Priests for Life announced Feb. 9 that it will file a lawsuit against the U.S. government in order to protect its religious beliefs from the Health and Human Services contraception mandate. "It's unthinkable that President Obama would force Americans of any faith to violate their consciences," said Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life. The announcement comes amid mounting criticism over secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius' Jan. 20 announcement that virtually all employers will soon be required to purchase health insurance plans that cover contraceptives – including abortion-inducing drugs – and sterilization. Catholic media network EWTN also issued a statement on Feb. 9 detailing its lawsuit against the Obama administration over the federal rule. Despite being one of the nation's largest pro-life educational organizations, Priests for Life does not qualify for an exemption from the contraception mandate because it educates people of numerous religions – not only Catholics – about issues surrounding abortion and euthanasia. Priests for Life believes it to be especially qualified to challenge the administration because its mission "to promote and protect life" sharply contrasts with the intention of the HHS mandate to make abortifacients and contraception more widely available. Civil rights lawyer Charles LiMandri of San Diego will represent Priests for Life in court. LiMandri is known for his work in the "Mt. Soledad Cross" case in which local atheists tried to have an historic war memorial torn down because it was a religious symbol on public property. LiMandri was also involved in California's Proposition 8 campaign to support marriage defined as between one man and one woman. The U.S. Catholic bishops, among other religious leaders, have led the rising opposition to the mandate since its announcement. The White House has failed, however, to offer any concessions to religious groups concerned with protecting their conscience rights. Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., the U.S. Bishops for Religious Liberty chair, told CNA in a Feb. 8 statement that "no one from the Administration has approached the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops for discussions on this matter of a possible 'compromise.'" Schools such as Bellmont Abbey College and interdenominational Colorado Christian University have also raised legal challenges against the Health and Human Services mandate. Contact: Hillary Senour Source: Catholic News Agency
The headline in the Washington Times story read, "Hot-button social issues burst back onto radar in GOP race" and the first sentence of Seth McLaughlin's story is, "It's no longer just the economy, stupid." Pro-lifers, while grateful when the obvious is recognized, nonetheless shake their heads. It never WAS "just the economy," as important as that undoubtedly is. And just so it's clear, all four of the Republican presidential contenders—Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. Ron Paul—are pro-life. To be sure it is true that the abortion issue and the right of conscience for believers can be put on the back burner by a media that is overwhelmingly pro-abortion and equally indifferent to whether Barack Obama gives a darn about religious liberty. But these issues always assume prominence because they are (1) foundational, and (2) there is an immense chasm between the two parties: overwhelmingly, Republicans are pro-life; Democrats, with some exceptions, are pro-abortion. While McLaughlin understands the dynamic, others pretend that if they pretend abortion isn't important, it won't be. Consider the silly comment Barbara Walters made yesterday on "The View." Walters said, "First of all, it is interesting in every primary the subject of abortion comes up and it is always so controversial and so divisive and yet in the actual election, it plays a very small part. I always find that fascinating. It's always an issue, but people, with it all, do not vote for the president on that issue." NRL Political Director Karen Cross did a beautiful job debunking that myth (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/02/a-different-view-than-the-view). "Even if the media wasn't covering the issue, pro-life voters would still vote their values. They would still vote their hearts. They would still vote for the most vulnerable among us. They are selfless and passionate and in 2010, they soundly voted against Obama's abortion agenda." That enduring truth is important to recall and to remember. The closer and closer we come to November 6, the likelier it is that the media collectively will discover that abortion is hugely important. Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: National Right to Life
"Friend of the Court" Brief Submitted for In Vitro Fertilization Social Security Benefits Case 
What do a filmmaker, a board member of NOW, a reproductive endocrinologist, two bloggers, and a pro-life legal group have in common? They all teamed up on a filing this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF). The friend-of-the-court brief the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) filed is designed to educate the Court about the "array of serious dangers" IVF poses to women, children, and society at large. The Supreme Court is hearing a case, Astrue v. Capato, No. 11-159, in which a widow seeks Social Security survivor benefits for the twins conceived by IVF and born after her husband's death. Lower federal courts are divided on the question of whether such posthumously conceived children are entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, and the Supreme Court is expected to settle the question in a ruling this spring. And while the case presents fairly dry and complicated legal questions of statutory interpretation, the context of the case -- children conceived and born through IVF technology after their father had passed away from cancer -- makes this the first case in which the Supreme Court will confront this new reproductive technology. "We felt this was an educable moment for the Court," said Catherine Short, Legal Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, who was counsel of record on the brief. "There's a huge dearth of appreciation for the ugly underbelly of IVF. This case presents a unique opportunity to educate the Court on this issue, lest the Court in ignorance bestow some unqualified praise upon IVF as a practice. The Court benefits greatly from hearing points of view that might not otherwise be expressed. Here, neither the mother of the IVF twins nor the Department of Justice have any reason to speak ill of IVF. That's where we provide a key supplemental voice." The brief emphasizes that children conceived by IVF are fully human and entitled to love and respect just like any other children. But the brief also cautions the Court that IVF comes with a package of very significant downsides, including physical and emotional risks to both the IVF child and the genetic mother, the routine creation and destruction or freezing of untold numbers of "spare" human embryos, the deconstruction of the family, and the unleashing of an exploitative industry that can prey upon vulnerable women. The five friends of the court appearing on the brief are: Jennifer Lahl, documentary filmmaker and producer of Eggsploitation, an exposé of the IVF industry's exploitation of human egg providers; Kathleen Sloan, NOW board member and veteran activist for women's rights; Kathleen R. LaBounty, conceived by donor sperm, blogger on donor conception; Stephanie Blessing, also conceived by donor sperm and blogging on her situation; and, Anthony J. Caruso, M.D., MPH, a former IVF practitioner who oversaw more than 1,000 IVF procedures but has since renounced the practice. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case on March 19, with a decision likely to follow in June. Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
ETWN, a global Catholic television network, has filed a lawsuit Thursday against the mandatory free coverage of contraception in ObamaCare. "We had no other option but to take this to the courts," says EWTN president Michael Warsaw. The mandate forces faith-based organizations such as hospitals to provide the coverage, even though it might violate their religious beliefs. Attorney Mark Rienzi with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty tells OneNewsNow that religious liberty is not just confined to churches and religious orders. "And essentially the folks at EWTN will refuse to comply with this mandate," the attorney explains, "and [they] have taken the government to federal court to require the government to do what it has to do -- which is follow federal law and provide an exception for anybody who objects on grounds of religion or conscience to providing these drugs." The government contends most Catholics use birth control and that faith involvement of religious hospitals and other organizations is only nominal. But Rienzi says that is not the government's call. "The government in our system has no power and no role to decide which organizations and people are 'religious enough' to get the protection of the Constitution," he argues. "The government can't sit there and say Well, I think you're Catholic enough, but you not so much -- they have no power to do that. And even if it were true that some number of people don't follow a church's teaching, that doesn't give the government the power to force the other people to also violate it." Priests for Life has filed suit against the mandate as well, and several other organizations intend to follow suit. In addition, there is a report that Nebraska's attorney general is asking other state chief attorneys to join in a lawsuit he intends to file. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Lower the expectations and they'll likely succeed 
Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania is now selling the "morning-after" pill via a vending machine. A pro-family group in that state believes that sends the wrong message to students. For $25, people with access to campus health services at Shippensburg can buy Plan B from a machine, just like they would a soda or a bag of chips. Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania finds that appalling. "To begin with, they're approving the sexual activity of their students -- and they're not providing the young ladies with the correct information about Plan B, about the morning-after pill," Gramley explains. "If they are pregnant, it actually does not allow the implantation of the fertilized egg -- and that's just killing their baby." University officials say a survey of students found that the vast majority were in favor of having the pill available through campus health services. The pro-family spokeswoman questions that as well. "It's interesting that that survey was taken several years ago," she notes, "and it says that 85 percent of the respondents wanted the availability of the morning-after pill. Now our question to the school is: How many students actually responded?" Another issue that Gramley has with the vending-machine availability is that it makes it possible for a man who molests an underage girl to walk onto campus, gain access to the machine, then provide the pill to their victim. But the school maintains because the one machine that makes Plan B available is in a private room in the health center, no one can just "walk in off the street" and access it. Regardless, Gramley says the machine should be removed, but there are questions about the legality of the vending machine service -- questions that ought to be answered by the state. Plan B is available without a prescription to anyone who is 17 or older. A university statement says all full-time students currently at Shippensburg fit that criteria -- and that the pill is made available "at cost" (i.e., no state funds or student health fees are used). Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The fallout from Planned Parenthood's triumph in its public relations war with Susan G. Komen for the Cure continues, even as a new report to Congress suggests 20 percent of the abortion provider's affiliates could be guilty of waste and fraud involving government funds. Karen Handel, Komen's senior vice president for public policy, resigned Feb. 7, only a week after her organization's decision to defund Planned Parenthood was reported. Her resignation was not a shock after an onslaught of Planned Parenthood-fueled outrage against the world's leading breast cancer charity prompted Komen to backtrack Feb. 3 by announcing Planned Parenthood affiliates would remain eligible for grants. Meanwhile, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) -- in a report prepared for a congressional investigation of the country's No. 1 abortion provider -- released evidence Feb. 7 showing waste, abuse and potential fraud by Planned Parenthood affiliates. Among its findings, ADF reported audits of seven of 79 affiliates over a 14-year period found nearly $8 million of fraud, waste and abuse. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates received $487.4 million in government grants, contracts and reimbursements alone in 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available. PPFA clinics performed 329,445 abortions in 2010, which was more than one-fourth of the lethal procedures in the United States for the year. Some critics of Komen's defunding decision had targeted Handel for blame in the organization's initial decision to halt grants to PPFA affiliates. A former Georgia secretary of State, she called for defunding Planned Parenthood during an unsuccessful gubernatorial run in 2010. In her resignation letter, Handel, who joined Komen's staff in April 2011, acknowledged her role in the process to defund Planned Parenthood but said the decision "was fully vetted by every appropriate level within the organization" and Komen's board raised no objections. The decision to change Komen's criteria for grant-making, as well as the controversy over the organization's relationship with PPFA, preceded her hiring, Handel said. Komen decided to abstain from future funding of Planned Parenthood affiliates because of a new policy that bans grants to organizations under government investigation, a Komen spokeswoman had said in a Jan. 31 report by the Associated Press. A House of Representatives committee began an investigation of Planned Parenthood in September. Though PPFA President Cecile Richards charged Komen with appearing to "have succumbed to political pressure," Handel told Fox News, "The only group here who has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood." Handel made clear her disdain for PPFA's high-pressure tactics through social media and the mainstream news media. "[T]he last time I checked, private, non-profit organizations have a right and a responsibility to be able to set the highest standards and criteria on their own without interference, let alone the level of vicious attacks and coercion that has occurred by Planned Parenthood. It's simply outrageous," she told Fox News. She resigned because it became obvious she was "too much of a focal point," Handel said. "I really felt I had a responsibility to step aside so that [Komen] could refocus on their mission." Nancy Brinker, Komen's chief executive officer, wished Handel the best after receiving her resignation and said in a statement, "We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission." From a pro-life perspective, the widespread news coverage of Komen's original action, the PPFA-orchestrated reaction and Komen's subsequent policy change served a couple of educational purposes for the public: (1) More Americans, including pro-life advocates, now know the breast cancer foundation is giving to Planned Parenthood. As a result, pro-lifers' donations to Komen and participation in its popular five-kilometer, fund-raising runs/walks that draw more than 1.6 million participants each year likely will decline further. (2) More Americans now realize Planned Parenthood centers do not offer mammograms but refer women to other clinics for the screenings. Komen affiliates gave about $680,000 to PPFA centers last year, AP reported. An analysis last year by the pro-life American Life League found 18 of Komen's about 120 affiliates had given PPFA centers grants totaling nearly $630,000 in the 2009-10 fiscal year. In announcing its Feb. 3 change of course, Komen said it would amend its new criteria "to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political." The current federal investigation of PPFA will certainly be more than political if the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee finds the ADF report is the tip of an iceberg of misuse of government funds. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R.-Fla., who is leading the committee's investigation, asked Richards in a September letter to provide audits, documentation, policies and procedures regarding such issues as improper billing, segregation of federal funds from abortion services and reporting of suspected sex abuse and human trafficking. Based on its review of federal and state audits, ADF reported there were 12 kinds of potential fraud PPFA affiliates were engaging in, including overbilling and illegal billing for services or drugs related to abortion. ADF's report was based on audits available to the public and confirmed by undisclosed sources. The ADF report said PPFA's "primary motivation is to take advantage of 'overbilling' opportunities to maximize its revenues in complex, well-funded federal and state programs that are understaffed and rely on the integrity of the provider for program compliance. Thus, Planned Parenthood's primary motivation appears not to provide quality healthcare to patients who seek family planning services, but rather to enhance its profits." The unknown extent of "waste, abuse and potential fraud" at PPFA affiliates deserves investigation by the House committee, according to ADF. The Susan B. Anthony List assisted ADF in the report. Planned Parenthood has been plagued by various scandals in recent years. Secret investigations by pro-life organizations have uncovered PPFA workers demonstrating a willingness to aid self-professed sex traffickers whose prostitutes supposedly are in their early teens, seeking to cover up alleged child sex abuse and agreeing to receive donations designated for abortions of African-American babies. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
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
