Many Illinois abortion clinics had gone without inspection for many years until recently -- and that only happened after extensive media attention to a filthy Rockford abortion facility. State officials subsequently inspected nine abortion clinics, two of which were deemed so unsafe and unsanitary that emergency license suspensions were issued. One will remain closed because of an inability to find staff willing to work there. Bill Beckman of Illinois Right to Life Committee explains why it had been about 15 years since the state's abortion clinics had been inspected. "There was this agreement when we had a pro-abortion attorney general back in the '90s that effectively left, for all intents and purposes, the regulation of abortion clinics as pretty much an opened-ended thing," he tells OneNewsNow. Oddly enough, not all abortion clinics fall under state scrutiny. Beckman explains. "One of the very curious regulations that is affecting this is that if less than 50 percent of your business is abortions, you don't even need to be licensed by the state," he says. "So Planned Parenthood falls under that window. They are not licensed by the state of Illinois at all, never get inspected, and never could even be thought about being inspected." State health officials say they lack the resources to do the inspections, but Beckman says they are just hiding behind that as an excuse for not moving on the clinics. The pro-lifer expects there will be a push in the legislature to change current laws. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
A study that suggests abortion is safer than giving birth is being disputed. 
Two researchers -- Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City, and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill -- conducted the study using information from the Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher is supportive of abortion and is affiliated with Planned Parenthood International. Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon of the National Right to Life Committee says the study is similar to other information in past years, which pro-abortion groups try to use to counter state women's right-to-know laws that require women seeking an abortion be provided information on the dangers of abortion. O'Bannon says the conclusions of the study are rather fuzzy. "We do know, for example, that there was a study done in Finland that looked at death rates in Finland from 1987 to 1994 where they've got some more complete records, and they found out that women who had abortions had a three-and-a-half times higher mortality rate than the women who had given child birth within that first year." O'Bannon also suggests the abortion-oriented study may have more of an international agenda than domestic in that it fits with a major push by United Nations organizations for legalization of abortion worldwide, including Third World countries where it is illegal or limited. Regardless of the motivation, O'Bannon says what the new study doesn't point out is that when there is an abortion, there is a death -- that of the unborn baby. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The head of a pro-family group is suggesting that people not buy Girl Scout cookies because of the organization's link with Planned Parenthood. Christy Volanski, whose daughters co-founded SpeakNowGirlScouts.com, has already revealed a correlation between the Girl Scouts and the abortion giant. Now, Austin Ruse, a father and head of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), is saying "no" when Girl Scouts ask him and his wife to purchase the organization's popular cookies. "The Girl Scouts really have no business partnering with the largest abortion provider in the world," Ruse contends. "Yet the [CEO of the Girl Scouts] has actually gone on network television explicitly saying that they work with Planned Parenthood." And he recalls a Girl Scout event at the United Nations, where Planned Parenthood distributed its brochures titled "Healthy, Happy and Hot -- a young person's guide to their rights, sexuality and living with HIV." "That got us going on this particular issue, and then we discovered that there was some very creepy conference that the Girl Scouts in Texas put on with Planned Parenthood which dealt with much of the same issues as the 'Healthy, [Happy and Hot]' brochure," the C-FAM president notes. "So there's just a lot of evidence, as my wife said, [that] there's something really 'rotten' going on here." He concludes that not buying the cookies is one way to show the Girl Scouts, which has seen reduced enrollment in recent years, that the organization is losing support. Meanwhile, Ruse points out that Christian-based alternatives, such as American Heritage Girls, are available. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The left's logical case for abortion rights had officially collapsed. We can thank CNN's Piers Morgan for administering last rites when he resorted to the tired, sensationalized, "Yeah, well, what if your daughter was raped?" argument with Rick Santorum in a televised interview. Click here for the video. There's a reason why any time we seek to settle a bitter dispute between two feuding parties, we turn to a disinterested third person to act as the arbiter. The reason is because we know that when attempting to come to a clear, rational, sound conclusion about serious and many times controversial issues, emotional connections to either side can cloud our judgment and confuse our thinking. And that's also the very reason why on the great moral dilemma of our day -- the legality of abortion -- those holding to the ethically, scientifically, and constitutionally inferior position known as supporting a "woman's right to choose" (notice the habitual omission of what it is that women should have the right to choose to do) seek to inject as much emotion, as many exceptional cases, and as much passionately sensational rhetoric as possible. They may be short on logic, but they're not stupid when it comes to winning the battle for public opinion. That's why you see virtually no liberal willing to speak to the most fundamental question of the entire controversy: the humanity of what is in the womb. They simply declare any discussions of humanness, biology, and personhood rights to be above their pay grade, and thereby dismiss themselves from any expectation or obligation to answer questions that would expose their logical bankruptcy. Instead, they set the parameters of the debate, and draw conservatives into wildly emotional exchanges that inflame passions rather than engage intellects. Take the recent interview of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum conducted by CNN host Piers Morgan. Santorum is a pro-life stalwart and one of the few conservatives on the national scene who articulates the seemingly obvious position that if you believe an unborn child is a human being entitled to fundamental and constitutional rights, then there is no exception by which you can condone the denial of those rights. Otherwise, you are absurdly attempting to make a moral case for murder. But in what can only be described as indignant tones, Morgan challenged this logical consistency not with an appeal to reason, but with this bit of shameful, back-alley journalism: "Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in the cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped, and was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion, would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?" Morgan's disgraceful retreat from sound logic to the manipulative playground of emotion-driven passions is as transparent as it is embarrassing. This question is not designed to reveal any truth in the abortion debate, but rather is a tactical scheme made for the cameras in which the liberal questioner puts the conservative respondent in a corner. If Santorum says he would deny his daughter's pleas, he looks like the cold and heartless goon that Morgan believes him to be. If he says he would relent and allow his daughter an abortion, he surrenders his moral high ground and appears a hypocrite. And though Santorum answered the question effectively, stating that he "would do what every father must do ... try to counsel your daughter to do the right thing," there's a greater point to be made here. Liberal politicians never have to answer such outrageous emotionalism in their interviews. Can you imagine, for example, Barack Obama being called on his condemnation of former President Bush's advanced interrogation techniques with this challenge: "If Sasha and Malia were kidnapped and were being held and brutally tortured by terrorists, and we captured one of their accomplices who had knowledge of their secret hideout, would you not authorize any force necessary to get your girls back?" Can you fathom the outcry against such a loaded, sensationalized question? Or compare apples to apples and envision Obama being quizzed by Piers Morgan: "So if you believe that partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that violates no moral law, would you be willing to inject the saline into your own daughter's womb to burn your grandchild alive?" Such outrageously aggressive and offensively personal questioning would have Morgan looking for work within a week. Yet that is what conservatives face every time they attempt to discuss the issue of abortion with liberals. If sound conclusions come from restraining emotions, and liberals conduct their entire case on the basis of emotion, what should that tell us about their conclusions? Contact: Peter Heck Source: OneNewsNow
Earlier this week the IFRL reported on a Press Release provided by the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer that Susan G. Komen for the Cure would no longer financiall support Planned Parenthood, this was great news at the time, however it increased the donations to Planned Parenthood and now is moot because the decision has been reversed. After days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has said it will reinstate funding for Planned Parenthood. Earlier this week, the foundation moved to discontinue funding Planned Parenthood. The Associated Press reported the change came because of a new Komen policy forbidding grants to organizations under official investigation. Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker explained the latest decision and the changes in a statement attributed to her and the group's board. Here's an excerpt (with original emphasis in bold): "We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not. Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair. Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities." Komen's decision to halt funding led to an outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood, including a jump in funding. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for one, pledged up to $250,000 of his own money to the organization to help make up for the money for breast cancer screening. Contact: Scott Hensley Source: NPR News
Life Dynamics has produced a new report on violence against women who didn't want an abortion, revealing information that one pro-lifer says would be a "scandal" to ignore. Spokesman Mark Crutcher, producer of the documentary Maafa 21, says the abortion lobby knows about the violence; they talk about it at some of their conventions, he says, but do nothing about it. And he points out that the historic position among feminists was pro-life. Mark Crutcher"One of the reasons that the early feminists in this country -- the people like Susan B. Anthony, and Virginia Woodhall, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul, who wrote the Equal Rights Amendment -- the reason that these women were all opposed to the legalization of abortion was because they knew that it would be a weapon used by sexually irresponsible and sexually predatory males," he explains. "It was not something that would profit women." In the report "Under-the-Radar Violence in the Conflict Over Abortion," Life Dynamics documents 80 known cases of women murdered for refusing to have abortions. And Crutcher says that is only the tip of the iceberg, as there are also women and girls who are coerced, intimidated, and threatened into terminating pregnancies. So as the pro-lifer concludes, "Ignoring that is a scandal." Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has introduced a bill to repeal regulations issued by the Obama administration that many faith-based organizations say would force them to buy health insurance plans that violate their consciences. "The Obama Administration's obsession with forcing mandates on the American people has now reached a new low by violating the conscience rights and religious liberties of our people," Rubio said in a Jan. 31 statement. Rubio also criticized the administration for "forcing religious entities to abandon their beliefs." He described his bill, titled "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012," as "a common sense bill that simply says the government can't force religious organizations to abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith because the government says so." On Jan. 20, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a "preventative services" mandate that would require employers to purchase health insurance plans that cover sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. The mandate includes a religious exemption, but it only applies to organizations that exist for the purpose of inculcating religious values and limit their service and employment primarily to members of their own faith. The limited scope of the exemption means that most religiously-affiliated ministries and groups will not qualify for it. Rubio introduced his bill on Jan. 31 "to provide religious conscience protections for individuals and organizations." The legislation observes that the mandate's "absurdly narrow exemption," which is "unprecedented in Federal law," will exclude thousands of "charities, hospitals, schools or soup kitchens that hire or serve individuals who do not share their religious tenets." It points out that "religious freedom and liberty of conscience are inalienable rights protected by the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." Rubio's bill also notes that the Department of Health and Human Services refused to broaden the religious exemption to the mandate "despite receiving thousands of comments protesting" against its narrow scope. If the bill became law, it will prevent any regulations issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act from requiring "any individual or entity" to provide coverage or information on contraception or sterilization if that individual or entity is opposed to doing so "on the basis of religious belief." It also prohibits the imposition of a fine, penalty or other punishment on individuals or entities that make a religiously-based decision not to purchase such coverage. Contact: Michelle Bauman Source: CNA/EWTN News
Note: Warning: This story contains graphic content. A series of ads for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) that's being run on the Internet, in print and on the sides of buses in Maine and Vermont is raising eyebrows — everywhere but in the state Legislature. The ads have slogans proclaiming, "We're your Friend with Benefits," ""We're your quickie," and "We're your Private Area," to name a few, letting teens and adults know that they can ask PPNE anything, because "We're your sexual health experts, nothing will freak us out." "It's all to market their new location" in downtown Burlington, said Vermont Right to Life Committee Executive Director Mary Hahn Beerworth. "It looks like a pretty expensive deal here. But a significant number of the members of the Vermont legislature rely on Planned Parenthood's support at election time, and would most likely be fine with the ad campaign." Though no information on how much the ad campaign cost PPNNE was available, Beerworth said PPNNE is free to devote all its private donations to efforts like it — including the explicit text-messaging service it runs for teens called "consensualtext.org" — because it has a lock on federal and state taxpayer dollars. "Planned Parenthood gets the entire Title X (family planning) allotment for Vermont, the entire $1.5 million. It's a no-bid contract. It just goes right to them," she explained. "So they've kept all abstinence education out of the state. They are the sexual educators, and they work hand-in-hand with the Department of Health. "Our state grants them another $300,000 with no strings attached." Vermont is the only state in the union with no abortion restrictions of any kind — no parental notification, no informed consent, no bans on late-term abortion, and nothing to prohibit non-doctors from performing them. "Vermont is considered unique in its use of non-physicians," Beerworth said. "So when a minor daughter goes in for an abortion without her parents, she also goes in without a doctor." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
October BabyAmerican Family Studios, an arm of the American Family Association, is set to release its first major motion picture this spring, and one movie critic expects it to make a huge impact on the culture. "They adopted me because my birth mother tried to abort me. I guess I wasn't supposed to survive, and I barely did," the main character, Hannah, shares in an excerpt from the film. October Baby, which was briefly released in theaters in Alabama and Mississippi last October, is set to go nationwide next month. Bob Waliszewski of Focus on the Family's Plugged In tells OneNewsNow how much he likes the movie. "I love the fact that we have a movie that underscores once again in a very creative way just how valuable every single human life is," he notes. Waliszewski believes the film, which features veteran actors John Schneider and Jasmine Guy, could make an impact on society, "especially if folks who don't typically come from the pro-life side of the equation or the faith community see it." "I think it can help break down some walls and help present life in a creative way as being very, very positive -- all life," the critic adds. October Baby hits theaters on March 23. Contact: Bill Bumpas Source: OneNewsNow
From a Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer press release:
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer applauds the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, for discontinuing its grants to Planned Parenthood (PP) while the abortion provider is under investigation by Congress. Komen said it will not resume payment of the grants unless PP is exonerated. Komen attributed its decision to a new policy that prohibits grants from going to organizations under investigation by governmental authorities.
"Our group will remain as Komen's critic as long as it continues to work against its own mission to eradicate breast cancer. Komen's decision is a step in the right direction to protect women's lives. However, I will not donate to Komen while it is still cooperating in the cover-up of the abortion-breast cancer link and downplaying the risk of using oral contraceptives (OCs)." asserted Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.
"PP is a primary cause of the breast cancer epidemic. It sells cancer-causing abortions and oral contraceptives (OCs), also called "the birth control pill." Medical texts reveal that increased childbearing, especially starting early before age 24, substantially reduces lifetime breast cancer risk. Abortion not only deprives women of this protection, but 52 of 68 epidemiological studies show it raises breast cancer risk. [1] The World Health Organization lists OCs containing estrogen and progesterone on its list of Group 1 carcinogens - the highest level as a cancer-causing agent. [2] OCs are associated with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer. [3,4] Komen and the Institute of Medicine had an opportunity to reduce the incidence of breast cancer with its December 2011 study, "Breast Cancer and the Environment," but they chose not to review reproductive risk factors and include avoidance of abortion and OCs among the ways to prevent the disease. We sincerely hope Komen will develop the political courage needed to fulfill its mission.
"PP has done substantial harm to women's health. Additionally, PP does not do mammograms, although PP president Cecile Richards had led the public to believe otherwise.
"The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was the first to expose the Komen-PP relationship to the world in 2003. We thank our supporters for doing such a marvelous job by contacting Komen and stating their objections to this irregular relationship, and we remind them their work is not yet done. Contact Komen at <http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx>. Politely thank Komen's representatives for temporarily halting its gifts to Planned Parenthood. Ask them to permanently halt their grants to PP and tell the full truth about the breast cancer risks associated with induced abortion and oral contraceptives."
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
References:
1. See the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute's website for a complete list of all epidemiological studies and the odds ratios reported for each at: http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm
2. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
3. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf
4. Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Halley J, Weiss, L, Marchbanks, PA, et al. Use of four biomarkers to evaluate the risk of breast cancer subtypes in the Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Cancer Research 2010;70(2):575-587.
Members of the U.S. Congress reflected on the negative effects of almost forty years of legal abortion in America, but said they are encouraged that the pro-life movement continues to gain momentum. The estimated thousands of people who will "descend upon Washington" for the Jan. 23 March for Life, remind the country of its obligation "to protect life and be stewards" of God's creation, said Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.). Jan. 22 marks the 39-year anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. Rep. Ellmers told CNA on Jan. 20 that the protection of life is "a mission that is very near and dear to my heart." The Congresswoman explained that she worked as a nurse for more than 21 years which taught her "that every life is a precious gift from God." "I've held the hands of newborn infants, and I've held the hands of elderly patients in the last moments of their lives," she said. "I have witnessed firsthand how fragile and delicate our lives are and the miracles that take place every day." Rep. Ellmers said that the March for Life is important because it "serves as a powerful reminder of the injustice taking place in our country and the millions of lives lost but not forgotten." Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) said he believes that America's "love for liberty" can be measured by how "the most innocent" members of society are treated. "And the pro-life movement has played an extremely important role in fighting to make sure innocent life is protected," he told CNA. Rep. Paul, who is currently running for Republican presidential candidate, said that there is still "much work to do" to protect the unborn. He said that he would work as president to effectively repeal Roe v. Wade and would support legislation defining life as beginning at conception. Thirty-nine years after the Supreme Court decision "that opened the door for abortion in our country," Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) called abortion "a very important issue" that needs to be addressed today. He told CNA on Jan. 20 that the pro-life movement is fighting an "uphill battle" against the "culture of death" that permeates much of the secular media. However, he also observed that progress had been made in recent years, particularly at the state level. Rep. Lipinski said that he is always inspired by the number of young people at the March for Life, who remind him that "there is hope" for the future. He believes the pro-life movement is "picking up more and more support" across the country and that progress will continue to be made "step by step." "When it really comes down to it," he said, "what we need to do is change the hearts and minds of the American people." Contact: Michelle Bauman Source: CNA/EWTN News
A supermajority of Americans supports significant restrictions on abortion, in contradiction to the Supreme Court decisions which require permissive laws nationwide, a new survey sponsored by the Knights of Columbus says. "Almost four decades after the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which resulted in the almost totally unrestricted abortion regime of today, these decisions continue to be out of step with the vast majority of Americans," said Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll survey found that 79 percent of Americans say they would not allow abortion after the first three months of pregnancy. Another 51 percent said they would only allow abortion, at most, in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother or they would not allow it at all, the Knights reported Jan. 23. Eighty-four percent of survey respondents said that laws can protect both the life of the unborn and the health and well-being of the mother, an increase of three percent since a survey two years ago. "Far from being settled law, the inadequacy of the Court's reasoning on abortion in Roe and Doe is readily apparent to most Americans. Once a survey moves beyond the labels of pro-life and pro-choice, we see a fundamental unity among Americans in favor of significant abortion restrictions," Anderson said. The survey questions on abortion were part of a broader survey that will be released in February. The survey polled 1,053 adults in the continental U.S. from Dec. 15 through Dec. 27, 2011. It claims a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Source: CNA/EWTN News
An appeals court judge has recognized a schizophrenic woman's Catholic convictions and decided that she shouldn't be forced comply with her parents' request to abort her child and be sterilized. The State Department of Mental Health filed a petition in October to have "Mary Moe's" parents named as guardians so they could give consent for abortion. Norfolk Probate and Family Court Judge Christina Harms declared that the 32-year-old could not make a decision about abortion and ordered the facility that performed the abortion to sterilize the woman "to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future." But a Massachusetts appeals court has overturned that ruling. Mailee Smith of Americans United for Life (AUL) believes Judge Andrew Grainger got it right and that this case puts "a face on the abortion industry's dirty little secrets." "We know that the majority of women who have abortions feel forced, feel pressured into having an abortion," Smith notes. "One study has indicated that up to 64 percent of women feel forced into abortion. We also know that there is an 81-percent increased risk of mental health issues following an abortion." And she says it is "criminal" to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. "It has also been established that a person cannot be sterilized against their will. So in this case, the judge [had] overstepped [her] boundary by forcing the woman not only to have an abortion, but to be sterilized against her will," the pro-lifer concludes. Prior to becoming ill, "Mary Moe" had stated that she did not believe in abortion. Also, the Massachusetts woman did not suffer from schizophrenia until after a previous abortion. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
As more than 150,000 people took part in the annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., today, the National Right to Life Committee announced its top initiatives for 2012. Carol Tobias, president, NRLC: "We do have two main goals this year. The first one is the defeat of President Obama," said NRLC President Carol Tobias. "That's not a surprise to anyone. He's the most anti-life president we've ever had." The second goal, however, is to see more states pass bills recognizing that preborn babies are capable of feeling pain during abortion procedures. Since 2010, six states — Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama and Indiana — have passed laws acknowledging that preborn babies past 20 weeks of gestation can feel intense pain, and deserve protection. Tobias noted that Virginia has already introduced such a bill this year, and several others are considering it. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, introduced a pain-capable child protection bill today that would cover the District of Columbia. "We just want to get the message out that the unborn child can feel pain," Tobias said. "It's a great educational tool to talk to the public, about whether they think an unborn child should be killed when it can feel pain during the procedure. We want pro-lifers to start talking about that, because we want to bring the child into this debate and put a human face on it. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Congress is back in session after a long recess. The March for Life just happened. And with the election coming up, it's a good time to remind folks who in Congress has done more than just say that they are pro-life. To see whether or not your lawmakers have voted for pro-life bills, check out National Right to Life Committee's (NRLC) excellent scorecards. Or take a look at CitizenLink's scorecard, which we publish jointly with the Family Research Council. (Ours is a compilation of more than just pro-life votes.) But in case you don't want to sift through years of votes, here's a also look at the major players behind the pro-life bills currently awaiting consideration in the House and the Senate. Most of the sponsors are stalwarts, and you should know their names. You'll also notice most of these guys are House Members; the Senate has barely a handful of pro-lifers. •Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona). Recently introduced the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (bill not yet posted), provides that no abortions can be performed in D.C. if the preborn baby is over 20 weeks gestation. NRLC has a nice press release about it here. Franks is also responsible for the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) (H.R. 3541). PRENDA would impose criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions when they know the abortion is being sought because of the baby's race or gender. The bill has 70 cosponsors and received a hearing in early December in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. •Rep. John Fleming (R-Louisiana). Introduced the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 361), which bans any federal, state or local government from using federal funds to discriminate against a health care entity (doctor, hospital, health insurance provider, etc.) that refuses to participate in abortion. It also provides a way for health care entities to pursue redress if the government discriminates against them. It's been sitting in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health since Fleming introduced it last January. I wouldn't be surprised if we see more movement on this bill soon, given the recent freedom-of-conscience violations we've seen here, here, and here. •Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey). Introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3). No federal taxpayer dollars may be used for abortions, in any program, anywhere. And nobody gets at tax deduction for having an abortion, either. The bill passed the House last May. Smith is probably the biggest die-hard pro-lifer I've seen in the House, and a likeable guy. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) introduced the companion bill to Smith's legislation (S.906) and it awaits consideration in the Senate Committee on Finance. •Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana). One of the better-known and respected pro-life activists in Congress. Pence's Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217) would cut off federal funding to the country's abortion providers (the largest being Planned Parenthood, which annually receives hundreds of millions in federal, state and local money. The bill has 178 cosponsors and awaits consideration in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. •Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Introduced the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (bill not yet posted), requiring abortion providers to perform an ultrasound and provide a medical description of the image before a woman gives consent for an abortion. Yet another bill on the list for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Contact: Ashley Horne Source: CitizenLink
An abortionist should not be able to ply his trade over the Internet. That's what several lawmakers in Indiana think, according to a bill introduced by state Sen. Travis Holdman that passed a committee on a 5-4 vote Wednesday. For the last year, Planned Parenthood has been expanding its operations by having women consult with abortionists by webcam. Regardless of where the doctor is located, he pushes a button which remotely dispenses the chemical abortion drug RU-486 to the woman. "It has to be an in-person exam to prevent Telemed abortions from taking place," Holdman said. Ryan McCann, director of operations and public policy for the Indiana Family Institute, said the bill is needed, because chemical abortions are not as safe as the industry would lead women to believe. "There've been some serious complications with giving those out after seven weeks of pregnancy," he said, noting that some women have even died. "We want to make sure that they're getting the medication from licensed physicians and not folks that don't understand the medication." Contact: Steve Jordahl Source: CitizenLink
President Obama and another massive turnout of pro-life Americans gained attention in Washington as the country passed the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court's legalization of abortion. The president reaffirmed his commitment to abortion rights, even urging continued efforts to protect those rights for "our daughters." The White House issued his statement Jan. 22, the date in 1973 on which the Supreme Court issued companion decisions -- Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton -- that struck down all state abortion restrictions and effectively legalized the procedure for any reason throughout pregnancy. '[I have] no doubt that we are going to see Roe versus Wade overturned in this country.' -- Barrett Duke Meanwhile, tens of thousands of pro-lifers joined together Jan. 23 for the annual March for Life that followed a weekend of pro-life events in the Washington area. The march drew its usually immense crowd in spite of intermittent rain and a temperature in the mid-30s. Young people, especially teenagers, dominated the march. "Every year the crowd gets younger," said Barrett Duke, vice president of public policy for the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Duke joined in the march, which stretched along the National Mall to the Supreme Court. "There was probably only one gray head for every 40 or 50, maybe more, this year," said Duke, whose first March for Life came in 2004. "I've watched that change every year I've been in the marches, and this year was utterly astonishing to me. Not only are the young people there -- elementary grade kids, high school kids, college kids -- but they're there with a vibrancy, just an excitement about them being part of a movement that is about saving innocent human life. They're singing; they're chanting; they're doing calls back and forth to each other. One of them was: 'I love babies, yes I do, I love babies, how 'bout you?'" He said, "I saw what almost certainly could be described as an emerging pro-life culture among young people in this country." Duke said he has "no doubt that we are going to see Roe versus Wade overturned in this country." Young people "will change the culture in this country, and they will be part of a movement that will rein in abortion on demand," he said. Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., one of Congress' leading pro-life advocates, said preventing Obama from winning re-election in November was vital. "The past three years of abortion extremism by President Obama is a mere foretaste -- a mere foreshadowing -- of what will be if he is re-elected," Smith told marchers, according to prepared remarks. "Given four more years, Mr. Obama will further pack the courts -- including and especially the U.S. Supreme Court -- with litmus-tested pro-abortion judges perched to retain the infamous holdings of Roe. "Unhindered and unfettered by any concern over a future election, Mr. Obama will aggressively use the coercive power of the state to compel abortion conformity and complicity," Smith said. "The predictable consequence: more dead babies, more wounded moms." Citing Obama's intention to call for a "return to American values" in his State of the Union speech the next night, Smith said, "Mr. President, abortion is not, never was and never will be an American value." The National Right to Life Committee, one of the country's leading pro-life organizations, announced Jan. 23 its political action committee's top priority for the year "is defeating Barack Obama and electing a pro-life president." With the aid of a Democratic Senate, Obama has opposed pro-life legislation approved by the House of Representatives. His administration has: -- enacted health-care reform that permits federal funds to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion. -- restored grants to a United Nations organization that supports China's coercive population control program. -- approved money for stem cell research that destroys human embryos. -- ordered religious employers to pay for coverage of contraceptives that can cause abortions even if to do so would conflict with their consciences. -- nominated two Supreme Court justices who, both sides of the debate agree, likely would uphold Roe. In his Jan. 22 statement, Obama said: "As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams." It was the first time in three years the president expressed a determination to "reduce the need for abortion." After doing so in 2009, Obama dropped the comment the following two years in his Jan. 22 affirmation of abortion rights. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
The Obama administration announced Jan. 20 that it will not expand an exemption for religious groups that object to its requirement for health insurance plans to cover sterilization and contraception – including abortion-causing drugs – free of charge. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a Jan. 20 statement that religious employers who object to providing the coverage will be required to comply with the new law by Aug. 1, 2013, one year later than the initial deadline. Sebelius noted that "important concerns" had been "raised about religious liberty." Those speaking out against the mandate included many Catholic organizations, such as schools, hospitals and social agencies, which serve all people in need, regardless of their religious affiliation. During the comment period that followed the announcement of the rule, the administration received an outpouring of criticism from believers of various religious backgrounds. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops' pro-life committee, argued against the regulation, warning that Jesus himself would not qualify for the religious exemption. In December, a group of more than 60 evangelical, Baptist and Jewish leaders voiced their objection to the mandate in a letter to President Obama. They observed that "religious organizations beyond the Catholic community have deep moral objections" to the proposed mandate. Sebelius said that those concerns were given "very careful consideration" and asserted that the final rule "strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." While the rule will take effect for most employers on Aug. 1, 2012, Sebelius said that there will be a one-year "delayed implementation" of the mandate for nonprofit employers who do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans due to religious beliefs. "This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule," she said. Sebelius added that these employers will be required to inform employees "that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." The announcement comes one day after Pope Benedict XVI warned of "grave threats" to religious liberty in the U.S. In an address to a group of U.S. bishops visiting the Vatican, the Pope voiced great concern over "certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion." He said that it is "imperative" for "the entire Catholic community" in the U.S. to realize that the threats are "hostile to Christianity." Concerns about freedom of conscience were raised in Aug. 2011, when Sebelius issued an interim final rule outlining the initial "preventive health services" requirement. Although the interim rule included an exemption for religious employers, many religious organization said it was too narrow and would not include many church ministries. To qualify for the exemption, an employer must have the purpose of teaching religious values, and must employ and serve primarily those who share its religious beliefs. The Health and Human Services Department is currently being sued by attorneys for The Becket Fund in separate lawsuits on behalf of Belmont Abbey College and Colorado Christian University. Hannah Smith, senior legal counsel for The Becket Fund, called the move "a shameless attempt to kick the can down the road in an election year." Smith said that the Obama administration knows that the mandate "cannot survive constitutional scrutiny" and is therefore "trying to delay the inevitable judgment day." Contact: Michelle Bauman Source: CNA/EWTN News
Julia Holcomb was forced to reveal a secret she had been keeping for 35 years after her son came across one of the unflattering -- and untrue -- statements that Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler had written about her, their relationship, and their abortion. "I had to become Silent No More right in my own home, I had no choice," said Ms. Holcomb, whose life hit a low point in 1975, when she nearly died in an apartment fire and was then convinced to abort her baby at five months. Now Ms. Holcomb is a spokeswoman for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign by choice. On Monday, Jan. 23, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, she will publicly share the story of her abortion and how it was the catalyst that prompted her to turn her life around. She is a married mother of six sons, a devout Roman Catholic and a pro-life activist. Ms. Holcomb will join dozens of other women and men from the campaign who will tell their stories at the annual event that immediately follows the March for Life. She was convinced to go public with her story after reading a piece written by Kevin Burke, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and co-founder of Rachel's Vineyard, about the abortion regret that Tyler – who last night began his second season as an "American Idol" judge -- has expressed in two books. "In spite of everything, I do not hate Steven Tyler, nor am I personally bitter." Ms. Holcomb said. "I pray for his sincere conversion of heart and hope he can find God's grace, as I have." Ms. Holcomb also will speak at a March for Life Youth Rally, to take place from 7 to 10 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 21, in the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Ave NW. For a video interview with Ms. Holcomb, click here: www.silentnomoreawareness.org/video/index.aspx?cid=7,9267 Contact: Georgette Forney, Andre Kim Source: Silent No More Awareness Campaign
National Pro-Life Leaders Express Support for the Law of Life Summit 
Ave Maria School of Law (AMSL) announced support from national pro-life leaders today in advance of the first-ever "Law of Life Summit," being held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 4:00 PM. The event will gather established individuals and organizations from the American pro-life movement together with pro-life law students for a visioning discussion focused on the coming final phase of the fight against the Roe v. Wade legalized abortion regime. More information can be found at: www.LawLife.org. "Life Legal Defense Foundation shares the goal of seeing Roe overturned," said Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "Despite Roe, we intend to keep defending the civil rights of pro-life advocates until their message is accepted by the culture and abortion, whether legal or not, is not an acceptable choice." "The Law of Life Summit is an awesome synergistic mix of Pro-Life leadership, grass-roots action, and mentorship that will fuel our final push to overturn Roe," said Dr. Pat Castle, Co-Founder and Coach of the National LIFE Runners, who will also serve as MC for the Summit. "This inspired, mission-focused group realizes the infinite value of each life, which does not allow for any exceptions or truces. To overturn Roe, we need a unified group that is willing to take the Gospel of Life into the streets and halls of justice. This Summit is not a one-time event, but the first step down the homestretch to cross the finish line of abortion." Contact: John Knowles Source: Ave Maria School of Law
Approximately 2,000 people will gather in Bethesda, Md., on Sunday for the 2012 Students for Life of America National Conference — the largest pro-life youth rally in the world. The date is the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand, which has claimed some 49 million lives since then. Several U.S. congressmen, attorneys, activists, and other leaders in the pro-life movement will be attending, including The Alliance Defense Fund. A few of the activities on the schedule include a special screening of the film "The Gift of Life," and an award presented to Chai Ling, founder of the group All Girls Allowed. Late last year, a U.S. House subcommittee heard testimony from Ling and other pro-life leaders about how sex-selective abortions are skewing birth rates among some Asian populations — both in the U.S. and abroad. "Every innocent life deserves to be protected," said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. "ADF is again proud to stand with students as they promote this truth and resist the aggressive pro-abortion agenda and censorship that exists on many campuses." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
The Obama administration is hearing strong objections to its decision to block over-the-counter sale of the "morning-after" pill to underage children. Currently, anyone 17 years old or older can buy Plan B without a prescription. But in recent weeks, proponents of selling the drug to children -- or to their molesters -- have been knocking on doors, including Obama's science advisor, demanding to know why Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' recent decision on the matter was not in their favor.Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) believes the ruling was nothing more than political strategy."They are working towards a second term, and if Obama wins, they know that he won't care what kind of fallout there is," she says. "He probably will do what they want him to do if they make enough fuss about it."Crouse points out that proponents of the drug are outraged at the health agency, and they simply will not give up on getting the decision changed."So those of us who are conservative don't typically engage in those kinds of arm-twisting politics, but it's interesting to see," the CWA spokesperson offers. "And I think it's a warning to us that it doesn't matter what the science says -- they are very determined to get what they want, regardless of the impact on little children ...."Plan B is a high-powered dose of birth control that is used as emergency contraception. There is no research to show what it might do to adults, let alone the children for whom the proponents want it to be available.Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The year 2011 was great for the pro-life movement Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Arkansas. According to an annual ranking released Thursday by Americans United for Life (AUL), on the eve of the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, those are the most pro-life states in the nation. In fact, it was a banner year for the pro-life movement all across the country, as 32 states introduced 86 bills based on AUL model legislation. Even better, 47 states considered 460 pro-life bills, ultimately adopting more than 70 of them. "As the legal arm of the pro-life movement, the AUL legal team has created the architecture for reversing Roe v. Wade," said AUL CEO and President Dr. Charmaine Yoest. "The states are preparing for the day after Roe. And as the Life List documents, we're seeing tremendous gains in defending life in law." According to the list, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina and Utah were the "most improved" states from 2010; Washington, California, Hawaii, Vermont and Montana rounded out the bottom as the least life-affirming states in the union. Follow this link to view the entire list: http://www.aul.org/auls-life-list Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
