Trivializing Truth Planned Parenthood-Style

     

Paula Gianino, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region, is having a real problem with the effort to achieve legal recognition of personhood for all human beings, born and preborn. She has come to the conclusion that pro-personhood Americans don't believe in "the right to safe, legal abortion."

Of course, she's right, since those of us who understand basic biology and human embryology know that direct abortion kills a living human being. Apparently, Gianino missed that chapter in her Biology 101 class.

She writes that a recently approved informed-consent law in Missouri "is intended to add more distress, costs, burdens and barriers to abortion. It will create unnecessary delays and increase mid-trimester abortions (which has happened since the first waiting period law was passed)."

It's this sort of rhetoric that helps proponents of abortion salve their consciences as they consistently deny that the act of abortion takes the life of a human being. The focus of such hyperbole is on the female, the expectant mother, who is never referenced as an expectant mother because abortion enthusiasts don't admit that a child is growing inside his mother. Gianino wouldn't write that abortion itself distresses and burdens the child in the womb to death, because she doesn't believe it.

Gianino tells the reader, "An embryo and the fetus, for most of its nine months in utero, is not separate from the woman. It is completely dependent on the woman for its growth and development. Anti-choice groups disregard the woman entirely; the woman's life, health and future do not matter. Elevating the status of the fetus over that of the woman is dangerous and dismissive of women, trivializes the issue and strips women of their integrity and humanity."

First and most importantly, the preborn child has to depend on his mom for nutrition and housing, but so does a newborn infant. I never met a newborn who could lead a life of total independence. Why doesn't Gianino give this little fact some thought? Just because the preborn child needs his mother in order to survive shouldn't give anyone license to murder him.

Further, if pro-life Americans didn't care for the expectant mom and want to do everything we could to assist her and her baby throughout her pregnancy and beyond, if she needs it, we wouldn't be living up to our pro-life principles. We care deeply for each of these moms and their children, which is more than proven by the numerous pregnancy resource centers run by pro-lifers worldwide.

This outpouring of unconditional love is also the reason why it's pro-life people who minister to the post-abortive moms. Once she realizes that the actions she took have resulted in her being the mother of a dead child instead of a living, breathing bundle of joy, she can suffer numerous problems and even life-threatening illness. Pro-lifers are there for her because we care.

Stripping women of their integrity and humanity is precisely what happens every time a Planned Parenthood employee or any "reproductive health" specialist, for that matter, ignores the human personhood of the baby and the expectant mom's real needs, focusing instead on getting rid of the "problem pregnancy" by requiring payment for and then committing an abortion.

Integrity begins with honoring the truth, and respect for humanity begins with recognition of motherhood and the fact that two people are involved in that pregnancy—mother and child.

So, if Planned Parenthood's standard euphemisms are correctly translated, you'll see that Gianino tells the truth when she writes, "Anti-choice groups never have worked with us on much-needed prevention programs for family planning or sexual health education. They openly oppose such bills and do nothing to address unintended pregnancy."

If a pro-life American were to sidle up next to someone who promotes the killing of preborn children by denying their personhood, that would be an act of hypocrisy.  I don't know a single pro-life person who's willing to do such a thing. We can't help it that folks like Gianino refuse to recognize motherhood as a blessing but instead promote "reproductive choice" and a woman's freedom to choose to kill her child.

Until such ideologues understand truth for what it really is, we have nothing to talk about.

An "unintended pregnancy" is a baby, and intended or not, that baby was planned by God. Our job is to affirm him and his mom, not betray her trust with falsehood.

No—we won't sit down with folks who ignore undeniable facts. What we will do is keep struggling against the purveyors of death and destruction until every last one of them is out of business.

Contact: Judie Brown

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 14, 2010

Parents, churches have role in abstinence movement

      

True Love Waits is launching a new emphasis to involve parents and churches in teaching abstinence to their youngsters.

True Love Waits is designed not only to encourage youth to commit to a life of sexual purity, but also to help parents and the church walk side-by-side with them to help keep that commitment. The summit is opening on the heels the release of a taxpayer-funded study that reflects positively on abstinence education. (See related story)

Jimmy Hester (TLW)"Walking the path of purity isn't easy for today's students, but it's the path that parents...and church leaders want, and we know it's the path that God desires for them," notes True Love Waits coordinator Jimmy Hester. "We want them to avoid the pain, the consequences that accompany poor decisions that they might make. We just don't often know how to make that happen."

So True Love Waits wants to help parents and the church get involved by guiding them to take advantage of "teachable moments" on biblical purity.

"We've released a new resource called True Love Waits 3.0: A Path of Purity, [which is] a family guide that really does help parents to deal with some practical ideas for reinforcing the message of True Love Waits throughout their student's life and to help them set opportunities for discussions like this," Hester explains.

The pro-abstinence initiative has identified 18 markers throughout a child's life where those discussions can take place, and the program is designed to help parents and church leaders know how to best conduct those talks.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 14, 2010

NIH Expedites Grants for Human Embryo Destroying Research

      

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is expediting the grant process for outside researchers in human embryonic stem-cell (hESC) research, after the D.C. Court of Appeals gave them an emergency stay until September 20 on a judge's order halting their work.

Thanks to the appeals court's intervention, the NIH has decided to lift its suspension of all grants and contracts involving hESCs. However, according to Nature, Michael Gottesman, NIH's deputy director for intramural research, advised those working on eight in-house hESC projects to use "prudence in resuming experiments" given the possibility that the court may decide to reinstate its injunction on the NIH's funding of hESC research.

Sally Rockey, the NIH's Deputy Director for Extramural Research, circulated an email recommending that NIH institute councils should fast-track grants for hESC research.

"Given the delay in their issuance, hESC awards should be given priority including non-competing continuations, and new and renewing competing awards," Rockey said.

Rockey also recommended that NIH councils that were expecting to fund applicants after September 20 resort to an expedited approval process.

U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth for the District of Columbia ruled August 23 that human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research projects funded by the NIH violate an "unambiguous" U.S. statute, the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prohibits federal dollars from going to research that destroys human embryos.

Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction that was temporarily stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals until at least September 20.

The U.S. Justice Department had sought a stay from Lamberth on the order, arguing "irreparable harm" would occur if NIH "is forced to cease all activities pertaining to [hESC] research that is subject to government funding." Lamberth rejected those arguments, but the appeals court said it would re-examine arguments for the preliminary injunction while Lamberth continues to examine the case.

The appeals court is set to make a decision on whether to extend its emergency stay within days after the September 20 deadline. If the court extends the stay, it would last only until Lamberth makes his final judgment in the case, which may end in a permanent injunction on NIH funding hESC research. However, the appeals court may reinstate a stay when the case is appealed to them.

Two scientists involved in adult stem cell research, Drs. James Sherley of Boston and Theresa Deisher of Seattle, filed suit against the Obama Administration on the basis that the NIH was favoring hESC researchers, starving ethical researchers who do not engage in human embryo destroying research such as themselves for grants.

Attorneys with Advocates International (AI), Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C), are representing the plaintiffs against the NIH, and have filed a comprehensive summary judgment motion with Lamberth's court.

"We have asked the federal district court to permanently enjoin the government from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the NIH Guidelines or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells as contemplated in the NIH Guidelines," said chief trial counsel, Thomas Hungar of GD&C.

Hungar added that they have also asked the court to order the federal government to demand NIH grant recipients with remaining unspent funds for hESC research, to return them to the NIH "to fund lawful research."

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 10, 2010

Investigative Report Reveals Scandalous Details of Elaborate Illegal Late-Term Abortion Ring

Asking for criminal charges against recently suspended abortionists

      
      
Operation Rescue has released an investigative report that contains shocking details of an elaborate late-term abortion scheme operated by the notorious abortionist Stephen Chase Brigham that landed one woman in the hospital and resulted in the license suspensions of three abortionists in two states.
 
The report is largely based on 302 pages of documents released to Operation Rescue by the State of New Jersey through an open records act request and includes redacted medical records and interviews with those involved in the botched 22 week abortion that was started in Voorhees, New Jersey, and continued at a secret abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland.
 
The report reveals:
 
• The two-state late-term abortion scheme violated NJ and MD laws.
• Shows discrepancies in the abortionist's story compared to hospital records and other testimony.
• Reveals the horrific ordeal endured by the abortion patient and her family.
• Shows that abortions as late as 36 weeks were being started in NJ and ended in MD.
• Reveals how evasive abortionists described their suspicious "secret abortion clinic" to stunned emergency room staff.
• Details an encounter with the Elkton police where abortionist Brigham fled the scene to avoid questioning.
• Details a police raid on Brigham's Elkton clinic where Utah abortionist Nicola Riley slipped away to warn Brigham's caravan of women evade police by diverting to a Baltimore clinic, where four late-term abortions were completed.
 
Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, will be in Annapolis, Maryland on Wednesday, September 15, at noon for a press conference outside the Maryland Attorney General's office where he and other pro-life leaders will remark on this evolving story concerning Brigham and the three other Maryland abortionists whose licenses were suspended this week.
 
The group of pro-life/pro-family leaders will call for criminal charges against four abortionists in New Jersey and Maryland.

Click here to read the entire report.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 13, 2010

FDA approves abortion pill, ignores reality

With the approval of the latest "morning-after" pill, ellaOne, one group was left out of consideration.

      
 
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved distribution of ellaOne, a drug that aborts fertilized eggs and prevents pregnancy within five days after intimacy. But pharmacist Mike Koelzer of Pharmacists for Life International (PFLI) tells OneNewsNow the FDA first made a mistake in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill that is an abortifacient.

"This one is even further down that road of being a drug that prevents the uterus from accepting a new life," Koelzer contends. "It makes the uterus inhospitable, which then causes that new life to be sloughed off, causing a very early abortion."

In a way, ellaOne acts like the abortion drug RU-486, he explains. But the pharmacist goes on to point out that the newly approved drug has not been fully researched, so the long-term effects or the wreckage that could occur for a woman or girl who uses it repeatedly are unknown.

He further feels the FDA's decision does not take into consideration the pharmacists and doctors who have a pro-life view and want nothing to do with the drugs, so Koelzer notes that those individuals will have to stand up and be counted.

"With prayer, anything's possible. But I think we will have to do this ourselves and [do] our own part to speak on the truth of these drugs," he explains.

During his campaign for office, President Obama made a promise to revise conscience rules to provide some degree of protection for pro-life medical professionals, but the pro-life pharmacist laments that that has yet to happen.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 12, 2010

Telemedicine as Telemassacre

      

The relationship between a patient and physician is one that has long been both protected and sacred. Patients are taught to trust their physicians, for they are learned and should have the patient's best interests in mind 100 percent of the time. A new trend in medicine allows the doctor and patient to converse from afar.

But what happens when that doctor prescribes a dangerous medication and then sends the patient home to fend for herself—alone in her home?

Merriam-Webster defines telemedicine as "the practice of medicine when the doctor and patient are widely separated using two-way voice and visual communication (as by satellite or computer)."

Note that the proper definition references medicine and explains how a doctor and a patient communicate. This definition has nothing whatsoever in common with the latest development in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) practices.

When Operation Rescue refers to "telemed" it is not talking about congenial conversations between physicians and their patients, but rather "remote-controlled dispensing of abortion drugs."

Operation Rescue has been at the forefront of exposing this dastardly practice since day 1, and it was its initial report that explained what this business is really all about.

"A telemed abortion is abortion via a teleconferencing service similar to "Skype." Patients are put in a room where an off-site abortionist appears on a computer monitor and explains the medical abortion procedure to them over an Internet hook-up. After the brief teleconference, the dangerous abortion drug RU486, also known as Mifepristone and Mifeprex, and its counterpart, Misoprostol, are prescribed.

The drugs are then administered to the patient by a nurse or "clinician" who may or may not be licensed. The patient presses a button on a computer screen that opens a box containing the abortion drugs. The patient is never physically examined by the medical doctor prescribing the drugs—or any other, for that matter—and never sees the abortionist again."

The so-called telemed abortions have received a great deal of attention on the Internet, but as usual, Planned Parenthood is slightly ahead of the curve and is doing everything it can to protect its lucrative internet-abortion trade. According to Cecile Richards, president of PPFA, "It's an incredibly important option for women who decide to terminate a pregnancy."

Most recently, Planned Parenthood's Iowa affiliate has gone to court attempting to block Operation Rescue's request for full disclosure of information relating to telemed abortions.

It should be obvious that such a practice, even if it did not involve the direct killing of a preborn child, would be more than slightly dangerous to the second patient who is involved—the expectant mother.

But somehow this fact has not occurred to anyone—including the Iowa Board of Medicine, which according to Operation Rescue, is cozy with Planned Parenthood. So much for the Hippocratic Oath and its tenet, "first do no harm."
The implications of such a practice, in view of the Obama health care reform law, are staggering. The actual rate of aborting preborn children could escalate faster than anyone might imagine. As Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP) reported, Cecile Richards has said that PPFA's goal for telemed abortion is that the practice will go nationwide by the year 2015.

She explained to the Iowa Independent that PPFA is "the single biggest provider of reproductive health care in America and, again, I think because of the new health care law that is only going to grow. We are thankful for the support whether in Cedar Rapids or anywhere else in America."

The irrefutable evidence indicates that telemedicine which, on its own, is an excellent breakthrough for those in society who are ill, is going to take a left turn. Rather than being used to assist the suffering, it is going to be used to inflict suffering and death on the unsuspecting preborn child and his mother.

PPFA is going to employ the practice to create yet another path through which countless numbers of preborn children will be chemically massacred as "clinicians" collect their fees while ignoring the tragic consequences, which are legion and very well documented.

This "business as usual' attitude among so-called reproductive health professionals should give every American pause. Reproduction used to occur in factories; health used to deal specifically with the well-being of individuals. Today's perspective, however, is quite different.

The current reproductive health industry specializes in debilitation, deception and death, and we must speak up if we are to protect both women and children from this travesty. 

Contact: Judie Brown

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 13, 2010 

‘Unwanted child’ strategy used to promote abortion

      

The foundation Vida en Misericorida in Colombia has criticized feminist Florence Thomas for justifying abortion in order to prevent "unwanted children." The organization explained that using the term is a strategy feminists use to promote the killing of the unborn and to reap economic benefits.

John Ferney Valencia of Vida en Misericordia criticized Thomas for saying that no "unwanted child" should be born because only the love of a mother "humanizes" the fetus.

Thomas added that if women are allowed to abort when "they don't want their children," a society with more "wanted children" would be achieved, because by "liberating them" from this supposed burden, women will have a better experience of motherhood.

Ferney Valencia noted that the strategy of radical feminists is to spread the idea that no child must be unwanted. However, he continued, this strategy has been employed to promote abortion as the "liberation" of women, as poverty and the guilt of being a burden have been blamed on the unborn.

The radical feminism embraced by Florence Thomas benefits from this, he said, and this strategy provides the "perfect cover for promoting abortion without revealing the birth control that lies behind it."

"Sadly when Florence suggests that only 'wanted children' be born, she is promoting the death of the children of the poor and a culture that scorns life, as can be seen in France, where sterility is rampant and people prefer to spend millions on their pets rather than 'ruining' their lives with an uncomfortable child.

For this reason, radical gender feminism will have to be accountable to society and ask for forgiveness," he said.

Source: CNA
Date Published: September 13, 2010

Battered Chinese Forced-Abortion Protester Released from Jail

      
  
Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese lawyer who has withstood abuse and imprisonment after drawing attention to his country's coercive one-child policy, has been freed from prison - but has not escaped from the government's iron fist.

Chinese officials have installed surveillance equipment around the home and village of Guangcheng, who published stories of women's forced abortions and sterilizations at the hands of the government. As a consequence he was imprisoned for four years and three months on charges of "willfully damaging property" and "organizing a mob to disturb traffic."

The Washington Post reported Friday that Guangcheng's wife, who had spoken of her husband's impending release Wednesday, could no longer be reached as the family's telephones had been shut off, according to relatives. Plainclothes police scuffled with and chased off Associated Press reporters who attempted to enter Chen's village Thursday.

Neighbors, declining to be identified or associated with Chen for fear of retribution from the government, told the Post that the activist was witnessed being brought home early in the morning by plainclothes officials.

A family friend told the Post that Chen's health had been seriously damaged by his stay in prison, where he endured beatings from other prisoners and suffered chronically severe diarrhea, and that he had wept when he was reunited with his family.

Lawyer Xu Zhiyong told the news service that he hoped Chen's spirit was not broken by the experience. "He did so much good for the villagers. I hope he will be able to adhere to those original principles and beliefs he had," he said. Xu was among several lawyers who had tried to help defend Chen in his 2006 trial, but were kidnapped by police before the end of the trial.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, a longtime critic of China's coercive population control techniques, called Guangcheng's release "good news but only a step in the right direction." 
  
"The fact that Chen remains under house arrest, imprisoned in his own home, and is reportedly in need of urgent medical attention, must not be ignored," said Smith, a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in a press release Friday. "I appeal to the Chinese government to let Chen move about freely and ensure that he has access to the care he needs."

Smith also decried the government's abusive treatment of Chen, saying it "corresponds to the continuing violence of the one-child policy" Chen risked a great deal to expose, and urged President Obama to defund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) "until it ends its shameless complicity with China's abusive population control program."

Despite an on-the-ground investigation last year that confirmed UNFPA's complicity in China's coercive policies, the Obama administration resumed U.S. funding for the organization shortly after taking office and without commenting on the unanimous conclusion of guilt from private and federal investigative reports.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 10, 2010

Stem-cell funding reinstated ... for now

      

An appeals court has overturned a lower court's decision to halt federal funding of research on human embryos.
 
The court of appeals has put a temporary, administrative halt on Federal Judge Royce Lamberth's decision to end funding for the research while an emergency appeal from the government is considered. The Justice Department asked that the injunction be lifted as the decision is appealed, arguing the funding freeze was causing "irreparable" harm to researchers, the federal government, and the patients hoping for cures.

"[It's] something the circuit court routinely does, and as the court itself said in the order, it does not signal any decision about the merits of the case either way," explains Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Steven H. Aden. "We remain confident that when the circuit court has heard the voluminous evidence against the legality of experimentation on human embryos that it will agree with Judge Lamberth and put a stop to it."

He adds that the case will continue in the lower court, no matter which way the decision goes.

"We have filed extensive documentation of the position taken by our adult stem-cell researchers that embryonic stem-cell research is illegal, unethical, and unnecessary, given the incredible promise held by the burgeoning adult stem-cell research area," the ADF attorney explains.

The question at hand is whether the Obama administration violated federal law, which bars tax dollars for embryonic stem-cell research that results in killing a human embryo.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 10, 2010

Clueless Oregon Health Officials Lament High Suicide Rate–While State Permits Suicide Facilitation

      

Oregon's suicide rate is going through the roof.  Government health officials are suitably alarmed. From the Oregon Health Authority (that sounds vaguely totalitarian, doesn't it?) press release:

Oregon's suicide rate is 35 percent higher than the national average. The rate is 15.2 suicides per 100,000 people compared to the national rate of 11.3 per 100,000. After decreasing in the 1990s, suicide rates have been increasing significantly since 2000, according to a new report, "Suicides in Oregon: Trends and Risk Factors," from Oregon Public Health. The report also details recommendations to prevent the number of suicides in Oregon. "Suicide is one of the most persistent yet preventable public health problems. It is the leading cause of death from injuries – more than even from car crashes. Each year 550 people in Oregon die from suicide and 1,800 people are hospitalized for non-fatal attempts," said Lisa Millet, MPH, principal investigator, and manager of the Injury Prevention and Epidemiology Section, Oregon Public Health.

That is bad, but these are phony statistics that under count the actual toll by about 10% since they don't include assisted suicides–which have been redefined legally in Oregon as not suicide.  But they are suicides no matter what they are called and whether or not they are counted as such by the state.  I think that matters.

And note the absence of mention of assisted suicide in methods for prevention:

The report also contained recommendations to reduce the number of suicides, including universal depression screening by health care providers, particularly for youth, veterans and seniors; expanded prevention efforts across all ages focusing on men in particular; complete statewide implementation of comprehensive suicide prevention in high schools; identification of appropriate approaches that engage and enable men to identify depression as a manageable condition; and the promotion of community,
business, family and individual tools to support successful self management. Also families and individuals should remove guns from homes when a family member is suicidal. Health care providers should counsel family members and individuals at high risk for suicide to remove guns from their homes.

How about also removing lethal prescriptions?

Here's something that should be looked into by mental health professionals: When a state has a pro suicide policy for some people, does it becomes harder to tell other suicidal people that suicide is not the answer? I don't see how it wouldn't.  Maybe one helpful change that could improve Oregon's lamentable suicide rate would be for its leaders to begin speaking out against assisted suicide–even if it remains legal.  That would at least put some consistency into official efforts at suicide prevention.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 10, 2010

Adult Stem Cell Scientists Ask Federal District Judge for a Summary Declaratory Judgment and a Permanent Injunction Enjoining Unlawful Federal Funding of Research Involving the Destruction of Living Human Embryos

      
Advocates International (AI), part of the public interest legal team along with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C) who brought the case before the court more than a year ago, announced this evening that their clients have now filed a comprehensive summary judgment motion in the federal district court, including evidentiary declarations by plaintiffs Dr. James Sherley and Theresa Deisher along with an attorney's declaration providing the administrative record, asking Chief Judge Royce Lamberth based upon the undisputed evidence in the case to enter a final declaratory judgment declaring invalid the government's controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued on July 7, 2009 on the grounds that these guidelines violate federal law expressly barring such funding and were in any event improperly promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

AI's General Counsel, Sam Casey, said that "the summary judgment motion we have filed today demonstrates that plaintiffs are entitled to entry of summary judgment in their favor on their request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research ("NIH Guidelines"), 74 Fed. Reg. 32170 (July 7, 2009), because the NIH Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3280-81, § 509(a), and are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and were promulgated without observance of procedures required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."  Plaintiff's chief trial counsel, GD&C's Thomas Hungar, added: "We have asked the federal district court to permanently enjoin the government from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the NIH Guidelines or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells as contemplated in the NIH Guidelines. We have also asked the Court to order the government to immediately inform any NIH grant recipients in possession or control of federal funds granted under the Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research that any remaining and unspent NIH-granted funds may not be spent on human embryonic stem cell research but must be returned to NIH to fund lawful research."

Earlier in the week Judge Lamberth, in his 2-page Order, denied the government's request for an emergency stay pending the government's appeal of the court's August 23rd decision and preliminary injunction enjoining unlawful federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."  Earlier today the federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a short "administrative stay" order to give it time to review the government's request for the emergency stay that the federal district court has already denied.  As the Court of Appeal's Order states: "The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion."

Plaintiffs will be filing their opposition to the government's emergency stay request next Tuesday and a ruling from the Court of Appeals on the government's request for an emergency stay would most likely issue sometime during the week of September 20. Click here for a copy of Americans for Ethical Stem Cell Research's press release responding to the "administrative stay" order issued today by the Court of Appeals.

The district court's opinions issuing the preliminary injunction and denying the government's request for a stay of that injunction pending its appeal followed the decision by the United States Court of Appeals earlier this summer finding that doctors doing adult stem cell research have 'competitive standing' to sue. Therefore, the court reinstated the doctors' federal lawsuit, filed last summer that seeks to preliminarily enjoin and ultimately overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the NIH issued on July 7, 2009. 

Since 1996, in what has been popularly known as its Dickey-Wicker Amendment to each HHS Appropriations Bill, Congress has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

According to GD&C's Thomas G. Hungar: "We are gratified by the federal district court's conclusion that any further funding of human embryonic stem cell research under the NIH guidelines would 'flout the will of Congress.'  As the Court recognized, 'the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of [such] research,' so that taxpayer funds can be preserved for more productive research that will actually yield cures, such as 'activities related solely to adult or induced pluripotent stem cell research.'"
 
The plaintiffs contend that the NIH guidelines violate the congressional ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos."  In addition, the plaintiffs also allege that the NIH guidelines were invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research. 

President Obama, in his March 11, 2009 Executive Order announcing his Administration's policy stated he was determined to fund ethically "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research... to the extent permitted by law". Sadly, said AI's Casey, "these guidelines while claiming to 'implement' the President's directions, failed his own test because they are not only unlawful, they are based upon an ethically irresponsible misunderstanding of available scientific evidence." 

As acknowledged by Judge Lamberth in his Order earlier this week, "the length of time this preliminary injunction will be in place should be limited" because, as confirmed by plaintiffs' legal counsel Hungar and Casey, "plaintiffs are hopeful that the federal district court will favorably rule on our just filed motion for summary judgment and issue its permanent injunction before the end of the year."

Contact: Samuel B. Casey

Source: Advocates International
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Men and Abortion: the Topic that Won't Go Away

      

Except to the most ideologically-driven pro-abortionist, it shouldn't be at all surprising that abortion, an act which takes the life of one individual and forever alters the lives of many others, would be anything but simple. Endlessly complicated, the real question is which aspect will demand attention next.

Some surface briefly, then "disappear," only to reappear. A classic example is the capacity of the unborn child to experience pain at 20 weeks, a truth demonstrated over and over again which was brought back to national attention once again this year when Nebraska passed its historic "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."

Another is inevitably Men and Abortion--how could it be otherwise? A friend emailed me a link to story in a St. Louis weekly which, while hard on pro-life outreach to men, included that phase so it could also discuss "pro-choice" outreach to men.

In an overly cutesy way, the writer says, "Men have long taken the back seat in the national conversation about abortion, but now, even if they're not driving it, they've at least graduated to passenger-seat status." That's a stretch. Men are still, at best, in the back seat. But at least they are being allowed in the car.

Pro-abortionists, of course, see outreach such as Project Joseph as little more than recruitment tools for the pro-life Movement. They see their job as reassuring the men that the decision to end the child's existence was best for all--especially them.

Pro-lifers see abortion in a fundamentally different way. They understand that both men and women have layers of unresolved quilt and remorse that it can't just be bottled up. There is a reason that research continues to show an aftermath of post-abortion physical and emotional complications.

An unintentionally revealing comment came early in the piece ("Abortion Activists have a new target: men "): "Where pro-choicers see 50 million men relieved of the burden of caring for a child they hadn't planned for, pro-lifers see the 50 million Father's Day cards those children will never send."

"Relieved of the burden": what an immensely revealing observation. The whole point of so many post-abortion stories told by men is that they would give anything to have not the "burden" of caring for the child they once abandoned but the privilege.

Contact: Dave Andrusko

Source: NRLC
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Four Abortionists Suspended in Two States Yesterday

Despite action to protect the public, over a dozen dangerous abortion mills run by suspended abortionists remain open

      
 
Medical boards in New Jersey and Maryland took action yesterday to insure that four abortionists halted operations after declaring that they pose a danger to the public.

The New Jersey Medical Board acted Wednesday to suspend the medical license of the notorious abortionist Stephen Chase Brigham after an investigation into a botched abortion discovered that he was starting late-term abortions in New Jersey then leading the women across state lines to Maryland where he and his associates would complete the abortions, some as late as 35 weeks gestation.

New Jersey is the last state in which Brigham maintained an active medical license. He has been banned from the practice of medicine in Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, and California. He was never licensed to practice in Maryland, a state that ordered him to cease and desist from the unlicensed practice of medicine in that state on August 25, 2010.

A botched abortion on August 13, 2010, exposed Brigham's illegal late-term abortion racket, which included two other abortionists, Nicola Riley of Utah and George Shepard of Delaware.

Maryland authorities issued suspension orders for Riley and Shepard on August 31, 2010. A hearing was held yesterday in which evidence against the two was to be heard. Neither abortionist attended the hearing. Shepard's suspension was upheld since his attorneys did not show up for the hearing. However, Riley's attorneys were granted a continuance and have pledged to fight to restore Riley's license. Meanwhile, her suspension remains in effect.

In another case, Maryland abortionist Romeo Ferrer's medical license was suspended based on a four-year old abortion death complaint.

On February 3, 2006, a 21-year old African American woman went to Gynecare Center for a second trimester dilation and evacuation abortion by Romeo Ferrer. The patient was overdosed on pain-killing narcotics. She was not properly monitored and appropriate emergency protocols were not followed. This negligence resulted in the patient's death.

At a disciplinary hearing in June, the Maryland State Board of Physicians failed to act to suspend his license, but yesterday, the Board issued a suspension order that stated, "Based on the foregoing facts, the Board concludes that the public health, safety or welfare require emergency action in this case."

Pro-life groups including Operation Rescue, Defend Life, and Pro-Life Unity, have publicly demanded Board action against Ferrer and have worked to bring him to justice, and consider yesterday's suspension a partial victory.

Calls placed today to Brigham's 15 abortion clinics and Ferrer's Severna Park, Maryland, mill show that all locations remain operating and taking abortion patients with other abortionists at the helm.

"While we applaud the suspensions of the four abortionists, is it shocking to learn that their dangerous abortion businesses continue to operate," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "In the interest of public safety, we implore the medical boards to close these clinics before more women are maimed or killed." 


Click here for the video.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Feminist groups convince Mexican officials to reduce punishment for infanticide

      

Feminist groups and leaders have pressured officials in the Mexican state of Guanajuato to drastically reduce the punishment for infanticide.

For weeks, feminist organizations such as Las Libres confused the public by claiming that six women in Guanajuato, who were in prison for killing their babies, were in fact in prison for abortion.

After being dismissed by local officials and U.N. delegates, the feminists changed their strategy to seeking a reduction in punishment for women who kill their children during the first hours following birth. Such a crime, punishable in the past by 35 years in prison, will now be punishable be only three to 10 years due to a controversial reform of the state's civil code.

Ivette Laviada, president of the Pro-Yucatan Network, and Patricia Lopez Mancera, director of the Center for Women's Studies, said the efforts by feminists to pressure officials into making infanticide a right "will not resonate with other entities in the country."

They expressed their deep concern that a mother attempting to kill her newborn within the first 24 hours after birth would no longer be considered a serious crime.  Infanticide should never be considered "normal," they said.

Source: CNA
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Appeals court suspends embryonic stem cell research ban during Obama’s appeal

     

President Barack Obama's administration can fund embryonic stem-cell research while it appeals a decision banning government support for any activity using cells taken from human embryos, an appeals court said.

The US Court of Appeals in Washington today put on hold a ruling by District Judge Royce Lamberth during its review of the ban. The Justice Dept. argued that the judge's decision would cause irreparable harm to researchers, taxpayers and scientific progress.

Lifting the ban allows the government to temporarily continue funneling tens of millions of dollars to scientists seeking cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, spinal cord injuries, and genetic conditions. Embryonic stem cells can grow into any kind of tissue and may have the potential to accelerate a range of research.

"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for stay and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion," the appeals court wrote in its decision. 

Opponents of the stem-cell funding have until Sept. 14 to file a response, and the US can submit a response on Sept. 20, the appeals court said.

Lamberth on Aug. 23 issued an order temporarily stopping the Health and Human Services Dept. and the National Institutes of Health from funding or conducting the studies. On Sept. 7, Lamberth denied a US request to reconsider his ruling.

The judge cited the still-in-force 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment in his ruling, saying that Congress prohibited funding any research in which a human embryo was destroyed. By implication, that included all stem-cell research, Lamberth said.

"A stay would flout the will of Congress, as this court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment," Lamberth wrote on Sept. 7. "Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This court is not free to do so."

In March 2009, Obama reversed an executive order of former President George W. Bush to allow research on cells derived from embryos that would otherwise be disposed of after in vitro fertilization procedures.

Under the Bush order, Dickey-Wicker was interpreted to allow research on lines of stem cells that already had been created using human embryos. In his August 2001 executive order, Bush limited federal funding for such research to about 20 existing lines of embryonic cells and banned federal funding on lines created after that time.
Grants Stymied

In his Aug. 23 ruling, Lamberth said the administration was attempting to separate the derivation of the embryonic stem cells from research on them, and "the two cannot be separated."

Lamberth's order will prevent the National Institutes of Health from acting on grant applications that have been reviewed, and from considering dozens of other applications that are in the review process, the U.S. wrote in a Sept. 8 appeal. It may take as long as eight months to reinitiate the review process for grant applications, the U.S. said.

"Disruption of ongoing research will result in irreparable setbacks and, in many cases, may destroy a project altogether," attorneys for the U.S. wrote.

The case is Sherley v. Sebelius, 10-5287, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

Contact: Jill Stanek

Source: JillStanek.com
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Assisted Suicide Advocates Don’t Like Straying From “Euthanasia Land” Script

      

The issue of euthanasia, if it is to be properly considered, must be looked at in the societal context in which doctor prescribed death would be carried out.  Indeed, issues such as  elder abuse, the failures of health care systems, the continuing problem of inadequate palliative care, the isolation of people who are seriously ill or living with disabilities, etc., could not be more relevant to the societal conversation regarding the wisdom of legalizing assisted suicide.

But euthanasia activists don't want to have that conversation. Instead, they wish to talk about their agenda as if we all live in what I call Euthanasia Land; a place where birds sing happy songs, every patient receives optimal care, every family is loving, every patient is fully autonomous and none are really depressed, and the idea of "abuses" can be banished by "guidelines," notions as ridiculous as the moon being made of green cheese.

I bring this up because hearings are being held in Montreal about whether Quebec and/or Canada should legalize euthanasia.  Apparently, witnesses are not keeping to the Euthanasia Land script, and the "death with dignity" advocates are not amused.  From the story:

Quebec's public hearings into assisted suicide continued in Montreal Wednesday, with an appearance by the president of the Right to Die With Dignity Association, among others. Hélène Bolduc told the all-party panel of MNAs leading the hearing that the debate is being sidetracked by calls for better palliative care, more hospital beds and better pain management.

Sidetracked?  Good grief. Nothing could be more germane.  And she betrays an antipathy toward proper hospice and end of life care I have noticed before among some euthanasia advocates:

"I don't want to be against palliative care," Bolduc said. "But I have to say: there is a limit. It's not because I don't believe in this type of care, but palliative care shouldn't be practised with dogged determination." She likened the palliative care community to the church, with doctors acting as "apostles of redemption." Bolduc said she's seen palliative care units in which health professionals try to delay an individual's death as long as possible for the sake of the family, who want to see the patient resigned and serene. But they're not serene, Bolduc said; they're simply drugged to ease the pain.

This is nonsense. Hospices don't try to extend patient lives, but aim at permitting a peaceful natural death.  And if the point is to prevent suffering, being unconscious at the end accomplishes that goal.

In the end, alleviating suffering isn't the point.  What is really going on is the energetic pursuit of a nihilistic, pro suicide ideology:

The commission also heard from Sara Raphals, 89, a retired school teacher and cancer survivor. Raphals told the panel that there is little dignity in the way the elderly are treated and that suicide should be a basic human right.

That's the real issue that the euthanasia movement raises. If suicide is a basic human right–rights apply to everyone, right?–then anybody and everybody be able to go to a clinic to be killed with drug overdoses.  This is the debate we should be having because it is the intellectually honest discussion.  The false premise of Euthanasia Land is just a diversion to take our eyes off the actual long term agenda.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Abortionist corrupts others, investigation grows

      

The investigation of abortionist Stephen Chase Brigham has expanded and now includes at least two other abortionists.
 
The probe, which began in Maryland, now involves four states and two more abortionists -- George Shepard, Jr. of Delaware, and Nicola I. Riley of Utah.

"The medical board in Maryland suspended the medical licenses of two out-of-state abortionists who had been helping abortionist Brigham operate illegally inside the state of Maryland," Cheryl Sullinger, spokesperson for Operation Rescue, tells of the latest development.

She says the recent suspensions stem from a botched abortion in which a woman nearly lost her life. Instead of calling an ambulance, Brigham put the semiconscious, bleeding woman into the back of a rented Chevrolet Malibu and drove her to a nearby emergency room.

The state issued a cease-and-desist order to him on August 25, ordering him to stop performing abortions because he is not licensed in Maryland. Meanwhile, he owns 15 abortion clinics in four states and is licensed in New Jersey.

"In that state, he would start late-term abortions, which were illegal in New Jersey," Sullinger reports. "Then he would caravan the women over to Maryland, where he would fly in an abortionist from Utah to actually finish the process."

Police recently raided Brigham's clinics in Elkton, Maryland, and found the remains of 35 late-term babies. Operation Rescue is calling for a criminal investigation of Brigham and full accountability under the law.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Black Leaders Call for Pro-Life Economic Recovery

      

Dr. Alveda King, Director of African American Outreach for Priests or Life and Founder of King for America, today called on the President and Congress to bear in mind civil rights and the life issue when trying to fix the economy.

"Any meaningful economic recovery act undertaken by Congress must strive for a pro-life economic recovery," said Dr. King. "We are calling for sensible and reasonable acts that will support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every American. These acts would include procreative reproductive health/choice efforts."

"Films like Maafa21 and Blood Money provide significant research that support our urgent plea to our governing officials," said Alveda.

"For decades many of our officials have governed as though there are not moral consequences to their economic policies. That day is done," said Catherine Davis of the "Toomanyaborted.com" Campaign.

"In this dismal economy, with seemingly endless unemployment, loss of homes, hope and American dreams, we are seeing millions and millions of our tax dollars going to fund organizations whose main purpose is to kill America's children," said Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union. "We urge an immediate end to all abortion funding with taxpayer money. Let's use our hard earned tax dollars to renew the spirit of our nation by helping American's live -- not die!" concluded Gardner. 

Pastor Dean Nelson of the Network of Politically Active Christians added, "lawmakers who focus on the economy must ensure that their actions encourage the birth and not the termination of the next generation who will have to pay for all the debt we are now incurring."

Dr. King concluded: "In his book GOOD RETURNS: MAKING MONEY BY MORALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTING, George Schwartz encourages us to put our money where our values are. This means we won't invest in companies who fund abortions or euthanasia or the destruction of families. How can we be forced to invest our taxes into government funded abortion? How can the dream survive if we murder our children?

"We are one human race, and we do not live by bread alone, and definitely not by aborting our children. For me this all translates not into the old model of 'guns or butter,' but now is defined in the 21st century by this question: Do we invest in abortions or diapers?"

Contact: Day Gardner

Source: National Black Pro-Life Union
Date Published: September 9, 2010

Eugenics: The Real Reason for Legalized Abortion

      
For almost 40 years, we've been told that the legalization of abortion was about "reproductive freedom" and "women's rights" and "choice."  Now, an explosive new documentary is exposing this rhetoric as nothing more than marketing hype designed to conceal a nasty hidden agenda.  
 
With a mountain of documentation, Maafa 21, is proving to audiences all across America that the real motivation behind the legalization of abortion was eugenics and racial genocide.  In just over two hours, the documentary shows that the legalization of abortion was part of a campaign that had been created, promoted, and financed by a small cartel of ultra-wealthy elitists.  
 
Most frightening of all, Maafa 21 shows that this effort continues today with massive financial and political backing from a new generation of ultra-wealthy elitists.
 
Viewers are also stunned to learn that it was the American eugenics movement that gave rise to the Nazi effort to create "racial purity" and that this effort was in large measure funded with dollars from American corporations.  They also learn that the first anti-abortion organizations in America were radical civil-rights groups of the 1960s whose leaders had seen that eugenics and black genocide were the driving forces behind the call for legalized abortion.  
 
Some people are also surprised to learn about the numerous links among America's number one abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, its founder Margaret Sanger, and the American eugenics movement.  They learn that Sanger gave a speech to a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and was then invited back to speak to 12 "similar groups," as she wrote in her autobiography.
 
They learn that Planned Parenthood was an integral part of the sterilization boards that operated in more than 30 states.  They learn that Sanger once tried to merge Planned Parenthood with the American Eugenics Society.            
 
The revelations go on and on and each one is fully documented.
 
The reality is that Maafa 21 is a primer on power, corruption and betrayal.  Ironically, within days after the first edition of Maafa 21 was released, U.S Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being interviewed by a reporter for The New York Times and made the following statement when asked about Roe vs. Wade – the decision that legalized abortion: "Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
 
Here is the most radical abortion proponent that's ever been on the Supreme Court openly conceding that the arguments made in Maafa 21 are absolutely accurate.  She is admitting that the legalization of abortion was not about women's rights or reproductive freedom; it was about eliminating certain groups of people.  In other words, it was about eugenics.
 
More than 20,000 copies of Maafa 21 have already been distributed on DVD, and it is being shown in theaters, churches, college campuses and conventions across the country.  It has even been shown twice in the Congressional Visitors Center in Washington, DC.  Audience reactions run the gamut from sadness to shock to rage.  
 
There is no disputing that the content of Maafa 21 can be a little overwhelming, but it "connects the dots" in a way that makes it clear why the abortion holocaust is happening.  
 
Legalized abortion has killed 50 million unborn children so far in America and it kills over 3,000 more every day.  At least now, people will no longer be able to deceive themselves into thinking that this is happening for one reason when, in reality, it is happening for a totally different and totally unrelated reason.
 
In the final analysis, Maafa 21 does what all good documentaries do: It exposes what the media have been hiding and tells you what the political establishment doesn't want you to know.  To learn more, go to Maafa21.com.  

Contact: Mark Crutcher

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 4, 2010

Abortion Official Charged with Faking Bomb Scare at Own Clinic

       

An abortion facility director has been accused of misleading police after telling authorities that she had found a bomb at her facility, according to federal court papers.

Linda Meek, 63, whose is no longer employed by Reproductive Services of Tulsa, will face a federal lawsuit for intentionally giving "false and misleading information" resulting in a bomb scare at the facility on August 13. Reports did not specify the circumstances behind the end of Meek's employment at the abortion mill.

The police report said that an unnamed employee had reported seeing a box she did not recognize as facility waste in a trashcan. After the building was evacuated, Tulsa Police Department bomb technician examined the package, and discovered no explosive device.

Tulsa Police Officer Leland Ashley told the Tulsa World that reports that the employee claimed to hear a ticking sound coming from the package were unconfirmed.

The facility had been the site of an actual bombing and other attacks in 1997.

Neither Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Fries nor Meek's attorney, Allen Smallwood, would tell the World what Meek's suspected motivation was in initiating the false bomb scare.

Meek is being charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and according to officials could face as many as five years in prison if found guilty.  She is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday.

Pro-life Republican state Representative and family practice physician Mike Ritze told the Associated Press (AP) that the bomb scare was part of a growing trend among abortion activists to paint opponents as dangerous.

"Either she did it maliciously to harm the opposition or is trying to draw attention away from the abortion industry," said Ritze.

Tony Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, also told the AP that "there was an apparent rush to judgment" that pro-lifers were to blame for the incident. "We are opposed to violence. We're opposed to the violence that occurs on a daily basis inside abortion facilities. We are likewise opposed to any violence being directed toward those facilities," he said.

Planned Parenthood of Oklahoma City declined to discuss the incident but told the news service that, in the AP's words, it wasn't the "policy" of pro-abort activists to portray pro-lifers as dangerous.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 8, 2010

Judge to Obama administration: Yes, I meant it, stop tax-paid embryo research Loved this headline, as if judges are supposed to rule on the basis of liking or disliking cases at hand… Yesterday Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Federal District Court

      

Loved this headline, as if judges are supposed to rule on the basis of liking or disliking cases at hand…

Yesterday Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Obama administration's emergency request to lift his August 23 temporary injunction against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Lamberth based his decision on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which bans such funding.

Obama's lawyers argued Lamberth's decision would do irreparable harm to research already underway and would also stop research funding authorized under the Bush administration of embryonic stem cell lines already created.

     

Lamberth, pictured, was quite snippy, writing:

Defendants are incorrect about much of their "parade of horribles" that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs agree that this Court's order does not even address the Bush administration guidelines… The prior guidelines, of course, allowed research only on existing stem cell lines, foreclosing additional destruction of embryos.

Plaintiffs also agree that projects previously awarded and funded are not affected by this Court's order….

Additionally, since plaintiffs anticipate filing their motion for summary judgment by September 10…  the length of time this preliminary injunction will be in place should be limited.

In this Court's view, a stay would flout the will of Congress, as this Court understands what Congress has enacted in the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so.

Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos. It is well-established that "[i]t is in the public interest for courts to carry out the will of Congress and for an agency to implement properly the statute it administers." Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Shalala….

NIH funds research projects this way, as described by Science magazine:

When NIH disburses a grant, it doesn't hand the money over to the researcher's institution. Instead, the Treasury has a special account that the institution draws down to pay an investigator's research project expenses. 

Technically, the money is held by the Treasury Dept. and is paid out gradually over the year.

So while NIH has begun funding some escr projects, if Lamberth's ruling stands, federal funding will stop midstream. This means, according to the New York Times:

But if the ruling is upheld, the government will be forced to suspend $54 million in financing for 22 scientific projects by the end of September. An additional 60 projects are threatened….

In 2009, the health institutes spent $143 million to underwrite more than 330 scientific projects using human embryonic stem cells, and it estimated that it would spend another $137 million in this fiscal year, which ends in September.

Contact: Jill Stanek

Source: JillStanek.com
Date Published: September 8, 2010

Pro-Life Action League Returns to Lake Zurich, Mundelein for Truth Day Protest

Group Will Line Streets with Graphic Abortion Images September 15

      

Next week, the Pro-Life Action League will return to Lake Zurich and Mundelein, Ill. with graphic abortion images for its September "Face the Truth" Day.

"These two sites have historically been very opposed to facing the truth about abortion," said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "These signs are disturbing to passers by, but they should be -- they expose the gruesome reality of abortion and its very real human cost."

Tensions with Lake Zurich ran high after this year's July 15 Face the Truth Day when the city's police chief said the Pro-Life Action League would have to meet with them before another demonstration. The chief claimed the demonstrators deliberately disrupted traffic. In 2006, Mundelein police shut down the Truth Tour claiming that the League needed a permit to demonstrate. 

However, the League has a long history of cooperating with police and conducting peaceful, well-organized public protests. Before every Face the Truth demonstration, attorneys for the Pro-Life Acton League send a letter to the local police, as a courtesy, informing them about the upcoming demonstration. 

"We hope and expect that both Lake Zurich and Mundelein will respect our First Amendment rights to deploy our signs and show the public the reality of abortion," said Scheidler.

The Truth Day will take place:
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 
- 9:00-10:30 a.m. at Rand Road (Route 12) & Main Street (Route 22) in Lake Zurich
- 11:30-1:00 p.m. at Townline Road (Route 60) & Lake Street (Route 45) in Mundelein

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Pro-Life Action League
Date Published: September 8, 2010

Editorial promoting telemed abortions in Iowa admits they’re currently being done illegally

     

In a September 5 editorial promoting the legalization of RU-486 telemed abortions, the Des Moines Register editorial board had to admit Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is currently committing them illegally. Read carefully:

… Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has used telemedicine as it was intended: to expand access to legal health services in rural Iowa. The challenge of that smart approach should prompt state leaders to update laws and policies – to give Iowans increased access to health care, including abortion, through the use of technology.

Now it's up to Iowa leaders to:

- Re-evaluate outdated abortion laws in this state.

The law requiring physicians to perform abortions made sense when all abortions were surgical procedures. But that requirement is called into question now that women are increasingly choosing to take a drug….

Iowa should take a step forward in fostering 21st century medicine – including using it to give women access to a legal medical procedure.

In touting the need for telemed abortions in rural areas, the editorial board did not present a solution for aborting mothers who encounter emergencies in rural areas.

Instead the editorial board ridiculously relied on unsubstantiated data from the fox guarding the hen house to say the hens are safe:

PP says that of the 1,500 women who have used telemedicine for abortions over the past 2 years, none has reported complications.

Yes, let's take the word of the megaabortion industry committing these abortions to say all is well.

Are you really that gullible, Des Moines Register? Not one complication of 1,500 telemed abortions committed over the course of 2 years? Not one? Planned Parenthood Federation lists 5 possible complications, which I'm copying and pasting:

- an allergic reaction to either of the pills
- incomplete abortion – part of the pregnancy is left inside the uterus
  (To clarify, by "part of the pregnancy… left inside the uterus," PP means not to say "part of the baby.")
- infection
- undetected ectopic pregnancy
- very heavy bleeding

So out of 1,500 abortions there has not been one allergic reaction, not one infection, not one ectopic pregnancy found after the fact, and not one case of heavy bleeding? Wow.

I skipped the complication of an "incomplete abortion" because the PP Federation elsewhere states:

Complete abortion will occur in 96–97 percent of women who choose mifepristone. In the small percentage of cases that medication abortion fails, other abortion procedures are required to end the pregnancies.

This means PP of the Heartland, which should have encountered 45-60 incomplete abortions out of 1,500 RU-486 telemed abortions, in actuality encountered not one? Wow again. That's amazing.

Because if there were any complications or need for surgical abortions in the event of an RU-486 fail, again the question for mothers in rural areas would be, where to go?

Had the Des Moines Register editorial board written this opinion piece for a Journalism 101 class, it would have gotten an F for not checking the obviously biased source of a pretty incredible and unsubstantiated statistic.

And the board had the nerve to call pro-lifers "backward."

Contact: Jill Stanek

Source: JillStanek.com
Date Published: September 8, 2010

The Coming Battle Over the Dickey Amendment

      

The Dickey Amendment forbids federal funding of destructive embryo research. That is, it doesn't prohibit the research, it just doesn't permit the federal government to pay for it.

Recently, President Obama's ESCR funding policy was blocked by a federal judge because it violated Dickey. The Obama Administration sought a stay, but no go. From the story:

A federal judge Tuesday rejected the Obama administration's request to stay his recently imposed injunction against use of public funds in embryonic stem-cell research. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said he could not agree to delay his injunction while the case is appealed. "Defendants (the government) are incorrect about much of their 'parade of horribles' that will supposedly result from this Court's preliminary injunction," Lamberth wrote in his court order. The "horribles" he referred to are an extensive list of research projects outlined by the National Institutes of Health that will have to be shelved if a stay is not granted. "Congress has mandated that the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos," Lamberth said "In this court's view a stay would flout the will of Congress as this Court understands what Congress has enacted…Congress remains perfectly free to amend or revise the statute. This Court is not free to do so," Lamberth concluded.

This means that unless the government can get an emergency stay on appeal, federal funding of ESCR will grind to a halt. If that happens, expect the Congress to try and move The Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2009" (HR 4808),  that would specifically authorize federal funding of ESCR, and thereby get around Dickey.

While I wouldn't like it, I  think that provision alone would probably pass in the current Congress.  But there is a hitch that raises the stakes even higher: As I reported here, the bill also specifically authorizes the federal funding of human cloning research. And that is a line in the sand we cannot allow to be crossed.  So, if H R 4808 is not amended, expect a concerted effort in the Congress to block it.  It will be an interesting Fall.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 7, 2010

Four-State Abortion Empire Crumbles Following Botched Abortion

      

The empire of a troubled New Jersey abortionist who headed a four-state abortion ring is slowly crumbling after Maryland began investigating the setup following a teenager's botched abortion. In addition to unveiling the illegality of the setup, the investigation resulted in one raid where police discovered a gruesome display of 35 frozen unborn children preserved in jars.

Stephen Chase Brigham is the owner of American Women's Services, which operated 15 abortion facilities in states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. Brigham's operation involved at least two other abortionists, George Shepard, Jr., of Delaware and Nicola I. Riley of Utah, whose Maryland licenses have both been suspended for their role in Brigham's business.

The Maryland Board of Physicians issued a cease and desist order against Brigham August 25 after concluding that the abortionist had been routinely skirting New Jersey law by bringing clients to his facilities in Maryland, where he does not have a license to practice. According to the Board, Brigham was in the habit of performing the first phase of the procedure, dilating the patient's cervix, in New Jersey; however, because his clinics did not meet safety standards to perform the whole procedure there, Brigham would then direct the patients to drive down to Maryland to have the abortion completed.

The setup was discovered after Brigham was forced to bring one of his teenage patients to a Maryland hospital after a botched abortion last month, according to the medical board's documents.

The 18-year-old was one of several Brigham had directed to drive in a car caravan from Voorhees, New Jersey to Elkton, Maryland in order to complete the abortions. After abortionist Riley accidentally cut through the patient's uterus and lacerated her bowel and vagina, Brigham refused to call an ambulance, and put the teen in the back of his Chevrolet Malibu to bring her to the local hospital. There, he and Riley dodged questioning on "who they were, what had happened, and from where they had come." The patient's injury was so severe she had to be flown to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The Board found that Brigham had performed surgical procedures in Elkton as regularly as four to six times per week for several months. "The health of Maryland patients is being endangered by the Respondent's unlicensed practice of medicine in this State," stated the cease and desist order.

Prior to the Board's order, Elkton police had removed the remains of 35 "late-term fetuses and fetal parts" from Brigham's office in that town. His office in Voorhees, New Jersey was also raided by police.

In July, the Pennsylvania Department of Health ordered Brigham to shut down his abortion facilities in the state for allowing unlicensed employees to give medical care. Brigham is appealing the decision.

While the abortionist has served jail time and paid thousands in fines for failing to pay taxes, his run-ins with the law do not stop there: Brigham was once licensed to perform abortions in New York, but had that license revoked in 1994 for "gross negligence" and "inexcusably bad judgment" in the case of a woman's botched abortion. The same incident caused Brigham to lose his license in New Jersey, but he fought successfully to have it restored three years later.

Operation Rescue reports that Brigham has been under investigation and discipline throughout his entire 20-year career: he voluntarily retired his medical license in Pennsylvania while under investigation just six years after graduating from medical school. Since then, Brigham had medical licenses revoked in New York and Florida, and received disciplinary action in California and New Jersey, and has served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud.

In addition, according to the group, a judge once ordered him to stop advertising his abortions as "painless" and "safe."
 
Operation Rescue has sent a letter to Maryland's Attorney General urging that criminal charges be brought against Brigham.

"There is a largely unspoken crisis in this country brought on by abortionists who insist that they are above the law," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.

"We can no longer turn a blind eye to these abortion abuses and pretend that things like this can't happen in a nation where abortion is legally permissible. Brigham is just one example in an industry where this kind of behavior is the norm and not the exception."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 7, 2010

Pastor in battle over food, water suffers fatal seizure

Native of Sri Lanka had been on no-treatment regimen at hospital

     

A pastor who had been at the center of a fight over whether seriously injured patients deserve food and water while hospitalized has suffered a seizure and died, officials confirmed.

Joshua Kulendran Mayandy arrived in Canada about 10 years ago to serve ethnic Tamil immigrants from Sri Lanka near the East York area of Ontario.

He had complained of chest pains and was hospitalized in Brampton after collapsing with a heart attack May 29.

He was revived but suffered what had been termed brain impairment due to lack of oxygen. He was placed in the intensive care unit where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness said Mayandy continued to improve, regaining some movement of his arms and legs, and even speaking some words.

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

But the staff at Brampton Civic Hospital, part of the William Osler Health Center, disagreed with the assessment of Mayandy's health, asserting there was no hope of recovery.

In Ontario, disagreements over the condition of a patient between families and doctors requires the intervention of a "Consent and Capacity Board."

The board determines proper medical treatment for patients who cannot make decisions themselves.

The board ruled that since Mayandy's family was too far away, they could not understand his medical situation, and they appointed a close friend to be his "Strategic Decision Maker," or SDM.

After hearing from "all parties," the Capacity Board ruled that Brampton Hospital could remove all of Mayandy's life support, which officials proceeded to do on Aug. 17.

Even though eyewitnesses said Mayandy had regained consciousness and appeared to be recovering from both his heart attack and partial brain damage, he was not given food and water for more than a week.

Then his "SDM" had a change of heart, asking the hospital to feed him orally. A nurse, who also was a member of Mayandy's church, began to feed him even though Mayandy had a tracheotomy.

Hopes that Mayandy might recover were dashed when he suffered another seizure and slipped back into a coma about a week ago.

Since Mayandy no longer could be fed orally, little was done to help him. The hospital still was operating under the original order from the "Consent and Capacity Board" that ruled he never would recover. Thus, the hospital did not have to give him either a food tube or IV fluids.

WND requested from the hospital the official cause of death, but there was not an immediate response.

Dr. Bernard Stephenson, a friend of Mayandy's, has said the hospital only offered seizure medicine, but nothing else was required.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition pointed out that once the seizure had occurred, the damage probably was fatal.

However, Schadenberg also pointed out that prior to the seizure the hospital could have done several things to help Mayandy, including inserting a feeding tube and providing IV fluids.

Schadenberg said that Mayandy's Strategic Decision Maker never made that request to the hospital.

Stephenson added his concerns, saying that, "I hate to live in a society … almost a Hitlerian society where people with disabilities don't have a say or don't have any value any more. I think that's the kind of society I'm scared of living in and people need to know this is happening."

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is also urging Canadians to contact them about a document they believe can provide assistance should the circumstances of this type of case appear again.

Mark Handelman, an attorney for Brampton Civic Hospital, said the decision removing the food and water from the pastor was unanimous and denied that any pressure was applied to Mayandy's friend.

"Justice was seen, and justice was done," he said.

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.

The issue of rationing health-care dollars has generated considerable alarm in the United States amid debate and enactment this year of President Obama's nationalization of health care decision-making.

Critics such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have cited Obamacare plans to cut $500 billion in health-care spending on seniors. Palin stirred controvesy by labeling the bureacratic process set up to allocate funds "death panels."

Obamacare critics have argued that the government will be forced to ration care because of budget constraints.

The Mayandy case recalls the high-profile life and death of Terri Schiavo, who died after being deprived of food and water in a Florida dispute that made headlines nationally. 

Contact: Thom Redmond

Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: September 7, 2010

Sept. 10 is “Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day”–With Exceptions

      

September 10 is Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day.  Good.  But, I fear not very effective.

The well meaning people behind WSPD have missed-or were afraid of the controversy that would be caused by tackling–the proverbial elephant in the living room.  You see, many high profile voices now urge that suicide not only be permitted, but facilitated.  Thus, Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day should have an asterisk after the title:

Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day*

*Prevention, that is, unless:

you have been diagnosed with a terminal illness;
you have become seriously disabled;
you are elderly and "tired of life:"
you are a baby born with disabilities and live in the Netherlands or Belgium (where doctors will commit your suicide for you);
you are a spouse who doesn't want to live without your dying husband or wife, and you go to Switzerland for some suicide tourism.
In other words, I don't see how suicide prevention can be effective when there is so much outright suicide promotion going on. But the International Association for Suicide Prevention is silent about the threat posed to the cause of suicide reduction by assisted suicide and "rational suicide" advocacy. Not. A. Peep.

And let me also express my frustration with an aspect of this campaign that we now see ubiquitously in "cause" advocacy. We have become a world in which meaningless symbols often matter more than effective action. Not only does Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day not tackle the problem of suicide promotion in society–it suggests we engage in gesture advocacy to show how much we care.  From the Suicide Prevention Day website:

Some people have contacted us saying that they would like to meaningfully participate in World Suicide Prevention Day but cannot attend events or activities. This year we are starting a new activity which anyone can do in support of: World Suicide Prevention Day, suicide prevention and awareness, survivors of suicide and for the memory of loved lost ones. It is called "Light a Candle on World Suicide Prevention Day at 8 PM." If you like this activity and know of family members, friends and associates who would be interested in participating, would you kindly share with them this WSPD activity? We are hoping this activity will bring light into the world and increase awareness of the good work so many people do in preventing suicide.

And then, let's pin colored ribbons to our lapels.

Don't get me wrong. I am obviously for suicide prevention and the WSPD can't hurt.  But avoiding crucial issues and engaging in, "It makes me feel good" symbolism, just doesn't cut it.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 6, 2010