I turned on my computer and went to my AOL account. There on the homepage was the face of President Obama and a link to a brief video.
"His message?" according to AOL. "It's simple. Exercise your right to change history by voting."
In the video President Obama makes the incontrovertible point that "If You're Thinking about Sitting This One Out, consider this": when you or I don't vote, "this leaves the decisions that affect your life up to someone else." Absolutely true.
What is also true is that if we don't vote, we forego the opportunity to help reverse the decisions that have cost the lives of over 54 million unborn children.
You and I would be part of those the President described last week as his "enemies" who need to be "punish[ed]," because we have stood athwart his ambitions. Attempting to stop ObamaCare and now to repeal and replace it is enough to place us outside the pale.
I consider being on that enemies list a badge of honor.
Have you thought about "sitting this one out?" I doubt it seriously, but if you have not already voted, please, please do so. And please be sure that all your pro-life friends, family, and colleagues have done so as well.
One other thought on voting, which I swear is a true story. As I approached the school where we vote, a young girl and her father walked by me.
She said to her father with a combination of impatience and curiosity, "I don't know why you have to vote." Her dad responded, "I don't have to vote," to which she said, "Why do you vote?"
This entire exchange took five seconds, and by the time she finished, dad and daughter had moved out of earshot.
What would you have said?
I would have responded, "if not me, who? If not now, when? If stopping Obama is not important enough, what could possibly qualify?"
Vote, as if the lives of million of unborn babies were on the line. They are!
Contact: Dave AndruskoSource: NRLC
Publish Date: November 1, 2010
Pro-lifers are pleased that a number of states are now considering adopting Nebraska's new law on abortion, and one group is providing information on how to submit model legislation to state legislatures.
The statute says that once a child is capable of feeling pain, the state has an interest in protecting that life. That means the unborn child cannot be killed by abortion.
"It's based on the new scientific understanding of the unborn child that was not known back when Roe v. Wade came down from the United States Supreme Court," explains Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.
Since that court decision almost 40 years ago legalized abortion, scientists have been able to provide sonograms as evidence to show that children feel the pain of abortion very early in pregnancy.
"It's an issue that we want to bring to the American public and one that we want to bring to the courts as well, because we think that the decision back in 1973 was based on very faulty science -- and the science that we have today is much more improved and more readily available to the average person on the street," Balch adds.
She notes that interested state lawmakers can contact the National Right to Life Committee, which will provide model legislation that can be submitted to state legislatures.
Contact: Charlie ButtsSource: OneNewsNowPublish Date: November 2, 2010
As the Obama administration heads toward major losses in Tuesday's mid-term elections, the nation's top abortion lobbies are rallying supporters to mitigate what is expected to be a Republican and pro-life takeover at the polls.
"I've said it before, and it bears repeating: women's health and reproductive rights are in extreme danger in this election," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote in an email to supporters Monday. "The only thing we can do now is get out there and vote — and make sure everyone who supports women's health does the same."
Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women are scrambling to protect their recent political and legislative victories, particularly the abortion funding in the federal health care reform law, which were made possible by the Democratic stronghold on Capitol Hill.
Republicans have pledged to support legislation that would codify the Hyde amendment - making it impossible for any federal program to fund abortion except in cases of rape and incest. Such a law would evaporate the hard-won health reform funding aggressively pursued by the abortion lobby. Top Republican leaders have even expressed dedication to repealing the entire reform law, which was heavily supported by the abortion lobby.
On top of several other initiatives, Planned Parenthood has manned phone banks with volunteers to help get out the pro-abortion vote.
"Everything I've asked you to do, you've done. Now I need you to do just one more thing, and it's the most important of all: go out and vote tomorrow," wrote Richards in her letter to supporters.
NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan expressed dismay that a victory for "anti-choice forces" could lead to even more aggressive legal protection for the unborn than pro-life lawmakers have recently attempted.
"If anti-choice forces take back Congress, we're preparing for attacks on choice that are worse than the Stupak abortion-coverage ban to health-care reform," Keenan told supporters. "Don't let that happen."
Contact: Kathleen GilbertSource: LifeSiteNews.comPublish Date: November 1, 2010
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which represents more than 1000 Rabbis, has on behalf of his organization welcomed and endorsed the recent election-themed statements by American Cardinal-designate, Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Catholic Church's highest court.
In a 25-minute video interview with Catholic Action for Faith and Family, which was broadcast last week on EWTN and other networks, Archbishop Burke stated: "You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."
He added: "You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone."
"In these crucial times in which we live, where many clerics tread with fear, Cardinal-designate Burke is to be commended and emulated as a voice of leadership," said Rabbi Levin. "This moral teaching of the Catholic Church set forth in Burke's interview with Thomas McKenna, is clearly found in the Torah and serves to give solid guidance to voters whether they are Christian, Jew or any man of faith."
"We must implement this teaching now, in the closing hours of the 2010 election cycle," stressed the spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America. "We hope in the ensuing two years to have many other denominations sign on to this prohibition. This historic alliance announced today is far more important than working together for tuition tax credits for our parochial schools. Today is nothing less than the declaration of a 'spiritual civil war.'"
Rabbi Levin concluded: "Let no person think that this directive is merely an intellectual exercise. This is a call to action to uphold the natural and moral law with pro-active voting according to our religious values. There can be no middle ground when it comes to the Sacred Laws: Marriage is between one man and one woman, and respect for all human life is obligatory. Now go out, spread the word and vote accordingly."
Source: LifeSiteNews.comPublish Date: November 1, 2010
Catholics cannot vote for political candidates who support a right to abortion, said Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican and the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri.
"No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what's called the right to choice of a woman to destroy the human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion," said Burke in a recent interview with the group Catholic Action for Faith and Family.
He further explained, "You may in some circumstances -- when you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion -- choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country."
"But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone," said the cardinal.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice, gravely contrary to the moral law." (2322)
Cardinal-designate Burke also spoke about how Catholics in public life who support abortion are creating scandal.
"What is scandal?" he said. "Scandal is either doing something or omitting to do something that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good. And here's the perfect example of Catholics who betray their Catholic faith in political life, as legislators or judges, or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is in fact a good thing in some circumstances."
"It can never be right, no matter what good I am trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the great evil of abortion," said the cardinal. "I can't ever justify that, voting for that candidate."
"So I just urge people to consider those smallest brothers and sisters of ours, those fellow members of God's family who our society teaches us to disregard or not to think of as fellow human beings, who really and truly are fellow human beings, and to do what's right for them," he said. "Even as we would want when we were such small little beings in our mother's womb in the embryonic stage of development or along the way before birth as we would want voters to vote to protect our lives and to safeguard our lives."
Burke was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to be Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position comparable to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He also served in the Vatican as a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which interprets the Canon Law, and a member of the Congregation for the Clergy which regulates priests and deacons of the secular clergy.
On October 20, Pope Benedict XVI named Burke to the College of Cardinals. He will assume this office on Nov. 20.
Contact: Chris Johnson Source: CNSNews.comPublish Date: November 1, 2010
I don't think the government should force health insurance companies to cover contraception. But under Obamacare, companies may soon be required to pay for prescribed birth control as a method of preventive health care–which Obamacare (unwisely) forces insurance to provide as a free service for all under the law's central planning protocols. From the story:
A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning. But is birth control preventive medicine? Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.
For many medical and public health experts, there's no debate. "There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health," said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care. "We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
The media always goes to the Catholics to get such a reply. But this has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with honesty in public policy and fiscal responsibility.
Too often we conflate what we think of as a good policy with proper definitions–and that leads to a form of public policy corruption and indiscipline because necessary parameters liquefy. Thus, contrary to the pro coverage spokesperson quoted above, contraception is nothing like immunizations–which prevent illnesses. Except in rare circumstances in which a woman's health requires her not to become pregnant–in which case contraception should be covered like any other medical need–birth control prevents a normal, health condition arising out of sexual activity. In this way it is unlike pap smears, which are preventive medicine because they can detect unhealthy changes at the cellular level. Mammograms are similarly preventive medicine. So are colonoscopies and urine testing for diabetes.
This isn't to say that birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance. But I don't think the think the federal government should require that it be covered. Indeed, the market can easily–and without the rule of bureaucrats–determine whether, under what circumstances, and by what terms, contraception will be covered by a particular policy.
This issue casts a Klieg light on another big defect in Obamacare; the centralization of control over health insurance in federal bureaucracies. Placing such power in the hands of central planners politicizes the system. This means that that the bureaucrats will be under pressure from politicians seeking votes to provide goodies for the voters back home.
Alas, it's always easy to spend other people's money. But as a great man once said, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: November 1, 2010
A recent battle over free speech and abortion – involving a pro-life group and a pro-life Ohio Democrat – has prompted the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to release a generic affidavit that outlines how the new health care law subsidizes abortion.
The move came after the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) came under fire recently for its media campaign against Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio.
Facing extremely unfavorable polling numbers and lack of support from the Democrat Party, Driehaus made a desperate move.
After learning about a planned billboard campaign, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, alleging SBA List violated two election laws when it tried to place on billboards the simple message, "Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."
The commission – which was mostly appointed by the Democrat governor – as well as federal judge who handled the emergency restraining order – who also was the former president of the Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati – ruled against SBA List.
The legal tussle continues.
NRLC filed an affidavit on behalf of SBA List, which provided at least 16 substantive examples in the new health care law where taxpayers are on the hook to fund abortions.
The pro-life group made available a generic version of the affidavit for the public. The new affidavit discusses H. Con. Res. 254 in paragraphs 27, 28, and 29.
Click here to watch SBA List's education video, explaining how the health care law funds abortion.
Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: October 29, 2010
Next week, voters in Colorado will be deciding on Amendment 62. Much debate has taken place and many falsehoods abound. Today's commentary deals with the lies being propagated by those in opposition, including a prominent area physician.
If you ever wondered what makes an abortion doctor's brain tick, we may have come up with an answer that surprised even those of us who thought we knew!
In Colorado there is a knock-down, drag-out struggle going on between the forces for life and the forces for death. Into the center of this struggle stepped well-known Durango, Colorado, abortionist Richard Grossman. Grossman is a staff physician for a Catholic hospital in Durango. Even more egregious than this, he is a deceptive medicine man. In a commentary published in the local newspaper, Grossman wrote,
If Amendment 62 passes, it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder.
Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: "Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."
Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary -- even if diseased --would mean the removal of thousands of "persons."
After getting over the shock of reading such contrived gobbledygook, Dianne Irving, Ph.D., who knows a thing or two about basic eighth grade biology, responded,
What Dr. Grossman has said about Amendment 62 is pathetic, and in no way should his absurd "view" be tolerated, especially by his professional associations. If Dr. Grossman does not know the difference between an "egg" and a newly reproduced single-cell human being/organism, one wonders how he ever passed his Med. boards. Such quackery should immediately be addressed and corrected publicly by his medical association and peers before such scientific falsehoods cause even more corrosion of the credibility of medical professionals.
Dr. Grossman is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim that Amendment 62 would result in doctors being punished for removing a diseased ovary.Neither the ovary nor the eggs within it are human beings.Further, an egg is an egg;a sperm is a sperm—these are just "cells" that are parts of one whole more mature human being.Neither a sperm nor an egg is a human being.Note that only "23" chromosomes from each are incorporated into a new human embryo, but that new human embryo now contains "46" chromosomes.Seems that Dr. Grossman can't even add.Once a sperm penetrates an egg, then a substantial change takes place resulting in a new human BEING, a single-cell ORGANISM, that produces specifically HUMAN proteins and enzymes (not sperm or egg proteins and enzymes!), and that continuously grows and develops into a more mature human being.If an egg or a sperm were implanted into a woman's womb, there is absolutely no way that either could develop into a human being.
Dr. Grossman should stop playing "egg" politics-as-usual and worry more about his patients' health, well-being, and the scientific accuracy of the information he is providing them. If he provides the same kind of false "information" to his patients who come to him for an abortion, then he has grossly deceived them and precluded them from giving truly legally valid informed consent before they sign those consent forms. Enough "egg" politics, Dr. Grossman.
And there you have it. Looking into the depths of an abortionist's philosophical and scientific psyche, we see error and disregard for human persons born and preborn -- not to mention a demented perspective on what it means to be a physician.
Tick, tock. Let's stop that clock. Abortion must end and, in Colorado, the time is now.
Contact: Judie Brown Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 29, 2010
An Arizona law passed over a decade ago to protect aborting mothers from unsafe and unskilled practitioners finally takes effect today.
Dubbed "Lou Anne's Law," the legislation was adopted in 1999 following the April 17, 1998, death of Lou Anne Herron at the hand of late-term abortion hack John Biskind, pictured right at his 2001 trial for which he was convicted to 5 years in prison for manslaughter.
Among other guidelines, Lou Anne's Law stipulates that:
* A doctor is the only one who may commit a surgical abortion.
* The aborting doctor must have admitting privileges at an accredited hospital in case of an emergency.
* The aborting doctor must remain on the clinic premises until all patients are stable and ready to be discharged.
The kicker? These regulations were "drawn from the abortion industry's own internal standards," as AUL's Dorinda Bordlee wrote. How could the industry protest? Yet it did.
We now know it is no wonder Planned Parenthood of Arizona took the lead vehemently fighting to kill Lou Anne's Law.
In 2007 it was revealed – only after a complaint was filed – that Tuscon PP nurse practitioner Mary Andrews had been committing abortions through 16 weeks since 2001.
The pro-abortion AZ Board of Nurses ultimately dismissed all charges against Andrews, instead voting in 2008 to allow nurses to commit abortions up to 13 weeks gestation.
Furthermore, a conglomerate of abortion groups began conducting legal research in 2000 of 10 states, including AZ, to pursue allowing not just nurse practitioners but also midwives and physician assistants to commit abortions.
According to the Arizona Daily Star at the time, "Nothing in state law specifically spells out that only doctors can terminate a pregnancy."
Now it does. PP tried to stop enforcement of the law, stating there weren't enough abortionists to keep up with demand.
Maricopa Co. Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton ruled October 27 that was PP's problem, not the state's.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010
A pro-life group is accusing Planned Parenthood of misrepresenting a report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on teen pregnancy to make it appear as though the findings weigh in favor of the abortion provider.
Teen mothers are most prevalent in southern states, according to the new CDC study, and they are predominantly Hispanic and black in almost every state. American Life League's (ALL) Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), reports that Planned Parenthood has issued a misleading press release.
"They have said that the CDC report makes it 'crystal clear' that the way to stop teen pregnancy is through Planned Parenthood-style sex education, when the report makes no such claims whatsoever," she explains.
Rita Diller (STOPP)The study does acknowledge that teenage birth rates have continued to decline since their peak in 1991, which coincides with the time frame of the availability and popularity of abstinence programs. Diller believes Planned Parenthood is all about sexualizing school children so kids will later have to go to them to get abortions and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.
"It's a money-making scheme that Planned Parenthood has hoisted upon our society, and it's also a very racist scheme where you see them time and time again following the lead of their racist founder Margaret Sanger in going into the minority neighborhoods to target the black and Hispanic population especially," the STOPP national director suggests.
So her group advocates stopping all government funding of Planned Parenthood.
Contact: Bill Bumpas Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: November 1, 2010
The parents of a 16-year-old in Texas have agreed to a court order not to force their daughter to have an abortion.
A Travis County District Court judge authorized the order Oct. 28, one day after the parents agreed in writing no longer to coerce their daughter to abort her child, who is at 14 weeks gestation, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) reported.
The girl's mother took her to two different Austin abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region, in an effort to make her undergo the lethal procedure. Neither the girl, who was not identified, nor the baby's father wants an abortion, but her parents had continued to say they would force her to have one, according to ADF.
The judge in the case had issued a temporary restraining order Oct. 18 to block the parents' effort before validating the court order that is in force throughout the remainder of the pregnancy.
The girl became even more convinced she did not want an abortion after she received information from a pro-life advocate who was praying outside one of the clinics, ADF reported.
The court's actions came in response to the efforts of two ADF-affiliated lawyers -- Stephen Casey of Round Rock, Texas, and Gregory Terra of Georgetown, Texas --- and Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation in San Antonio.
"The parents made the right decision, one which they, their daughter, the baby's father, and especially their grandchild, will appreciate," Terra said of their decision to sign the court order.
Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: October 29, 2010
What is the first thing that pops into the minds of ordinary people when they hear the word "abortion"? If you have been lucky, or blessed, enough to have seen through the common rhetoric of our death-cult culture, you may answer something like, "…kills an unborn child." But, sadly and despite our continuing efforts, the world at large has not yet made that connection.
No, what most people think spontaneously when they hear the word is "women's rights." The issue of "rights" in abortion rhetoric is the first and last one in any debate on the subject.
I was not involved in the pro-life movement, nor was I even paying much attention, when the Chantal Daigle case was making headlines in Canada, but the decision of the Supreme Court in Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) found that a fetus has no legal status in Canada as a person, either in Canadian common law or in Quebec civil law. While Canada has no positive law about abortion, the status of the unborn child is firmly established: there isn't one.
Between the legal non-status of abortion and the legal non-existence of the unborn child, the question in the Daigle case that was under debate at the time, was, "should a father have any rights?" In Canada, the Supreme Court decided, No.
Recently, I have been interested in the development of a small but growing backlash against the abortion lobby's assertion that there is only one person, and one person's rights, involved in abortion. In law around the world, the decision to have an abortion is entirely, and legally exclusively, the woman's. No one, neither her parents nor her doctor can, so the logic goes, be allowed to influence her. And that goes triple for the father of the child.
Today, I was watching an interesting set of videos made by a UK group called manwomanmyth.com who are attempting to reverse the trends of misandry that have grown in law and public opinion in the last 50 years.
I don't agree, of course, with all the conclusions in these videos [crude language alert] which assert among other things that the solution to all these problems is the development of a male contraceptive pill. But the points being made, from the point of view of the monstrous injustices to men created by the sexual revolution, are not made often enough.
As I was watching, I was powerfully reminded of two incidents I experienced when I was working in Toronto and giving talks in local Catholic high schools. I was often able to surprise the kids by telling them that the legal situation in Canada gave absolutely no rights to men to have any say in whether their children live or die.
I usually related the story of a man I once spoke to on the phone who had called our office asking for legal help. He and his girlfriend were refugees from Honduras, and had no idea what the laws were in Canada.
The man's girlfriend was pregnant and was living in a woman's shelter. These places are often run by the hardest core of radical feminists, and they had arranged for her to have an abortion (immigrant/refugee women, many of whom don't speak English, are often told by social workers that they will be deported if they have a child, that their child is "illegal").
This poor man, who was in Canada having fled Honduras during one of their political difficulties and who could not risk being sent back, asked me, begged me, to tell him what he could do to save his child's life and get his girlfriend some other kind of help. I was forced to tell him that in Canada, he had no legal rights whatever and if he tried to intervene to save his child, he could be arrested and probably deported.
When I told the kids in the class about this, they were silent. They had only ever been taught (in a Catholic school) to consider the 'rights of women' aspect of the abortion laws. They had no idea that the law was so unbalanced and had not been provided with any sort of stock response to the concept that men are suffering grave injustices because of legal abortion.
At the end of one of these talks, a nice kid in one of the grade eleven classes was asked to escort me to the next class. He was tall and gangly and was tremendously good looking, but looked so sad; his face would have made you burst into tears. He quietly and very politely thanked me for having brought the subject of men's rights up in the talk.
He felt very strongly about it, he said, because his own girlfriend had had an abortion the year before. He said that he had wanted to help raise the child and that his parents had agreed, saying they would help too. But he was shut out of the discussion and his child was dead.
He was 16.
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 27, 2010
Fetal pain is not something often mentioned when people are discussing abortion. Yet, the truth is, the preborn baby does feel pain and wants to avoid it. Today's commentary focuses on what the preborn baby goes through as he faces the end of his life.
In the state of Nebraska, the Abortion Pain Prevention Act has just become law. Celebrations have ensued not only in the state but among pro-life, pro-family leaders at the national level.
The subject of fetal pain, and the manner in which political operatives within the pro-life movement have handled it, have always been a source of interest and sorrow for me. Now is the perfect time to examine the so-called "fetal pain" proposition from a perspective that is not often discussed—the perspective of the preborn child.
First of all, this human being who is growing within his mother does feel pain. We have known this since the early days of the pro-life movement when Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., created the video, The Silent Scream, in 1984. The film is a chilling presentation of how gruesome and heinous the act of abortion truly is.
The narration by Dr. Nathanson is so matter-of-fact and clinical that one is shocked into realizing immediately that this man—who was an abortionist and oversaw the killing of thousands—is now telling the world the truth. The video shows a 12-week-old preborn child, seen via ultrasound, who does all he physically can to escape the needle that is destined to kill him.
The gut wrenching truth presented in this video was applauded by then President Ronald Reagan who hosted a showing at the White House. Reagan was grateful for Dr. Nathanson's effort to finally show the world the truth about what abortion does to the child.
Writer Fitz Barringer described Nathanson's video this way,
As the suction device enters the womb, for instance, the child, clearly in fear for his life, begins to move violently away from the instrument. After watching the horrific image for several seconds, Nathanson remarks, "There is no question; this child senses the most mortal threat imaginable."
When the suction device begins to tear the child apart, Nathanson pauses the video and points to the child's open mouth. "Now we can discern the chilling 'silent scream' on the face of this child, who is now facing eminent extinction," he says.
Today, by contrast, Nebraska's Abortion Pain Prevention Act states, "At least by twenty weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain …"
So what happened to those eight weeks between what we knew in 1984 and what today is the state law in Nebraska? I have no idea, but what I do know is that the bill is supported, at least in part, because some pro-life strategists argue that pro-abortion organizations "can't risk taking Nebraska's fetal pain ban all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, for fear that the new line of demarcation for abortion under Roe will be pain instead of viability…"
This statement represents the crux of the problem. It occurs to me that pro-life strategists have already moved the line from the 12 weeks established by Dr. Nathanson to 20 weeks, and are now arguing that some sort of a "line of demarcation" is a goal. Not so!
Pro-life people have worked in the trenches for more than thirty-five years to achieve an end to the killing, not a "line of demarcation" that allegedly intimidates the pro-aborts. They must be laughing in their beer at this!
Preborn babies are human beings regardless of their age, regardless of their nerve endings, regardless of lines of demarcation. If the pro-life movement could unite behind the simple truth that a preborn baby is a baby from the beginning of his biological development, everyone could stop all the posturing and get to work.
What these babies need is total protection, not phony victories that establish lines beyond which people may not be killed—unless, of course, they are anesthetized first.
Listen to their cries, their screams, and imagine their tears. How can we not do everything within our power to save each and every one of them?
Contact: Judie Brown Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 27, 2010
Back in the 1980s when I was still young, I was the fourth talk show host on the three talk show station, KGIL Radio in LA–meaning, I was the regular fill-in host (I sure loved that gig!). The star of the station in the evening drive time slot was a strong feminist and very pro choice advocate who often did programs on abortion. One day when I was substituting for her, I decided to do a program on the choice of adoption, which I thought received inadequate press. I had an adoption lawyer on and, as I recall more than twenty years later, the head of a private adoption agency.
Well, you would have thought I wanted to take away women's suffrage! The anger that I even brought adoption up–I didn't discuss abortion at all–not only permeated the hour, but complaints made to the station off air. I was so stunned, I remarked at the end of the hour that I had always thought pro choice meant exactly that. But, I said, I was beginning to think it might be more accurately described as pro abortion. (Yes, there was hell to pay for that remark.)
I thought of that experience when I learned that New York City may pass laws intended to handcuff crisis pregnancy counseling centers run by pro life groups that seek to dissuade women from terminating their pregnancies. From the story:
Councilmember Jessica Lappin, primary sponsor of the bill introduced Oct. 12, said crisis pregnancy centers are "anti-choice centers masquerading as health clinics." The Manhattan Democrat charges that the centers are not licensed medical facilities and generally do not have a licensed medical staff on site.
"They have staff or volunteers who have an agenda that they are trying to push," she said. Lappin's bill would require centers to disclose whether they provide abortions, contraception or referrals for these procedures and services. Centers that do not offer such services or have licensed medical personnel on site would be required to post that information at their facilities' entrances as well as in waiting rooms and in advertisements. The new ordinance would impose fines ranging from $250 to $2,500 for violations. Lappin charged that many crisis pregnancy centers are "set up purposely across the street from Planned Parenthood or in the same building as those clinics to try and confuse women and draw them in."
Well, so much for free speech.
That aside, I don't understand the hostility. These centers try to save lives. They not only counsel women to choose to give birth, but they also help women deal with issues both before and after birth. There are literally tens of thousands of people with us today who might well not exist but for these counseling centers. And, it all happens in a milieu of full abortion legality.
Apparently the very presence of people who oppose abortion is enough to give some abortion rights activists the hives. Pro life speech is attacked like no other speech in America. And that's why I often recall that old radio show I did about adoption on KGIL.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: October 29, 2010
The Board upholds Riley's suspension for her part in Brigham's illegal late-term abortion scheme
The Maryland Board of Physicians ruled yesterday that abortionist Nicola Riley's medical license will remain suspended. The decision came after a hearing that was attended by Riley and her attorney, Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum.
"We are thankful that Riley will not be allowed to victimize more women, and we renew our call for criminal charges against Riley, her boss Steven Brigham, and all their associates who participated in illegal late-term abortions in Maryland," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Riley's license was suspended on an emergency basis on August 31, 2010, after complaints were filed against her and her employer, Steven Chase Brigham, for a severely botched late-term abortion that required emergency surgery to save the woman's life.
It was then discovered that Brigham, who is not licensed in Maryland, was operating an illegal late-term abortion scheme where abortions as late as 36 weeks would be started at his office in Voorhees, New Jersey and completed at a secret abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland. Police raided the Elkton mill and discover the remains of 35 aborted babies in the freezer.
Brigham's New Jersey medical license has since been suspended, as has the license of George Shepard, Jr., an 88-year old former abortionist who was found to be aiding and abetting Brigham in the unlicensed practice of medicine.
Riley had decided to fight the suspension and submitted additional testimony and documents at yesterday's hearing.
A letter dated October 28, 2010, from the Maryland Board of Physicians addressed to Riley and her counsel stated, "The Board concluded that the arguments and documents submitted, and the responses to the Board's questions did not significantly change the Board's findings or conclusions regarding the danger to the public which would be opposed by Dr. Riley practicing medicine at this time."
Riley was notified of the Board's decision verbally at the end of the hearing.
Operation Rescue has called for criminal charges for all involved in Brigham's illegal late-term abortion scheme, including Riley.
Riley is still licensed to practice medicine in Utah where she continues to do abortions. She had requested licensure in Virginia, however, Operation Rescue forwarded Riley's Maryland disciplinary documents to the Virginia Department of Health Professionals. OR was later notified by letter that Virginia law prohibits them from issuing licenses to physicians who licenses are suspended or revoked in other states.
Riley was convicted in 1991 of aiding and abetting a credit card and identity theft ring while she was serving in the Army. She served one year at Ft. Leavenworth military prison.
Click here for background on this shocking case
Click here to read the Ruling
Click here to read Riley's original suspension order
Contact: Troy Newman Source: Operation Rescue Publish Date: October 28, 2010
Planned Parenthood misrepresents CDC report on teen pregnancy
While a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report provides more evidence that abstinence messages decrease teen sexual activity and pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has put its own spin on the numbers to promote its childhood sex education programs.
The recently released CDC report entitled "State Disparities in Teenage Birth Rates in the United States" acknowledges that teenage birth rates have continued to decline since their peak in 1991. It then examines the ethnicity of teen mothers in 2007, and finds they are predominantly Hispanic and black in almost every state.
In response, Planned Parenthood issued what the pro-life group American Life League labeled a "misleading" press release that stated, "This new CDC report makes it crystal clear that the teen birthrate is lower in states that provide students with comprehensive, evidence-based sex education."
The CDC report makes no mention of what type of sex education (or abstinence message) are being used in any state or area. Planned Parenthood, pointed out ALL, does not mention the fact that the decrease in teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy coincide with the availability and popularity of giving abstinence messages to kids across the U.S. in the 1990s and into the 2000s.
The report affirms that "[t]here has been a broad consensus on the goal of preventing teenage pregnancy, and a wide variety of public and private programs have been developed to meet this challenge."
The report attributes the variations in teenage birth rates states and ethnicities to "many factors, including differences in socioeconomic factors, such as education and income, risk behaviors such as sexual activity and contraceptive use, and attitudes among teenagers toward pregnancy and childbearing."
Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), an American Life League project, criticized Planned Parenthood for misrepresenting the findings of the report.
"This is another illustration of how Planned Parenthood uses deception at every level to promote its deadly agenda," said Diller in a press release Wednesday.
Planned Parenthood's release reveals its intent to "bombard minority teens with its salacious, perverted, immoral sex education by means of a huge amount of taxpayer funding from the Obama administration," according to Diller.
The abortion giant recently claimed that "[s]ex educators like Planned Parenthood are poised to make tremendous progress in reducing teen pregnancy, because for the first time in American history the federal government has ensured that federal funds will be used primarily by states and community organizations that provide evidence-based sex education to reduce teen pregnancy. … The Obama administration's allocation of $155 million for evidence-based sex education represents a true turning point in the history of sex education in the United States."
"Planned Parenthood was behind the wheel of sex education in the United States during the years when teen sexual activity was increasing dramatically," Diller pointed out. "However, teen pregnancy and sexual activity rates began an almost two-decade decline with the availability and popularity of abstinence messages, bolstered by a small amount of public funding. So, it is truly terrifying to think that the new turning point of sex education is a 180-degree wrong turn - back into the clutches of Planned Parenthood."
Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 28, 2010
The Parliament of the European Union has rejected a proposal to fund forced abortion and sterilization programs in overseas "family planning" projects. The campaign group, Care for Europe, has announced that an amendment has passed that they put forward to the European Commission's annual budget this week. The amendment proposed to prevent any funding going to family planning programs in which coercion or compulsion is used.
The amendment passed with a "healthy majority" of 372 votes to 279. CARE has published a list of British MEPs, nearly all Conservatives, who voted for the amendment.
CARE also said that the 2011 budget now includes amendments calling for European funds "to be made available for combating forced abortion, sterilisation and even infanticide, which are used for example in China to enforce state family planning policies."
John Smeaton, head of the UK's Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, commented, "These pro-life victories in the European institutions show that intelligent, organized and uncompromisingly pro-life lobbying is effective in protecting unborn children, their mothers and other vulnerable individuals."
International organizations such as the UN Population Fund, International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International have come under constant criticism for their involvement in coercive practices in China.
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 28, 2010
A court in Texas' Travis County has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the parents of a 16-year-old from forcing her to have an abortion.
A court in Maryland convicted a man three days earlier of killing an expectant mother and the child in her womb.
In Texas, the teen's mother took her to two different Austin abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region, in an effort to make her undergo the lethal procedure. Neither the girl, who was not identified, nor the baby's father wants an abortion, but her parents have continued to say they will force her to have one, according to a report from Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).
The girl, who is three months pregnant, became even more convinced she did not want an abortion after she received information from a pro-life advocate who was praying outside one of the clinics, ADF reported. She continues to live with her parents.
The court's Oct. 18 decision to issue a restraining order came in response to a motion filed by two ADF-affiliated lawyers -- Stephen Casey of Round Rock, Texas, and Gregory Terra of Georgetown, Texas – and Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation in San Antonio.
"No one should be allowed to decide that an innocent life -- especially one that belongs to someone else -- is worthless," Casey said in a written statement. "The right not to have an abortion is protected by law, and this right isn't relinquished just because someone else considers the child to be an unwanted burden."
In Maryland, a man was sentenced to 30 years in prison Oct. 15 for killing his pregnant girlfriend after she refused to have an abortion.
Bernard Bellamy, 21, of Oxon Hill was sentenced after he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in a Prince George's County court, according to The Gazette, a weekly newspaper in Maryland.
Bellamy's girlfriend, 19-year-old Valicia Demery of District Heights, Md., died in May while she was four months pregnant. Her body was found after having been run over by and dragged beneath a car, The Gazette reported. Demery had received threatening text messages from Bellamy on the eve of her death.
Contact: Tom StrodeSource: Baptist PressPublish Date: October 27, 2010
The Iowa Board of Medicine has delayed making a decision on the legality of "telemed" abortions, a method that pro-lifers claim violates state law.
After the Iowa Board of Medicine heard from pro-life groups on Friday, Planned Parenthood is still under investigation for its controversial method of terminating pregnancies. Telemed abortions involve a conversation between an abortionist and an abortion patient via computer. After asking some questions, the abortionist punches a button to open a drawer with RU-486 for the patient, which means the physician is not present to perform the abortion.
"If they had their way, they would just allow these telemed abortions to go forward," contends Cheryl Sullinger of Operation Rescue. "But because there's so much public outcry about it and public opposition, they're having to take a closer look at it...than what they wanted."
She is disappointed by the delay because she feels the law is being violated as women and their unborn babies are unnecessarily being placed at risk. She is also concerned that politics might be involved.
"The Iowa Board of Medicine has worked with Planned Parenthood to block some open records requests for public information about what's going on over at Planned Parenthood and the licensing of some of the doctors there," Sullinger reports.
The Operation Rescue spokesperson adds that the state attorney general's office, which advises the board, also has close ties with Planned Parenthood, which creates the possibility of obstruction. But Sullinger is hopeful the public will continue pressure so the issue is not swept under the rug.
Contact: Charlie ButtsSource: OneNewsNowPublish Date: October 28, 2010
A coalition of pro-life groups has launched EllaCausesAbortions.com to emphasize the dangers of the new "morning-after" pill, ellaOne.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unanimously approved ellaOne last June as an emergency contraceptive, despite its ability to kill newly conceived children.
"It's an abortifacient drug, just like RU-486," contends Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America. "And so we developed this website in coalition with the Family Research Council, 40 Days for Life [and] a lot of other folks to educate Americans about what ella is -- what are the side effects of this drug and why the FDA should at least...warn women that this drug can cause abortion."
RU-486, the "parent drug" of ellaOne, has led to the deaths of 12 women and serious side effects, so Hawkins believes the same results can be expected of ellaOne.
The drug is currently available by prescription only, but the pro-lifer points out that Planned Parenthood is working to make birth control free for every woman under federal healthcare reform. Also, the FDA is heading toward over-the-counter sale of ellaOne, even though there is no research on the effects of repeated use or its potential impact on children.
Contact: Charlie ButtsSource: OneNewsNowPublish Date: October 28, 2010
I have been called Cassandra on more than one occasion–many more. Often the person so saying is calling me an alarmist, thinking that Cassandra was a false prophet. Actually, she saw the future accurately–but nobody believed her. Yup, too often, that's me.
Case in point: For years I predicted that Oregon's assisted suicide law would not result in doctors and patients with long standing relationships working out what is best for end-of-life care. Rather, since most doctors know that prescribing death isn't medicine–it would lead–and has led–to "doctor shopping," that is, suicidal people looking for death doctors to write the lethal prescription, with that being the only reason for the consultation–as in Jack Kevorkian. And finally, some are beginning to take notice. From the story:
A British think tank said a U.S. assisted-suicide law might have created a phenomenon of "doctor-shopping" for physicians willing to ignore safeguards to help healthy people kill themselves. A report claims that the 1997 Oregon Death With Dignity Act is being abused — with the help of some physicians — by people who do not fulfill the criteria of being terminally ill, mentally competent and able to make a free choice.
Called "What is Happening in Oregon?" the report by Living and Dying Well, a group of prominent British medical and legal experts, was sent to British members of Parliament Oct. 25 to counter claims by assisted-suicide campaigners that the Oregon law is a model of effective regulation that should be adopted in the United Kingdom. The report's author, Dr. David Jeffrey, a senior lecturer in palliative medicine at Scotland's Edinburgh University, and researcher Madeleine Teahan, examined 12 annual reports from the Oregon Public Health Division on the working of the act since 1998.
The report said that when the Oregon law was enacted, about a third of all people who requested help in committing suicide were referred to psychiatrists, but by 2009 no one was being sent for counseling. "Could this be a consequence of 'doctor shopping' — namely that a physician who is prepared to process an application for physician-assisted suicide might perhaps be less inclined than others to regard such a request as a pointer to possible psychological disorder or depression?" asked the report. "If that is so it would not be surprising that as the number of physician-assisted suicide cases has increased, referrals for psychiatric counseling have fallen," the report said. It said that the health division reports show the average time an applicant has spent with a doctor who assists in their deaths is just 10 weeks, and that a small number of doctors were writing prescriptions for numerous suicides.
Absolutely right.
Now one might say that the report's authors oppose assisted suicide. But these are the very things I have been reporting from the official statistics–which are in many ways designed as PR in favor of assisted suicide–and are really undeniable. In fact, the first legal assisted suicide in Oregon knew her prescribing doctor for a mere 2 weeks.
Time to open our eyes folks! I am Cassandra. It's high time that I was believed.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand SmokePublish Date: October 28, 2010
After proving the humanity of the unborn in an August video, teen pro-life orator Lia Mills has released a new video aiming to prove that the unborn are also "persons" by virtue of being human, as are other classes of humans who have been denied the status of 'person' in the past.
The video, released Tuesday, comes out as Lia prepares to address the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, taking place this Thursday through Saturday. She will be joined by a star-studded cast of major leaders from the international pro-life movement, including North American pro-life pioneer Dr. Jack Willke.
Click here for the video.
"The unborn are definitely human. It's obvious and it's supported by science," says Lia in her new video. She points out, however, that people now generally accept the unborn's humanity and argue instead that they can be killed because they are not yet 'persons'.
"How can we tell when exactly the unborn gain their personhood?" she asks.
To help, she goes to a dictionary, which defined person as "a human being." "Since the unborn are humans, that means based on this definition the unborn are persons as well," she says. But she then concedes that the issue is more complicated, because the definition of person changes depending on the academic discipline. In law, she points out, "a person is whoever the governing authorities decide to give rights to. ... Under the law, you're only a person if the lawmakers say you are."
Lia then discusses four examples in history when lawmakers denied personhood to a certain class of people – Jews in the Holocaust, black slaves in the US, North American natives, and women.
"The Jewish people were stripped of their personhood and thereby stripped of their rights and their value, and that's why all of the atrocities committed against them were considered acceptable," she explains.
"People are quick to judge the Germans at the Holocaust, but we have our own Holocaust that's taking the lives of millions of unborn babies every year," says Lia. "We do it using the same tactics that the Germans did. We deny personhood to the unborn and thereby deny them their rights and justify our own actions."
"Who decided that the Jews weren't persons, that the natives and slaves weren't persons, and that women weren't persons?" she asks. "Lawmakers."
"Who decides today that the unborn aren't persons? Lawmakers."
"Personhood has become a fabricated term used by lawmakers to decide who has rights and who doesn't," she continues. "Personhood is denied to [the unborn] because they're dependent, because they look different, and because they can't do what older babies, children, and adults can do."
"Should those in power be allowed to decide which humans are 'persons' and which are not, who gets rights and who doesn't?" she asks in conclusion. "Once you allow one group of humans to lose their personhood, every other group's personhood becomes vulnerable and no one is safe.
"When will someone else decide that you're not a person?"
Contact: Patrick B. CraineSource: LifeSiteNews.comPublish Date: October 27, 2010
The president of Planned Parenthood has argued that the new federal health care reform ought to consider funding all contraception with taxpayer dollars because preventing new children leads to less government expense.
In an appearance on the Bill Press radio show, PP president Cecile Richards said that, although the costs of the federal health care bill already promise to skyrocket out of control, federal officials ought to consider covering birth control a priority because of the "cost savings" benefit of fewer children being born.
"I think it's important, Bill, to understand that unlike some other issues of cost, birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money," said Richards. "So an investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.
"So we actually feel that covering birth control is not only it's the right thing to do for women, it's good for women it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy."
The remarks reflect sentiments aired by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when prompted to justify the contraceptive funding in last year's massive stimulus bill. The speaker explained that preventing births "will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Richards also touted artificial birth control as "the most normative medical care that exists in America," calling the push for its universal availability a "no-brainer."
Planned Parenthood and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently launched a massive campaign, called "Birth Control Matters," to pressure the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that all prescription contraception is completely covered by health insurers under "preventive care."
Rita Diller, the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International, indicated that the true reason for the abortion giant's campaign was not expanded contraceptive availability, but an expanded profit margin.
"In reality, birth control is already widely available to women and even young girls, on a sliding scale basis, so that those who cannot afford the dangerous steroidal pills can receive them at little or no cost," Diller told LifeSiteNews.com. Therefore, she said, covering all birth control as preventive care "will not increase its availability, but will dramatically increase Planned Parenthood's profit margin, by not only requiring new private health plans to cover 100% of the cost, but also requiring state Medicaid programs to pay 100% of the cost for all Medicaid recipients."
Diller noted that, according to the testimony of former Planned Parenthood chief financial officer P. Victor Gonzalez, the organization purchases contraceptives "at rock bottom prices and resells it at up to 12 times its acquisition cost."
"If Medicaid is required to pay 100 percent of the price Planned Parenthood charges for prescription birth control, it will be laughing all the way to the bank, at our expense," she said.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has challenged Planned Parenthood's campaign, arguing that contraception and sterilization "prevent not a disease condition, but the healthy condition known as fertility." In addition, the bishops pointed out the possibly severe repercussions such a mandate would pose for conscientious health care providers, especially in the case of abortifacient "contraceptive" drugs such as ella and other emergency contraception.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 26, 2010
Moral Issues in the Election
Tuesday, I hope you will do your Christian duty and head to the polls to vote for the candidate of your choice. I trust that your faith will guide you in your decision.
Which candidate will best promote justice and preserve order? After all, those are the biblically-sanctioned roles of government.
And which candidate best exemplifies the cardinal virtue of prudence in his or her public and private life?
And which candidate will best promote the sanctity of human life, advocate for traditional marriage, and protect religious freedom?
Well, if you've got an answer for that last question, then you're among the few. Because for the life of me, I have never heard so little about these core issues during a political campaign. These core issues-human life, marriage, and freedom-which-all expressed so powerfully in the Manhattan Declaration and supported by half a million signatories, aren't even on the political radar this year.
And that, to me is shocking.
Shocking to me because I know that politicians are survivors. They watch the polls. They know what people want. And all the candidates seem to be talking about is the economy.
One side swears up and down that they have saved our economy from another great depression. The others side says Congress is spending our nation into bankruptcy and that they'll slash federal spending.
But no one-OK, hardly anyone-is talking about life, marriage, and liberty.
Why is that? It's because we Christians--whether it's from culture-war fatigue or worry over our own jobs and bank accounts--have not been vocal enough on these issues.
The Republicans devised their Pledge to America after months and months of polling, focus groups, and web chats. These moral issues weren't on their supporters' minds or lips-at least not until I asked you to tell the Republican leadership that you want them to address these issues. You emailed by the thousands . . . but it was only enough to get the Republicans to throw us a bone. One short paragraph in a 45-page document!
But folks, I've made the case again and again, we cannot have a healthy economy apart from morality and ethics. Without promoting stable, healthy families, without protecting life and freedom, without promoting a Christian ethic that values work and saving over instant spending and gratification, no economy or nation can thrive.
So, where do we Christian stand with our political leaders and the two political parties?
I want you to come to ColsonCenter.org today and watch this week's Two Minute Warning. It's called "Politically Homeless." I want to share some thoughts and observations that may startle you.
And I also want you to share your thoughts with me. Go to ColsonCenter.org or BreakPoint.org and click on "Speak Out with Chuck" session. How should Christians approach this election? Will either party ever realty promote the values we hold dear? I want to hear from you. I will read every comment and will respond where I can.
But make no mistake. No matter how silent the candidates are on life, marriage, and liberty, we believers must never be silent. For the sake of our faith in Christ, our nation, and the common good, we must speak out.
Contact: Chuck Colson
Source: BreakPoint
Publish Date: October 27, 2010
Sponsors of the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, Initiative Measure Number 26, have been notified that the motion to remove the Amendment from the Ballot, filed by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, has been denied.
ACLU and Planned Parenthood attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi Secretary of State in July, seeking to disallow Mississippi voters from voting on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment.
Amendment sponsors and volunteers exceeded state signature requirements on February 17, becoming only the fourth successful ballot initiative since 1992. The amendment, Initiative Measure Number 26, reads, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
The ACLU then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Personhood amendment, which seeks to define the term "human being", modifies the Bill of Rights, which is expressly prohibited by Section 273(5). Steve Crampton, Liberty Counsel attorney for Personhood Mississippi, explained that Section 273(5) does not prohibit the definition of an otherwise undefined term, such as "person". Crampton went on to explain that the Personhood Amendment complies with section 273(5)(a) because it does not propose any new right and does not modify or repeal any existing right guaranteed under our bill of rights. Instead, the Personhood amendment merely defines the term "person", and does not modify the Bill of Rights in any way.
The Court decision read "Initiative Measure No. 26 has received more than the required amount of signatures to be placed on the ballot and the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to amend their Constitution."
"Isaiah 59 tells us that ,'the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear' so we first give all praise and honor to our Lord Jesus Christ for hearing our prayers and giving us the victory in this round" explained Les Riley, amendment sponsor. "We have been certain that we have the right to define the term 'person', and that right was affirmed by the Circuit Court and Judge Harrison. The people of Mississippi have spoken - they want to vote to recognize those Personhood rights in November 2011."
"It is time for Mississippi voters to recognize that all human beings are people, and every person should be protected by love and by law," added Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA.
Contact: Les Riley Source: Mississippi Personhood Publish Date: October 27, 2010
Should a dying cancer patient's request to have CPR at the end of his disease process be honored by doctors, or if they think it is inappropriate, should they be able to unilaterally refuse resuscitation? That is the question posed in a Canadian lawsuit in which a cancer patient clearly and specifically asked for CPR. From the story:
As Mann Kee Li lies in hospital fighting dire prospects, his family is engaged in a life-or-death struggle, not with the cancer spreading through his body, but with the doctors treating it. Li, a 46-year-old Toronto accountant and father of two young boys, wants doctors to use all medical measures possible to save him in the event of a life-threatening emergency. He made those intentions clear to his doctors at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre when he entered the hospital in August. He wrote it in a power of attorney document and confirmed it in a videotape statement, his lawyers say. While his doctor initially agreed to respect those wishes, physicians unilaterally reversed the decision a week ago without consultation and imposed a "do not resuscitate" order, his family alleges.
The doctors say the decision should be up to them:
The hospital and its doctors, meanwhile, argue the ultimate decision on whether to resuscitate a patient rests on physician judgment rather than patient wishes. "When clinical teams determine that further interventions would have no benefit to the patient . . . ethically and legally, health-care providers are not obliged to provide interventions that lie outside the standard of care and would be of no benefit, and indeed may well cause harm to a patient," said Sunnybrook executive vice-president Dr. Keith Rose in a written statement. Li's two treating doctors — Robert Fowler and Cameron Guest — declined an interview request. But their lawyer, Harry Underwood, told a court Friday that any order compelling doctors to administer CPR to Li would be "unconscionable." "He should be allowed to die in peace without this gross and monstrous intervention.
But the "monstrous intervention" is precisely what Li wanted. In other words, the doctors aren't just refusing to abide by the family's desires–but what the patient clearly and explicitly stated he wanted:
On Aug. 12, Toronto lawyer Mark Handelman interviewed Mann Kee Li for the purpose of preparing a power of attorney document detailing Li's wishes for care in hospital. Handelman videotaped the interview.
Here is a partial transcript included in Handelman's affidavit submitted in court:
(In referring to our afternoon meeting) "Are you aware that you told me that you wished to have all things done to continue your life?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"Are you aware that you may no longer be able to make decisions, that you could lapse into a coma, never to regain consciousness?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"In those circumstances would it still be your wish to have your life continued?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"For as long as possible?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"Are you aware some of the measures to continue your life could be painful to you?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"For example, if your heart stops and doctors need to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation they may have to pound on your chest?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"That could break some of your ribs?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"And that a broken rib could puncture a lung?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"Do you want them to do that if necessary?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
"Even if you will never regain consciousness?" Mann Kee nods affirmatively in response.
While Li's desires certainly would not be mine, he clearly made an informed decision about what he wanted. We used to be told that such choices are sacrosanct. But then when people decided to fight to the bitter end for life, we learned that "choice" only applies if the decision is to stop treatment, not if it is wanted. In other words, choice can be a one way street toward death.
It seems to me, that Li's desires should prevail–unless the CPR would be physiologically futile, that is, that it would not serve to lengthen his life. In such cases–and this may be one–it is ethical to refuse the intervention. (I don't see how doctors can argue that it isn't in his best interests, say, because of the suffering it could cause, when he asked for that very intervention despite knowing these things.)
Still, this is a very worrisome case. As the old saying goes, bad facts make bad law–and these are horrible facts. Li's decision to be resuscitated despite his dying of metastatic cancer falls at the far end extreme of what might be efficacious. But if he loses–unless based on a factual finding of non efficacy–it could lead to the establishment of a legal principle allowing doctors and bioethicists to overturn a patient's desires for efficacious life-sustaining care based on their values. Once qualitative futility became legalized, such refusals wouldn't stop with last ditch, dubiously efficacious, CPR.
Like I said, bad facts make bad law.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: October 27, 2010
A report by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) on a study of IVF "efficiency" states that just 7.5 percent of all artificially fertilized embryos will go on to become live-born children.
"It should surprise no one that the vast majority of sperm and eggs never get together to even begin the fertilization process," said Dr. Robert W. Rebar, Executive Director of the ASRM, in a press release. "But, it is very important to understand that even once joined together for fertilization, an overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs do not become viable embryos, and only a small percentage of embryos thought to be viable produce a child. While this data come the IVF lab, natural conception is also very inefficient."
The study was conducted at the Shady Grove Fertility Center in Maryland in order to "quantify the fate of the eggs retrieved in the IVF process," and will be presented at the annual ASRM conference in Denver this week.
Researchers reviewed all the in vitro fertilization cycles conducted at Shady Grove between 2004 and 2008. In 14,324 IVF cycles, clinicians retrieved 192,991 eggs. Initially, 110,939 of the eggs were successfully fertilized. However, only 44,282 continued to develop into "viable embryos."
Usual IVF practice is to implant just one or two living embryos into the womb per IVF cycle, with the others being frozen.
"Using the most optimistic set of assumptions that all the frozen embryos will eventually be used," the ASRM report says, "this will result in 8,366 babies. Thus, only 7.5% of all the fertilized eggs will go on to become live-born children."
In reality the frozen human embryos are more likely to be used in research or abandoned, rather than be allowed to continue growing in their mother's womb.
When British physiologist Dr. Robert Edwards, a pioneer of in vitro fertilization whose work led to the birth of Louise Brown, the "first" IVF baby in 1978, was awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology/medicine earlier this month, Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the recently appointed head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, pointed out that the award ignores the moral and ethical questions raised by artificial methods of reproduction, and disregards the destruction of countless human beings.
Without Edwards' work, de Paula said, there would be no market for selling ova, or "freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or more likely, to be used for investigation or to die forgotten and abandoned by everyone."
"In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus but most probably they will end up abandoned or dead, which is a problem for which the new Nobel prize winner is responsible."
An aspect of IVF not mentioned in the ASRM report is the necessity of "selective reduction," or the abortion of one or more of the children growing in the womb in cases where two or more embryos are implanted.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of twins has jumped 65 percent in the past two decades. A record 138,961 twin births - 32.2 per 1,000 live births - were recorded in 2007, according to the CDC's statistics. In addition, there were 5,968 triplet births, 369 quadruplets and 91 quintuplets or higher.
However, most multiple pregnancies resulting from IVF are "selectively reduced" by abortion.
David Picella, a Family Nurse Practitioner with specialty training as a medical consultant and teacher of the Creighton Model Fertility Care system, wrote in an article titled "10 Reasons to Choose NaProTechnology Over InVitro Fertilization" that "One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate.
"Pregnancy risk increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Frequently, women are compelled to selectively 'reduce' (i.e., kill) additional babies in the womb due to unacceptably high pregnancy risk."
Click here to read the complete article by David Picella from the Human Life International website.
Contact info for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
1209 Montgomery Highway
Birmingham, Alabama 35216-2809
Telephone: (205) 978-5000
Fax: (205) 978-5005
Email: asrm@asrm.org
Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 26, 2010
Amendment 62 organizers have released video in which the No on 62 side declared, "We are not going to try to use science, or evidence," then "Science is not ultimate truth...science cannot be applied to my body..."
The debate took place at Fort Lewis College in Durango, between Amendment 62 representatives and the Planned Parenthood group "Advocates for Choice", which, according to the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains website, exists to "Educate young people."
The Planned Parenthood group's statements against science came after pro-life groups LifeGuard, Durango Pregnancy Center, Bayfield Christian, and Master Plan Ministry gave a science-based presentation detailing evidence that every human being's life begins at the onset of fertilization.
Next, the No on 62 side claimed that "Abortion is...safer...than getting your wisdom teeth removed."
"Abortion is infinitely more dangerous than wisdom tooth extraction. You can't deny that 'dry socket' from wisdom tooth extraction is far safer than a perforated uterus, sepsis, infertility, scarring of the uterus, breast cancer, and death, which are just some of the possible complications of abortion," explained Jennifer Mason, a spokesperson for Amendment 62. "Abortion is not safer than wisdom tooth extraction, neither for the mom, nor the innocent child in her womb."
No on 62 reps also claimed "We're talking about science like it's something that's absolutely concrete... there's people on our side that research that says that the heart doesn't beat until 24 weeks."
"Textbooks, scientists, doctors, even abortionists know that the human heart starts beating at 22 days. How could they claim that a baby has no heartbeat before 24 weeks? It's outrageous," stated Dan Anguis, Amendment 62 organizer and Executive Director of LifeGuard in Durango. "Either the opponents of Amendment 62 are deliberately deceiving the public, or they have no scientific evidence to back their position. Either way, their disregard for science, medicine, and reason has left them with no lucid argument against Amendment 62."
"It's just shocking that they are distributing this misinformation to the public," added Mason. "The opposition to Amendment 62 is deceiving voters, basing their campaign on opinion and false statements. The simple truth is that a baby in the womb has a heartbeat days after her life begins, not months after. This is just one example of the opposition's dehumanization of the child in the womb, who deserves to be protected."
Contact: Jennifer Mason Source: Amendment 62 Publish Date: October 26, 2010
Ohio District Judge Timothy Black ruled today that Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, can move forward with his challenge against a pro-life group over billboard ads.
The Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) came under fire for its ad campaign, which called out Driehaus, who purports to be pro-life, but voted for President Obama's health care law. The law will usher in the largest publicly funded expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.
After learning about the billboard, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission (OEC) on Oct. 6, alleging SBA List violated two election laws with its billboards that show his picture and read, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."
Driehaus plans to depose several members of the SBA List, including its president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, and has requested thousands of documents and e-mails that discuss the billboards.
Should the Election Commission deem the billboards legal on Oct. 28, the billboards – which have yet to go up – would likely not be up long enough to effectively communicate SBA List's message.
Dannenfelser said that hardball politics is on display.
"The strategy is to tie up all of our time and money," Dannenfelser said, "in the weeks leading up to the election."
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 25, 2010
Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has halted the parents of a teenage Texas girl from forcing their underage daughter to abort her unborn child.
The struggle for life took place in Austin, Texas, where ADF attorney Matt Bowman tells OneNewsNow the teen and her baby are now protected by a temporary restraining order.
"This is a case where a 16-year-old high school student was going to be forced to obtain an abortion by her parents, but attorneys allied with the Alliance Defense Fund were able to obtain a court order to protect her from having that innocent life destroyed against her own will," Bowman reports.
The mother literally dragged her daughter into two different abortion clinics, even though her daughter and the baby's father wanted to carry the pregnancy to term. That decision was reaffirmed after a pro-life prayer worker outside an abortion facility gave the teen more information about the truth of abortion.
"She and her boyfriend both wanted life for this child, and it illustrates what a difference it can make when a woman is more fully informed about the nature of abortion and has the assistance she needs to affirm the life within her," the ADF attorney decides.
He further emphasizes that a minor cannot be forced to abort her unborn child. "They have various legal rights to protect their ability to decide to choose life for their child, and no one should be allowed to decide that innocent life is worthless, especially a life that belongs to somebody else," Bowman contends.
A hearing scheduled for Thursday will consider a motion to convert the temporary restraining order into a temporary injunction.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 26, 2010
