as well as more restrictive views about their own sexual behavior.

-- Adolescent exposure to some specific topics related to sex and abstinence in a class or program appeared to increase the likelihood that adolescents heard and reported similar messages about sex and abstinence delivered by their parents.

"It is important that the representative government reflects the desires of its constituents," Huber said. "This study's findings call for a reinstatement of funding for abstinence education within the next fiscal budget."

President Obama's budget for 2010 replaced abstinence education programs with so-called comprehensive sex education programs that promote the use of condoms and other contraceptives among the nation's teenagers.

Contact: Erin Roach

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Black and Unwanted -- Billboards Expose Racial Elements of Abortion and Adoption

     

The Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), in collaboration with The Radiance Foundation, announces the launch of the "Black and Unwanted" public awareness initiative in Bryan/College Station. On the heels of massive national and international media coverage of the "Endangered Species" campaign, this nonpartisan campaign continues to reveal abortion's destruction in the black community while highlighting the need for more adoptions. TooManyAborted.com is the campaign's online resource that provides irrefutable federal and state abortion statistics and the largely unknown history of the racism and eugenics of Planned Parenthood.  It directly challenges the false rhetoric, with actual facts, by groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and other abortion advocates.

Dr. Haywood Robinson, Board Chairman of L.E.A.R.N., has firsthand knowledge of the impact of abortion.  He is a Texas family physician who used to be an abortionist.  Today, he is an outspoken advocate for the unborn and women facing unplanned pregnancies by exposing the lies and distortions of the abortion industry. Dr. Robinson states: "The Framers of the Constitution knew the rights we enjoy are not just for ourselves but in the Preamble clearly articulated that they are for our posterity, those yet to be born." He is joined by a chorus of African-American civil rights leaders.

The Radiance Foundation's co-founder, Ryan Bomberger, is the Creator/Director of both campaigns and was, as a child, transracially adopted into a multi-racial family of 15. The circumstances surrounding his birth could have easily resulted in an abortion. "We're exposing the lies and distortions of the abortion industry, and many are waking up to the truth," Bomberger says. "Adoption isn't the only solution to unintended pregnancies, but it is a beautiful alternative to abortion's destruction of hope and possibility."  The recently passed healthcare legislation has intensified the public's outcry against abortion and the federal funding (over $300 million annually) of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain.

L.E.A.R.N. is a prominent black pro-family organization founded by black educators, medical professionals and leaders. According to Rev. Dr. Johnny Hunter, the national director of L.E.A.R.N., "We have no problem exposing the racist agenda of elitists and population controllers, regardless of race or feigned religious underpinnings, who have waged a massive, devastating campaign against us and our children." Pastor Hunter also says: "I am especially offended by groups like RCRC, founded by elitist white abortion advocates, whose hidden agenda is documented in the movie Maafa 21 -- Black Genocide in 21st Century America."

The CDC reports that African-Americans have abortions at more than 3 times the rate of white women and 2 times the rate of all other races combined. In Texas, abortions on black women comprise nearly 25% of all state abortions even though they only constitute 12.7% of the female population (ages 15-44). Every other racial demographic shares a smaller percentage of statewide abortions than their respective percentage of total population. All of this is by design. Abortion is being used as birth control and increasingly encouraged by groups like the RCRC and Planned Parenthood who, nationally in 2008, aborted 65 children for every 1 client they referred for adoption. Women deserve much better.

Contact: Joy Brown

Source: L.E.A.R.N. Inc.
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Pro-Abortion Blacks Attack Heir to King Legacy: Alveda King Calls for Boycott

     

In an appeal to America to boycott the abortion industry, Dr. Alveda King, daughter of Reverend A. D. King and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. responds to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights press conference.

"It is absolutely ludicrous that abortion supporters would accuse a blood relative of Dr. King of hijacking the King legacy. Uncle Martin and my father, Rev. A. D. King were blood brothers. How can I hijack something that belongs to me? I am an heir to the King Family legacy," she said.  "I have a right to stand at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th Anniversary of my Uncle's 'I Have A Dream' speech. The Dream has yet to be realized. That Dream is in my genes and I carry forward in the fight for equality and justice for all blacks, including those in the womb.  My dad and my uncle gave their lives to ensure that the day would come when blacks would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. If they were here, I know they would stand with me in this fight for the lives of those most vulnerable among us," said King.

Other African American leaders are joining Alveda in calling for a boycott of the abortion industry.

"It's interesting to me to hear so called religious people call us the religious right -- but that's okay because they are obviously the complete opposite... they are the religious wrong!  Which begs the question... what God -- if any do they serve?" asked Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-Life Union.  "As for me, I serve the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac -- the great I AM... Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and all things created.  Those of us who serve the one true God acknowledge we are all made in his image. We bow to God's Word when He says: 'Blessed is the fruit of the womb.' If God says children are a reward, a gift and our heritage, then we must uphold that all children are greatly valuable and desirable to God.  So, I ask again... what God do they serve?" 

"More and more of Black Americans understand the eugenic agenda of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to control the black birth rate through abortion. And because we understand, we are standing with Alveda King in solidarity, continuing the fight for black life from its earliest beginnings," said Catherine Davis, founding member of the black prolife movement. "I grew up understanding that the King family fought for my right to equality, even as they fought, bled and died for my right to life, free of government sanctioned lynching, restraints, and KKK threats. To believe that they would now stand for the destruction of life in the womb, screams against the legacy these great men left for us all."

"I will stand with Alveda King because she is courageous enough to follow in her uncle's and father's footsteps," said Gardner.  "The travesty of abortion -- especially in the black community is the greatest civil rights battle of our time and we must overcome it -- in Christ, we shall overcome it."

"I have a dream, it is in my genes and I ask all America to stand with me on 8/28 at the Lincoln Memorial and thereafter by boycotting America's abortion industry," said Dr. King.

Contact: Alveda King, Catherine Davis, Day Gardner

Date Published: August 26, 2010

Some of the Fall-Out from Judge Lambeth's Decision

     

There's been a flurry of developments directly and indirectly related to a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Royce C. Lamberth to prevent the Obama Administration from continuing to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. As we reported yesterday, Lamberth, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote in his August 23 order that it appeared that the Administration's decision to fund embryonic stem cell (ESC) research was inconsistent with a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The ruling was preliminary, but the judge ordered the funding to cease while the case progresses.

First, with no additional detail, the Obama Justice Department said it would appeal Judge Lamberth's 15-page opinion. White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton "said the administration is exploring all possible avenues 'to make sure that we can continue to do this critical lifesaving research,' but he did not specify exactly how it will respond," the Washington Post reported.

Second, "The National Institutes of Health said yesterday it will not award new grants or renew existing ones for research on human embryonic stem cells after a federal judge temporarily halted the Obama administration's expansion of federal funding for this research," according to the Boston Globe. "But scientists who have already received federal money, including Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers, can continue their work on these cells, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the NIH. The agency has awarded $131 million this year for human embryonic stem cell research."

Third, many of the usual pro-embryonic stem cell research boosters uncritically stated that ESC offers unparalleled opportunities (as a USA Today editorial put it) to "people suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other afflictions that resist traditional therapies." Of course, it's all "promise," and "potential"--as opposed to over 70 published studies that show promising results utilizing morally unobjectionable adult stem cell research.

But, to its credit, the editorial says of the decision "Disappointing but most likely legally correct. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth cited an amendment Congress passed in 1996 that bars any research using cells that come from the destruction of human embryos. That law, Lamberth ruled, trumps an executive order President Obama issued last year aimed at jump-starting research."

It then suggests what no doubt many pro-abortion Democrats are already considering: going after the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Collaterally, the New York Times' Gina Kolata began her story yesterday with "The renewed debate over embryonic stem cells highlights the advances and complications that have arisen in the field since its controversial beginnings." Significantly, early on she acknowledges, "Yet despite the high hopes for embryonic stem cells, progress has been slow -- so far there are no treatments with the cells."

Kolata uses much of her article to argue that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) have problems of their own, meaning that embryonic stem cell research must go forward, if for that reason alone. (iPS cells result when human skin cells are genetically reprogrammed--sent "back in time"-- becoming essentially indistinguishablefrom human embryonic stem cells.) Unfortunately there is only one passing reference to adult stem cells.

Even more intriguing is a very thoughtful piece at Slate.com. Written by Emily Yoffe, it's headlined, "Where are the cures promised by stem cells, gene therapy, and the human genome?"). It is very much worth reading (www.slate.com/id/2264401/pagenum/all/#p2).

Yoffee's summary is helpful for many reasons, not the least of which is her counsel against over-hyping "breakthroughs."

Her report reminds us that the "wonder cure" of the 1980s for diseases like Parkinson's was supposedly scooping out the brains of aborted babies and depositing it in the skulls of Parkinson's patients. It never worked and had horrific side effects.

In addition, "getting stem cells to work in the human body is neither an easy nor necessarily benign process," she writes. "Researchers are concerned that stem cells, once let loose, might take a wrong turn; heart cells, for instance, could end up in the brain. They could also proliferate excessively, causing damage to nearby tissues. They could generate tumors."

There will be additional developments from Judge Lamberth's decision, which we will keep you up to speed on.

Contact: Dave Andrusko

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 25, 2010

AG Madigan and ACLU resist legal moves to implement parental notification

     

On Wednesday of last week, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a motion to immediately transfer the legal case pending against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act from the Illinois Appellate Court to the Illinois Supreme Court. Arguing that pregnant minors at risk for abortion suffer harm every day that the Act is not enforced, the Society invoked the Supreme Court rule allowing transfer of an appeal when the "public interest requires prompt adjudication." The pending appeal, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is currently in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where a decision may not come for a year or more.

Just Tuesday afternoon, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is constitutionally obligated to defend the Parental Notice Act, joined the ACLU in opposing speedy resolution of the case by the Supreme Court. Earlier, after the trial judge threw out the ACLU's case, the Attorney General agreed to an indefinite stay of the Parental Notice Act during the ACLU's current appeal.

Thomas More Society wants to thank John-Paul Deddens, President of Students for Life of Illinois, who built the website www.letparentsknow.com, in order to support the Parental Notice Act. A coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups across Illinois have joined the website and the effort, and in response, thousands of Illinoisans called and petitioned the Attorney General over the past week to urge her to support the immediate resolution of the case by the Supreme Court.

The fate of the motion now rests in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court, where "the Supreme Court or a justice thereof may order that the appeal be taken directly to it."

Click here to more about the motion forimmediate transfer.

Source: Illinois Review
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Strategic Voting

     
 
• Are you planning to stay home on Nov. 2 because you don't think there's anyone you can vote for?

• Would you not vote for a particular candidate who does not have a "pure enough" pro-life position or pro-life vote?

• Would you ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion in order to advance the pro-life cause?  Is this like saying the ends justify the means?
 
Have you ever asked yourself any of these questions?  Have you ever thought it was sinful to vote for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life?  While this conviction is understandable, it merits more thought.
 
For instance, imagine two pro-abortion candidates are facing one another in the election.  You must first study their platforms and voting records.  What if one supported, say, parental notification and the other did not?  A strategic vote to advance the cause of life would limit evil.  Not voting in this race might allow the candidate who did not support parental notice to be elected.
 
There are many pro-lifers who, because they thought a less than 100% pro-life candidate was not good enough, have not voted and will not vote.  This tactic has enabled pro-abortion legislators to be elected and to have a stranglehold on Illinois government. 
 
The Roe v. Wade decision overturned all laws that banned or limited abortion in all 50 states.  This decision then has forced us to take an incremental approach—the only way to eliminate it is by eroding it.  Some candidates, while not 100% pro-life, may be very helpful in legislatively promoting this erosion process.  There could be huge benefits for Life in voting this way.
 
Conversely, not voting because the candidate isn't "pure enough" has allowed abortion to continue unabated in Illinois.  Winning this battle requires an incremental strategy. 
 
Please take a moment to reflect on these things and then vote for Life.

Source: Lake County Right to Life Blog
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Grassroots Activists Respond to Abortion Crisis with Record-Setting 40 Days for Life Campaign

     

"This fall, an unprecedented number of people of faith will be turning to a higher power to bring an end to the tragedy of abortion through a 40-day program of prayer and fasting, peaceful vigil and community outreach," said Shawn Carney, campaign director of 40 Days for Life.

40 Days for Life is preparing for its largest campaign to date with 238 sites in six countries participating in simultaneous campaigns from September 22 - October 31. The list of locations is posted at: http://40daysforlife.com/location.cfm. 

The list includes 223 locations in 46 American states and the District of Columbia. With nine locations in six provinces, this campaign will also mark the largest Canadian participation as well. There are also communities taking part in 40 Days for Life in Australia, Denmark, Northern Ireland, and -- for the first time -- England.

"Many of the people who volunteer to pray at 40 Days for Life's public vigils have never done anything like this before, and perhaps had never even considered it," said Carney. "But there's a sense of urgency -- more lives are being lost to abortion every day with no apparent end in sight -- that requires an active, prayerful response. People are responding to that call, and it is showing amazing results."

Six abortion centers where 40 Days for Life prayer vigils have taken place have closed following these campaigns of prayer and fasting. In addition, 35 abortion industry employees have left their jobs at facilities where people prayed for an end to abortion during 40 Days for Life campaigns.

Carney added that peaceful prayer outside the abortion center "provides a simple reminder -- to patients, to staff, to the community -- of what all people know in their hearts: abortion is wrong and can never be justified. Despite the fact that governments continue to aggressively pursue a pro-abortion agenda, I am confident that the abortion culture will be overcome by the power of prayer."

Just three years ago, 40 Days for Life burst onto the scene as a groundbreaking pro-life initiative. Since then, it has mobilized more than 350,000 people in 307 cities across all 50 states -- as well as locations in other nations -- during six coordinated campaigns, saving 2,811 lives from abortion. The community-based 40 Days for Life campaign involves people of faith in 40 days of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion, round-the-clock peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities, and grassroots educational outreach.

Contact: Amber Dolle

Source: 40 Days for Life
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Thomas More Society Files Lawsuit in Michigan to Uncover Truth About Notorious Abortionist Dr. Alberto Hodari

     

Yesterday (Monday), Thomas More Society attorneys filed a lawsuit to compel disclosure of public records that indicate why a doctor in Michigan was not punished for tossing aborted fetuses and patient records in the trash. Robert Fleming, local counsel for the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society (CPLS) in Ingram County Circuit Court.

Dr. Miller, president and director of CPLS, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to learn the results of an investigation of Dr. Alberto Hodari and his abortion clinic, the Women Care Clinic in Lathrup Village, Mich. The investigation was brought on after CPLS found patient medical and financial records as well as the remains of aborted fetuses in trash containers outside the Women Care Clinic in 2008. Dr. Miller and CPLS then filed the complaint as well as evidence of their discovery with the Bureau of Health Professionals and the local police department. Dr. Miller's and CPLS' FOIA request was denied earlier this year when they were told only that there was insufficient evidence to "substantiate" their charges, without any explanation as to why or how their evidence was deemed deficient.

"The Freedom of Information Act is meant to foster transparency and openness in government, and this pro-life group and its leader, who uncovered Dr. Hodari's despicable actions, have been left completely in the dark," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The public has a right to know the details as to Dr. Hodari's grievous and gruesome aberration from professional medical norms and simple human decencies."

The Thomas More Society contends that the cited reason for Dr. Miller's FOIA denial, "an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy," is moot, as the medical and financial records found behind the Women Care Clinic were already publicly disclosed and a gross violation of the patients' rights and expectations of privacy. The Society also asks the court to review the withheld records in chambers to redact or edit out any personal identification or embarrassing details.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Virginia AG: State Can Force Abortion Clinics to Follow Same Standards as Hospitals

     

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli may be about to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare" - simply by making abortion clinics offer women the same standard of care required by other outpatient surgical facilities.

Statistically speaking abortion is the number one surgical procedure that women undergo in the United States, and most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

However in Virginia, as in many other places around the country, abortion facilities have often escaped the health and safety standards that are mandated for other medical facilities, such as hospitals, that engage in out-patient surgery.

Just recently, Louisiana corrected that problem by giving its Health Department the regulatory authority to shut down facilities that failed to live up to hospital health and safety standards.

But many abortion clinics in Virginia have operated under the law as "physician's offices" rather than medical facilities. If the state follows Cuccinelli's legal advice, that could soon change.

"It is my opinion that the Commonwealth has the authority to promulgate regulations for facilities in which first trimester abortions are performed as well as providers of first trimester abortions, so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations," Cuccinelli wrote in a legal opinion released Friday.

The opinion was written in response to an inquiry from Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) and Senator Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke), who asked whether the state had the authority to regulate facilities that perform 1st trimester abortions.

Cuccinelli pointed out that under Virginia statute, the definition of "hospital" can include abortion facilities because they fall within the Code's broad definition of a "hospital." In Virginia, a hospital is "any facility … in which the primary function is the provision of diagnosis, treatment, and of medical and nursing services, surgical or non-surgical, for two or more nonrelated individuals including … outpatient surgical [hospitals]."

He also pointed out that the Board of Health has already classified "abortion outpatient clinics" as outpatient hospitals, under its authority to classify hospitals.

"The attorney general's comments on this issue points out to a real problem involving abortion practice in the United States, and that simply is that abortion across the United States is the single most commonly performed procedure on American women. And yet it does remain the most unregulated, underreported, and under-investigated of any form of medical care provided to American women," Olivia Gans, President of the Virginia Society for Human Life, told LifeSiteNews.com. "So it is quite scandalous that women's lives are literally hanging in the balance along with their children at these abortion provider's hands."

Cuccinelli also pointed out that abortion clinics may not be able to hide from the Board of Health's regulations as "physicians' offices," since the Board has the authority to investigate that claim. He said that the Board of Medicine has broad authority to regulate all health practitioners in the state, and can therefore regulate standards of care in first trimester abortion facilities.

Cuccinelli also said that these positions had been upheld previously in federal court.

However, abortion advocates are protesting the attorney general's opinion, arguing that if most abortion clinics carried out the same standards of care for women that are mandated at hospitals they soon would be out of business.

According to the Washington Post, abortion advocates predict that only four out of 21 abortion clinics would be able to fulfill that standard of care if mandated by the state Board of Health. The rest would be shut down.

Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, cast Cuccinelli's opinion as "his first pitch" to make abortion inaccessible.

"These so-called regulations are only an attempt to shut down abortion clinics in the Commonwealth of Virginia," Keene told the Post.

Gans told LSN that while NARAL was often prone to "hyperbole," "it is at time to time the case that serious and quite startling infractions of what would be normal medical practice and care are seriously violated in the practice of abortion."

Gans added that the biggest reason that abortion facilities operate with "a cloak of invincibility" under the law is due to the confusion surrounding what states can and cannot do under current interpretations of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

"It does strike one as astonishing that NARAL would reject every effort to protect the lives and well-being of the women who are actually seeking abortions, as often as they reject any measure that would ultimately also protect the unborn child," said Gans. "One has to ask who is NARAL or NOW or Planned Parenthood or any of these pro-abortion groups supportive of? And it appears too often that they are protecting the interests of the abortionists and not the children and their mothers." 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Pro-Life Leaders Vow to Fight Iowa 'Telemed' Abortions

     

A coalition of pro-life leaders on Friday delivered a letter to the Iowa Board of Medicine asking that it investigate a scheme allowing doctors to distribute the risky RU-486 abortion drug without being present to the patient, known as "telemed" abortions.

The scheme, which Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has implemented since June 2008, allows doctors to prescribe the abortion pills via a remote-control system to women in remote areas who visit an office with an unlicensed assistant.

In their letter to the Board, 57 local and national pro-life leaders point out that the scheme conflicts with Iowa law requiring a physician to perform abortions, and with Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protocol recommending that the drug be distributed. "The absence of a licensed physician performing a physical examination poses a significant health threat to the mother of the unborn child," they write. "An examination could reveal potential risk factors that may prevent a physician from prescribing RU-486 to the patient. These risk factors, if unidentified, could lead to excessive bleeding, infection, and death.

"Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is ignoring this basic tenet of care by passing responsibility and directing patients to the emergency room if complications do occur."

Several groups in the coalition, led by Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for L.I.F.E. (Life Is For Everyone), denounced the scheme in a press conference Friday, the same day the Board invited comment on the topic.

DeWitte told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) she was hopeful that the board would research the scheme and "come to the conclusion that this is not what Iowa needs, this is not safe for women or for our families, and decide to put a stop to it."

"We're going to continue to put the pressure on [and] go forward with what we know is happening, and make sure they are aware of it," she added.

Rep. Steve King, a U.S. Congressman from Iowa, also submitted a letter to the Board expressing concern over the "unlawful and dangerous practice" of telemed abortions. King released his letter on Friday, the same day the Iowa Board of Medicine took public comment on the telemed abortion practice.

The Thomas More Society also submitted a letter pointing out that "the regimen established by the FDA and the manufacturer of RU-486 (Danco Laboratories) make it crystal clear that [the abortion drugs] are to be ingested in the presence of the physician who has administered them."

Approximately 30 people came to speak at the Board hearing on the topic; however, the Board only allowed seven people to comment. They gave the seven speakers a total of ten minutes for their combined remarks. All speakers expressed opposition to telemed abortions.

Speakers included former Iowa Health Commissioner Norm Pawlewski, who now heads Iowa Christian Alliance, Attorney Tom Brecha of the Thomas More Society in Chicago, IL, Maggie Dewitte of Iowans for Life, Jennifer Bowden of Iowa Right to Life, Monsignor Frank Bognanno of Christ the King Parish in Des Moines, Registered Nurse Michelle Locher, and Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, who filed the original complaint with the IBM.

During the press conference, Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue announced that her group had filed complaints demanding criminal investigations of allegedly illegal telemed abortions in ten Iowa counties and has re-filed a request for a state audit with the State Auditor and the Iowa Insurance Commission.

"We received a letter from the Iowa Attorney General 's office that sounded more like a letter from a Planned Parenthood attorney than from someone who is sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Iowa," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "Because is it now clear that Mr. Miller is acting as an apologist for Planned Parenthood and an obstructionist in the process of enforcing Iowa law, we will bypass his office and go to the local authorities."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 24, 2010

U.S. Court Halts Obama Admin Stem-Cell Research Regulations

     

A U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia has intervened to block regulations issued by the Obama administration expanding embryo-destructive research.

Pro-life researchers and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a group that encourages adoption of frozen embryonic children, filed the suit last year. Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled in June that the group has standing to sue over the guidelines that the National Institutes of Health developed for taxpayer-funded research that would involve the destruction of living human embryos.

The newly-expanded research was made possible by an executive order signed by President Obama in March 2009.

The plaintiffs argue that the new guidelines clearly violate a provision in U.S. law (known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment) that prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

In the opinion issued Monday, Lamberth ruled that the Dickey-Wicker language was unambiguous, contrary to the arguments of lawyers with the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the NIH guidelines violated the "plain language of the statute."

"ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "To conduct ESC research, ESC must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.

"Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on ESCs, the two cannot be separated."

Critics have pointed out that, aside from destroying tiny human lives, ESC research has resulted in virtually no therapeutic benefit and has been outstripped by breakthroughs in adult stem-cell research, which has yielded dozens of cures and benefits for previously untreatable illnesses.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 23, 2010

Permanent Abortion Funding Ban; "Protect Life Act" Introduced in Congress

    

On July 30, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.) introduced a new bill that would permanently bar subsidies for abortion in all federal programs.

The measure, titled the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 5939), is strongly backed by NRLC.

"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.

Long-established federal programs, such as Medicaid, currently do not pay for elective abortion, thanks to a patchwork of pro-life policies put in place over a period of decades. Many of these policies are imposed by provisions of annual appropriations bills that require annual renewal, the best known of these being the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding of abortion with money from the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

If the Smith-Lipinski bill were enacted, it would no longer be necessary to win annual renewal of the Hyde Amendment or other such temporary bans.

In addition, the bill would prevent federal funds from subsidizing abortion, or insurance plans that cover abortion, in any of the new programs created by the new health care law.

The bill would also make permanent an important pro-life law that has been enacted on a year-to-year basis since 2004, known as the Hyde-Weldon Amendment. This provision prohibits state, local, or federal government agencies that receive federal DHHS funds from discriminating against health care providers for refusing to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

"Recent events have demonstrated, more graphically than ever before, the importance of achieving a permanent, government-wide prohibition on subsidies for abortion, and NRLC will work hard for enactment of this legislation," said NRLC's Johnson.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (Oh.), who is an original cosponsor of the bill, said, "There is simply no good reason for Congress not to codify the Hyde Amendment, which reflects the clearly-expressed will of the American people. The need for Rep. Smith's bill has become more clear than ever as a result of the disingenuous way in which the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership thwarted enactment of the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment during the debate over health care earlier this year. Rather than allowing the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment to become law, President Obama issued an Executive Order purporting to eliminate the need for such an amendment. Americans now know, based on recent developments and the administration's subsequent scrambling to patch holes exposed in its claim by pro-life Americans, that the president's executive order is inadequate."

As of August 23, H.R. 5939 had 167 cosponsors. To view an always-current list of cosponsors, visit the NRLC Legislative Action Center at http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/

NRLC also supports legislation known informally as the "Protect Life Act," introduced in the House by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) as H.R. 5111 (123 cosponsors) and in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) as S. 3723 (26 cosponsors). This legislation would revise the recently enacted health care law to prevent any pro-abortion subsidies or administrative regulations. Its language is similar to the pro-life amendments that NRLC and other pro-life groups tried to attach to the health care legislation when it was under consideration in Congress.

The Pitts-Coburn bill is intended to correct only the abortion-related problems created by the Obama-backed health care law – a narrower focus than the Smith bill, which would apply a uniform pro-life policy to all federal health programs, both newly created and longstanding.

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 23, 2010