Report: ‘Real Reform’ at Chicago CCHD Being Dismantled

     

Facing pressure from the old guard at the local and national level, the Chicago branch of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has begun dismantling the "real reform" that earned it so much praise from pro-life groups in the summer.

"Despite the attempts made by some well-intentioned individuals in the Archdiocese of Chicago's CCHD, the powers-that-be at the USCCB and some local bishops and priests have plans to return to the national CCHD's guidelines with this program," said former Chicago CCHD director Rey Flores. Flores, among others, had initiated the reforms with the initial blessing of Cardinal Francis George.

But a cadre of liberal priests, led by Fr. Larry Dowling, has been calling on the cardinal to reverse the reforms, which included approving grants for the life-saving work of crisis pregnancy centers.  As reported by Catholic World News, Dowling claimed in a recent letter, for example, that it is insulting for grantees to be asked whether they advocate for abortion or same-sex "marriage."

The same group of priests, who sought the removal of Flores last March, were recently also targeting Flores' former boss, Office of Peace and Justice Director Nicholas Lund-Molfese.

"People really need to keep the CCHD program in their prayers, especially the Chicago CCHD staff, priests and bishops," said Flores, who lost his position in the fall.

Under Flores' leadership, Chicago's CCHD had committed to defunding any group opposing Catholic teaching, particularly on life and family issues, as well as funding groups such as crisis pregnancy centres and the Pro-Life Action League, contrary to previous CCHD practice.

The former director told LSN that the rationale for funding such groups, and for ensuring that grantees are in line with Church teaching on life and family issues, is that "the lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the destruction of the necessary societal institutions of traditional marriage and family are the major reason for the moral, physical and spiritual poverty we suffer in the western world."

Cardinal George – under the recommendations of Auxiliary Bishop Francis Kane, who serves on the U.S. Bishops' CCHD subcommittee – has agreed to recommit the diocese to CCHD's long-time policy of not funding groups that offer direct service to the poor, and will also require again that grantees' boards be mostly composed of low-income people.

The Chicago reforms, which were held up by pro-life groups as a model for the nationwide organization, were especially significant because Chicago is where CCHD began and their collection still brings in the most funds of any diocese every year.

"For a brief moment in Chicago, we had everyone on the same page," said Flores. "It was awesome to teach people on the social justice side of things about the value of respect life causes as being social justice issues and teaching the respect life warriors about the God-given human dignity of immigrants and workers. I pray that these efforts were not in vain."

"It's sad that the unborn and the innocent poor must suffer because of our misunderstanding of what true social Catholic justice is as Jesus Christ taught us," he added, saying, "We must never sacrifice our Catholic faith and values for secular humanitarian causes."

LifeSiteNews was refused an interview with Lund-Molfese to ask about the status of future funding to pro-life groups.  According to Susan Burritt, the diocese's media relations director, "There has been no change in the policy of the Archdiocese of Chicago regarding groups eligible for CCHD funding.  Reports to the contrary are mistaken."

"While we certainly pray that the new leaders of Chicago's CCHD have the courage to continue Rey Flores' excellent reform effort, it sounds like they're returning to business as usual," said Michael Hichborn, American Life League's lead researcher on the CCHD. "Given the push to remove Flores from his post by a member of the CCHD's subcommittee, one has to wonder just how committed to reform the National CCHD office really is."

"We really commend Rey for his courage and fidelity to the Church for working so hard to make these reforms as the CCHD director," said Hichborn.  "But the strength and courage it took to go public with what really happened is a sign of his deep faith in Christ."

Contact Information:

Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago
PO Box 1979
Chicago, IL. 60690-1979
Phone: 312-534-8230
Fax: 312-534-6379
E-Mail: archbishop@archchicago.org

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

'Hush Hush' E-Mail Reveals Back-Room Deal to Ignore Illegal Abortions in North Dakota

    
Operation Rescue has learned through an intercepted secret e-mail that the North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners (NDBME) has notified the Red River Women's Clinic, the only abortion clinic in North Dakota, that the license of abortionist Lori Lynn Holst Thorndike has been restored and is currently in "Active-Unconditioned" status in spite of her operating illegally without an active medical license in that state since June 30, 2010.
 
This news particularly shocked pro-life activists at Operation Rescue and at local pro-life offices because there had been some indication given by the NDBME that a decision would not be made until the Board met on November 19, 2010.
 
The NDBME has attempted to downplay Thorndike's lack of active licensure by indicating that it was an "administrative oversight."
 
"It's unbelievable that the Board would decide to overlook clear criminal activity and make a back-room deal to restore Thorndike's license while leading pro-life supporters to believe that they are still looking into the matter," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "If that's true, that's a dishonest and unethical way to deal with the concerned public."
 
Tammi Kromenaker, Director of the Red River Women's Clinic, expressed relief at the news in a secret e-mail sent to supporters. She told her readers to "keep it hush hush" until after the NDMBE meeting scheduled for November 19th. Referring to the reinstatement of Thorndike's license, Kromenaker wrote, "Whew!...This pretty much made my month [two smile face icons]. We are pretty happy around here & doing some happy dances." Kromenaker included an attachment from the NDBME web site showing Thorndike's newly restored license status.
 
North Dakota law is specific that only licensed physicians may legally do abortions. It is a Class B Felony to commit abortions without a license in that state.
Even the NDBME Executive Secretary Duane Houdek admits that Thorndike operated without a valid medical license. "It could be that she practiced once or twice," Houdek told the local newspaper on October 30, 2010.

The NDBME web site had showed that Thorndike's license status was "Inactive - Expired." Then yesterday, a week and a half before NDBME officials announced they would make a decision, Thorndike's license now appears in good standing.

"While the Board may be trying to sweep this illegal abortion scandal under the rug, there can be no doubt that crimes have been committed. The Attorney General still has yet to decide if criminal charges should be filed," said Newman. "It is time for the public to let the Board know that their protection of illegal abortion activity is unconscionable and to remind the Attorney General that it is his duty to enforce North Dakota laws."

Contact: Troy Newman, President
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

‘Cheaper Than Free’ Birth Control Spells C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N

    

Next week, an independent agency and a team of "experts" will meet to discuss the issue of contraception and will advise the government about whether contraception should be considered preventive health care. Should this group determine that it is, millions of women could be receiving abortifacients at taxpayers' expense.

Unless there is a loud outcry from the American people, all prescription birth control will very likely be listed as preventive health care under the Obama administration's health care reform act by August of next year—leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill for billions more dollars that will flow into Planned Parenthood's bottomless money pit to pay for deadly concoctions that are neither "preventive" nor "health care."

And, according to the philosophy of the leader of the Institute of Medicine, the non-governmental agency advising the government on this matter, it could result in health care incentives being given to those who use birth control -- incentives that are not available to those who spurn it.

In an e-mail from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in March following the adoption of Obamacare, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards wrote, "Anti-family-planning groups will no doubt try to keep the Women's Health Amendment from covering family planning services. But family planning is preventive health care. … The administration must include all forms of contraception as part of the preventive health care covered under the new law—and it's up to us to make it happen."

To facilitate forcing its agenda down our throats, Planned Parenthood has launched its "Birth Control Matters" campaign, seeking one million signatures on a petition being circulated on college campuses and elsewhere to "make prescription birth control available to every woman without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs…"

Despite all its empty, deceptive rhetoric about expanding health coverage to the poor, Planned Parenthood, in all its diabolic wisdom, realizes something most Americans don't: If it succeeds in getting birth control on the list of preventive services in the health care reform law, not only will new health insurance plans be required to fully cover the cost, but state Medicaid programs will be required de facto to cover the full cost of even the most expensive, invasive forms of birth control, such as implants and IUDs, to millions of women with incomes well above poverty level, providing an instant pot of gold for the abortion and birth control mogul.

For years, Planned Parenthood has been trying to force all health care plans to pay for birth control, to force pharmacists to dispense abortifacient birth control despite conscientious objection, and to force all emergency rooms, including those operated by Catholic hospitals, to dispense abortifacient "emergency contraception."

In 2007, Planned Parenthood touted its Prevention First campaign, also known as the Medicaid Family Planning Option, to try to force its will on those who objected. But when it was dropped from President Obama's stimulus package, Planned Parenthood responded, "We are working with members of Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that the provision is sent to the president in the next possible vehicle."

The abortion mammoth soon found that vehicle with the help of Senator Barbara Mikulski who succeeded in incorporating the so-called "Women's Health Amendment" into the Obama administration's health care takeover. While Mikulski managed to keep the focus of discussion about the amendment on free mammograms, she cleared the way for the listing of anything that HHS, headed by notorious abortion supporter Kathleen Sebelius, decided to list as preventive care.

A "panel of experts" will be convened this month to advise Sebelius on what should be considered preventive care.

That panel will be convened by the Institute of Medicine, whose president, Harvey Fineberg, stated in his October 2009 annual address, Health Reform Beyond Health Insurance, that a great way to remedy the current crisis in health care coverage is to require employees to pay tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance—not suddenly, so as to rile the peasants, but gradually, over a period of years.

According to Fineberg, this would "generate hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenues to ease the public burden of health costs."

This gradual taxing is akin to placing a frog in warm water and slowly turning up the heat so he never notices he's being boiled to death. The American taxpayer must be alert so he does not become that frog.

And on the subject of preventive care Fineberg stated, "I want prevention to be cheaper than free," insinuating that incentives will also be provided. "We should reward individuals with insurance reductions, with access to additional services, and with outright bonuses for doing the right thing for their health," he said.

Taking that to the next logical step, it is easy to foresee that those who use free birth control will receive reductions in the cost of health insurance, access to services those who choose not to contracept cannot access, and other "bonuses" not afforded those who spurn birth control.

The National Academies, which encompasses the Institute of Medicine, was set up by President Lincoln as a non-governmental agency to advise the government on matters of science and technology, and is funded almost entirely by tax dollars. We must send a loud, clear, message to the Institute of Medicine and to our members of Congress that we will not tolerate paying billions of tax-generated dollars to provide free prescription birth control.

The first meeting of the "panel of experts" convened by the National Institute of Medicine will take place on Nov. 16. Please act today to insist that the American taxpayer is not forced to pay the enormous bill and suffer the consequences of "free" or—God forbid—"cheaper than free" birth control.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

NRLC Sets December 7 as Date for State Strategy Conference

   
 
Of course it was huge news last week that the GOP made tremendous gains in Congress, but those election results seem to have drown out an even more impressive wave in state legislatures. Republicans picked up 680 seats which is the largest ever for them. The only other turnover that comes close was the 1974 elections following the Watergate scandal in which Democrats picked up 628 seats in state legislatures.

This is of vital importance to pro-lifers because chances of passing pro-life legislation are dead in the water in legislatures controlled by pro-abortion Democrats. There are a total of 99 state-level chambers [houses and senates]. After the mid-term elections, the GOP has majorities in 58. For some states, this is the first time the GOP has had control of both chambers.

Thus it is immensely important to maintain focus and coordination to ensure that the pro-life movement capitalizes on these conditions to advance the cause. National Right to Life announced yesterday a state legislative strategy conference to be held in the Washington, D.C., area on December 7 (www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov10/nv110910.html). The short advance notice suggests just how urgent both the subject matter and the opportunities are.

With the news out only one day, we have already received a tremendous response through our state offices. Pro-life lawmakers are eager to discuss legislation like Nebraska's "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" bills to ensure that women contemplating abortion can see ultrasound of their unborn children, bills to "opt-out" of abortion coverage in state insurance exchanges mandated by the new Obama Health Care Law, and many others.

These kinds of meetings have always yielded positive results in the past ensuring the protection of unborn children. Is it exciting to know we have so much hard work ahead of us.

Contact: Luis Zaffirini
Source: NRLC

How Dare You Compare Abortion to the Holocaust or Slavery?

    

I have heard many people cry foul whenever any pro-lifer uses the Jewish Holocaust or slavery in America as a comparison to abortion. Many times at my talks someone will scold me during question-and-answer time, claiming to be offended that I would use such a comparison.

The problem they have is not really the fact that a comparison is being made to one of these horrific tragedies; after all, we build museums, memorials and reminders of what happened to make sure something like the Jewish Holocaust will never happen again. The problem really is that we have elevated what they consider to be a blob of tissue to personhood status.

If comparison in and of itself were the problem, then we would not go to such great lengths to educate society about what happened. The reason places like Auschwitz are open for the public is to guarantee that we understand the horror of what took place in the death camps.

This is precisely the reason we use such imagery. We want to the world to understand that what makes us so sick about Jewish Holocaust is precisely what makes us sick about the Abortion Holocaust. We talk about the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision because we want people to see that Roe v. Wade is just as despicable.

The same reason these people are so upset about pro-lifers using these comparisons is the very reason we use them: personhood. We have a duty to use the tools that history has given us to educate future generations about the bloodshed that has already destroyed the lives of over 52,000,000 innocent American baby boys and girls.

Dred Scott declared that human persons with black skin were not actually human persons, but only 3/5 human. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided that human persons who were of Jewish heritage were not actually human persons, but some kind of pest or rodent that needed exterminating. Roe v. Wade pronounced that human persons who were in the first nine months of their human development were not human persons unless their mother decided they were.

How can we not have learned our lessons about trying to redefine personhood? How is it that we still have audacity to play God and strip away personhood rights from another group of people, this time simply because of their age?

We know that skin color does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human no matter what shade their skin is. We know that nationality does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human not matter where they come from. We should also know that age does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human from the moment they start living until the day they die.

Some try to claim that a human being does not start living until nine months after his or her development starts, which really does not make any sense at all. From the very second the development of a human being starts, the thing developing is a human being. These human persons cannot suddenly become another species; they remain human beings throughout their development. That development starts the moment the sperm and egg unite and ends when that human person dies. From zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teen, adult to senior, the human being cycles through different stages of his or her life, until natural death.

The fact is these comparisons have to be made in order to show the full scope of the tragedy that took place on January 22, 1973. I would argue that we should be offended if we don't compare these events and use these historical tools to show the world the truth about the Abortion Holocaust.

It is obvious that we have not yet learned from the unthinkable acts of human destruction in history and the ignorance that led to such devastation. We are obligated to take these lessons and teach people the truth in hopes we can end the plague of child killing that is abortion.

I would go as far as saying, "How dare we not compare the Abortion Holocaust to the American Slave Trade, the Jewish Holocaust or any other catastrophic evil in history?"

This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from bryankemper.com

Contact: Bryan Kemper
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Cord Blood Stem Cells Significantly Improved Cerebral Palsy Symptoms Claim Parents

    

The condition of a 3-year–old child with cerebral palsy in the UK has been significantly improved after treatment with stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, stored when he was born, the Daily Mail reported Monday. Sasha Browne is thought to be the first British child to be injected with cord blood cells and her parents are reporting that her condition has significantly improved.

Tania and Richard Browne told media that the treatment their daughter received at an unregulated clinic in France has improved her motor control, her ability to speak and her vision.

Mrs. Browne said, "Her walking is streets ahead of what it was before; look at her hand - last time I saw her hand it was really closed and now it is moving more."

"We feel there has been some general improvement in her motor skills and perhaps some improvement in her vision and cognitive ability.

"We can't categorically say this is attributable to the stem cell infusion. However, we and Sasha's therapist feel the improvement has potentially been at a faster rate than it may have occurred, or in comparison with other children with similar abilities."

In the last ten years, leading stem cell scientists have lauded the value of blood taken from the umbilical cord as one of the richest sources of stem cells in the human body. While funding continues to pour in to research using cells derived from human embryos, cord blood research is slowly gaining acceptance as an ethical alternative that is saving lives and curing illnesses.

Professor Colin McGuckin, president and director of the Cell Therapy Research Institute in Lyon, France, recently told Modern Medicare magazine, "Around 20 years ago, only a handful of diseases were being treated with umbilical cord blood stem cells. With the advancement in this field in recent times now over 80 diseases can be treated or supported with stem cells. The advances that have been made are staggering."

In related news, new research has shown a link between the use of IVF for conception and increased risk of cerebral palsy in the child. Researchers at the University of Aarhus in Denmark found that babies born by IVF were more than twice as likely to have cerebral palsy as those conceived naturally.

The journal Human Reproduction reported that the risk was still elevated when the figures were adjusted to account for other factors such as the mother's smoking, or her age.

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Minnesota Judge Refuses to Dismiss Case against Online Suicide Predator

    

A Minnesota judge has rejected a request to dismiss two felony charges against suicide predator William Melchert-Dinkel on Tuesday, preparing the way for the case to go to trial – a decision that a prominent anti-euthanasia activist has welcomed as a sign that "sanity is prevailing."

Melchert-Dinkel, 48, a former Minnesota nurse who admitted to participating in online chats with 15 to 20 people about suicide, and entering into fake suicide pacts with about 10 people, was charged in April with two counts of aiding suicide in the 2005 hanging death of Mark Drybrough, 32, of Conventry, England, and the 2008 drowning of Carlton University student Nadia Kajouji, 18, of Brampton, Ontario.

Kajouji jumped into the freezing Rideau River in early March 2008. It was later revealed that she had been in conversation in an internet chat group with Melchert-Dinkel, who had been posing as a teenage girl. The man had allegedly urged Kajouji to hang herself in front of a webcam so others could watch and promised he would die with her.

In October, Melchert-Dinkel's defense attorney, Terry Watkins, filed written arguments with the court that sought to have the two charges dropped on free speech grounds.

In the document, Watkins argued that the online communications Melchert-Dinkel used when providing suicide advice was a form of constitutionally protected speech, and that the Minnesota statute criminalizing speech assisting suicide is unconstitutionally vague.

In his decision, Judge Neuville said that the protection of free speech does not extend to online speech that encourages activities that are defined as criminal offenses by state statute.

Minnesota State Statute states that, "Whoever intentionally advises, encourages or assists another in taking the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both."

"It is unquestioned that the state has a compelling interest to protect and preserve life. Prohibiting persons from advising, encouraging, or aiding others to take their own life furthers the State's interest in protecting and preserving life," Judge Neuville wrote.

"[The statute] does not prevent people from expressing opinions or discussing suicide. Rather, the statute only criminalizes a narrow and precise type of speech, i.e., speech that intentionally and directly advises, encourages, or aids a specific person to end their own life. Thus, speech that directly encourages and imminently incites the act of suicide ... falls outside the protection of the First Amendment."

In response to Watkins' argument that the Minnesota statute criminalizing speech assisting suicide is unconstitutionally vague, Judge Neuville wrote that the statute "is definitive enough to allow an ordinary person to know what conduct it prohibits ... and it is not written in a way that encourages discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the Court finds that [the statute] is not unconstitutionally vague according to the Constitutions of Minnesota and the United States."

Alex Schadenberg, the chairman of the euthanasia prevention coalition, said that, "William Melchert-Dinkel should be prosecuted and sentenced as if he were sitting with Nadia Kajouji and encouraging or counseling her to commit suicide," and welcomed the judge's ruling as a sign that "sanity is prevailing."

Schadenberg observed that Melchert-Dinkel "is not the only one who is perpetrating these crimes for their own sick gains upon depressed and vulnerable people," and said that the law must deal with internet suicide predators.

"Melchert-Dinkel committed a heinous crime when he took advantage of Kajouji, a depressed first year student at Carlton University, and convinced her that suicide was the best course of action.

"It is the same as pushing a person off a cliff," Schadenberg stated.

Melchert-Dinkel has entered a preliminary plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial. The next court hearing is set for November 19.

Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Pro-lifers want legislative results

    

As federal funding for abortion was a campaign issue leading up to the recent midterm elections, a pro-life group thinks it is time for the winners to deliver on their promise to block the use of tax dollars for that purpose.
 
Many pro-life women and men won federal office during the elections earlier this month, while some of those who professed to be pro-life, but voted for ObamaCare's federal funding of abortion, lost their positions. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, decides that "large numbers of representatives learned the consequences of their vote for taxpayer funding of abortion in the healthcare bill when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed."

Former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who headed the "Votes Have Consequences" campaign for the SBA List, recognizes that her group "had great success," but she says it is now time to claim "some legislative victory."

She explains that the SBA List has two legislative priorities. The first is to see the passage of H.R. 5939, which is also known as the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. That will make the Hyde Amendment permanent and repeal abortion funding in ObamaCare. According to Musgrave, this effort is being "championed" in Congress by "authentic" pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski of Illinois, who is joined by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and 160 other sponsors.

 A second critical bill is the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which is sponsored by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN). That measure would stop tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.

So while elected officials are working for the passage of these bills, the SBA List spokesperson is encouraging concerned citizens to express their pro-life suggestions at StopAbortionFunding.com.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

Pro-Life President Bush's Interview with Matt Lauer

    
 
When you've had great pro-life Presidents, it reminds you (a) the distance between them and pro-abortion President Barack Obama, and (b) of how much they did for the cause of life.

President George W. Bush was a great credit to our Movement, and stood tall when others would have folded. He has a new book out, "Decision Points," which I will begin reading tonight.

But like many of you, I saw his interview with NBC's Matt Lauer in which he talked for the first time about the miscarriage his mother suffered when Bush was only a teenager.

Bush tells us that he had asked his mother for permission to include what Lauer describes aptly as a poignant story" in the book, and would not have without Barbara Bush's agreement. Lauer notes it would be "impossible not to draw parallels between that moment when you said that was a little brother or sister and your views on life and when it begins."

"No question that it affected me, my philosophy, that we should respect life, Mr. Bush responds. "I was a prolife president."

The following are the paragraphs in the book that deal with this, courtesy of ABC News website, with a word of attribution or two added by ABC's Susan Donaldson James.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One day, shortly after I learned to drive and while dad was away on a business trip, Mother called me in to her bedroom," he writes. "There was an urgency in her voice. She told me to drive her to the hospital immediately. I asked her what was wrong, She said she would tell me in the car.

"As I pulled out of the driveway, she told me to drive steadily and avoid bumps. Then she said she had just had a miscarriage. I was taken aback. This was a subject I never expected to be discussing with Mother. I also never expected to see the remains of a fetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital. I remember thinking: There was a human life, a little brother or sister.

"Mother checked herself in to the hospital and was taken to an exam room. I paced up and down the hallway to steady my nerves. After I passed an older woman several times, she said, 'Don't worry honey, your wife will be just fine.'

"When I was allowed into Mother's room, the doctor said she would be all right, but she needed to spend the night. I told mother what the woman had said to me in the hall. She laughed one of her great strong laughs and I went home feeling much better."

The next day, when the future president picked her up, she thanked him for being so "careful and responsible." His mother also told him not to tell anyone about the miscarriage, which she felt was a "private family matter."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me make two points. First, after the Lauer interview Mr. Bush told ABC News, "I had no intention of creating a national dialogue [on miscarriages]." Yet just by scanning the Internet, you learn that it is clear that his recollection initiated a lot of conversation about just how intensely personal and tragic the unintentional loss of baby can be.

Second, even though Mr. Bush said the primary point of relaying the story in his book was to "help the reader understand why my mother and I are so close," it tells us a lot about him and has wider application to the rest of us.

We can more perfectly understand the beauty and complexity of preborn children through ultrasound. Elsewhere in the book, Mr. Bush writes,

"When I saw [his twin daughters] Barbara and Jenna on the sonogram for the first time, there was no doubt in my mind that they were distinct and alive."

But in a miscarriage we are also reminded how fragile the unborn child is.

In both cases, the lesson is the same one drawn by President Bush in the very next sentence:

"The fact that they could not speak for themselves only enhanced society's duty to defend them."

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

A Post Mortem of Illinois Elections

Some rambling thoughts on why we had minimal gains in Illinois, while there was a major landslide across the nation. The first thought that comes to mind is that the Democrats and their allies like Personal PAC framed the candidates. One has to ask why did the candidates allow that to happen? After all, Personal PAC has been sending nasty mailers in elections for many years. This year was no different. The Republican candidate for Governor was framed as a women hater, one that would even put abortive women in jail. After all, he voted against a mammogram bill that would save women's lives. Probably, worst of all, he didn't like equal pay for equal work. Even a rookie working a campaign knows those were all lies. No abortive woman would ever be put in jail. That is not what the pro-life movement is all about. There's already federal and state laws on the books that mandate equal pay for equal work. As far as mammograms, the vote was not against women, it was simply a vote not to require all insurance companies to cover this procedure. The vote was against government mandates, not women. So, that being said, why didn't the campaign frame the response to Personal PAC's attack. On the other hand, did the pro-life movement as a whole counter Personal PAC's accusations? Personal PAC has been the cause of many conservative candidates losses. Surely the candidates and the movement can counter some of these anticipated accusations before they are made. In other words, did we fail to frame the issue, thereby allowing the other side to frame the issue? As a pro-life movement, have we educated enough? The answer is clear. If a majority of women believe Personal PAC's accusations, the answer is obviously no. The next question comes to mind. What more could we do and why don't people know the truth? I personally don't think the pro-life movement has made Illinois a Democratic state. The voters made it a Democratic state and they hide behind misinformation from various sources, rather than seeking the truth. How about the shepherds across denominational lines - where was the teaching on the sanctity of human life? Where was the teaching on the moral responsibility to vote and to inform ones conscience on the moral issues before voting? If I was a visitor from outer space visiting some churches, I might think they were a Democratic stronghold, rather than a house of God. In Lake County Illinois, there are 404,637 registered voters, however, only 205,507 voted, that's 50.86% of voters in each precinct. You have to be kidding! That is no way to be an American. So, who's to blame. You tell me. Source: Lake County Right to Life Publish Date: November 9, 2010

IVF highly ineffective, study reports

In vitro fertilization (IVF) -- regarded by some as a potential cure-all for infertile couples but controversial among some pro-lifers -- is a highly ineffective process, according to research reported by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Based on a study of IVF treatments from 2004-08, researchers with the Shady Grove Fertility Center in Maryland found the following results: -- 192,991 eggs were retrieved in 14,324 IVF cycles; -- 110,939 of the eggs were successfully fertilized; -- Only 44,282 proceeded to develop into viable embryos. -- Only 8,366 babies will be born from these embryos, and that is based on the premise that all the frozen embryos will be utilized. As a result, only 7.5 percent of the eggs that are fertilized become children born alive, ASRM reported Oct. 26. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Assisted suicide for couples promoted

Swiss euthanasia promoter Ludwig Minelli is calling for lethal prescriptions to be provided legally to the spouses and partners of terminally ill patients even when they are healthy. "A change in the law is required to give dementia sufferers and their families more opportunities," said Minelli, founder of the euthanasia clinic Dignitas in Zurich, according to a report in the Daily Mail in London. "The partner should be allowed to have a prescription for these drugs even when they are not terminally ill. "In such cases the partners are often a similar age and one does not want to remain without the other," Minelli said. Assisted suicide is "a marvelous possibility given to a human being," he said, according to the Daily Mail report Oct. 19. Zurich public prosecutor Andreas Brunner said of Minelli's recommendation, "In my view, no change in the law should be sought." Switzerland allows physician-assisted suicide for those with a terminal illness. Dignitas has become known internationally as a destination for those from other countries seeking aid in killing themselves. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Assisted suicide involves a doctor prescribing but not administering the lethal drugs. In euthanasia, a physician administers the fatal dose. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Post-Abortive Women Report Continuing Distress Years Later

A small but fascinating study examines the feelings of menopausal women about their long-ago abortions, which occurred an average of 24 years earlier. British researchers extensively interviewed eight women about their experiences and published the results in the October 20 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology.  "The work provides an insight into the very long-term consequences of this procedure for these participants," wrote Kathryn Dykes of Greater Manchester West Mental Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Pauline Slade of the University of Sheffield, and Annette Haywood of the NHS in Sheffield. "It is likely that women may benefit from the availability of post-[abortion] counselling services not necessarily just in the immediate aftermath, but at different points after the procedure." The researchers asked women participating in a menopause clinic to volunteer for the study. The eight women who agreed were interviewed for an average of one hour and asked detailed questions about their abortion experience and their feelings at the time and into the present. The interviews demonstrated several common themes experienced by the post-abortive women. These included a predominantly negative long-term emotional impact, the fear of judgment, greater inner strength and compassion for others, and the attempt to avoid thoughts about the abortion but being unable to forget it. The authors found that some women suffered from "cognitive dissonance," a psychological conflict that occurs when the person has two strong opposing feelings. "Women reported knowing that the [abortion] was 'the right thing to do,' but maintained a negative perspective of the self as 'bad' or 'guilty,'" they wrote. "This explains the inconsistency in some women's self-perceptions, for example split into 'good mother/person' and 'bad person who had [an abortion]' and apparent inability to integrate these opposing views. The justification and contradiction themes illustrate that memories have been 'blocked out' to such a degree that inconsistency remains unresolved." The impact of menopause--the ending of a woman's childbearing years--on attitudes toward prior abortion experiences was also a focus of the research. While most of the woman denied a direct association between menopause and thoughts about the abortion, the time of life did cause many to rethink the choices they made when younger and characterized their abortion as a "loss" that caused vulnerability and stress. The authors included many quotes from the women, identified only by their first names, that illustrate the conflicting feelings that they are experiencing as they grow older. "I wish I'd had the baby now, but my life's a lot happier," said Jenny. "I felt guilty, I thought some people could look at me and see that I were guilty, that I'd done something wrong … sometimes I wish I could not feel this, weight in my chest and this guilt that I feel," Elaine told the researchers. Tina described her attempts to forget the abortion and the negative feelings, but admitted that it is impossible. "Blocking them out and trying to get through things, doesn't work always and you don't realise how deep they are until you realise … they have sort of like had a knock-on effect in your life," she said. Some of the women went on to have more children, although others never did give birth. They all reported a sense of wistfulness and regret as time went on. "I could have had a daughter or a son, a little granddaughter, that's blood, you know, that's my own," said Barbara. Jenny said, "I've always thought of him … wondering how old he'd be, I do wonder about that child." Ann, who did not have more children, said she feels that her childless state is a consequence of her abortion. "I know it sounds a bit stupid but I feel as if it's like, is this my judgement? It's like, it's as if this is my punishment [no more children]," she said. Ann added, "It's haunted me to be honest, I'm ashamed, I think it's just something else I have to hate myself about." The authors call for more research into the long-term impact of abortion. Even decades after an abortion women are suffering psychological harm, and this fact needs to be supported by further study that takes into account their individual experiences. "It is likely that emotional response to [abortion] is complex and more in-depth and detailed understandings may be gained through using qualitative approaches which explore and reflect women's experiences in their own words, rather than in response to predetermined concepts and categories measured by questionnaires," they wrote. "Sound qualitative studies, within a UK setting, are required to fully understand any longer-term impact of living with a history of [abortion]." Contact: Liz Townsend Source: NRLC Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Euthanasia advocates don't look past the suffering to see the person, says disabled leader

Alison Davis, the co-ordinator of No Less Human, a group within SPUC defending the right to life of the disabled, wrote a very powerful letter published recently in The Herald. Click here to read her letter in full on The Herald website, but I leave you with some key quotes, which speak for themselves: "Mary Warnock [JS: the pro-euthanasia philosopher] makes a fundamental mistake when she suggests that so long as a bill legalising euthanasia/assisted suicide has sufficient "safeguards", sick and disabled people need not worry that they will be first in the line of candidates for the lethal dose." "Would the Warnocks of this world agree to add a waiting time – 10 or 20 years – to any bill they draw up, in case of a change of mind? Because human beings are fallible, because life can be good even with great pain, because nobody knows when doctors' prognoses will be wrong, it is sheer folly to legalise assisted suicide for one group of people because they suffer in certain ways, while spending large amounts of money on "suicide prevention programmes" to prevent the suicides of others who suffer in a different way." "Mary Warnock's mistake is that she seems unable to look past the suffering to see the person, a sad affliction indeed." Contact: John Smeaton Source: SPUC Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Assisted suicide ad preys on fearful and abandoned, opponent says

Alex Schadenberg / Dr. Philip Nitschke   The prospect of a television ad promoting assisted suicide is causing a stir in New Zealand. One anti-euthanasia advocate is arguing that the doctor behind the ad is preying on the depressed and the mentally troubled. Dr. Philip Nitschke, based in Australia, is an advocate for assisted suicide in the U.S., Canada, Ireland, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand. Last month in Canada he held a seminar at the First Unitarian Church of Toronto for about 50 people, giving them information on how to commit suicide. Alex Schadenberg, international chairman of the Ontario-based Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said Nitschke has been on an international tour to promote his "suicide manual" and to explain how people may circumvent the law if they assist in a suicide. He characterized the doctor as a "suicide predator" who searches for people and encourages or counsels them to commit suicide. "The predator is not concerned about the frame of mind of the person, they are only concerned with the fact that this person has expressed some interest in death," Schadenberg told CNA. He compared Nitschke to William Melchert-Dinkel, a man being prosecuted in Minnesota after he allegedly used fake identities to establish relationships with the depressed and suicidal and then encouraged them to commit suicide. Nitschke's advocacy has also drawn criticism in New Zealand, whose Commercial Approvals Bureau recently approved the screening of an advertisement by Nitschke which promotes assisted suicide. Right to Life New Zealand expressed disappointment in the decision, asking that Television New Zealand uphold "the common good" and promote "a culture of life" by assuring the public that the 45-second suicide video will not be screened. The group said it would be inconsistent for the state-owned broadcaster to show a video promoting suicide while also spending millions of dollars on suicide prevention programs. "There are on average about 500 suicides reported each year in New Zealand. Suicides have a profound effect on families and whole communities. The screening of Dr. Nitschke's suicide video would be socially irresponsible and could result in an increase of suicides," Right to Life New Zealand said. "The prevailing community attitude towards suicide is that it is unacceptable behavior, promotes a culture of death, is contrary to the common good and is destructive of the social fabric," the group added. It argued that the broadcast violates rules against ads which support violent behavior and which lack due social responsibility to society. "Suicide or self murder is in itself the ultimate in violence against oneself, it is unacceptable to the community," Right to Life New Zealand said. Noting that Nitschke cites the principle of freedom of speech to protect himself from criticism and legal action, Schadenberg said that freedom of speech has limits. "These kind of actions are not only irresponsible, but they are dangerous to vulnerable people," the anti-euthanasia advocate told CNA. Schadenberg also characterized legalized assisted suicide as "the ultimate form of elder abuse." He questioned whether the elderly will ask for assisted suicide under pressure from relatives. He also warned that legally required psychological assessments for those who request suicide in Oregon – where assisted suicide is legal - are not taking place. "People who are planning to kill themselves or be involved with killing another are often going through depression, mental breakdown or experiencing a life-changing challenge, like few others. These are people who, without the necessary support, are not freely choosing to die, but rather dying out of a sense of fear, last resort or abandonment." Contact: Kevin J. Jones Source: CNA Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Bush: Pro-Life Views Affected after Seeing Remains of Miscarried Sibling

     

Throughout his presidency George W. Bush was unapologetically pro-life, but a strange anecdote found in his about-to-be-released autobiography, Decision Points, has provided new insight into the genesis of his views on the issue.

In a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer about the forthcoming book, Bush explained that when he was a teenager his mother, Barbara Bush, suffered a difficult miscarriage.

Barbara obtained the miscarried fetus, and put it in a jar in order to bring it in to the hospital. However, first she showed her teenage son his deceased sibling.

"I never expected to see the remains of the foetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital." He added: "There was a human life, a little brother or sister."

"There's no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life."

According to the New York Post, however, Bush told Lauer that "the purpose of the story wasn't to try show the evolution of a pro-life point of view." 

"It was really to show how my mom and I developed a relationship."

Ironically, Barbara herself appears not to have been quite as affected by the incident as her son: her views on abortion have been less clear.

In 1992, during her husband's presidential run, she famously argued that abortion should be left out of the Republican Party's platform: "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions."

Meanwhile, Mrs. Bush was coy about where her personal views fell on the issue. "I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," she said. "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Pro-Abortionists Try to Revise History

     

If I were a pro-abortionist, one of many who lost last week in no small measure because of the public's rejection of ObamaCare, I would console myself by knowing that there will be a vigorous effort by my troops to revisit/reinterpret/revise what actually happened November 2. Not just so I would feel better, but to assure my fellow supporters of ObamaCare and the abortion agenda in general that this had nothing to do with the wave that swept a huge number of House and Senate Democrats out of office.

In addition if they are able to absolve ObamaCare of blame, it might also strengthen the spines of all Democrats as Republicans seek to repeal and replace ObamaCare, aptly described by soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner as a "monstrosity."

Most non-partisans would ignore a memo (based on "exit polling") produced by the Democratic National Committee's communications director which concluded (according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza) that "health-care reform was--at worst-- a neutral factor for the party. "

Cillizza, in a piece yesterday titled "What effect did health-care reform have on election?" offered two other scenarios. A Democratic strategist argued that health care was important but not because the public rejected the substance of ObamaCare but because people saw the party's huge emphasis on it was at the expense of a focus on the economy and jobs.

"It is not correct to say Tuesday's vote was a referendum on health care, but it did help set the stage for Tuesday," according to Democratic pollster Fred Yang.

The third (and only accurate) explanation was one we talked about last week which came from Republican pollster Bill McInturff. He took two polls a month apart in the 100 most targeted House districts and asked the respondents if they had seen television ads about health care law. Some 70% had and fully understand the ads were critical of ObamaCare.

The most important conclusions based on what respondents said? That "51 percent called their vote a message of opposition to the law, while just one in five said it was a sign of support for it," Cillizza wrote. "A majority of independent voters, a voting bloc that Republicans won by a whopping 18 points, also said in the McInturff survey that their vote was in opposition to the law."

In a memo summarizing the results, McIntruff concluded, "This election was a clear signal that voters do not want President Obama's health care plan."
NRLC did important polling as well.

Twenty-seven percent of voters in a poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law as opposed to only 4% who said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the law.

National Right to Life has also repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Health Care Law will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment, if allowed to go into effect. The public agrees and clearly showed last Tuesday night that they oppose rationing.

Forty-four percent of voters said rationing in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law while only 10% said rationing in the health care bill affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the Obama Health Care Law.

Overall 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly)--almost a 3-2 margin.

You will hear a loud insistence that ObamaCare did not cripple pro-abortion Democrats. Don't be fooled.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Young Pro-Life Father Nearly Lost Son to Abortion: Says Fathers Have No Legal Rights

     
Joseph Lee, who serves as the development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Scotland, is the father of a four-year-old boy. But he almost lost his son just over four years ago, thanks to the fact that Britain's abortion laws do not allow men to be taken into account in abortion decisions.

Lee told his painful story to LifeSiteNews.com at a conference this weekend in Dublin.

At 22, Lee's girlfriend became pregnant and intended to abort. Despite the fact that he wanted to have the child and believed that abortion was morally wrong, he found himself with no legal recourse whatever to save the life of his unborn child.

Without anywhere to go for help, the only option left for Lee was prayer. 
  
Twice since the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act men have tried and failed in the courts to protect their children from abortion. Lee had studied the law and knew "there was no question of me going to a lawyer."

"I knew that would be completely fruitless. So I knew that all I could do really was, first pray about it, and try to persuade her to keep the baby. It was very frustrating."

Lee's mother had been involved in the pro-life movement, "So I knew I was completely against abortion in all cases," he said. "But I'd never been challenged on it and never done anything about it. So my girlfriend was going to have an abortion and I just couldn't face it, regardless of the fact that I was only 22, and I couldn't even look after myself, let alone another person.

"So I tried to persuade her to not to, but she went ahead and booked an appointment."

Lee says he is convinced that it was only by the power of prayer that the nurse at the abortion facility showed his girlfriend the ultrasound scan. In abortion facilities around the world, an ultrasound is normally required to determine the gestational age of the child to decide which abortion method to use. But women are routinely denied the sight of their unborn children in case it should influence them against abortion.

As has happened to so many other women, once Lee's girlfriend saw the ultrasound, she realized she couldn't go through with the abortion.

"I remember a phone call when she said that she didn't go through with the abortion that day, and that she saw our child on the scan, looking quite happy, swimming about. She said it just looked like a wee person.

"I remember thinking, 'That's because it is a person'."

He relates that the nurse offering the RU-486 "medical" abortion pill said, "I'm not happy giving you this unless you're 100 per cent sure."

"And obviously she wasn't 100 per cent sure because I was doing everything I possibly could to persuade her to keep the child.

"I didn't realize this at the time, but I found out later that she'd sat with a friend who'd used the abortion pill, so maybe that was something that influenced her decision. That can't have been a pleasant evening."

Lee pointed out that "it's very rare" to see anything written about the rights of the father in the abortion debate.

"Even in pro-life circles … abortion lobbyists are focused on women's rights," he said. "Pro-lifers tend to rightly focus on the child. Most counselors focus on the woman, but there's nothing really that focuses on the father."

Asked if there is anyone doing any kind of legal work on behalf of men in this situation, Joseph replied, "Not that I'm aware of, no."

"It shows that the pro-abortion side has been very successful in making it exclusively a women's issue. Which is completely ridiculous, because I've seen from my own experience that women are far more likely to have the abortion if the man's not involved."

He pointed out that abortion laws isolate women. Even if a woman is not being pressured to have an abortion, without the father involved she has no support: "If the guy says, 'You're on your own,' that's what puts pressure on her and gives her the feeling that she has to have the abortion.

"It's a complete lie to suggest that women should depend only on themselves to make the decision. There's no harm in admitting that sometimes she needs the advice and support of other people.

"Abortion is one of the most horrendous decisions anyone is ever going to make, and to have to make it on your own is a very scary thing."

Men get the short end of the legal stick, whether they want to be fathers or not, said Lee, who argues that legal abortion has given men the excuse to "walk away" from the mothers of their children. "It legitimizes men not having a part [in child rearing] and being able to abandon them. They will expect women to have an abortion.

"There's a contradiction when a man is looked down upon if he's not going to be there when his child is born, yet he's told he has no part to play in this whole thing.

"He's vilified for not playing a part in the child's life, for not supporting him, whereas that's positively encouraged from the very start of the child's life. So it isn't a surprise that we see men abandoning children." 

He added, "I know we're not supposed to judge people, but I really think that what a man does in relation to his children is a way in which we can sort of measure if he's a real man or not. Because if a man abandons his own child, then he's not a real man in my eyes." 

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Trying to Hide How Abortion Hurts Women

     

 This post is by way of preliminary heads-up. Researchers far more knowledgeable than I am will deal with the specific errors of a piece that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. ("The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health," by Brenda Major.)

In the first couple of paragraphs Major grants that "The decision to terminate a pregnancy can be difficult, and some women end up regretting it. It's commendable to help women make an informed choice."

So, in the abstract providing information to women contemplating an abortion is okay, but not if state laws talk about informing women of the possibility of abortion having a deleterious impact. Why? Because that's not "accurate" information, according to Major.

For support Major trots out the usual naysayers--the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, which are wholly committed to legalized abortion. (Major tells us that she chaired the APA task force which did not "substantiate the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems.")

As I say, the experts will rebut Major tomorrow. Today let me make just one point. Her opening sentence reads, "The latest war on abortion is being fought less over women's bodies than over their minds."

And in a real sense this is true, although not in the way Major means it.

For the past 50 years, women have been told without ceasing that abortion is essentially problem-free for all but a tiny subset of women (the baby, of course, is ignored except when the argument is that she if she is "unwanted," she is better off dead!). But does that make any sense, intuitively? No, of course it doesn't.

Just in the past year, we have witnessed a stream of quality research documenting the negative aftershocks of abortion. We have written about almost all of them in National Right to Life News and on this blog. According to Prof. Michael New, these peer-reviewed journals include The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Journal of Pregnancy, and The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry."These studies find evidence that women who have had abortions are at greater risk for health problems ranging from PTSD to depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse," he writes.

Major tells us that the "stigma" surrounding abortion colors the way women respond. So, for example, if you were to see (as we ARE seeing) women increasingly coming forth to say they regret their abortion, that is because it is only when women say their abortion was wrong ("repent," is Major's word) that they are not condemned.

The truth is gradually working its way out of the darkness and into the light. No wonder pro-abortionists such as Brenda Major are so nervous.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Why We Should Repeal Health Care, Not Amend It

     

There's a movement afoot again to use your taxpayer money for abortion under the guise of contraception in the health care bill. After all, with Senator Barbara Mikulski as the author of the women's health amendment in the now passed health care bill, the intent was to include family planning. The Senator is a pro-abortion feminist and there is far more than family planning in the health care bill. 

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood is advocating for free contraception under the health care bill. Is birth control preventive medicine? The Food and Drug Administration classifies the morning-after pill as birth control along with Ella One, IUDs and implants, all of which are abortifacients. 

Before everyone jumps on board with the idea that contraception is ok, we need to look at what the government means by covering "contraception." The fact that a pro-abortion senator and Planned Parenthood are pushing for this coverage ought to make most Americans think twice.

No one will argue that the morning-after pill, aka Plan B, is dangerous, especially to young women due to the fact that it has 40 times the hormonal content of one birth control pill. Recent studies show a strong indication that the hormonal content of the birth control pill has contributed to the meteroric rise in breast cancer.

So, if Plan B was bad, now Ella One. Marketed under the guise of contraception, it is really a dangerous abortifacient What you need to know is that the government approved and labelled this dangerous drug as a contraceptive, instead of an abortion pill that acts like the nefarious abortion drug RU486.

So the government's idea of contraception isn't really contraception, it's chemical abortion, and the're mandating taxpayer funding.

Source: Lake County Right to Life
Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Donations to Notre Dame Plummeted in Obama Commencement Year

      

The University of Notre Dame suffered a significant drop in contributions in the year President Obama received an honor at the school and delivered a commencement speech coaching graduating seniors on how to approach the abortion issue.

A CatholicCulture.org report published last month revealed that contributions to the university fell by more than $120 million in fiscal year July 2008 - June 2009, at $226.7 million, down from $347.2 million in FY 2007-2008. A drop in government funds accounted for only about $2 million lost.

News that the university planned to honor Obama at their commencement had broken in March 2009. The announcement sparked an unprecedented shockwave of criticism from Catholics across America, including from 80 active U.S. bishops and over 350,000 signers of a Cardinal Newman Society petition.

Catholic Culture notes that the recession that shook the global economy starting in December 2007, and ending in June 2009, also coincided with the drop in donations. However, according to David Difranco, head of the ReplaceJenkins.com website, the economy alone does not account for the steep losses suffered by Notre Dame. ReplaceJenkins.com spearheaded a campaign last year to withhold donations from the school in protest over the Obama scandal.

DiFranco pointed to data collected by the Center for Aid to Education showing that donations to private research universities fell by just 9.7% in 2009. Contributions to Notre Dame, also a research institution, fell by the much larger 34.7% in that year.  Donations to all colleges and universities over the same period fell just 11.9%. 

"Certainly 2009 was a horrendous year for colleges in terms of deflated contributions," DiFranco told LifeSiteNews.com, "but Notre Dame's loss is staggering, placing the University as an outlier among those who lost." Meanwhile, he noted, Purdue University, another research university in Indiana, saw an increase in contributions by 6.3% in the same period.

LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to obtain comment from the university for this story. A Notre Dame spokesman last month said that the school would no longer speak to LSN, but would not disclose a reason.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Planned Parenthood Wants to Abort Us into Prosperity

     

It will come as no surprise to learn that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards believes that government-funded health care should pay for all birth control, including abortions. After all, since much of this funding would flow to Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion provider would profit mightily from such a policy.

Of course Richards is smart enough not to say that PP wants to devour our money as well as our children. Instead, she trots out the lame argument that eliminating people will somehow save us all money.

Appearing on the "Bill Press Show," the Planned Parenthood honcho claimed that "birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money." She went on to say that "we actually feel that covering birth control is not only 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. 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." (See LifeSiteNews.com for the interview).

We at PRI regard her Richards's views not only as self-serving, but also as short-sighted. Children do indeed cost money to raise—as every parent knows—but they grow up into productive citizens who produce wealth, pay taxes and, on the whole, leave America a better place than they found it.

If you crunch the numbers, as we have, you will find that the average American baby born today will contribute several million dollars to the economy over his or her productive lifetime. Oppose this to the hundred-odd thousand dollars or so that it will cost to raise the child to adulthood, and you see just how valuable an asset these tiny human beings really are.

Planned Parenthood is an offensive organization because it not only advocates the wholesale destruction of defenseless human beings, but also actually carries out hundreds of thousands of such lethal acts each year in its hundreds of abortuaries. Now it wants us to subsidize, through Obamacare, these immoral acts, telling us that they are saving us money by doing so.

No one denies that it costs money to raise children, of course, but those who do so are making a fundamental investment in the future. Children grow into adults, who not only contribute to the GDP by entering the workforce, but also contribute, using their own special gifts, to creating families, communities, and societies. To view babies solely as economic liabilities, as Richards does, is not only dehumanizing; it makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Now Cecile Richards would probably respond that she doesn't want to eliminate all children, only those that are "unplanned." But how does one define "unplanned?" If your parents were not planning on conceiving a child in a particular cycle, does that make you unplanned? Does Richards not know that an element of chance enters into any conception, meaning that it takes up to twelve months for a couple of average fertility to conceive a child? Or is she focused on aborting all single mothers, as they do in China? I don't know about Richards, but I was unplanned and, therefore, by her simplistic calculations, should have been eliminated as an unnecessary expenditure.

Planned Parenthood's position is all the more nonsensical because the very government health care that Richards promotes so fervently can only be paid for by taxpayer funds. And every single taxpayer starts life in a mother's womb.

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi tried to add hundreds of million of dollars in birth control funding to the so-called "stimulus package" using these same arguments. We opposed this move in interviews with FOX and other media. At the end of the day, her amendment proved too much even for many Democrats to stomach, and it was rejected.

People are not just liabilities, they are assets. In fact, they are the ultimate assets. And they all start out as babies.

Contact: Steven W. Mosher and Colin Mason
Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Protection against Organ Harvesting

     

An expert on life and death has come up with a way to protect people from "Presumed Consent" organ harvesting.
 
The card is designed to ensure that doctors respect a person's wish to live their God-ordained lifespan, rather than having their organs harvested against their will.

"I've been studying the issue of brain death for more than 30 years. Brain death is not true death; it was concocted to get beating hearts for transplantation," explains Dr. Paul Byrne, head of the Life Guardian Foundation.

He says transplanted organs are healthy and come from a living person, so presumed consent is an active practice.

"It's already legalized in more than 40 states, that it's presumed that everyone intends to be an organ donor," the doctor laments. "Everything is done to determine if their organs are suitable and to keep them suitable until they can get the organs."

Byrne believes that is euthanasia, which he argues is something people need to protect themselves from, especially 18- to 30-year-olds who are considered to have the healthiest organs. This new card is a way to gain that protection.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 6, 2010

The Poisoned Chalice of In Vitro Fertilization

     

Sometimes things look perfect and beautiful on the outside, but a closer look reveals a starker reality. This is true of in vitro fertilization. While it may look promising at first glance, once we really come to understand this technology and its repercussions, we can't help but be opposed. Today's commentary examines these realities and offers an alternative for couples who desperately want a child.

"Reproductive technology" is fraught with moral problems, including practices that should never arise. They occur because some clinicians have determined that they can treat infertility by manipulation. Rather than diagnosing the cause of infertility and getting to the root of the problem in an ethical way, in vitro fertilization practitioners chose years ago to respond to the emotionally draining problems facing barren couples by using a laboratory to "make" children.

The expectation then, as now, is to create embryonic babies, choose the best ones for implantation, hope the process works the first time and charge exorbitant fees. When there are "leftover" embryonic people, they are often either frozen or given to science to be killed so that human embryonic research can be carried out.

On the other hand, if these children are deemed in some way "defective" after pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used, they are killed in the laboratory. If they are all the wrong sex, then the couple may opt to try again—allowing these children to be killed and putting more money into the pockets of the doctors by attempting the procedure again.

It's a lucrative racket for sure.

But one would think that anyone with a logical mind would discern that there's something wrong with the whole scenario. So why do so few discuss or admit that this documented treachery exists?

In Great Britain, when two children were born after IVF treatment, and were apparently created using the wrong sperm, their parents sued. The children have darker skin than their white parents and, according to their mother, have been subjected to ridicule and name-calling. 

However, a judge ruled that the case had no merit and that "the children had no legitimate expectation other than being born healthy and well." He also stated, "The presence of persons sufficiently misguided and cruel as to issue racist comments directed to these children is no basis for a conclusion that they are somehow damaged." Thus, the parents will not receive remuneration for personal injury even though the wrong sperm was used.
In New York, a woman was recently granted permission to harvest sperm from her dead husband. She claimed she did not want the death of her husband to stand in the way of their desire to start a family.

As if such macabre events were not enough to convince establishment repro-tech experts that there has to be a better way to treat infertility, we now know that children conceived through in-vitro fertilization have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities and suffer a greater number of overall health problems than naturally conceived children.

Such evidence of the pitfalls inherent in such practices has been increasing with the passage of each year. But this has not slowed the multi-million dollar industry.

As one mother admitted in a heart-wrenching exposé on the emotional toll IVF and other such practices can take on the family unit,

Medical technology has made me a mother, and my amazing son is living proof of how mind-blowing science truly is. At the same time, IVF technology and the hope it proffers have driven a stake through the very heart of my life. I have a son but I also have a divorce to my name, a string of lost or radically altered friendships, and the emotional scars of years of medical intervention. Society would call me churlish for saying it, because I got my 'prize,' but the relentless pursuit of fertility has been a poisoned chalice.

Clearly the reproductive technology business is fraught with pain, agony, death and enormous financial cost to families. So why does it continue unabated? It's all about the money, the denial that anything could possibly go wrong and the quest to replace God with the gods who wear white laboratory coats and feel no remorse.
The real barrenness in the quest for domination over man and manipulation of his genes resides in the hearts of those who will not stop, no matter what the human cost.

THE SOLUTION: Such diabolical events need not ever occur. There is an ethical treatment of infertility. It is called NaProTECHNOLOGY. Based on the truth that nature and procreation can work together even in face of infertility, this is the wave of the future—the new face of hope.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Young people's knowledge gap is golden opportunity for pro-life education

     

Last month The Mail on Sunday reported on a survey of childless Britons aged 18 to 25 on the subject of children. According to the report, of those surveyed:

 - one in five think an umbilical cord is a musical note, and that pregnancy lasts for 12 months 

 - around one in ten thinks that a placenta is a vegetable; a caesarean section is a religious cult; drinking tea or coffee will influence the colour of an unborn child's hair; and eating red meat raises the likelihood of giving birth to a boy.

 - more than half would expect a baby to be walking and talking within the first year 

Such lack of  knowledge is a gap which the pro-life movement can fill. SPUC speakers often report positive experiences after being invited to speak in a school, such as genuine interest in the issues from pupils and a warm welcome by teachers. Pupils are particularly intrigued by SPUC's set of anatomically-correct foetal models.

It is also vital for scientifically accurate information about unborn children to be imparted to pupils so that they can spot pro-abortion misinformation. In this country, the pro-abortion lobby - with the active assistance of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales, an agency of the Catholic bishops' conference -  is working to entrench itself in schools through sex and relationships education (SRE). We must hope that the recently-elected coalition government will not force schools to teach SRE and will not resurrect the previous government's plan to impose an anti-life/anti-family curriculum upon our children and grandchildren.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC
Publish Date: November 7, 2010

Report: Health Care for Elderly Better in USA than UK

     

A new study is out that seems to show that medical care for older Americans–of increasing interest to me!–is better than for oldsters in the UK.  From the story in Science Daily:

Researchers found that while Americans aged 55 to 64 have higher rates of chronic diseases than their peers in England, they died at about the same rate. And Americans age 65 and older — while still sicker than their English peers — had a lower death rate than similar people in England, according to findings published in the journal Demography.

Why might that be?

Researchers say there are two possible explanations why death rates are higher for English after age 65 as compared to Americans. One is that the illnesses studied result in higher mortality in England than in the United States. The second is that the English are diagnosed at a later stage in the disease process than Americans. "Both of these explanations imply that there is higher-quality medical care in the United States than in England, at least in the sense that these chronic illnesses are less likely to cause death among people living in the United States," Smith said.

Could it be that a primarily privatized system such as that in the USA–even under Medicare in which only about 50% of expenses are paid by the government, and private options are rife–works better than a primarily publicly financed NHS model?  Could it also be that the NICE style rationing in the UK cuts against the elderly–it sometimes definitely does–and keeps them from receiving the best efficacious treatments that extend lives?  Much of that is informal, but NICE rations osteoporosis drugs even for seniors under the age of 75.

In any event, these are complex matters for which there are no simple explanations.  But it is interesting.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Planned Parenthood Makes Post-Election Appeal to Donors for Help in Saving Its Taxpayer Funding From 'Dangerous Politicians'

     

In a letter sent to supporters by e-mail on the day after Republicans were swept in as the new majority in the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards used the election results to press for an "emergency donation" to help fight against "dangerous politicians who oppose women's health and the right to choose."

"Even before yesterday's election, women's health was under attack," Richards wrote in the e-mail, which was sent on Nov. 3. "Anti-choice Republicans like Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana have introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood."

"That's the frightening reality we face, and it's only going to get worse," Richards wrote.

According to the last annual report made public by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the organization received $349.6 million in government grants and contracts.

Pence (R-Ind.) was one of 31 Republicans who ordered a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) seeking the total amount of federal funding used by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, including the Guttmacher Institute, the Population Council, Advocates for Youth, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

The GAO report, released in May, states that the combined total in federal dollars spent by those organizations from FY 2002-2009 was $967.1 million – $657.1 million of that is listed as expenditures of federal funds for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation, according to the GAO, reported spending $3.9 million in federal funds over those fiscal years (2002-2009); the Guttmacher Institute, $12.7 million; the Population Council, $284.3 million; SIECUS, $300,000; and Advocates for Youth, $8.7 million.

In January 2009, Pence introduced legislation that would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit "providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion."

The proposed law makes exceptions for abortions performed in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The bill, H.R. 614, was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a committee that could soon be chaired by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January. Barton, now the ranking member of that committee, also signed on to the GAO report request.
Richards' e-mail donation pitch included a personal pledge: "I promise you this: Planned Parenthood will never stop caring for women, and we will never stop fighting for their rights. No matter what happened yesterday, I know that today thousands of women, men, and teens will get the care they need at Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers."

The e-mail included two links to make a credit card donation to Planned Parenthood.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010 

Pro-life leaders reflect on gains in Congress, fallout from health care law

     

Pro-life Republican gains in Congress are "substantial" and are likely due to the Catholic vote, according to two pro-life leaders. However, a pro-life Democrat lamented her caucus' losses, noting the need for reconciliation with the Catholic Church after a tough political fight over health care legislation.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), told CNA that the pro-life issue motivated a lot of voters. From the NRLC's perspective, there were "very, very substantial" improvements in about 65 House seats.

"Either a hardcore pro-abortion candidate was defeated by a pro-life challenger, or someone with a mixed record, like on the health care bill, was replaced."

The bulk of the candidates, about 40, were "hardcore pro-abortion people" who voted for pro-life legislation "seldom if ever."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said her organization's "Votes Have Consequences" program was a "huge success" in targeting supporters of the health care legislation.

"When you can successfully defeat 15 out of 20 members of Congress, you know something about the future of the movement," she continued, calling its future "extremely bright."

Expressing her "excitement" about the state of contemporary politics, she discussed a "strong pro-life trend" in America among women as well.

"We are seeing a surge of women candidates who are strongly pro-life."

Such enthusiasm was not shared by all pro-life leaders. Democrats for Life of America head Kristen Day said the election was "disappointing" for pro-life Democrats.

"We lost so many good members of our pro-life caucus," she said, reporting the caucus had been halved from about 40 to about 20.

"We've been there before though," she added. "We're very encouraged, which sounds odd, seeing the massive defeat that we had as Democrats as a whole."

She reported that the new Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchem, is a pro-life Democrat.

Day also noted an "outpouring of support" for and new interest in her organization from people "concerned about the partisanship of the pro-life community, and the targeting of all these good pro-life Democrats."

She thought concern over the health care bill and whether it funded abortion played a role "because the conservative groups really used it, to a bad degree."

She cited a hometown newspaper ad against Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) which said the congresswoman called the Catholic Church "liars" in defending her position that the health care legislation does not fund abortion.

The NRLC's Johnson also he suspected opposition to the health care legislation was a motivating factor for voters, especially the "abortion-related problems" with the bill.

Criticizing "smokescreens" from what he called "phony front-groups like Catholics United and Democrats for Life of America," Douglas said that President Obama's health care law contains "many provisions which will expand abortion if they are allowed to go into effect."

"Fortunately, most of them have not yet gone into effect," Johnson added, advocating the repeal and replacement of the law.

In his view, the broader problem is the "piecemeal, patchwork fashion" of addressing abortion funding restrictions.

"The Hyde Amendment itself expires every year. A lot of people don't realize it has to be reenacted."

The proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would be a "comprehensive fix," according to Johnson. At the National Right to Life Convention this summer, presumptive House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) endorsed the bill. It was also mentioned in the Republican leadership's Pledge to America.

The act would "permanently prohibit federal funding and subsidies for abortion in all programs, and it wouldn't expire every year." Johnson deemed this a "top priority" to avoid a "charade" accompanying new federal programs which under present law constantly require new abortion funding regulations.

This proposal will be "a tough fight" because it will face opposition from Democratic leadership in the Senate and from President Obama, Johnson predicted. He charged that the president has been a proponent of abortion funding "despite his verbal position."

SBA List's Dannenfelser likewise backed uniform restrictions on abortion. She also proposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.

"Planned Parenthood gets $300 million a year from taxpayers. This props up abortion centers across the nation and makes us all culpable in something most Americans disagree with.

Asked about likely pro-life legislation from the new Congress, Kristen Day said it would depend on Republican action in the House.

"I'm not sure that we have a pro-life majority in the Senate," she explained.

Concerning the Catholic vote, Dannenfesler thought it was "a significant factor in restoring a pro-life Congress."

"The more frequent churchgoers, those are the people we need to reach," she told CNA. "The life issue is at the heart of the Church."

For her part, Day said post-election reconciliation is needed.

"The Democratic Party really agreed with the Catholic Church a lot, and a lot of Democrats felt abandoned by the Catholic bishops for not standing up for their positions."

She said she had to remind critics of the health care legislation that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) mainly endorsed the legislation and opposed it because of the abortion issue.

"The truth will come out on this health care bill, particularly with the election case in Ohio. People are going to come to realize what a mistake the pro-life community made in targeting these good pro-life members."

Day charged that conservative pro-lifers have been trying to cut down pro-life Democrats "for some time" because "they feel like the abortion issue is a winning issue for the Republicans and they don't want the Democrats to take that away."

"I'm a Catholic, so I really want these pro-life Democrats and the Catholic Church to reconcile their differences over this health care bill so we can continue to work together on pressing policies that help pregnant women, reduce abortion and make sure that we do have universal health care."

Contact: Kevin J. Jones
Source: CNA
Publish Date: November 5, 2010