The Illinois Supreme Court will soon decide whether parents should have a role when their minor child seeks to terminate a pregnancy.
The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was passed by the Illinois legislature 17 years ago, but has never been enforced because of legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Steven H. Aden believes it is time for the state Supreme Court to change that.
"Parents matter in abortion decisions," states Aden. "If abortionists truly cared about young girls, they wouldn't be pushing to make sure parents stay in the dark while the clinic takes advantage of their daughters' bodies and desperate situations -- not to mention the life of the child in the womb."
ADF attorney Noel Sterett participated in filing a brief with the court, saying: "A young child's wellbeing is worth much more than an abortionist's bottom line. This law balances the needs of desperate young girls with the rights of the parents who care most about them.
"The Illinois Supreme Court should allow this protective law to go into effect and reject the arguments of those who want to shut parents out of their children's critical health decisions."
A lawsuit was also filed in federal court where the law was found to be constitutional, but the ACLU is now appealing that decision as well.
Members of a U.S. House subcommittee questioned Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius about the mandate requiring Christian employers to pay for contraceptives and possible abortifacient drugs despite their religious and moral objections on Thursday. Sebelius was in front of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health to discuss her department's fiscal year 2013 proposed budget, but pro-life lawmakers made sure she faced pointed questions about the HHS rule. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked whether HHS had even consulted with the Department of Justice about the mandate's constitutionality. "No, we did not," Sebelius said. Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Penn., asked Sebelius if groups that refuse to offer contraception in their insurance plans will be fined. "Sir, we'll get, as you know this is, uh, a situation …" Sebelius answered. Employers who choose to follow their conscience could be penalized as much as $100 per employee each day — meaning a group the size of Catholic Charities, which provided food, housing and family services for over 10.2 million people in 2010, could be forced to pay as much as $140 million a year in fines. But during the hearing, Sebelius said "no one will be fined for faith." Committee Chairman Joseph Pitts, R-Penn., made it clear the mandate creates an untenable position for people of faith and moral conviction. "This is about religious liberty and whether people with deeply held moral and religious beliefs should be put in a situation where they have only two choices: Comply with the law, thus violating their consciences, or not comply with the law and face ruinous fines, forcing them to close their doors," he said. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate on Thursday rejected a measure 51-48 to protect religious employers and insurance companies from making that choice. While HHS exempts some groups from the contraceptive mandate, that exemption specifically applies to churches — not faith-based schools, universities, hospitals or other nonprofits. Sebelius defended the rule by boldly proclaiming the cost of the contraception would be offset by fewer pregnancies. "So you're saying that by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?" Murphy asked. Thousands of individuals, religious leaders and groups have urged the Obama administration to reconsider its rule, and three House committees have held hearings addressing the issue. The House has not yet voted on its religious-freedom bill, H.R. 1179.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of state right-to-life organizations, said today that it would continue to challenge the Obama Administration's authority to mandate that virtually all employers pay for services they regard as morally objectionable, both in Congress and through political action. The U.S. Senate today rejected an initial attempt to prevent the Obama Administration from forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers drugs or procedures to which they are morally opposed. By a vote of 51-48, the Senate tabled (killed) an amendment offered by pro-life Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and strongly supported by 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 use of that law to issue regulatory mandates that violate the religious or moral convictions of those who purchase or provide health insurance.
The Blunt legislation does not affect any federal law other than ObamaCare, nor does it apply to state laws. In addition, the legislation does not allow any insurer to "discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability, or expected length of life." The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions. The focus now shifts to the House, where the same legislation, introduced as H.R. 1179 by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.), currently has 220 cosponsors (more than half of all House members). In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated employers, challenging the Obama mandate as a violation of constitutional rights and of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "National Right to Life will continue to challenge the Obama Administration's abortion-expansionist agenda on Capitol Hill, and we will encourage millions of like-minded Americans to remember this issue when they cast their ballots in November," said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president.
Contact: Jessica Rodgers Source: National Right to Life Committee
Texas is standing by its rule against providing Medicaid funds to abortion providers, which means Planned Parenthood will not be receiving its annual $17 million.
Gov. Rick Perry and Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs are following the legislative intent of SB 7 by supporting the rule that excludes Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women's Health Program. That measure passed during the June 2011 special session.
More than 1,000 sources in Texas are available to provide preventative medical services like mammograms, and according to Dr. Joe Pojman of the Texas Alliance for Life, they do a better job than Planned Parenthood. Even so, he notes, President Barack Obama is standing by the abortion provider.
"The Obama administration is threatening to kill this program, which is providing preventative health services to thousands of women of Texas every year, because Texas refuses to fund Planned Parenthood," Dr. Pojman explains. "Basically, the Obama administration may kill this program because Texas does not want our tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, and we think that's a great travesty."
The program expires at the end of March. Texas HHSC has reapplied to the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for an extension through 2013. But since the state does not fully fund the nation's largest abortion provider, there is a good chance that the administration will not grant the request.
"If the Obama administration carries forward with its threats to kill this program, it's going to mean that the Obama administration is going to be denying preventative healthcare to low-income women of Texas, simply because we don't want our tax dollars here in Texas going to abortion providers," the pro-lifer summarizes.
But Pojman asserts that Texas' policy makes sense because Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms or cancer treatment. He contends the only time a woman sees a doctor at Planned Parenthood in Texas is when she is going to have an abortion.
The Illinois Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of a 16-year-old law saying parents must be notified before their teen daughters receive abortions. Earlier today, the court accepted an amicus brief from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) pointing out that parents have a strong role to play in such life-altering decisions. "If abortionists truly cared about young girls, they wouldn't be pushing to make sure parents stay in the dark while a clinic takes advantage of their daughters' bodies and desperate situation — not to mention the life of the child in the womb," said ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden. The law, which has never been enforced, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal district court in 2010 said it was constitutional; the ACLU has appealed that decision. Meanwhile, in this separate state case, the ACLU is arguing the law violates girls' privacy as well as the equal-protection and gender-equality clauses of the state constitution. Illinois is one of five states with parental notification laws which are currently blocked in court. The ADF, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Catholic Medical Association disagree. "A young child's well-being is worth much more than an abortionist's bottom line," said ADF attorney Noel Sterett. "This law balances the needs of desperate young girls with the rights of the parents who care most about them."
A U.S. House of Representatives committee has approved a bill prohibiting abortions based on a child's sex or race.
The House Judiciary Committee endorsed the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3541, in a party-line vote. Republicans on the panel outpolled Democrats 20-13.
"As Americans, all of us know in our hearts that aborting a little baby because he or she happens to be the wrong color or because she is a little girl instead of a little boy is fundamentally wrong," Rep. Trent Franks, R.-Ariz., the bill's sponsor, said at the committee meeting.
The legislation would bar doctors and medical staff members from performing an abortion if they know the intent of the procedure is based on race or gender.
The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other pro-life organizations support Franks' proposal.
Abortion rights advocates oppose the bill.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a written statement the proposal "likely would restrict the ability of women of color to obtain abortion care, and ultimately could jeopardize the availability of abortion services for all women. Given that the Franks bill subjects providers to fines or a prison sentence for failure to detect that a woman is seeking abortion services for reasons of race or sex selection, the legislation essentially would encourage racial profiling in the doctor's office."
Franks rejected Keenan's assertion.
"There is nothing in this bill that requires doctors to police or to have some responsibility to ask their patients anything about the motivations for the abortion," he said.
In defense of requiring doctors to report the intent of a woman seeking a sex- or race-selection abortion, Franks used an analogy: If a doctor prescribes a drug that could kill but does not know the purpose of its use, that doctor is not breaking the law, but if the doctor knew the intent was to kill "then, of course, he would be implicated as part of the crime," Franks said.
According to the bill, "The evidence strongly suggests that some Americans are exercising sex-selection abortion practices."
A March 2008 study suggested sex-based abortion is being practiced in some communities in the United States. The report, published in the journal of the National Academy of Sciences, said the increase in son preference is noticeable in census data and "sex-selection abortion is happening in the United States." The research found American-born children of Chinese, Korean and Asian Indian parents were more likely than those of white parents to be boys if the first children in the families were girls, according to ABC News. The third child in such communities was 50 percent more likely to be a boy if the first two children were girls.
Franks introduced a similar bill in 2009, but it was held up in a committee. Franks' state, Arizona, is the only one that has a race-selection abortion ban. Gender-selection abortion laws exist in four states: Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Florida is also considering such legislation.
According to a Zogby International poll last March, 86 percent of Americans agree on making sex-selection abortions illegal.
The U.S. Senate voted today 51-48 to support the Obama Administration in forcing religiously affiliated organizations to cover contraception and sterilization in their health insurance plans, even in cases where the institution opposes it on moral or conscience grounds. This reinforces that these organizations have no conscience clause protections under the ObamaCare health care law. (The Administration's dictate gave churches some limited conscience clause protections, but religiously affiliated organizations, such as church schools, hospitals, and charities, will have none).
Fifty Democrats and one Republican voted to deny conscience rights and 45 Republicans and three Democrats voted in favor of recognizing the conscience rights of such organizations.
One possible effect of this in the near-term is that with no conscience clause protection, the Obama Administration is now free to order insurance plans to also cover abortion itself, if it decides to do so. If Obama does this, it would likely be after the November elections when he doesn't have to answer to the voting public again.
The National Right to Life Committee has long been an advocate against the Obama healthcare "reform" and continues to work to repeal it. We will continue to report abuses inherent in the law, and any denials of care that ensue from it, and we will fight bureaucracies and panels that arise from the bill whose purpose it is to expand abortion or to deny life-saving medical care.
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.
