Planned Parenthood budget rider could face Senate filibuster

Despite public statements that he supports Planned Parenthood's budget being cut by 10 to 20 percent along with an across-the-board spending cut, rather than total elimination of federal subsidies, Illinois U.S. SenateMark Kirk has not yet joined with the public opposition of pro-abortion Democrats and three Republican U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Thad Cochran (Mississippi).   

The Hill reports 41 senators have agreed to oppose any House bill with a Planned Parenthood rider. From theOpenSecrets Blog:

A House-approved spending cuts package put Planned Parenthood's federal funding into jeopardy earlier this year, but as the legislation moves into the Senate, the organization that supports abortion rights has gained some significant supporters. 

The Hill reports that 41 senators have promised to filibuster any spending bill that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The filibuster-supporting senators follow criticism by other Republican senators who oppose cutting the organization's finances.

Much of the controversy around Planned Parenthood has revolved around an amendment proposed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). 

The House's spending package had already approved eliminating Title X -- the federal family planning program that partially funds Planned Parenthood. However, Pence's separate amendment would also prevent any organization that performs abortions from receiving Title X funding.

While Title X funds do not go toward abortion procedures, the amendment would still prevent Planned Parenthood from getting federal funding.

OpenSecrets Blog reported on the lobbying activities of groups supporting and opposing abortion rights after Pence's amendment originally passed in the House. 

While Planned Parenthood has always maintained a strong lobbying and political influence presence among lawmakers, groups opposing abortion rights have also bolstered their efforts. For instance, National Pro-Life Alliance's political action committee contributed money to dozens of Republican candidates during the 2010 election cycle.

By comparison, Planned Parenthood's political action committee made dozens of contributions almost exclusively to Democratic candidates during the same period.

Illinois Court Protects Pharmacists’ Conscience Opposition to Contraception Under First Amendment

by Wesley J. Smith

An attempt by the State of Illinois to force pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptives against their personal religious beliefs has been thwarted by an Illinois Circuit Court.  This is an important case because of its potential U.S. Constitutional implications as its potential impact the broader medical conscience issue going forward.

First, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have a sincere religious objection to contraception.  Then, it found that a state regulatory rule was designed to impede religious conscience objections to the dispensing of contraception–indeed to the point that former Governor Blagojevich once said that pharmacists who don't want to dispense contraceptives should find another profession. He isn't alone.  When the Bush conscience clauses were promulgated–since revoked by Obama–the St. Louis Post Dispatch advocated wielding the same choose-your-conscience-or-your-profession coercion  at medical professionals generally.

Back in Illinois, the court was unequivocal: Unconstitutional!  Against statutory Illinois law!  Enjoined!  From the decision in Morr-Fitz, Inc. vs. Blagojevich(citations omitted):

The Rule violated Plaintiff's rights under the [Illinois Healthcare Right of] Conscience Act, which was designed to forbid the government from doing what it aims here: coercing individuals or entities to provide healthcare services that violate their beliefs.  The distribution of contraceptives by pharmacists and pharmacies clearly falls within the reach of the Act. Plaintiffs and pharmacies have memorialized their opposition to selling these drugs in ethical guidelines and governing documents.  The government cannot pressure them to violate their beliefs.  The government may certianly promote drug access, but the Act requires them to do so without coercing unwilling providers…

The court found the Rule also violated the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

Plaintiffs have established the existence of a substantial burden on their religion as to all versions of the Rule.  The government has not carried its burden of proving that forcing participation by these Plaintiffs is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.  The government conceded that the Rule is inapplicable to doctors, nurses and hospitals, despite admitting refusals by these parties would cause the same harm as refusals by pharmacists…These are facts in direct contrast to the government's compelling interest argument.

Those laws are unique to Illinois.  But the case, if it stands up on appeal, could have a wider impact since the court also found a violation of the constitutional rights of the pharmacists under the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise of religion:"

The evidence at trial established a Free Exercise violation because the Rule is neither neutral nor generally applicable. The Rule and its predecessors were designed to stop pharmacies and pharmacists from considering their religious beliefs when deciding whether to sell emergency contraceptives. The record evidence demonstrates the Rule and all prior rules were drafted with pharmacists and pharmacy owners with religious objections to selling emergency contraceptives in mind. This lack of neutrality requires a strict scrutiny test be applied to this rule…and fails that test for reasons set forth above.

This judge was clearly correct that rules of this kind are aimed at impeding medical professionals from adhering to their own religious beliefs when they conflict with the choices of patients.  Some courts pretend otherwise–but that is just a way of avoiding the clear First Amendment implications of such laws and regulations. For example, under similar circumstances, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the State of Washington, but then, the state unexpectedly backed off and stated it would rewrite the rule, a process that is still ongoing.

The controversy over medical conscience is only going to grow more cacophonous, and not just over prescribed contraception.  Medical procedures and prescriptions increasingly involve the intentional taking of human lives–as in abortion, assisted suicide and potential future embryonic stem cell based treatments.  In such a milieu, Hippocratic Oath believing medical professionals could indeed be forced out of their careers by laws requiring them to comply with patient demands–as some media and medical organizations desire.  In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably decide whether conscience laws and/or the First Amendment will protect these dissenters, or the state will be allowed to force them to serve the emerging cultural imperative.

Expect the ultimate decision in about 10 years.

State of Abortion Clinic Regulations in the States

Ambulatory Surgical Centers exist in all 50 states across the US.  They are health care facilities that perform surgical procedures not requiring overnight hospitalization.  They can also be known as "outpatient" facilities, performing pain management, diagnostic, and other minor surgical procedures.  Under this definition it makes sense that an abortion facility would fall under the category of an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) and should thus be regulated as one, however, prior to the 2011 legislative session only one state, Missouri, defined and regulated their abortion clinics as Ambulatory Surgical Centers.  This lack of regulation of a procedure that has been documented to pose health risks to women is a dangerous oversight which needs correcting.

Fortunately, we are now starting to see this course-correction happening across the states.  Since the horrific discovery of Kermit Gosnell's "House of Horrors" in Philadelphia which facilitated the death of at least seven infants after they were born alive and two women, there has been a push in many state legislatures to further regulate abortion clinics.

In Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell recently signed legislation that causes abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals and instructs the Department of Health to create specific regulations to that end.  The language for those regulations has yet to be finalized.

Delaware, also home to clinics where Kermit Gosnell performed his gruesome abortions, recently passed legislation through the House of Representatives (HB 47) that would further regulate abortion clinics (thought they are not mentioned by name).

In Arkansas a bill requiring clinics that perform ten or more surgical or chemical abortions a month to be licensed with the Department of Health (HB 1855) has been sent to the governor's desk.  Other measures regulating abortion clinics are also moving through the AR legislature.

The Illinois House voted yesterday on an amendment to a bill (HB 2093) that would require child abuse to be reported by more workers in centers that provide reproductive health care than currently required.  Planned Parenthood and other organizations are opposing this bill, as well as another bill, HB 3156, that regulates abortion clinics as Ambulatory Surgical Centers.

Other state efforts to further regulate abortion clinics or define them as "Ambulatory Surgical Centers" can be seen in the second figure below and their corresponding state bill numbers can be referenced as well.

Gosnell's "House of Horrors" is by no means the only place where deaths and other tragic abortion abuses have occurred.  Amazingly, despite the publicity following Kermit Gosnell, abortion giant Planned Parenthood continues to lobby against such regulations – just as they did against similar regulations that were designed in Pennsylvania to stop butchers like Gosnell.

Note: Information for the above map was gained from Americans United for Life.

 AR (HB 1855 and SB 845), IA (SF 40), IL (HB 3156), KS (HB 2337 and SB 165), KY (SB47), MD (HB 23 and SB 505), OK (HB 1548), OR (SB 901), and TN (HB 956 and SB 47)

 AZ (SB 1390), IN (HB 1204 and SB 328), OK (HB1642) and TX (HB 2787)

 DE (HB 47), IN (HB 1474), MD (HB 18, HB 19, HB 20, HB 187, and HB 746), MI (HB 150, HB 4119, HB 4120, SB 54 and SB 55), MO (HB 483), ND (HB 1297), NM (SB 225), OK (HB 1970), TN (HB 435 and SB 642) and TX (HB 2555 and HB 3446)

By Brianna Walden

Source: FRC Blog

World Health Day: Abortion is Not a Health Issue

April 7th was "World Health Day" and some are using this fact to argue that "abortion is a health issue, not a crime" by way of a "blogswarm". I find this contention a little curious; claiming that abortion is simply a health issue is an assertion which is supposed to mean that abortion is not a moral issue in any way. However, an assertion is not an argument and proves nothing.

If a fetus is a human being then feticide is homicide and this obviously makes abortion more than a health issue. But suppose (contrary to what I think is the case) a fetus is not a human being. How does it follow that abortion is a health issue?

Cutting tissue out of a person's body does not make something into a health issue. Suppose, for example, that a woman has a boob job. Is this a health issue? No, this  is cosmetic surgery. It might be done in a hospital and by a surgeon but this does not make it into a health issue any more than the fact that a chef might kiss his wife in a resurant makes his romance of her a question of diet. Contrary to what some juvenile males may think, having small breasts is not a disease.

Of course, one can imagine situations where a boob job might be a health issue. Suppose a woman has breast cancer and the surgeon surgically removes her breast tissue to prevent the cancer spreading. This would be a health issue because cancer is a disease; it is something that threatens life, limb or bodily function and the surgery is necessary to prevent the body succumbing to the disease.

Pregnancy, however, is not a disease and I find it quite odd that people who claim to be pro-women would suggest that it was.

Of course, there might be some types of abortion which are a health issue; cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or threatens to cause her serious injury, for example. But these are not the normal cases or reasons women have abortions.

I suppose an obvious rejoinder will be raised here; any time a woman does not want to be pregnant carrying the pregnancy to term will be a source of anguish. Similarly, as the World Health Organisation ("WHO") likes to tell us, health is broader than simply physical integrity like the absence of disease, loss of limb or death. Health is more holistic – it includes economic and emotional well-being, it is the absence of stress and so forth. Hence, abortion is a health issue because women use abortions to gain health in this broader sense.

We can define health the way WHO does if we like; and if we do, abortion is a health issue. But the problem is that on this definition almost anything one does is a "health issue". My choice to take a particular career path, marry a particular woman, live in a certain house all can adversely effect my economic well-being, cause me emotional stress and so on.  We can call abortion a health issue only by calling everything a health issue and once we do this the fact that abortion is a health issue becomes of little significance – there would be little point in observing World Health Day.

So abortion is not a health issue. Moreover, even if it was, it is hard to know what saying it is a health issue is supposed to prove. The whole reason there is a field called medical ethics is because even "health issues" can be subject to moral and ethical critique.  Perhaps instead of chanting slogans about abortion, people should actually examine the moral and ethical issues the abortion procedure raises and engage in some moral reasoning and analysis. Hiding behind "it is a health issue, not a crime" is simply avoidance.

By Matt Flannagan

Source: MandM Blog

Illinois, Missouri Work to Protect Pharmacists’ Rights of Conscience

A circuit judge in Illinois has ruled that pharmacists should not be forced to violate their religious beliefs by dispensing the morning-after pill. The drug, sold as Plan B, contains high concentrations of the hormones found in oral contraceptives and is given to women within 72 hours of sex to prevent pregnancy. It may cause an early abortion.

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog had sued over a 2005 rule put into place by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich that forced them to sell Plan B. A circuit court dismissed their claim, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that it must be considered.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz held Tuesday that the rule violates the state's conscience rights law.

"Both Illinois and federal law make it clear that people don't have to check their religion at the door to enter the health care fields," said Mark Rienzi, a law professor at the Catholic University of America and co-counsel in the case.

The state attorney general's office said it plans to appeal the decision.

In Missouri, the state House has given initial approval to legislation that would protect pharmacists from being forced to sell Plan B.

The Tuesday vote drew cheers from hundreds of life advocates who had gathered at the Capitol. The bill needs another House vote before it can move to the Senate.

Source: CitizenLInk

Abortion Funding and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Divide Congress

With the government just one day away from shutting down, Congress continues to debate the budget.

Life advocates have been pushing lawmakers to support spending bills only if they contain four key provisions to: defund Planned Parenthood; reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which prevents federal funds from going to international groups that promote or perform abortions; defund the pro-abortion U.N. Population Fund; and stop government-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

"A large majority of Americans, regardless of their view on abortion, believe that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortion," said Tony Perkins, president of FRC Action.

Unfortunately, the spending measure that passed in the U.S. House today defunds abortion in D.C., but fails to address the other pro-life priorities.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said "ideological matters" are the only problems in reaching a budget solution.

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at CitizenLink, said: "Now is the time to make a stand on taxpayer funding of abortion. Lawmakers should not back down and must not wait any longer. This issue is too important, and momentum is behind us."

Also today, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the repeal of the policy referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Military chiefs testified that it would take months of training before service members would be ready to implement changes.

In a letter to the committee, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, wrote: "I believe it is too early to say what the impact on implementation of the repeal of DADT will have on our morale, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, recruiting and retention in the Army."

By Jennifer Mesko

Source: CitizenLink

ACTION ALERT

There are three pro-life bills moving in the Illinois House of the Illinois General Assembly and votes are expected to come early next week.

Please contact your state representatives and urge them to vote YES on HB 786 (Ultrasound Opportunity Act - requires that a woman be offered the right to see an ultrasound before she can get an abortion -- it is her choice whether to see the ultrasound or not) and HB 2321 (amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act -- requires abortion clinics to meet all the same health and safety standards as all other ambulatory surgical treatment centers).

Note:  Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Centers (ASTCs) are outpatient surgical centers that do surgeries like eye surgeries or foot surgeries. Abortion clinics are ASTCs but a court settlement in the late 1980s allows them to have lower health and safety standards than all other ASTCs.  Why should women going to abortion clinics have less health and safety requirements protecting them than other ASTCs?

A third pro-life bill -- HB 2093 --  amends the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to re-state that medical personnel and counselors at facilities that provide abortions, abortion referrals or contraceptives must report any reasonable suspicion that a child known to them may be an abused child or a neglected child has little or no opposition and should be passed in the Illinois House next week. 

You can contact your representative throught the Capitol Switchboard in Springfield at 217-782-2000.

National Pro-Life Leaders Unveil Chicago Billboard Campaign Addressing Lost Potential in African American Community

Life Always Launches a Chicago Campaign Encouraging the Black Community to Reflect on Leadership Lost in the Next Generation. 

Contact: Marissa Gabrysch, Life Always

 

Life Always, the organization behind New York City's controversial "Dangerous Place" billboard last month, is initiating another campaign – this time in Chicago. The new campaign will launch on March 29 and includes an image of President Obama.

 

"Our future leaders are being aborted at an alarming rate. These are babies who could grow to be the future Presidents of the United States, or the next Oprah Winfrey, Denzel Washington or Maya Angelou," said Life Always Board Member Reverend Derek McCoy.

 

The billboard states: "Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted." The image of President Obama faces the capitalized word "leader," and readers are directed to visit thatsabortion.com.

 

Over 30 billboards will be placed in South Chicago to encourage reflection on the disproportionate number of abortions among African Americans. Census and CDC reports state that African Americans comprise less than 13 percent of the population and about 36 percent of the country's abortions.

 

The Illinois Department of Public Health reported 25,196 abortions in Cook County, IL in 2009.

 

"The potential of a community lies in its children," said Board Member Pastor Stephen Broden. "If we aren't having them, our potential is lost."

 

Life Always' New York City billboard was removed by the billboard company, however they remain committed to continuing to raise awareness and exercising first amendment rights of free speech to bring awareness to the tragedy of abortion.

April is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month

Contact: Stacy Massey, Abortion Recovery InterNational, Inc.

Governor Tim Pawlenty, who recently announced an exploratory committee to run for President, highly endorsed Abortion Recovery Awareness Month in April of 2010, as have Governors Perry and Jindal.

So what is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month?

Abortion Recovery Awareness Month (aka Abortion Recovery Month) was established in 2005, by Abortion Recovery InterNational, Inc. to encourage and extend healing opportunities to individuals and families hurting from an abortion experience. 

During the month of April, Abortion Recovery InterNational encourages Christians, around the globe, to enlighten society by reaching out to individuals and families in their community who might have been impacted by abortion. 

Stacy Massey, Abortion Recovery InterNational President/Founding Partner, states: 

"One abortion, through a ripple effect, may touch the hearts of 40-50 people in a lifetime. We, as a society, are not always prepared on how to help! Our staff, volunteers and affiliates are here to assist ... not only those hurting and their families; but to begin to educate society and the church on how to reach out with compassion!"

Abortion Recovery Awareness Month is secular-friendly. It is free of condemnation, judgment or negative connotations. It has no political agenda! 

Says Massey, "Whether we are of faith or not, we tend to label abortion as a media and/or church "hot point". When we truly should be looking at how to assist those that have post-abortion complications. We need to realize and acknowledge that not everyone suffers after abortion, yet those that do, may need help from others!"

An Abortion Recovery Awareness Calendar for the month of April is established each year providing ideas and resources to promote healing for those hurting. 

The ultimate goal is to share Compassionate Abortion Recovery Efforts!

Visit the Abortion Recovery Awareness Month website to see the April 2011 Calendar, a line of awareness products and read endorsements from other community leadership.

For more information, visit Abortion Recovery InterNational's websites:

www.abortionrecoveryawarenessmonth.org  
(for further information on the event)
 

www.abortionrecoveryinternational.org  
(to learn more about how you can help those hurting)
 

www.abortionrecovery.org 
(for those individuals and families affected by abortion)

Pro-Life Free Speech Wins Over Library Censorship: Canceled Pro-Life Film to be Shown as Scheduled at Wausau, WI Public Library

Thomas More Society's Lawsuit Against Marathon County Library Secures Constitutional Rights for Pro-Life Group

Contact: Tom Ciesielka

Yesterday, Thomas More Society attorneys confirmed that Marathon County library officials have agreed to rescind their decision to cancel a showing of the pro-life documentary "BloodMoney" by the Wausau "40 Days for Life" group in one of the library's public meeting rooms. Scott Corbett, Marathon County Corporation Counsel, said in a letter to the Thomas More Society, "The library will honor its original commitment." Thomas More Society's lawsuit, filed yesterday in Madison, Wisconsin, federal court made clear that the library was censoring and suppressing the constitutionally-protected free speech of Wausau 40 Days for Life.

"We are pleased that our client's right to free speech was vindicated. However, it's disappointing that a federal lawsuit was necessary to prevent a public library from engaging in censorship," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. "In the end, the library followed its stated policy that meeting rooms are to be allocated without regard to the beliefs of those using them."

Letter from the Marathon County Corporation Counsel is availablehere.

Protecting Life at Every Stage

by Jennifer Mesko

As America remembers the life of Terri Schiavo — who died six years ago today after 13 days of court-ordered dehydration — family advocates across the nation are taking steps to protect life at every stage.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican and longtime life advocate, is getting ready to sign two pro-life bills that received overwhelming support in the Legislature. One would protect babies after the 22nd week of pregnancy; the other would require a minor to have parental consent before an abortion.

"It's a tremendous day," Republican state Rep. Lance Kinzer told The Kansas City Star. "It's been a long road for the pro-life movement in Kansas to get to this stage — not just a matter of years, but going back decades."

For many years, pro-life legislation would disappear on the desk of then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who now is President Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Indiana House voted 72-23 Wednesday to make abortion illegal after 20 weeks, except in cases where the mother's life is at risk. The state Senate recently passed a similar measure.

"It is our responsibility to protect the unborn," Republican Rep. Eric Turner, who authored the bill, told The Indianapolis Star. "I hope with this legislation, women will be able to make a more informed decision about their pregnancy, and I hope ultimately we'll have fewer abortions in this state."

The bill's passage, Turner said, "will make Indiana one of the most pro-life states in America."

In Idaho, lawmakers are working to protect life at the other end of the spectrum. Republican Gov. Butch Otter has received legislation from the House and Senate that would prevent doctors from helping patients to kill themselves.

Jason Herring, president of Right to Life of Idaho, said no one has the right to make such life-and-death decisions.

"We don't believe this belongs to a doctor or a hospital," he said.  "This belongs to our Creator."

China may drop one-child policy, but coercive abortion likely would continue

 by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)--China may consider lifting its one-child policy, but that does not mean it will terminate its practice of coercive population control, an American advocate for women's rights says.

A two-child policy to start in 2015 was proposed at the annual meeting of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the National People's Congress the week of March 6-12, according to The Lancet, a British medical journal. If enacted, the change would discard the current one-child policy in cities. A two-child policy already is in place in rural areas and among minorities, if the first is a girl.

Communist Chinese officials often have brutally enforced the one-child policy since it was implemented in 1979. Government actions against those found in violation have included forced abortions on women in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy and compulsory sterilizations. Penalties also have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes.

The program -- which requires all women to have a birth permit before becoming pregnant and monitors the reproductive cycles of women of child-bearing age -- also has resulted in the infanticide and abandonment of female babies, according to reports.

Reggie Littlejohn says a switch to an urban, two-child policy will not soften China's population control program.

"The problem with the One Child Policy is not the number of children allowed," Littlejohn said in a written statement to Baptist Press. "Rather, it is the fact that the policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Even if some couples will eventually be allowed to have two children, the Chinese Communist Party has emphatically not stated that they will cease their appalling methods of enforcement."

Littlejohn is president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a coalition that combats coercive abortion and sexual slavery in China.

Evidence from the regions already with a two-child policy shows the higher limit has done little to prevent the widespread aborting of girls in a country with a heavy preference for boys. The "areas in which two children are allowed are especially vulnerable to 'gendercide,' the sex-selective abortion of females," Littlejohn said.

A study of the data from nine provinces in the 2005 Chinese national census showed 160 boys are born for every 100 girls, she said. A 2009 British medical journal analysis of the information concluded, she said, "Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males." 

The resulting gender imbalance will result in an estimated 30 to 40 million more marriage-age men than women by 2020, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "This gender imbalance is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery, not only in China, but in neighboring nations as well," Littlejohn said.

The enforcement of China's population control policy "causes more violence toward women and girls than any other official policy on earth, and any other official policy in the history of the world," Littlejohn said.

Wang Yuqing, deputy director of China's Committee of Population, Resources and Environment, spoke in favor of gradually expanding the two-child policy, according to the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. He cited China's aging population as a reason for the change.

Critics of China's policy point to another statistic as an additional example of the fallout from forced population control: There are about 500 suicides a day by Chinese women, according to the World Health Organization, making China the only country in the world with a higher female suicide rate than that of males.

American opponents of China's one-child policy have urged the Obama administration and the United Nations to end their apparent indifference on the issue. They have called for President Obama to reverse his policy of funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has been found to support China's program. Obama reinstituted support for UNFPA, providing more than $100 million to the agency the last two years.

Pro Life State Laws Have Helped Reduce Abortions According to Scholarly Article

by Wesley J. Smith

It is amazing that activists in the pro life movement don't get thoroughly dejected: They are scorned by the mainstream media.  Their free speech rights are abridged in ways that would never be permitted of labor unions. They are looked down upon by celebrity culture and made fun of by famous comedians.  Their leaders are demonized and their grass roots are dismissed as so many religious fanatics.  And even when they prevail legislatively, they are stymied repeatedly in the courts.

And yet, they are ever so slowly succeeding. A peer reviewed scholarly article just published in the State Politics and Policy Quarterly has found that pro life inspired state laws have unquestionably contributed to the recent decline in the number of abortions.  From the article:

The number of abortions that were performed consistently increased throughout the 1970s and the 1980s (Brener et al. 2002). However, between 1990 and 2005, the number of legal abortions declined by 22.22 percent (Gamble et al. 2008; Koonin, Smith, and Ramick 1993). A number of different reasons for this decline are possible. However, one factor that played a role was the increased amount of anti-abortion legislation that was passed at the state level.  Indeed, the Supreme Court's decisions in both Webster and Casey and the electoral success of anti-abortion candidates at the state level resulted in a substantial increase in the number of restrictions on abortion.

By 2005, more states had adopted parental involvement laws and informed consent requirements (NARAL 1992, 2005). A comprehensive series of regressions provides evidence that these laws are correlated with declines in in-state abortion rates and ratios. Furthermore, a series of natural experiments provides even more evidence about the effects of these restrictions on abortion. States where judges nullified anti-abortion legislation were compared to states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect.

The results indicate that enforced laws result in significantly larger in-state  abortion declines than nullified laws. Other regression results indicated that various types of legislation had disparate and predictable effects on different subsets of the population. For instance, parental involvement laws have a large effect on the abortion rate for minors and virtually no effect on the abortion rate for adults. These results provide further evidence that anti-abortion legislation results in declines in the number of abortions that take place within the boundaries of a given state.

That's the beauty of the American system.  People can have their cause knocked to its knees–as in Roe v. Wade–and through creativity, commitment, and doggedness materially impact the society's laws and the attitudes of the public, despite it all.

More remarkable still, pro life groups do not have very deep pockets.  Much of this was accomplished by people staying up late at night making phone calls and licking stamps.  Whatever one's position on abortion, there can be no denying that the pro life movement has been a remarkable political success.

Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting

by Wesley J. Smith

I am trying to raise the alarm that current bioethical policies and advocacy promote the objectification of human life and the denigration of human exceptionalism.  This episode is in To The Source, where I discuss organ harvesting coupled with euthanasia.  From "No Longer Science Fiction:"

When Jack Kevorkian advocated harvesting organs from assisted suicide victims in his 1991 book Prescription Medicide, people were appalled.  What could be more dangerous than giving depressed people with severe disabilities the idea that their deaths would have greater societal value than their lives?  Then, when he actually acted on his beliefs, stripping the kidneys of Joseph Tushkowski, a quadriplegic ex police officer Kevorkian assisted in suicide, offering them at a press conference, "first come, first served," people were stunned.  Who could be so ghoulish? Article Link However, Kevorkian's macabre notion had turned a key in the deadbolt.  The idea of coupling euthanasia with organ harvesting began to receive respectful consideration in medical and bioethics professional journals.

I give a notable example with quotes.  I then segue from Kevorkian's supposed fringe approach to mainstream medicine in Belgium:

Opponents of legalizing euthanasia—of which I am one—were well aware of these and other articles, which served to normalize the idea of coupling physician-prescribed death with organ procurement and transplantation.  But, we knew of no cases where the deeds had actually been coupled.  So we waited, fearing that the shoe would drop, but praying it would not.

Clunk! That sound you just heard was the euthanasia/organ harvesting shoe slamming with great velocity into the hardwood floor.  Writing in the journal Transplant International(Vol. 21, p. 915, 2008) several physicians reported that they had participated in the euthanasia and concomitant organ retrieval of a totally paralyzed woman

I point out that a team of bioethicists in Europe are proselytizing tying the euthanasia followed by organ harvesting of people with progressive neuro/muscular diseases. I conclude:

Apologists for the euthanasia/organ harvest protocol defend the idea based on the procedural requirement that different medical teams be involved in the euthanasia and the organ harvesting. But that supposed protection is meaningless. Once a society decides that some of its members have a life of such low quality that it is acceptable for doctors to kill them, and once these patients—many of whom already feel like burdens—learn that they can save lives by their suicides, the seductive pull of asking for euthanasia/organ harvesting could reach gravitational strength. We have entered exceedingly dangerous territory, made the more treacherous by doctors and bioethicists validating the ideas that dead is better than disabled and approvingly recounting how patients can be viewed as a natural resource. If we are to avoid devolving into a Kevorkian-style society, we must resist the siren song of euthanasia/assisted suicide at all measures.

I warned about this possibility in my very first anti euthanasia/assisted suicide column in Newsweek, in 1993.People said it would never happen. And now that it is, many don't care. But I think most people  still do. The problem is getting them to actually see the storm that is coming.

Charges against assaulted pro-lifer dropped

Charges have been dismissed against a longtime Milwaukee pro-life prayer warrior after being arrested and charged with assault.

 

James Marcou had been providing sidewalk counseling for more than a decade at an abortion clinic when he was filming a clinic escort. The escort lunged at Marcou pushing him against a brick wall, but told police Marcou had assaulted him. (See earlier article) Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society explains what happened when the case went before a judge.

 

"We were a bit taken aback but pleasantly so when the city attorney stood up and said 'Well judge, we're going to dismiss this case,'" Brejcha shares. "One of the other clinic escorts, a well-to-do woman who lives on the fancy east side of Milwaukee, was present with her lawyer, was very upset, even raising her voice to protest."

 

As it turns out, says the attorney, the key witness did not show up -- perhaps because he had provided police with a false name.

 

"He'd made his complaint as 'Steven Smith' -- not a vary distinctive alias -- and the city, never hearing the truth, had subpoenaed him as Steven Smith -- and of course there is no Steven Smith, so of course he didn't show because that bit of falsehood would have tainted the rest of his story which was false to begin with," comments the pro-life rep.

 

But that is not likely the end of the story either, as Brejcha is considering sending demand letters to the abortion clinic and may take further action because the concocted story against Marcou caused him to be falsely arrested.

Contact: Charlie Butts 

Source: OneNewsNow

Another lie from Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood has been caught in an apparent misstatement.

Pressure is on in Congress to approve what is being called the "Pence Amendment" -- legislation that calls for defunding the nation's largest abortion-provider. Planned Parenthood executive director Cecile Richards made the following statement recently on Joy Behar's television program:

Richards: "What's going to happen as a result of this, if this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are going to lose their healthcare access, not to abortion services [but] to basic family planning -- you know, mammograms."

Mammograms? Live Action, which has done numerous undercover investigations of Planned Parenthood, called 30 of their clinics. Here are some samples of the results:

Call #1
Planned Parenthood: Thank you for calling Planned Parenthood. How can I help you?
Live Action: Does Planned Parenthood provide mammograms of some sort?
Planned Parenthood: We do not.
 
Call #2
LA: And I'm hoping I can come in to get a mammogram. Does Planned Parenthood provide those?
PP: We don't.
 
Call #3
PP: We don't do mammograms here though.
 
Call #4
LA: Do you offer mammograms?
PP: No.
 
Call #5
LA: Do you provide mammograms?
PP: No, I'm sorry we don't.
 
Call #6
PP: No ma'm, we sure don't.

Planned Parenthood has issued a clarification, saying that they offer breast exams but actually refer clients to outside sources for mammograms -- which means that if Congress defunds Planned Parenthood, mammograms will still be available at those other sources.

Contact: Charlie Butts 

Source: OneNewsNow

Intern with Students for Life of Illinois

Advance the pro-life movement!

Build your resume!

Gain invaluable experience!

Save Lives!

Apply to be an SFLI Intern for the summer of 2011!

You will build up the collegiate pro-life movement through research, media, video, activism and more!  You will make a real impact on the direction of the pro-life movement in Illinois.

Here's what Lindsay had to say about her experience last summer:

"My summer job? I witnessed two lives being saved. I blogged, created websites, designed fliers and t-shirts, gave speeches to pro-lifers, did side-walk counseling, and helped put together a leadership retreat from scratch. The best part? I didn't know how to do any of those things when I started. What other job could give me this much opportunity to make an impact?"

Duration:

Summer (approximately 2 months)

Requirements: Motivated, hardworking, pro-life college student.

Compensation: 

Room and board at Newman Hall provided

Application:

Click here:

Summer Intern Application

Send completed application questions, resume and cover letter to Emily@ProLifeIllinois.com

Website: www.ProLifeIllinois.com

Deadline:

Monday, April 4th 2011

Mailing Address: 

P.O. Box 2001

Champaign, IL 61825-2001

Questions? Contact SFLI at 217.255.6675 or email Emily@ProLifeIllinois.com

Stem Cell Research in 2011

Stem cell research will continue to be debated in scientific circles and in the halls of Congress but unfortunately, political funding and research decisions might not line up with sound science.

More than a decade after embryonic stem cells were first isolated, a top priority for some pro-embryonic stem cell scientists is an increase in taxpayer funding for this life-destroying research. But each year more of the scientific discussion focuses on the ever-developing alternatives to this research.

Based on a number of recent groundbreaking studies using non-embryonic sources, we can only hope this ethical research to take more of center stage.

In many ways, those in favor of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) have painted themselves into a corner.  In an effort to gain widespread support for ESCR, they have made some high level promises to the American people.  The story line went like this:

-  "We can treat disease if we destroy young human embryos for research."

-  "Patients are suffering from horrible diseases and these balls of cells will be destroyed anyway, let's use them to cure people."

-  "We need to pursue the best research that has the quickest potential to treat disease, which requires ESCR." 

But, so far, embryonic stem cells have failed to fulfill any of these promises. 

Why Not Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

The public promotion of ESCR is by no means at a stand-still.  ESCR is the subject of frequent and overly-hyped press releases that usually consist of exclamations about great "breakthroughs."  What these releases fail to mention is that at least one of three limitations calls into question virtually all of these ESCR "successes:" 1) scientists are experimenting in animals (never humans because it's too risky) 2) immune rejection problems or cancer-causing tendencies are always an issue, and 3) research normally entails making embryonic stem cells behave like adult stem cells (rather ironic if you think about the strides being made with adult stem cells).

 

Proponents of ESCR continue to run into dead ends with these cells.  New animal studies identify the same significant hurdles of previous research.  As long as embryonic stem cells are rejected by patients and replicate wildly, causing cancer, there is little potential for these cells to treat disease.

In addition to the practical problems that continue to plague ESCR, obvious moral problems exist.  Embryonic stem cells are harvested from a young human embryo and as a result, that embryo is destroyed.  And this process – or anything that destroys, harms, or puts human life at risk – is contrary to the sacredness and value of human life.

When we consider how God designed the human body to function, it should come as no surprise that scientists continue to encounter problems with embryonic stem cells.  A human life at the embryonic stage of development is on a fast-track to becoming a fully formed human being.  In order to develop all the cells, tissues and organs necessary for the human body to function, embryonic stem cells divide and specialize rapidly.  So it makes sense that these cells, when taken out of God's natural order, would replicate too quickly and form tumors.  In contrast, cells in a fully formed body are replenished and rejuvenated during the natural wear and tear of life – by adult stem cells.  So, it's no surprise that the adult stem cells God designed to heal our bodies are the most successful in stem cell treatments and therapies.  These stem cells also pose no ethical concerns, making them ideal for these purposes.

Adult Stem Cell Successes

Fortunately, not all scientists have jumped on the ESCR bandwagon.  Some scientists continue to move forward with morally acceptable stem cell research.  These cells – often referred to as adult stem cells – have been successfully treating patients for more than a decade.  In fact, more than 70 diseases and conditions are being treated with these cells.  Even the federal government recognizes the importance of research with these cells – more than 2100 clinical trials with adult stem cells are being funded by the National Institutes of Health, with more added every day.

The Pentagon also understands the unique therapeutic potential of ethical stem cells.  They are investing a quarter-billion dollars into adult stem cell research to help service members and war veterans injured on the battlefield. 

Col. Bob Vandre of the Army's Medical Research and Material Command launched this five-year initiative that will use patients' stem cells to stop scarring, rebuild tendons and grow new ones.  He believes that "regenerative medicine is going to change the world."  He understands that it will be the means for "increasing the quality of lives, and [become] a huge technology that'll completely change the way we do medicine throughout the country."

 

There is a clear reason that this multi-million dollar initiative focuses on adult stem cells:  Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have a proven track record, with a steady stream of new examples almost every week.  Here are a few recent success stories:

-  Blindness – in London, patients who lost their eyesight from chemical accidents or genetic disease have reported significant improvement in their eyesight. 

-  Back and spinal injuries – In Colorado, a spinal surgeon performed the diskectomy (to remove a herniated or bulging disk) surgery with adult stem cells to help heal the lower back.  This means that patients may be able to get long-term relief from back pain and minimize their need for further surgeries.

-  Transplant patients – In Boston, transplant patients have avoided the use of long-term immune suppressing drugs.  These drugs have serious side affects but are necessary to keep the patient's body from rejecting the new organ.  A new treatment injected the patients with bone marrow stem cells from the organ donor. The stem cells from the donor trick the recipient's immune system into thinking the donated organ is part of the patient's natural self.   Four of five kidney recipients were still off immune-suppressing medicines up to five years later. 

-  Regenerating kidneys – Dr Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University used amniotic fluid stem cells to regenerate human livers and other tissues.

-  Lung disease (pulmonary hypertension) – In Canada, two patients were treated with genetically modified (enhanced) versions of their own stem cells.  

-  Spinal cord injuries – In Portugal, Dr Carlos Lima is treating patients with spinal cord injury by using the patients' own stem cells from their nasal cavity.

-  Cancers – A number of cancers, from leukemia to breast cancer, are being successfully treated using adult stem cell.

-  Blood disorders/anemia – patients with rare blood conditions and genetic disorders are finding relief, and sometimes being cured, with use of adult stem cells.

The list continues to grow — evidence that adult stem cell research isn't theoretical; these are real therapies, helping real patients.

Looking Ahead

Not only are the traditional forms of adult stem cells continuing to help patients, scientists are discovering other helpful alternatives to destructive research.  The newest research uses ordinary adult body cells and transforms them into the embryonic-like stem cell research without harming human life.  To learn more about iPS cells and this research, please visit Looking Forward: Ethical Stem Cell Research.

So what should scientists, medical professionals and politicians consider when they debate this issue in the coming months?

Morally problematic, life destroying embryonic stem cell research is losing ground as a viable option for research and treating disease.  In fact, some scientists have gone so far as to say ESCR is on its way to becoming obsolete.  That's some intellectual honesty that is nice to report. 

In stark contrast to the failures of ESCR, ethically and scientifically sound non-embryonic stem cell research is providing real therapies.  And basic research with adult cells continues to show promise for even more ways to obtain new, ethical, and useful stem cells.

The reality is that while science is leading researchers down a more ethical path, none of this would have been possible if pro-life voices had not persevered in their call for ethical research.  The morally acceptable research we see today is a testimony to those voices.

Contact: Dawn McBane

Source: CitizenLink

Legislation, Studies Point to Success of Adult Stem-Cell Research

The Oklahoma House of Representatives has voted 86-8 to protect tiny human embryos from destructive research.

House Bill 1442 would make it a misdemeanor to destroy embryos for research purposes, and prevent the buying and selling of embryos for research.

"We value life here in Oklahoma," said the bill's author, Republican Rep. George Faught.

Those who support embryonic stem-cell research claim it holds promise for curing diseases. Faught pointed out, however, that the destructive research has not produced a single treatment.

"The embryonic stem-cell fervor has blinded people to what else is available in the medical research field," he said. "The focus as well as the financial resources are being diverted from the very promising field of adult stem-cell research, which to date has yielded at least 73 cures or treatments."

In Florida, 68-year-old Max Eaton can testify to one such treatment. After suffering a heart attack 11 years ago, his heart had swollen. As part of a study at the University of Miami Medical School's Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, doctors took Eaton's own stem cells and inserted them into his heart.

Across the study, the patients' swelling went down by as much as 25 percent; medication and pacemakers typically reduce the size of the heart by about 5 percent. The study appears in the March 18, 2011, issue of Circulation Research: Journal of the American Heart Association.

Source: CitizenLink

The Democrats’ Reocurring Abortion Nightmare

It was only 18 months ago that President Obama said in a nationally-televised health care message to Congress that "under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." That touched off a firestorm because the statement was untrue.

Dozens of pro-life House Democrats, arms twisted tightly by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voted for the bill and then gamely tried to defend themselves in November's elections. They were decimated by pro-life voters in the Republicans' historic sweep of the House.

And now the fig leaf has finally blown away for good.  Among the first bills to emerge from the Republican House majority in the new Congress were two that do exactly what the president claimed his own law would do. Those bills actually would shut the door on federally-funded abortion businesses. The president's Democrat allies in the House furiously tried, but failed, to kill those bills in committee.

So the obvious question is this one: If indeed the health care law does not pay for abortions, as the President said it did not, then why would the pro-abortion Democrats object so strenuously when the pro-life Republicans nailed that door shut?

The answer of course is that in the bill's thousands of pages, and the thousands of pages of regulations written after the passage of the bill, there are ample (we count four) ways in which abortions would be paid for. The whole thing is so complicated that it was possible to make claims about it that were not true.

Although the media like to tell us that those pesky "social issues" have been pushed to the back of the stove, the debate over abortion is boiling on the front burner, as the Democrats' hostile reaction to these two pro-life bills shows. In fact, the abortion issue has such a vise-like grip on politics just now that the contortions are astonishing.

One of the pro-life Democrats who was defeated in November was Steve Driehaus of Cincinnati. Driehaus fiercely objected to anyone who alleged that he was pro-abortion just because he voted for the president's health care bill. One pro-life group, the Susan B. Anthony List, intended to say just that about Driehaus in billboards around his district, so he sued them for lying about him. The suit was so outlandish the American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the pro-lifers.

After the election, Driehaus dropped that suit and filed another one, this time claiming that he had been defamed, and that the pro-life group had deprived him of his livelihood. The response from Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group's president, was simply that, no, it was the voters of Driehaus' district who deprived him of his livelihood, as voters often do when politicians transgress voters' values. Nonetheless, that suit drags on.

Perhaps the most interesting outcome of the fierce battle over abortion was the election to the House of Blake Farenthold of Corpus Christi. Though he lacks the starched shirt and chiseled looks of many in politics, he took on a 28-year Hispanic incumbent, Solomon Ortiz, in a south Texas district that is 71 percent Hispanic. Ortiz usually wins in a landslide, but he was another member who caved under pressure to vote for ObamaCare, and Farenthold went straight at him on the issue of abortion. Neither side thought the challenger had a chance, but the district is strongly pro-life, and Ortiz had other problems as well. Early in the campaign Farenthold also had doubts: "Early on in the race I had a nightmare that I had won and now it's like, 'Now what do I do?' "

Farenthold won by 800 votes, and for the pro-abortion members of Congress who remain, the issue will likely be a recurring nightmare for them as well.

Contact: Tom Minnery

Source: CitizenLink