A new pro-life bill introduced recently in Congress at the instigation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) poses a grave threat to the entire legal structure that maintains legal abortion on demand — making its defeat a top priority for the entire pro-abortion movement, a congressional pro-abortion leader said on February 21. The statements were made by Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate who represents the District of Columbia in the U.S. House of Representatives, who held a Capitol Hill press conference in collaboration with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's major abortion provider, solely to attack the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The legislation was introduced in the House on January 23, 2012, by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), as H.R. 3803, and currently has 130 cosponsors. It was introduced in the Senate on February 13 by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), as S. 2103. In this bill, Congress would declare that at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the capacity to experience pain — and, on that basis, the bill would prohibit abortions within the District of Columbia (except when acute physical problems endanger the life of the mother) from that point on (from the beginning of the sixth month, in layperson's terminology). The Franks-Lee bill is based on an NRLC model bill that has already been enacted in five states – Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Idaho — with additional states expected to join the list during 2012. None of the enacted laws have faced any serious legal challenge to date. In a letter to her fellow House Democrats, released at the press conference, Norton said that the bill "has the potential to eviscerate the entire Roe framework," referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. Norton added, "Understanding the far-reaching scope of this bill, and the energy and resources that anti-choice [pro-life] advocates are going to put behind it, pro-choice groups have also indicated that stopping this bill will be a top legislative priority in 2012." Norton accused the bill's sponsors, who she referred to as "Republican bullies," of "discriminating" against women "based solely on their residency in the District of Columbia." In response, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson explained, "Norton's claim is inaccurate — the actual legislation simply makes it unlawful to perform an abortion past 20 weeks in the District, except in cases of life endangerment, regardless of the residency of the woman seeking the abortion. It should be noted, however, that the available data indicates that the majority of abortions performed within the District are performed on residents of other jurisdictions." At the press conference, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray attacked the bill and said that its supporters would never try to pass the same bill on a national level, according to a report on washingtonpost.com. Johnson commented, "Gray certainly has no way of knowing what pro-life members of Congress may propose in the future. But the congressional sponsors are taking the right approach in placing their immediate focus on the District of Columbia. An increasing number of states are moving to protect pain-capable unborn children, and introducing a nationwide bill this year would only undercut those state-based efforts. In contrast, Congress alone has the constitutional authority to legislate with respect to the District – and with that constitutional authority comes the responsibility to act to end the torment of pain-capable unborn babies in the nation's capital." Representatives of NARAL and the National Abortion Federation also participated in the press conference. Johnson charged that the bill opponents "are seeking to deflect attention away from the shocking fact that abortions currently are entirely unrestricted in the nation's capital, at any point in pregnancy. At least two abortion vendors are openly advertising late abortions. One clinic provides abortion on request, by the brute-force dismemberment method ("D&E"), up to the beginning of the seventh month. Another practitioner's website contains references that suggest he may abort to approximately the start of the eighth month, by inserting a needle into the baby's heart — and in current law, there is no requirement for him to stop even there." Johnson added, "Unborn children, developed far past the point at which they are capable of experiencing excruciating pain, and often far past the point that they could survive long-term outside the mother, are suffering torment and violent death practically within the shadow of the Capitol. Congress — and the President, if he would — have the power to stop this." Noting that Norton had charged that bill sponsors wanted to make "guinea pigs" of D.C. residents, Johnson commented, "Anyone who tears a leg off a guinea pig in the District of Columbia can be sent to prison for five years. It should not be lawful to do to a pain-capable unborn child what it is a crime to do to a guinea pig." Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District. In her February 21 statement, Norton claimed that Congress "gave up" this power by enacting the Home Rule Act in 1973. But in fact, the Home Rule Act explicitly states that Congress "reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject . . ." "Congress did not give up — and indeed, cannot possibly give up — its constitutional responsibility for governance of the District, except by adoption of a constitutional amendment," Johnson said. "The nation's capital belongs to all Americans — and the Congress bears the ultimate responsibility for defending innocent human life in this jurisdiction. Any lawmaker who votes against this legislation is voting to allow the nation's capital to also be the late abortion capital." For additional information on the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, click here. To see an always-current list of co-sponsors of the House bill, click here. To see a list of Senate co-sponsors, click here. To see a medical illustration of the abortion method most commonly used on pain-capable unborn children, click here. To see a current Action Alert explaining how you can help pass the bill, click here.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee 2012 Primary Endorsements
Below is the Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee 2012 Primary candidate endorsements.
Our intent is to elect men and women of all political parties who will speak for and vote for legislation to protect the first and most important right for all of us - our right to life.
We are not endorsing a candidate in the Presidential primary race.
In primary races where there are several equally qualified pro-life candidates we have not endorsed one candidate over the other candidate.
District Candidate 2 James H. Taylor, Sr., (R) 3 Daniel William Lipinski, (D) 6 Peter J. Roskam, (R) 8 Joe Walsh, (R) 11 John A. "Jack" Cunningham, (R) 13 Tim Johnson, (R) 14 Randy Hultgren, (R) 15 John Shimkus, (R) 16 Don Manzullo, (R) 17 Bobby Schilling, (R) 18 Aaron Schock, (R)
Illinois Senate
District Candidate 18 Barbara Ruth Bellar (R) 21 Mike Connelly, (R) 23 Carol Pankau, (R) 24 Kirk Dillard, (R) 27 Matt Murphy, (R) 30 Don Castella, (R) 31 Linwood "Lennie" Jarrett, (R) 37 Darin LaHood, (R) 38 Sue Rezin, (R) 42 Peter Hurtado, (R) 44 Bill Brady (R) 45 Tim Bivens, (R) 49 Tony Giles (R) 50 William "Sam" McCann, (R) 51 Chapin Rose, (R) 52 John Christian Bambenek, (R) 53 Shane Cultra, (R) 54 Kyle McCarter, (R) 55 Dale Righter, (R) 56 William "Bill" Haine, (D) 57 David Barnes, (R) 58 David Luechtefeld, (R) 59 Gary Forby, (D)
Illinois House of Representatives
District Candidate 16 Vincent William Romano, (R) 20 Michael McAuliffe (R) 37 Rene Kosel, (R) 41 Darlene Senger, (R) 45 Dennis Reboletti (R) 47 Patricia "Patti" Bellock, (R) 52 David McSweeney, (R) 53 David Harris, (R) 54 Tom Morrison, (R) 61 JoAnn D. Osmond, (R) 64 Barbara Wheeler, (R) 65 Timothy L. Schmitz, (R) 66 Michael W. Tryon, (R) 68 John M. Cabello, (R) 69 Joe Sosnowski, (R) 70 Robert W. Pritchard, (R) 71 Richard Morthland, (R) 73 David R. Leitch, (R) 74 Don Moffitt, (R) 75 Pam Roth, (R) 86 Ryan Martin Alm (R) 87 Rich Brauer, (R) 88 Keith P. Sommer, (R) 89 Jim Sacia, (R) 91 Michael D. Unes, (R) 93 Norine Hammond, (R) 94 Jil Tracy, (R) 95 Wayne Arthur Rosenthal, (R) 96 Sue Scherer, (D) 98 Janet Silosky, (R) 99 Raymond Poe, (R) 100 Jim Watson, (R) 101 Bill Mitchell, (R) 102 Adam Brown, (R) 104 Chad Hays, (R) 105 Dan Brady, (R) 107 John Cavaletto, (R) 108 Paul Evans, (R) 109 David Reis, (R) 110 Roger Eddy, (R) 111 Daniel V. Beiser, (D) 112 Dwight Kay, (R) 115 Mike Bost, (R) 117 John Bradley, (D) 118 Branden Phelps, (D)
This ad is paid for by the IFRL-PAC, connected with the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Inc. and was not authorized by any of the candidates. James M. Quirke, Treasurer. A copy of our report is on file and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., and the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL.
Mandatory insurance coverage of the "morning-after pill," a key part of the Obama administration's contraception rule, has only 38 percent of likely voters' support according to a new survey.
A Feb. 20-21 telephone poll by Rasmussen Reports found that half of the country's likely voters opposed mandatory insurance coverage of emergency contraceptive drugs like "ella" and "Plan B," which can cause an early-stage abortion by preventing embryo implantation.
Thirteen percent of the voting public said they were unsure whether the government should force insurers to provide the drugs without a co-pay, as they must do under Health and Human Services' rule finalized Feb. 10.
The president's morning-after pill requirement is even more unpopular with political independents, than it is with the voting public in general.
Among likely voters who did not identify as either Republicans or Democrats, the poll found only 31 percent support, and 54 percent opposition, to mandated coverage of "free" emergency contraception.
Support was also lower among self-identified Catholics, than in the general population. Only 33 percent of Catholic respondents supported the administration's plan to make insurers cover emergency contraception without any charge to the recipient.
Only 24 percent of Evangelicals, and 31 percent of other Protestants, supported the contraception mandate's morning-after pill provision.
Different attitudes toward abortion were also associated with support or opposition of the emergency contraception mandate. Those who identified as "pro-choice" supported the morning-after rule at a rate of 61 percent, while 79 percent opposition was found among those calling themselves "pro-life."
Likely voters of both sexes had similar attitudes on the question of emergency contraception, which the Obama administration has sought to present as an important part of women's health care.
Men and women supported the emergency-contraception mandate at rates of 36 percent and 39 percent, respectively, while 51 percent of men and 48 percent of women said they opposed the provision.
While the contraception mandate has been touted by supporters as a benefit to the poor, its strongest support – at a rate of 49 percent – came from respondents making over $100,000 per year, the highest income bracket surveyed.
Those earning less than $20,000 annually, who fell into the survey's lowest income bracket, were actually less likely to support the morning-after pill policy than those in the top income range. They approved of the administration's policy at a rate of 44 percent.
For decades, local Catholics had maintained a prayerful presence outside an abortion clinic in Rockford, Illinois, but the clinic remained open.
According to Kevin Rilott of the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative, the tide began to turn in 2009 when Bishop Thomas Doran granted priests permission to recite prayers of exorcism outside the Northern Illinois Women's Center. At times, four priests would stand outside the four corners of the building and recite the prayers together.
"Within two to three weeks of priests saying these prayers, the number of abortions began to drop," said Rilott. "Over a few months, the number of abortions was cut in half and the numbers of women seeking our help probably doubled. The clinic, which had been performing 25-75 abortions a week for years, also reduced its days of business from three to two."
In late 2011, the State of Illinois temporarily suspended the clinic's license; in January, the clinic announced that it would not reopen its doors.
Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Pharmacies to Dispense the Morning-After Pill Yesterday, religious liberty gained a resounding victory. A federal court in Tacoma, Washington, struck down a Washington law that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. "Today's decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs," said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund, together with the Seattle-based law firm of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, represents the plaintiffs in the case. "If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for economic, business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for reasons of conscience," added Mr. Goodrich. The plaintiffs in the case are a family-owned pharmacy (Ralph's Thriftway) and two individual pharmacists (Margo Thelen and Rhonda Mesler) who cannot in good conscience dispense Plan B ("the morning-after pill") or ella ("the week-after pill"). These individuals believe that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that these drugs destroy human life because they can operate by destroying a fertilized egg, or embryo. Rather than dispensing those drugs, they refer patients to one of dozens of nearby pharmacies that stock and dispense them. In 2007, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy passed new regulations making it illegal to refer patients to neighboring pharmacies for reasons of conscience, despite allowing them to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of business, economic, or convenience reasons. Because of the regulations, Margo Thelen lost her job; Rhonda Mesler was told she would have to transfer to another state; and Kevin Stormans, the owner of Ralph's Thriftway, faced repeated investigations and threats of punishment from the State Board of Pharmacy. "The Board of Pharmacy's 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not generally applicable," the Court explained. "They were designed instead to force religious objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact that refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted." Judge Leighton was appointed to the court in 2002. In September 2010, he struck down the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and became the first judge in the country to order an openly gay service member to be reinstated in the military. The ruling was widely hailed by the ACLU and other gay-rights advocates. "I'm just thrilled that the court ruled to protect our constitutional right of conscience," said Ms. Thelen, who has served as a pharmacist for 39 years. "I was forced to leave a job I loved simply because of my deeply held religious convictions." The Washington regulations were passed under a cloud of controversy. In 2006, the State Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to support a rule protecting pharmacists' right of conscience. But when Governor Christine Gregoire learned of the vote, she publicly threatened to fire the Board's members, replaced several Board members with candidates screened by Planned Parenthood, and personally joined in a boycott of Ralph's Thriftway. Planned Parenthood then drafted a new version of the regulations, which the Board adopted under pressure from the Governor. The regulations prohibit pharmacies from declining to dispense Plan B for reasons of conscience—even though the Board found no evidence that anyone in the State had ever been unable to obtain Plan B (or any other time-sensitive medication) in a timely fashion because of religious objections. "The Board's regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious objections from their inception," the court explained. "Indeed, Plaintiffs have presented reams of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant purpose of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious reasons]." Washington is one of only two or three states in the country that requires pharmacies to stock and dispense emergency contraception in violation of conscience. One of the other states, Illinois, recently had its regulations, which are modeled on Washington's, struck down as unconstitutional in a challenge brought by Becket Fund attorney Mark Rienzi.
Contact: Emily Hardman Source: The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
The Illinois Ultrasound Bill and the Women's Health and Safety Act of 2012 pass out of committee
Both the The Ultrasound Bill HB 4085, and Women's Health and Safety Act of 2012 HB 4117 have passed out of committee and are now on the IL House floor.
The Ultrasound Bill HB 4085
This bill provides that at any facility where abortions are performed the physician who is to perform the abortion, the referring physician, or another qualified person working in conjunction with either physician shall offer any woman seeking an abortion an opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of her unborn child by someone qualified to perform ultrasounds at the facility, or at a facility listed in a listing of local ultrasound providers provided by the facility, prior to the woman having any part of an abortion performed or induced, and prior to the administration of any anesthesia or medication in preparation for the abortion.
Women's Health and Safety Act of 2012 HB 4117
This bill amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act and states that any center where abortions are performed, and any other facility where 50 or more abortions are performed in any calendar year, must comply with all of the statutes, rules, and regulations applicable to ambulatory surgical treatment centers.
These are both good pro-life bills and are now on the IL House floor. It is important that you call your IL Representative and urge them to vote YES on both The Ultrasound Bill HB 4085, and Women's Health and Safety Act of 2012 HB 4117.
Phone calls to U.S. senators are urgently needed in support of a vital pro-life amendment that is likely to be voted on around February 28, or within a few days thereafter. Please click on the "Take Action" link above, then enter your zip code in the "Call Now" box, and you will be shown the correct numbers to call and suggested points to make during your call.
The amendment has been offered by pro-life Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and is strongly supported by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The text of the Blunt Amendment is taken from an NRLC-endorsed bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179). It would amend the Obama health care law ("ObamaCare") to prevent the imposition of regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance, such as the recent decree that virtually all employers -- including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools -- must purchase health insurance plans that cover all government-approved methods of birth control.
When President Obama's health care legislation was under consideration in the Senate in 2009, NRLC warned that a provision dealing with "preventive health services" would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate coverage of any medical service, including abortion, merely by adding the service to an expandable list. Predictably, the Administration issued a decree in August, 2011, covering all FDA-approved birth control methods – a mandate that, unless overturned, will produce an irreconcilable conflict between conscience and the coercive force of government for many employers. In recent months, the Administration's "birth-control mandate" has been strongly characterized as an attack on fundamental religious liberties by the U.S. Catholic bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and the leaders of many other religious bodies.
But this is not a debate only about the specific parameters of the birth-control mandate. Exactly the same statutory authority could be used by the Administration -- as early as next year -- to mandate that virtually all health plans pay for elective abortion on demand.
The Blunt Amendment goes to the heart of the problem by amending the ObamaCare law itself, to prevent provisions of the law from being used as a basis for regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.
PLEASE CALL TODAY!
Please click on the "Take Action" link at the top of this message. Enter your zip code in the "Call Now" box, and you will be shown the correct phone numbers to call for your two U.S. senators. You will be shown suggested comments that you can make to the staff person who takes the call. You'll also be invited to use the simple "Your Feedback" tool to send NRLC a short email, reporting on how your call went, if you wish to do so.
Facebook has apologized for censoring a post by Dr. Rebecca Gomperts in which she gave instructions for a do-it-yourself chemical abortion. The popular social media site decided it was OK for the international abortion provider to teach women and girls how to do an abortion themselves at home using Misoprostol, even telling them to lie to a pharmacist to get the necessary drugs.
But Facebook has removed a graphic that shows the aftermath of an abortion: An eight-week fetus torn limb from limb and decapitated. This week, Bryan Kemper, Youth Outreach Director for Priests for Life, and Andy Moore of abortionwiki.org created a version of the popular "What They Think I Do" graphic that have been going viral on Facebook. Their graphic was entitled "Abortionist," and the final frame was a photo of a baby killed in an early abortion.
This image received thousands of shares and comments in a matter of hours. But this morning, Kemper found a message from Facebook explaining that the image was removed, and ordering him to remove it from any other place he had posted it on the site. "It amazed me," said Kemper; "Facebook will allow girls to learn how to do an abortion themselves at home with no doctor's supervision, and encourages them to lie when obtaining the drugs necessary. But they will not allow them to see what an abortion looks like.
"I guess it is only considered censorship if you censor the pro-choice side; it's perfectly fine in our culture to censor the pro-life message." Kemper has posted the image on his website at bryankemper.com/2012/02/15/abortionist/ and has given permission for anyone to repost it on their blogs or websites. He also is urging all pro-lifers to contact Facebook to protest the site's lopsided censorship. www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=ui_other Click here for the DIY abortion instructions. www.facebook.com/womenonwaves
"I have long said that America will not end abortion until it sees abortion," said Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life. "But those who support and profit from abortion work very hard to make sure America does not see abortion."
An amendment providing a religious exemption to the Obama administration's contraception mandate was prevented from coming to a vote in the U.S. Senate on Feb. 15.
"This is supposed to be a body where we have open discussion, where any member can offer any amendment to any bill at any time," said Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.).
He criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for shutting off the opportunity to introduce new amendments to a bill that was under discussion in the Senate.
"I think the American people want more than that," he said.
Coats is one of several senators who has spoken out strongly against a controversial insurance mandate announced recently by the Obama administration. Critics of the mandate argue that it forces religious employers to purchase health insurance plans that violate their consciences. In recent days, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) has attempted to introduce a bipartisan amendment that would have allowed employers to opt out of providing coverage that violates their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."
Sen. Reid had initially indicated that he would allow the amendment to be introduced on Feb. 15.
However, he then blocked it through a procedure known as "filling the tree," by which the majority leader fills all possible openings for amendments on a piece of legislation, thereby preventing other senators from offering further amendments.
Reid had criticized the proposed amendment, saying that it was "senseless" and premature because all of the details regarding the mandate are not yet clear.
The Obama administration has been the center of controversy over its new mandate, which would require many religious employers to purchase insurance plans including contraception, sterilization and early-abortion drugs.
Faced with outcry from both religious and secular groups, President Barack Obama on Feb. 10 announced an "accommodation" for religious freedom. Instead of having employers purchase the controversial coverage directly, the new policy would require them to buy health care plans from insurance companies that would be required to offer such coverage free of charge.
Blunt called the new policy an "accounting gimmick," joining with numerous other critics who argued that the "accommodation" failed to provide adequate protection for religious freedom.
He argued that his amendment was important to safeguard the rights laid out by the American founders in the First Amendment.
By amending a transportation bill that was already up for debate in the Senate, Blunt's proposal would have given the issue immediate attention in the Senate.
However, other legislative efforts to fight the mandate are already underway.
Among the most prominent of these efforts is the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced by Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), which currently has 190 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.
In addition, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, which has 29 cosponsors in the Senate.
The U.S. bishops have called for continued legislative efforts to oppose the mandate and defend the religious liberty of the American people.
The U.S. Senate may vote any day on a vital pro-life amendment offered by Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to a highway bill that is pending on the Senate floor.
The text of the Blunt Amendment consists of the language taken from an NRLC-endorsed bill, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179). It would amend the Obama health care law ("ObamaCare") to prevent the imposition of regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.
The Blunt Amendment is Amendment No. 1520 to S. 1813, a highway bill.
When President Obama's health care legislation was under consideration in the Senate in 2009, NRLC warned that a provision dealing with "preventive health services" would empower the Secretary of Health and Human Services to mandate coverage of any medical service, including abortion, merely by adding the service to an expandable list. Predictably, the Administration issued a decree in August, 2011, covering all FDA-approved birth control methods – a mandate that, unless overturned, will produce an irreconcilable conflict between conscience and the coercive force of government for many employers. In recent months, the Administration's "birth-control mandate" has elicited vigorous protests from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and many other religious leaders, as an attack on religious liberty
But this is not a debate only about the specific parameters of the birth-control mandate. Exactly the same statutory authority could be used by the Administration -- as early as next year -- to mandate that all health plans pay for elective abortion on demand.
The Blunt Amendment goes to the heart of the problem by amending the ObamaCare law itself, to prevent provisions of the law from being used as a basis for regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.
Please employ the easy-to-use tools here to send a message to your two U.S. senators, urging support for the Blunt Amendment. This vote could occur any day.
Pro-Life Nation announces that its ground-breaking new website, AbortionDocs.org has passed 1,000 document uploads. AbortionDocs.org is the most up-to-date database of existing abortion businesses and providers in the United States that contains civil and criminal court records, disciplinary documents, health department inspection reports, and other documents that paint a picture of rampant abortion abuses throughout the country.
"We are happy to announce that AbortionDocs.org has surpassed the 1,000 document mark, however, we have just begun the arduous process of uploading. The running document count does not include videos and links to off-site news articles. For many areas of the country, there is already a vast amount of information available that can be used to show the shoddy and often criminal nature of the abortion cartel," said Troy Newman, President of Pro-Life Nation and Operation Rescue. AbortionDocs.org is a project of Pro-life Nation, a newly launched initiative from Operation Rescue.
"This is a resource for the entire pro-life movement and for anyone seeking more information about abortion businesses in their areas. We encourage anyone with documentation, such as photos, court records, videos, affidavits, or any other documentation on such things as abortion injuries or deaths, billing fraud, criminal backgrounds, tax evasion, clinic health violations, and the like to post the evidence to AbortionDocs.org."
On AbortionDocs.org, there are records that document such abuses as:
•Illegal dumping of aborted baby remains
•Life-threatening botched abortions
•Coerced/Forced abortions
•Abortion-related deaths
•Criminal abortions
•Fraud
•Huge malpractice judgments
•Sex crimes on patients
•Unsafe clinic conditions
•Illegal weapons possession
New information is being added and updated daily. Currently AbortionDocs.org shows:
•658 surgical abortion clinics (down from 2,176 in 1991)
•280 abortion pill-only clinics
•724 abortionists
"These facts prove that the abortion cartel is self-destructing due to their own misdeeds and lack of demand for their grisly services," said Newman. "That means very soon we may see all of America become a Pro-life Nation."
An abstinence education advocate says the media is putting a deceptive twist on a new report that shows an encouraging decline in the number of teen pregnancies, births, and abortions.
According to researchers at the Guttmacher Institute, U.S. teen pregnancies have declined dramatically since their peak in the early 1990s, as have the number of births and abortions. Teen pregnancies in 2008 reached their lowest level at a rate of about seven percent -- down 42 percent from the peak of 1990.
Researchers say teens are deciding to be more effective contraceptive users, but Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) says the way this study is being reported is misleading because it ignores the fact that abstinence education was being taught in one-fourth of public schools during the year these statistics were gathered.
"Contraceptive education and contraceptives in general are being credited … for the reason for these drops, and that's just a disingenuous argument," she says.
The report also shows that 75 percent of 1-5 to 17-year-olds are not even having sex, which, in part, accounts for the decline. But Huber finds another statistic troubling.
"About 75 percent of teens didn't even use contraception the last time they had sex, so to say that these drops are due to contraceptive usage is really stretching the truth," the NAEA executive director adds.
She goes on to report that even though the 2012 federal budget does call for replacing some money for the Sexual Risk Avoidance program (see earlier story), there is still a 50-to-1 disparity between abstinence education and contraceptive education monies.
The Guttmacher Institute was founded in the late 1960s as a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. It now operates as an independent not-for-profit corporation.
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.
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."
"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:
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.
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).
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.
