Battle on Abortion in Springfield

As the Illinois House ended this week, the two remaining pro-life house bills -- HB 786 Ultrasound and HB 3156 Abortion Clinic Regulations -- have not yet passed the House.  The third pro-life bill, HB 2093 (Reis) -- amends the Abused an Neglected Child Reporting Act to re-state that medical personnel and licensed counselors at abortion clinics and family planning centers must report any suspected instance of child abuse or neglect -- passed out of the House a few weeks ago and is now in the Illinois Senate.

The Illinois House will NOT be in next week for Easter Week. They come back Tuesday, May 6th. 

HB 786 (Phelps) The Ultrasound Opportunity Act which simply requires that a woman be offered the opportunity to see her ultrasound be obtaining an abortion.  It is her choice whether to see it or not.  HB 786 was not called for a vote this week because the opposition placed "Notes" on the bill that have to be answered before a bill can move from second reading to third reading [final passage stage].  The Sponsor is asking for an extention of the deadline for this bill.

What are "notes"?   When a bill in the Illinois House is on second reading [the amendatory stage of the bill] legislators can request various notes to learn the impact on the State if the bill becomes law.  Generally, this would be a proper and good thing.  A fiscal note would ask what is the cost to the State if the bill  became law.   A Corrections note would ask if the bill would create more prisoners [especially if the bill created a new crime] and so forth.  In order to remove the notes, an appropriate agency of the State must file a letter answering the note.

However, the notes placed on HB 786 were solely filed to slow down our bill.  There were at least a dozen notes filed on HB 786.  Some were being filed every hour on Friday.

Because the notes were not all responded to, HB 786 could not move off second reading and get a final vote this week.

HB 3156 (Senger) amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (ASTCs) and would require that any office or facility that does 50 or more abortions a year must meet the same health and safety standards as all other ASTCs [such as outpatient eye or foot surgery centers].  A number of abortion clinics are not licensed as ASTCs and should be for the health and safety of women.

It was admitted on the floor debate by the opposition that the mega abortion mill in Aurora cannot not meet the ASTC standards.

So much for wanting abortions rare, safe and legal as the pro-aborts like to say.

HB 3156 failed to pass by just 3 votes this week having gotten 57 yes votes of the 60 votes needed, 51 no votes and 7 members voting present.     

The bill is now on "Consideration Postponed" meaning that it has another chance for a vote when they come back.  See the Illinois Family Institute link below on the "unofficial vote".  It is unofficial because when a sponsor sees that the bill has failed to get the 60 votes, she can ask for "consideration postponed" and the roll call is erased since another "final" official vote can be taken later.  However, we obtained the roll call anyway.

HB 2321 (Senger) which is identical to HB 3156 did not move for a vote since a decision was made to go with HB 3156.

Please continue to have your contacts call or email their state representatives to VOTE YES ON HB 786 AND HB 3156!  We have this whole week and continuing week after Easter to keep the pressure on.  If we do this WE CAN WIN in the House!

Follow this link to view your legislator's contact information: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

Abortion recovery's April boost

Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Since this month is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month, pro-lifers throughout the country are making an extra effort to raise awareness about the effects of abortion.

 

In 2005, the event was established to educate people about the fact that many women and men need help with recovering from abortion. But most importantly, it was created to let people know about the healing opportunities in their various communities. Stacy Massey, co-founder of Abortion Recovery International, tells OneNewsNow the problem goes beyond grief and depression.

"Any type of side effects -- eating disorders, drinking and alcohol use, cutting, workaholism -- there [are] statistics and studies that show that there is a root to all of that that can be tied in to an abortion," she explains.

And even though not every person experiences the negative impacts of abortion, Massey points out that about 87 percent do.

"These women and these men lost babies -- sometimes at their own hand, sometimes through coercion of others. But there is a grief associated with that," she says. "It's very, very normal, and our organization's focus is how to heal those families from that grief."

So she encourages people to contact their local recovery providers, which are listed on her organization's website.

Study: Pro-life laws aid abortion decline

Contact: Amanda Kate Winkelman, Baptist Press

Various state-level pro-life measures result in "statistically significant declines" in the country's abortion rate, according to a study in the State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

The report by Michael New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, revealed a correlation between the drop in the number of abortions in the United States and the rise in state regulation of abortion, including laws requiring informed consent, waiting periods and parental involvement.

Abortions in the United States declined by 22.2 percent between 1990 and 2005, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. New said several factors might play a role in the decrease in abortions, but his research focused on the relation of two U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the decline -- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

The Casey decision allowed states to regulate abortions as long as the regulations do not pose an "undue burden" on women. In 1992, New pointed out, no states had informed consent laws or waiting periods. By 2005, however, 33 states had informed consent laws and 22 states required women to wait a specified period of time before obtaining abortions. In 2005, 34 states also enforced parental involvement laws.

New says his study proves that such anti-abortion legislation at the state level has played a factor in the decline of abortions between 1990 and 2005. 

In his study, New compared states in which judges nullified anti-abortion legislation with states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect. The comparison showed states with enforced laws had larger in-state abortion declines than states where laws were nullified.

The changes brought by Casey and the subsequent decrease in abortions show the pro-life movement is growing stronger, New said, despite its failure to gain the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court opinion legalizing abortion.

"Even though abortion opponents have been unsuccessful in their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) they have enjoyed incremental policy success in recent years," New wrote. "Surveys indicate that more Americans are willing to describe themselves as 'pro-life' (The Washington Post 2009) and a higher percentage of people are willing to support restrictions on abortion (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2009)."

New's study, "Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era," appears in the current issue of the State Politics & Policy Quarterly, published in March.

IRS against pro-life message?

Contact: Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has asked a Texas pro-life organization some questions that one constitutional attorney says it has no business knowing the answers to.

 

Christian Voices for Life in Sugarland, Texas, conducts prayer vigils at abortion clinics and participates in Life Chain and 40 Days for Life. Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society tells OneNewsNow the IRS has posed a number of questions to the pro-life group, which is seeking a tax-exempt status.

"[They are asking] 'Do you educate on both sides of an issue?' Well, the abortion issue? The answer is emphatically no," Brejcha reports. "In fact, there is no such requirement anywhere near the Internal Revenue Code, and you're surely entitled to a tax exemption if you educate the public about the truth."

So he suggests it should be up to the tax-exempt pro-abortion groups to present the other side of the issues.

Instead, he explains, the pro-life group is presented with questions such as: "During your Life Chain and your 40 Days for Life programs, do you try to block people from entering a building, a medical clinic or any other facility," which the Thomas More Society spokesman says implies a false speculation. "Where did they get that idea? Certainly not in the application for exemption."

In response to the probe, Brechja's organization has sent a strongly worded letter that suggests the IRS has no legitimate exemption concern, but that it may be denying or delaying tax-exempt status because of the organization's pro-life message. Moreover, he says the IRS seems to believe Christian Voices for Life might intend to engage in illegal activity, which he concludes is insulting.

'Baby Joseph' -- home at last

Contact: Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow

"Baby Joseph," brought to America from Canada after doctors refused to provide treatment so he could go home, is doing well.

 

Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life tells OneNewsNow infant Joseph Maraachli was successfully treated at a St. Louis hospital.
 
"Baby Joseph is now free from all tubes, machines, ventilators, and assistance," says Pavone. "He is breathing on his own just like you and me, and he has been taken home. He is with his parents in their apartment in Windsor, Canada."
 
In Canada, the child would have been sent home to die, but Pavone says Baby Joseph defied the "culture of death" and is alive today. Priests for Life is handling medical expenses for the family.
 

Planned Parenthood Ignores Fetal Pain; Goes After Personhood Amendments

Contact: Keith Mason, Personhood USA

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court against Mississippi's Personhood Amendment, Amendment 26, despite numerous rulings against them. 

In July of 2010, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU filed suit to disallow Mississippi voters from voting on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment. In October, the lawsuit was rejected. The Court decision read "Initiative Measure No. 26 has received more than the required amount of signatures to be placed on the ballot and the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to amend their Constitution."

Now Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have appealed to the State Supreme Court, a decision made especially conspicuous by Planned Parenthood's recent refusal to challenge various "Fetal Pain" bills. According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, one abortion in 2010 would have been prevented by the Fetal Pain bill. By contrast, Mississippi's Personhood Amendment 26 would make all abortion illegal by recognizing the personhood rights, first and foremost the constitutional right to life of all children, born and preborn. 

This is not the first time that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have tried to stop Personhood USA -- numerous lawsuits have been filed, albeit largely unsuccessfully, in an attempt to stop Personhood USA and its state affiliates. 

"Of course we expect Planned Parenthood and the ACLU to continue their unholy alliance in attacking personhood bills and amendments," explained Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA. "They are terrified that abortion will be made illegal. Planned Parenthood, with the help of the ACLU, is fighting for their 'right' to kill children for profit."

Personhood Amendment 26 states, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." 

"Personhood Amendments and bills nationwide merely recognize that all human beings are people," continued Mason. "Recognizing that all human beings have rights is a sentiment the ACLU should be fighting FOR, not against. Instead, the ACLU has teamed up with Planned Parenthood to ensure that Planned Parenthood's deep pockets are protected. It is outrageous that the billion dollar abortion industry's bottom line is more important to them than over one million innocent human lives taken every year by abortion."

Personhood USA's amendments and bills recognize that every human being is a person, and every person has a right to life. Personhood amendments and bills protect every child, no matter their size or age. 

RedState: Abortion Numbers in Perspective

from LCRTL by Paul, just this guy, you know?

Dan McLaughlin at the conservative blog RedState has a reminder about just what's at stake in the abortion fight, compared to other losses of human life:

With the recent debate over federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood bringing the abortion debate back to the surface, it is sometimes useful to look at the numbers to get a little perspective on why this issue is such a large one. (All of these are estimates, and sources vary, but there's no serious debate as to the scale of the numbers).

Number killed or missing in action in all wars in U.S. history: 1,343,812. Adding the wounded:2,489,335.

Number killed or missing in action in U.S. wars since 1973: 12,387. Adding the wounded: 96,680.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1608: 15,269.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1930: 3,859.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1977 (after the Supreme Court lifted a decade-long moratorium): 1,099 through 2008.

Number killed in the September 11 attacks: 2,977.

Number of detainees waterboarded by the CIA under President Bush: 3.

Number of abortions in the U.S. since 1973: 53,310,843 through 2010.

Number of abortions per year in the U.S. since 1973: 1,402,917.

Number of abortions per month in the U.S. since 1973: 116,910.

Number of abortions per week in the U.S. since 1973: 26,979.

Number of abortions per day in the U.S. since 1973: 3,841.

Number of abortions by Planned Parenthood in the U.S. in 2009: 332,278, more than 900 per day, or 27.6% of all abortions in the U.S.


You know, there are a lot of issues I care about, as a conservative Republican. I don't especially like having to draw lines in the sand over abortion, and if you're reading this, even if you're pro-life, chances are you don't either. But it is useful at times to prick our consciences with the sheer scale of this atrocity, happening daily under our noses. Liberal activists and lawyers devote massive efforts every year to battling the death penalty - yet all the executions of the post-Roe era don't even add up to a third of a day's worth of the number of abortions. We agonize, and rightly so, over the cost in life of our wars - but the toll of abortion is equal to fighting the Battle of Antietam, or two Battles of Okinawa, every single week, or two entire Vietnam Wars every month. Our commentariat was racked with paroxysms of moral reproach over three prisoners being waterboarded, yet considers it gauche to even mention well over three thousand abortions daily, each of which destroys a biologically unique human being. (Your religion may override your regard for the science, but there's no way around the fact that an unborn child has his or her own unique genetic code, the definitive scientific hallmark of an individual).

Numbers alone can't make the moral judgments that constitute public policy for us. But they can certainly inform our sense of perspective. And looking at the number of abortions is a reminder hat maybe, sometimes, we go too far in trying to make this just another issue.

Clinic reg bill nearly passes IL House, abortion-backing legislator attacks effort

     
     (Click image to enlarge)

Yesterday, in a surprise move, the Illinois House debated and voted on "HB 3156," a Thomas More Society-drafted bill that amends the state's Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act to ensure that surgical abortion clinics are held to the same standard as any other outpatient surgical center. Only 5 abortion clinics in Illinois - less than 25% statewide - meet these standards, which ensure that outpatient surgeries are performed in the safest and cleanest environments - and that, when complications occur, emergency personnel can get in and help get patients to a hospital as quickly as possible.

The debate on the bill was lengthy and vociferous. In an incredible moment, Rep. Naomi Jakobsson (D-Urbana), an ACLU and Planned Parenthood-backed 5-term veteran of the legislature, attacked the Thomas More Society by name on the floor of the House for TMS' role in pushing the bill.

The bill lost by three votes, but the sponsor, Rep. Darlene Senger (R-Naperville), smartly invoked a procedural maneuver that delays final consideration, in order to provide a final chance for pro-lifers to swing the necessary three votes. Seven representatives voted "present" - the equivalent of a "no" vote - and the votes are very fluid on the measure. Pro-life Illinoisans are asked to call state House members immediately and ask them to "support HB 3156"

Source: Illinois Review

Illinois Senators Vote Against Defunding Planned Parenthood

     

U.S. Senators Richard Durbin (D) and Mark Kirk (R) both voted against a bill that would have de-funded the Planned Parenthood yesterday. The bill failed on a 42-58 vote. In addition to Kirk, Republicans voting against the amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood were: Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Olympia Snowe (ME). No Democratic Senators voted for the bill.

Illinois Review comments:

  No one ever doubted radical left extremist Dick Durbin would vote against an effort to push Planned Parenthood from the federal gravy train, but there was hope that Illinois' brand new Republican senator Mark Kirk would support his Republican House colleagues' effort to stop special interest tax doleouts to Planned Parenthood. He did not.

  Kirk has traveled throughout Illinois warning people at town hall meetings about the budget disaster America is facing because of uncontrolled spending. He has publicly boasted that the era of congressional earmarks is over. He told an audience downstate that he was for a 10 % across the board budget cut, including a 10% slice from Planned Parenthood's budget.

  Because of all those factors there was hope that Kirk, who now represents the whole state of Illinois rather than the socially-liberal 10th Congressional District, would consider moderating his historical pro-abortion stance. There was hope that for the sake of budget cuts and the pending economic disaster he warns us against, consider voting to eliminate the morally-repugnant Planned Parenthood earmark.

  We're not surprised with Senator Kirk's vote, but we're disappointed with it. He and Senator Durbin failed not only Illinoisans, they failed all American hard-working, self-sacrificing taxpayers.

Writing at his blog, Republican News Watch, conservative activist Doug Ibendahl comments:

  Frankly no one should be surprised.

  But Republicans, take note. It's certainly true that Mark Kirk has no problem saying he's pro-choice (yeah no kidding, as a U.S. Congressman he even voted in favor of partial birth abortion).

  However on multiple occasions during last year's campaign he would add a caveat to his otherwise 100% pro-abortion stance. Kirk repeatedly said he opposed federal funding of abortion.

  So score yesterday's vote as just one more lie by Mark Kirk. Add it to the list of countless dishonest things Kirk has said over the years in order to keep gullible voters and reporters in his camp.

  Someone please remind me again, what was supposedly the difference between Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias?

  Oh that's right, I remember. Both are very liberal – Kirk arguably more so.

  But Mark Kirk brings that liberalism into our Republican Party – combines it with a rather disturbing inability to tell the truth – and continually undermines and dilutes the GOP brand from within.

  Yeah, thank goodness the Democrats didn't elect their "mob banker" Giannoulias.

My observation continues to be that no matter how fiscally conservative one is, if he's a social liberal, then socially liberal measures will take precedence over fiscal conservatism every time.

Contact: Paul
Source: Lake County Right to Life Blog

Carol Tobias elected Nat'l Right to Life president

    

On Saturday, April 9, Carol Tobias was elected president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters. Tobias, who becomes the 8th NRLC president since Roe v. Wade, succeeds Wanda Franz, Ph.D. of West Virginia.

"I am extremely humbled and honored to be elected president by the National Right to Life board, which represents our nationwide network of state affiliates and local chapters," said Mrs. Tobias. "As the late pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois said, National Right to Life 'is the flagship of the pro-life movement.' I'm looking forward to the opportunity to help our pro-life network in its continuing effort to educate the public and pass laws protecting mothers and their unborn children."

A native of North Dakota, Tobias has served on the NRLC board of directors since 1987. From 1983 to 1991 she was executive director of North Dakota Right to Life and in 1991 was hired as NRLC political director, a position she held until 2005. During her tenure as NRLC political director, pro-life majorities were elected to both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. In both 2000 and 2004, she oversaw the efforts of NRLC's political action committee on behalf of George W. Bush.

Mrs. Tobias was elected by the NRLC board of directors at its spring board meeting. The board of directors is comprised of representatives from each of NRLC's 50 state affiliates and 8 directors elected at-large. NRLC is the nation's pro-life organization which is representative of the country's grassroots pro-life citizens and activists.

"The pro-life movement is the greatest social cause of our time," added Tobias. "I am eager to continue National Right to Life's educational, legislative and political efforts to advance the right to life of the most vulnerable members of our human family - the unborn, the elderly, and the medically dependent and disabled."

Other officers and executive committee members elected at the spring board meeting include: Executive Vice-President: Anthony J. Lauinger of Oklahoma; Vice-President for International Affairs: Jeanne E. Head, R.N. of New York; Vice-President for Medical Ethics: John Wayne Cockfield, USMC Ret. of South Carolina; Secretary: Holly Gatling of South Carolina; Treasurer: Rev. Dennis C. Day of Idaho; Chairman of the Board: Hon. Geline B. Williams of Virginia; Vice-Chairman of the Board: Hon. Lynda Bell of Florida; and Chet Rucinski of Wisconsin.

Illinois' Parental Notice Law Gets Nearly Doubled New Support from State's Attorneys

Thomas More Society Asks the Appellate Court to Note Support from Ten New "Friends of the Court" in the 15-Year Battle for Parental Rights and Against Secret Abortions

Yesterday, the Thomas More Society filed a motion in the Illinois Appellate Court to add a bipartisan group of ten Illinois State's Attorneys to the Society's "friend of the court" brief, urging the rejection of the American Civil Liberties Union's latest attack on the constitutionality of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. In the fall of 2010, the Thomas More Society filed the original brief on behalf of 11 Illinois State's Attorneys, and today's filing brings that total to 21 State's Attorneys from counties all over the state, who together represent millions of Illinoisans. The Appellate Court, First District, will hear oral argument on the ACLU's appeal on Thursday, April 14, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

"Today's filing shows bipartisan momentum in support of the rights of Illinois parents to be notified before their minor daughters are taken for abortions," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society. "This Act will put a stop to the practice of 'secret' abortions, where sexual predators from surrounding states are able to cover up their crimes by bringing their underage victims to Illinois."

The parental notice law requires an abortion doctor to notify a parent, grandparent, or stepparent living in the household or legal guardian before performing an abortion on a minor, unless the minor states in writing that she is a victim of abuse or secures a confidential "judicial bypass." Although the Illinois General Assembly enacted the current parental notice law on a bipartisan basis more than 15 years ago, the law has not gone into effect because of the ACLU's federal and state court challenges. In the pending state court appeal, the ACLU contends that the Act violates the privacy, due process, and equal protection guarantees in the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Though upheld by both the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Cook County Circuit Court, the law's enforcement has been "stayed" by agreement of the ACLU and Attorney General, pending a final ruling on the ACLU's appeal. Illinois is the Midwest's only state without a parental notice or consent law in effect.

The amicus brief argues that:

• The Illinois Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. On the contrary, the 1970 Constitutional Convention referred abortion issues to the legislature.
   
• Numerous other federal and state courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly upheld parental notice as constitutional.
   
• The Illinois General Assembly properly found that parental consultation prior to an abortion promotes many legitimate state interests.

The ten State's Attorneys joining today include the following:

• Robert J. Berlin, State's Attorney, DuPage County
   
• John J. Boyd, State's Attorney, Kankakee County
   
• Henry Dixon, State's Attorney, Lee County
   
• Gregory Minger, State's Attorney, Woodford County
   
• Kevin S. Parker, State's Attorney, Jasper County
   
• Terence M. Patton, State's Attorney, Henry County
   
• David N. Stanton, State's Attorney, Perry County
   
• Nicole Vilani, State's Attorney, Jefferson County
   
• Mark Vincent, State's Attorney, Brown County
   
• William Yoder, State's Attorney, McLean County

The original eleven State's Attorneys include the following:

• Stewart Umholtz, State's Attorney, Tazewell County
   
• Edward Deters, State's Attorney, Effingham County
   
• Charles H. Burch, State's Attorney, Calhoun County
   
• Michael McIntosh, State's Attorney, Logan County
   
• Matthew S. Wilzbach, State's Attorney, Marion County
   
• Thomas R. Wiseman, State's Attorney, Crawford County
   
• Joseph P. Bruscato, State's Attorney, Winnebago County
   
• James A. Mack, State's Attorney, Putnam County
    
• Patrick Windhorst, State's Attorney, Massac County
   
• Albert G. Algren, State's Attorney, Warren County
   
• Scott McClintock, State's Attorney Henderson County

Here is a LINK to what was filed today, and here is a LINK to what was originally filed.

Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Thomas More Society

Stem-cell researchers: Mum's the word

The first spinal-injury patient to receive embryonic stem-cell therapy has come forward with details about his treatment, but one doctor thinks his case is being used to give attention to an ineffective method of therapy.

 

Alabama nursing student Timothy Atchison, 21, was paralyzed from the chest down after he was in a car accident in September. Within two weeks of the crash, he gave doctors permission to inject him with the stem cells. But Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council (FRC) tells OneNewsNow that no more information has been given about the results of Atchison's treatment because researchers do not want to talk about them.
 
"It's too early to know whether he will be developing tumors," Dr. Prentice explains. "It's actually too early, if ever...[to] know whether the embryonic stem cells had any effect, because a lot of spinal cord injury patients show spontaneous recovery during the first 12 months."
 
But he believes this case is being used as media hype to keep the public open to the idea of embryonic stem-cell research, even though it has yet to produce any positive results. "In the meantime, we're not hearing about the dozens of patients with spinal cord injury who actually have been improved with adult stem cells, as documented by the published science," Prentice laments.
 
He points out that success with that method, which does not involve killing a human embryo, is continuously overlooked, and he concludes that the publicity over Atchison's case is just another way of promoting a research method that leaves nothing but empty promises.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

U.S. House Defunds Planned Parenthood; Senate Balks

For the second time this year, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. The U.S. Senate, however, was quick to run in the opposite direction, with 58 senators voting in favor of funding the nation's largest abortion business.

The House voted 241-185 on the measure, and 240-185 to defund the widely unpopular health care law. The Senate voted 47-53 on the health care funding bill.

On a measure that would fund the government through September, representatives voted 260-167, and the Senate voted 81-19.

Kellie Fiedorek, staff counsel at Americans United for Life, said the flurry of votes in both chambers was significant.

"This is truly a historic time because this is the first time the Senate is being forced to go on record with where they stand on whether federal funds should be going to Planned Parenthood," she said.

Fiedorek said the debate over abortion funding will continue as Congress begins negotiating spending for 2012.

Pro-life groups had hoped this year's short-term spending bill would include cutting off Planned Parenthood.

"Is it perfect? No," said House Speaker John Boehner, who negotiated the deal with Senate Democrats and President Obama. "I'd be the first to admit it's flawed. But welcome to divided government."

Contact: Jennifer Mesko

Source: CitizenLink

URGENT ACTION ALERT HB 786

URGENT

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).

You can contact your representative or senator through the Capitol Switchboard in Springfield at 217-782-2000 or online by clicking here.

ACTION ALERT ON HB 3156

There is a pro-life bill that would shut down several abortion clinics in Illinois that is only 3 votes from passing the IL House of Representatives. Fortunately, there is a re-vote on HB3156 coming today or tomorrow! Can you make the call right now? It will only take a few minutes!

This bill would make sure that abortion clinics have the same standards as all other surgical clinics.

Only *5* out of Illinois' 22 abortion clinics meet the uniform standards that HB 3156 would hold them to!

They say they want equality for women through abortion, but they don't want equal safety for women when they do the abortions! Planned Parenthood is more worried about their pocket book than women's safety. They are complaining that it would cost them $1 million to get their substandard clinics up to speed.

The ACLU is complaining that HB 3156 WOULD CAUSE SOME ABORTION CLINICS TO CLOSE IN ILLINOIS! 

This is a HUGE opportunity and we are so close! 

Immediate Action Needed:

Contact your State Representative and ask them to vote YES on HB 3156 and HB 786 (the ultrasound bill).

Step 1:  Click here and look up the phone number of your State Representative

Step 2:  Make the call and ask your Rep to vote YES on HB 3156 and HB 786

Step 3:  Call these reps who unofficially voted 'present' and get them to commit to protecting women by voting YES

   Rep. Kelly Burke (D-Evergreen Park)    (217) 782-0515

          Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D-Aurora)    (217) 558-1002

 

          Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-Waukeegan)    (217) 558-1012

 

          Rep. Michael J. Zalewsk (D-Summit)    (217) 782-5280

 

          Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago)    (217) 782-8077

 

          Rep. Andre M. Thapedi (D-Chicago)    (217) 782-1702

 

          Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago)    (217) 782-5350

Step 3:  Spread the word and get your pro-life friends to make the call, forward this email to everyone!

A floor vote is coming soon, so please act now! 

U.S. Senate to Vote on De-Funding Planned Parenthood and the Obama Health Care Law

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on Thursday, April 14, or Friday, April 15, on two special bills that are strongly supported by National Right to Life.  Please follow the guidance below to call the offices of your two U.S. senators immediately to urge them to support these bills.

The first Senate vote will occur on House Concurrent Resolution 35, which would remove funding for the entire Obama health care law that was enacted in 2010.  The Obama health care law contains multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.  In addition, the Obama health care law contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion.

The second Senate vote will occur on House Concurrent Resolution 36, which would cut off federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates.  (This bill is similar to the Pence Amendment that was adopted by the House of Representatives on February 19; this will be the first time that the Senate has voted on this issue.)  PPFA is the nation's largest abortion provider, reporting 332,278 abortions in 2009. It appears that abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the aggregate income generated by PPFA-affiliated clinics.

For more information on these two issues, please see the letter sent to the Senate by National Right to Life on April 12, posted here.  (Note:  The Senate cannot vote on the two bills until after the House of Representatives passes them, but that is likely to happen on April 14.)

Please call your senators today!  Simply use the "Take Action Now" or "Call Now" box in this alert.  When you enter your zip code, you will be shown the correct phone numbers to call for your two U.S. senators.  You will also be shown a few short suggested "talking points" to use in your conversations with the senators' staff persons.  In addition, you will be given an opportunity to easily send a short e-mail to National Right to Life, if you wish to do so, to report on how your call went.

Please call today, and ask your like-minded friends to do the same!

Click here to take action now!

ACTION ALERT UPDATE

Votes are expected to come early next week on the following bills...

UPDATE: These bills are moving fast, HB 2093 has been voted and passed and is now in the Illinois Senate - call your Senator and urge their support for HB 2093.  This 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. 

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 urge them support and vote YES on 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?

You can contact your representative or senator through the Capitol Switchboard in Springfield at 217-782-2000 or online by clicking here.

U.S. House Votes April 12-13 on Tax-Funded Abortion!

On Tuesday, April 12, and Wednesday, April 13, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives will conduct votes on a major pro-life bill -- the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3).

National Right to Life urges you to promptly telephone the office of your representative in the U.S. House, to urge him or her to vote against all amendments to H.R. 3, and to vote in favor of passing the bill.

Currently, there is a patchwork of different federal laws that restrict federal funding of abortion.  However, many of these restrictions (such as the well-known Hyde Amendment, which applies to the federal Medicaid program) expire every year -- which forces the pro-life side to re-fight the same battles in Congress, year after year.  Moreover, in a number of federal programs -- including some major new programs created by the massive Obama health care law in 2010 -- federal subsidies for abortion are currently permissible under law.

H.R. 3 would replace this leaky patchwork with a permanent prohibition on federal funding of abortion and federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion.  This new ban would apply across the entire federal government, to both long-existing programs and new programs created by the Obama health care law.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.), the co-chairs of the House Pro-Life Caucus.  To see an always-current list of co-sponsors of the bill, click here.

Please call your U.S. House member today!  (Preferably, during business hours.)  In this alert, use the box that says "Call Now" or "Take Action Now."  Enter your zip code, and you will be shown the best phone number to call, along with a few suggested "talking points" that you can use, if you wish, when you speak with staff person in the representative's office.  In addition, you have the option to send a short "feedback" e-mail to National Right to Life to report on what the lawmaker's staff said regarding how he or she intends to vote.

Please act today, and urge your like-minded friends to do the same!  Thank you.  Click here to take action now.

Dems: If We Can't Fund Abortion, We Won't Fund Anything

I never doubted it would come to this.  If they can't fund the nation's largest abortion provider, they'll shut down the government.   Isn't 53 million innocents lost enough?  Do they have to involve you and I in it as well?  Jake Tapper has the story:

His meeting with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., having concluded, President Obama came to the White House briefing room this evening to report "additional progress" had been made and "differences have been narrowed."

But outstanding issues remain, he cautioned, ones so important – to both sides - the president said he wouldn't express "wild optimism" that there will be a deal.

Democratic sources tell ABC News that things "feel better now" in terms of a deal being cut, but the major sticking point remains the GOP rider prohibiting any federal funding to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates.

..."The stickiest issue will end up being Planned Parenthood."

The House voted earlier this year to de-fund Planned Parenthood but 41 Democrats in the Senate already have said they would not support legislation ending funding to Planned Parenthood, making the matter one that could be filibustered. The White House has said the president would not agree to any ban on funding to Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using any federal funds for abortion-related services. Officials of the organization say more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood clinics do has nothing to do with abortion, but rather focuses on women's health services such as pap smears and breast cancer screening.

Abortion opponents say federal funding for other services means money freed up for the purposes of conducting abortions, which they regard as ending human life.

The claim that the bulk of Planned Parenthood's operation is not abortion is simply a lie.  A boldfaced, easily disproved lie.  And it's also been proved that they don't do breast cancer screenings, either, but they're still harping on that one as well.

That President Obama would take this to the brink to protect Planned Parenthood comes as no surprise.  This is the most pro-abortion president in history.

Source: Lake County Right to Life Blog

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