A recent poll shows that President Barack Obama's approval ratings dropped 12 percentage points among women voters, despite claims that a federal contraception mandate would help his bid for re-election. "It's definitely something that young women are concerned about," said Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America. Hawkins told CNA on March 13 that beyond just contraception or abortion, the mandate touches on the issue of religious freedom, which is clear to any woman in the U.S. "whether she's religious or not." "It goes too far," she said, adding that women are beginning to ask fundamental questions about what the government would be able to regulate next if this mandate were to succeed. In recent weeks, political analysts have suggested that Obama's re-election campaign will receive a significant boost in women's votes due to its support for a controversial federal contraception mandate. But a New York Times/CBS News poll shows that Obama's approval rating among women has plummeted at three times the rate as men within the last few weeks. The poll, conducted March 7-11, revealed that the president's approval rating among Americans has fallen from 50 percent last month to an all-time low of 41 percent. While Obama's approval rating dipped just four percentage points among men, it dropped by 12 percentage points among women. The decrease in women's support comes amid debate over a Jan. 20 mandate issued by the Obama administration under the new health care law. Introduced by the Department of Health and Human Services, the mandate will soon require employers to offer health care plans that include full coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences. Faced with a storm of protest from those who argued that the mandate violated First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom, President Obama promised an "accommodation" for religious freedom on Feb. 10. Under the "accommodation," which was never incorporated into the original mandate, religious employers would not directly buy the controversial coverage but would instead purchase health care plans from insurance companies that would be required to provide it free of charge. Critics of the promised "accommodation" note that under such an arrangement, insurance companies would likely raise employers' premiums in order to account for the "free" coverage, effectively passing the cost of the coverage back to the employers who object to it. The U.S. bishops and numerous other groups have called for legislation to either overturn the mandate or implement an effective religious exemption. Majorities of both men and women in the New York Times / CBS News poll also voiced support for religious and moral exemptions to the mandate. Those polled believe by a 57 percent to 36 percent margin that religiously-affiliated employers should able to "opt out" of covering the full cost of birth control and related drugs if they have object to doing so. Fifty-one percent say they support an exemption for all employers who have religious or moral objections to the mandate. The poll findings come as the Obama administration launched increased efforts within the last week to bolster support among women voters by appealing to the healthcare law. On March 12, more than 1 million mailings were sent to women nationwide in separate versions for mothers, older women and young women, reported the New York Times. Hawkins said that her organization is "comprised of mostly young women" who see the religious freedom concerns being raised by the mandate and do not accept the administration's claims that it is looking out for women's health. She pointed out the irony in the fact that she, as the employer of a pro-life organization that seeks to end abortion, would be required under the mandate to offer an insurance plan that covers abortion-causing drugs. "There's no freedom at that point," she said. Hawkins said she has "pro-choice" friends as well who oppose the mandate for forcing people to violate their consciences. They realize that the mandate is "not about contraception" and "not about women's health," she said. She also decried the efforts of those who have been "using women's health" to promote the mandate, stressing "they're not doing it for me." Hawkins encouraged women to take an active role in the political battle by contacting their Congressmen and making their voices heard. When people are talking about the upcoming elections, they should be talking about this issue, she said, adding that men and men should work together to show the Obama administration that "this is not the will of the American people." Contact: Michelle Bauman Source: Catholic News Agency
The Irish Government's decision to reject recommendations made by a number of UN member states for Ireland to legislate for abortion "recognises the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world for women to give birth" the Pro Life Campaign (PLC) has said. Last October the Irish government appeared before the UN Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review process and rejected calls made by six countries for Ireland to legislate for abortion. The countries were Holland, Germany, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway and Spain. A Government report designed as a response to a series of other recommendations made last year as part of the UN's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was presented in Geneva this morning and confirms Ireland's decision to reject calls for abortion. Responding to the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review report, PLC spokesperson Dr Ruth Cullen welcomed the Government's stance. Dr Cullen said: "Calls for abortion legislation fly in the face of the United Nation's own recent research showing that Ireland, without abortion, is a world leader in terms of safety for women in pregnancy. Maternal safety in Ireland, it should be noted, is better than in the six countries which last year sought to put pressure on Ireland to introduce abortion. The latest UN study on maternal mortality, published in 2010, shows that out of 172 countries for which estimates are given, Ireland remains a world leader in safety for pregnant women. Source: Pro Life Campaign
This week while the House of Representatives was out of session, the Obama Administration confirmed its insidious plan for public funding for abortion coverage in Obamacare (PL 111-148) when it issued rules for Obamacare exchanges, complete with an abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause. "The mass deception of the Obama 2010 Executive Order has finally been exposed," said Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-04), Co-chair of the Congressional Pro-life Caucus. "The Executive Order implemented the same accounting gimmick, abortion surcharge and secrecy clause that was in the original text of the bill. "We knew it at the time, and the final exchange rule confirms once again that the President was suggesting one thing while doing precisely the opposite," said Smith. This week's Obama abortion funding rule confirms that publically funded insurance plans WILL include abortion on demand. Using an accounting gimmick, the premium payers will pay the President's abortion surcharge of at least one dollar per month. This separate charge will go directly into an abortion fund. "Requiring the segregation of funds into allocation accounts -- a mere bookkeeping exercise is a cheap political trick designed to circumvent longstanding prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion," said Smith. "This is an unprecedented break with longstanding federal policy on funding for abortion." The rule also contains a secrecy clause specifying that the abortion surcharge cannot be itemized in marketing materials, and may "only" be disclosed "as a part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment." "This secrecy clause requires insurance companies to bury the abortion surcharge in the summary of benefits so Americans shopping for an insurance plan on the exchange won't know about the abortion surcharge until they sign up for coverage -- and even then they could easily miss the fine print," said Smith. "Undoubtedly many enrollees will be shocked when they get a bill for the Obama abortion surcharge. Once enrolled, even pro-life Americans will be forced to pay for other people's abortions. "There is NO abortion surcharge and there is NO secrecy clause in the Hyde amendment or in legislation I authored in 1983 (the Smith amendment) to prohibit abortion funding in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program," said Smith. "Both of these longstanding policies explicitly prohibit coverage for abortion in the federal programs they cover, but President Obama refused to apply the same policy to Obamacare. "That's why the House has passed THREE bills to overturn this attack on longstanding policies," Smith said. The three bills are as follows: •On January 19, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2, to repeal Obamacare by a bipartisan vote of 245-189. The President threatened a veto and the Senate defeated a similar provision by a partisan vote of 47-53. •On May 4, 2011, the House passed Smith's bill, H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" by a bipartisan vote of 251-175. The President threatened a veto and the Senate has taken no action. •On October 13, 2011, the House passed H.R. 358, the "Protect Life Act" by a bipartisan vote of 251-172. The President threatened a veto and the Senate has taken no action. "Recognizing the gravity of the accounting gimmicks, abortion surcharge and secrecy clause, 15 states have already passed laws to prohibit elective abortion coverage on their exchange," said Smith. The 15 states are: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. "Abortion isn't health care," said Smith. "We live in an age of ultrasound imaging -- the ultimate window to the womb. We are in the midst of a fetal health care revolution, an explosion of benign innovative interventions designed to diagnose, treat and cure disease or illness any unborn child may be suffering. Obamacare should do them no harm. Tragically, it does the worst harm of all. It kills children and makes others complicit in abortion." Contact: Jeff Sagnip Source: chrissmith.house.gov
Just how committed is the federal government to Planned Parenthood? Enough to put more than 100,000 low-income Texas women at risk. The Lone Star State has completely defunded Planned Parenthood and other providers of elective abortions. Congress, meanwhile is looking into allegations that Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide have committed Medicaid fraud. Late last week, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced it will withhold Medicaid dollars from Texas unless it allows Planned Parenthood to have some of the money. That's the money the Texas Women's Health Program relies on to provide low-income women with breast cancer screenings and other preventive services. "Our Legislature decided in 2011 that we were not going to fund abortions or abortion affiliates of Planned Parenthood, and this administration basically doesn't care," Gov. Rick Perry said, adding that the administration is violating the 10th Amendment. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott may take it to court. "Greg has clearly said that if they continue to go after the State of Texas that he will sue to defend our constitutional right to administer this program," Perry said. Contact: Steve Jordahl Source: CitizenLink
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) While the Obama administration continues to push its agenda for safe sex and its support of Planned Parenthood, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) has introduced the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act to the Senate. The Senate version of HR 2874 mirrors a measure introduced by Rep. Randy Hultgren (R) of Illinois last year. Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says it would reestablish an effective approach to the Sexual Risk Avoidance program. "Basically, it does a couple of things: The first is it clarifies what is meant by 'abstinence education' by really defining it as sexual risk avoidance education, and it very clearly communicates what an authentic abstinence program teaches," she explains. Meanwhile, Huber reports that a congressional sign-on letter is being circulated in the House by Reps. Bill Flores (R-Texas) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma), "asking that this legislation actually become the working language for abstinence education funding in the budget that will be debated here very soon." In his 2013 budget, President Obama proposes that money available to states for abstinence education be redirected toward comprehensive sex education, which Huber describes as a "breathtaking overreach of executive power" Contact: Bob Kellogg Source: OneNewsNow
The state of Oregon set another record last year for physician-assisted suicides, and critics continue to decry the practice and the annual report. Seventy-one people died by means of assisted suicide in 2011, the Oregon Public Health Division reported March 6. A total of 114 people received prescriptions for lethal drug doses during the year. Those figures surpassed the previous highs in the state: 65 deaths and 97 prescriptions, both in 2010. The report came as efforts in two other states move in opposite directions on the issue. Assisted-suicide advocates in Massachusetts are seeking its legalization, while opponents in Georgia are advancing legislation to outlaw it. Washington is the only state other than Oregon to legalize the practice. Oregon has recorded 596 assisted-suicide deaths since its Death With Dignity Act took effect in late 1997. That law permits terminally ill citizens of Oregon to take their own lives by using lethal drug doses prescribed by doctors. Assisted suicide is monstrous, and the report is a mockery, said pro-life, bioethics specialists in response. "While others are courageously providing the best of compassionate care for dying patients, a few doctors in Oregon are contributing to a grotesquery," said C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. "How many years will the number of deaths rise before the Oregonians call for a halt to this barbarism? "Medicine is a healing ministry, not a killing machine. When patients feel that suicide is their best option, doctors have failed," said Mitchell, a biomedical and life issues consultant for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "When doctors write the prescription for life-ending drugs, they admit their failure and become complicit in the deaths of those patients." Wesley Smith, a leading foe of assisted suicide, said the annual report is a "joke." "One of the great propaganda coups of the assisted suicide movement was making people believe" the annual reports are "meaningful or informative," Smith wrote on his Secondhand Smoke blog. As examples, he said: -- "They are based almost solely on self reporting by death doctors, who are about as likely to tell the state that they broke the law as they are to tell the [Internal Revenue Service] they cheated on their taxes;" -- The state "has no authority or budget to investigate abuses or violations -- even if a doctor did self confess. All they can do is refer to the physician's licensing board. -- "The documentation is destroyed after the report is published so there is no independent way to check." Massachusetts voters are expected to vote in November on an initiative to legalize assisted suicide. The Georgia House of Representatives passed in a 124-45 vote March 7 legislation designed to prohibit assisted suicide. The Senate has yet to vote on the proposal. The latest Oregon report again reflected concerns raised in the past by critics about inadequate care of those planning to take their own lives. For instance, only one of the 71 who died by means of assisted suicide last year was referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist for formal evaluation. Also, prescribing doctors were present for the deaths of only six of those who took their own lives. The Oregon report again showed people who took advantage of assisted suicide had three concerns far more than others -- 90 percent were concerned about being unable "to engage in activities making life enjoyable," 89 percent about "losing autonomy" and 75 percent about a "loss of dignity." Twenty-five of the 114 people who obtained prescriptions in 2011 died without taking the drugs. The state did not have information on whether 25 others who received prescriptions had ingested the drugs. Seven patients who obtained prescriptions in previous years died from taking lethal doses in 2011. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
District 116 in Round Lake, Illinois is embroiled in a controversy over a proposal to put a "school-based health center" (formerly called school-based health clinics) in Round Lake High School. School-based health centers are a creation of the Left. The beliefs that propel this movement are the same beliefs that drive the push for comprehensive sex ed. Liberals in the education and health care fields try to put innocuous, non-controversial aspects of school-based health clinics front and center, hoping that they can distract gullible taxpayers from their real agenda, which is to facilitate adolescent sexuality, to sever sexuality from moral considerations, to undermine the ties between children and their parents, and to render sexual activity immune from all consequences. Here are ten issues to consider when debating the merits of installing school-based health centers in more public schools: 1. Those who support school-based health centers believe that it is the role of government to provide everything to citizens that they see as good, which is why the United States is drowning in debt and spawning generations of citizens who lack personal fiscal discipline and a sense of responsibility for their own lives. We are becoming lazy, self-indulgent consumers who believe we're entitled to everything we want, but believe we have no responsibility to pay for it. This is not an indictment of truly needy people. This is a comment about liberals who control public schools and about those who have an entitlement mentality toward government, like the Georgetown University law student who believes that other people have an ethical obligation to pay for birth control for female students enrolled at one of the most prestigious and expensive law schools in the country. 2. Taxpayers do foot the bill for school-based health centers. I was amazed at the statements made by pro-health center consultant Brenda Bannor who spoke at a District 116 school board meeting. Bannor said that no school funds and "no tax dollars are used to operate the school-based health center…It will be run by the Lake County Health Deptartment. The school provides only the space and there's actually a federal grant that will be coming out that's specifically for building school-based health centers." What, pray tell, does Bannor think federal grants are other than tax dollars? Bannor goes on to say that Round Lake High School would use the Lake County Health Department to administer the health center because it is a "federally qualified health center" and therefore "they are able to get enhanced reimbursements through Medicaid." She stated that "there will be billing done, so the health center will be able to recoup dollars through billing." And she stated that the district will not be "asking the federal government to constantly fund the health center." How can Bannor say that money will be recouped by billing Medicaid and in the same sentence say that the government will not be constantly funding the health center? Again, where does Bannor think funding for Medicaid comes from other than tax dollars? Initially I thought Bannor didn't understand funding issues, but after reading her bio on the Millenia Consulting site, I realized that she couldn't possibly be as ignorant of funding issues as her statements to the district suggested. Therefore, I can't help but wonder if she was deliberately trying to mislead Round Lake community members. 3. School-based health center advocates emphasize the parental consent form as a way to assuage the concerns of parents. What they don't fully explain is that the form is usually a general consent form, giving students permission to use the center. These forms often fail to provide a detailed explanation of what parents are agreeing to. For example, parents might not realize that they are agreeing to allow their child to be provided with birth control or abortion referrals or be counseled in affirmative ways about same-sex attraction. Many parents do not realize that the health center will not inform them when their child has used the center and cannot tell them if their child has received any mental health treatment or services related to sexual activity. Some on the Left will argue that teens can access mental health services and birth control through other organizations that must also conceal this information from parents. The difference, however, is that in those cases, public schools are not participating in the process. 4. Liberal educators, who view themselves as "agents of change," believe that it is both the right and responsibility of public schools to solve all of society's ills. The scope of what liberal educators view as the role of public education is remarkable in its breadth. Liberal teachers believe it is their job to teach the "whole child," which is why we see public schools and publicly funded school-based health centers promoting liberal beliefs about homosexuality and gender confusion to other people's children. Of the school-based health centers that provide reproductive health services, 63% offer "sexual orientation counseling" on-site. Another 22% provide referrals for "sexual orientation counseling." Eighty percent provide on-site pregnancy testing. Seventy percent provide on-site birth control counseling. Is it really the task of public schools to make available these services during the school day? And is it really the public's responsibility to pay for these services to be provided to other people's children? We need to think deeply about what the purpose of public education is and what it should be. Should the purpose of public education be to solve all teen problems? Is it to solve all societal ills? Just because a problem like teen pregnancy exists does not mean that it is the task of public schools to try to solve it, particularly when the solutions liberal educators propose are controversial and expensive. There are many societal problems that stand outside the purview of public education to solve. School-based health centers illegitimately expand the role of public schools. Some parents, usually liberal, argue that they want their children to have access to reproductive services. But, the fact that some parents want their children to access reproductive services doesn't mean it's the role of public schools to provide them or for taxpayers to fund them. 5.Promoters of school-based health centers believe that teens have an absolute, unfettered right to sexual autonomy and privacy in matters related to sexuality. They believe that the sexual liberty of minors should supersede parental rights. 6.School based health centers provide mental health services that address homosexuality and gender confusion from a liberal perspective only, which means they provide counseling that affirms homosexual acts and gender confusion as normative, healthy, and moral. We must remember that these non-factual beliefs are being promoted with public money. 7.School-based health centers are promoted as means to provide essential health care to "undocumented," students. But what kinds of services are taxpayers morally obligated to subsidize for those who are here illegally? An argument can be made that decent, compassionate people are morally obligated to pay for emergency care and illnesses, but are we obligated to pay for nutrition education, gender counseling, and contraceptives for anyone let alone people who are in the country illegally. The children of undocumented aliens are not responsible for being in this country illegally, but that doesn't make Americans responsible for paying for their birth control counseling or pills. 8.The more money the government takes to "solve problems," which almost always results in costly, bureaucratic nightmares, the less money individuals have to give to organizations and institutions that offer better ways of solving problems, organizations like churches and parachurch organizations. 9.When society continually uses the minority of irresponsible parents as justification for allowing the government to do more and more, as school-based health center proponents do, we actually rob responsible parents of the liberty to do their jobs. In addition, we encourage government dependence. 10.When we remove all obstacles to and consequences for unmarried adolescent sexuality, we get more of it. Society has eliminated emotional and psychological consequences by eliminating social taboos about non-marital sex. We have been taught that guilt, shame, and fear are inherently bad when in reality appropriate guilt, shame, and fear serve important social functions. We try to eliminate the physical consequences of sex by providing birth control, abortion, and free medicine. And we try to eliminate all financial consequences by providing housing, medical care, and food stamps to unmarried mothers. Some suggestions and questions for the District 116 School Board: •The school board should be required to provide a comprehensive summary of the pros and cons of school-based health centers to all district taxpayers after which they should ask for feedback. •This comprehensive summary should include the actual costs to taxpayers, including monies that will come from local, state, and federal coffers, including federal grants. •The feasibility study already conducted by District 116 states that it included discussions with "stakeholders." Anyone who pays taxes in District 116 is a stakeholder. Actually, since much of the funding is apparently coming from the federal government, the stakeholders are really every taxpayer in the nation. Were any community opponents of school-based health centers included in the discussions? •The feasibility study has a list of "Health Needs of District 116 Students" that includes "reproductive health services," "comprehensive sex ed," and "nutrition education." Some questions for the board should include the following: Exactly how many people were interviewed for the feasibility study? How were they chosen? Exactly how many people identified each item as a need? Were the categories of needs provided to the interviewees or were the questions open-ended? Isn't nutrition education addressed in health classes in middle school and high school? •Do community members understand in detail the differences between abstinence education and comprehensive sex ed? Were interviewees provided with research from organizations like the Heritage Foundation on the efficacy of abstinence education? Some argue that teens are going to have sex regardless of what we want, so we should do everything we can to protect them from the worst consequences. But all teens are not going to have sex. Actually some teens decline sex when there are too many obstacles in place. In the good old days when parents were semi-feared authority figures, condoms were hard to come by, and society maintained taboos against non-marital sex, we didn't have astonishing rates of sexually transmitted infections; we didn't have between 800,000 to 900,000 teens getting pregnant annually; and we didn't have 230,000 thousand teen abortions each year. Here are some other sexually related activities that some teens are going to engage in: •Some teens will have sex in public places. Should schools provide rooms for them to have sex in, in order to prevent these teens from getting caught by police? •Some teens will engage in autoerotic asphyxiation. Should schools provide ways to ensure that they don't accidentally die while engaging in this dangerous sexual practice? •Some teens will engage in sadomasochistic sexual practices. Should schools teach them about safe words? •And some teens will engage in oral-anal sexual practices. Should schools provide dental dams to them? School-based health centers offer hypothetical scenarios that they believe show why these centers are necessary, like what if a teen is too afraid to talk to her parents and as a result has unprotected sex and contracts an infection or becomes pregnant. But conservatives can offer alternative hypotheticals. What if a teen who knows how strongly her parents feel about premarital sex and, therefore, fears talking to them, decides not to have sex because she can't easily access birth control? Schools already have health centers in which students can be treated for chronic illnesses like diabetes, and emergencies and illnesses that occur during the school day. The central and most controversial purposes of these school-based health centers are to facilitate adolescent sexual activity and to offer counseling services that affirme homosexuality and gender confusion. Public schools, even academically strong public schools, are playing an increasingly troubling role inAmerica's decline. Liberal educators seek to promote their moral and political beliefs and values with our money through our schools. In the process, they help to undermine children's conceptual understanding of family, to weaken family unity and parental rights, and to foster dependence on government. If that's not bad enough, liberals seek to create a hedonist's utopia: guilt-free, cost-free, marriage-free sex. A healthy society — which is a society with a moral foundation — must not facilitate such a corrupt world. Facilitating something wrong is never right. The problem with many conservatives is that they refuse to look at the big picture. They fail to realize that societal change rarely happens through dramatic single events. Rather, it happens through the slow, incremental accretion of smaller events that we ignore or dismiss, like the establishment of this school-based health center. Contact: Laurie Higgins Source: Illinois Family Institute
A group of experts testified this morning before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution about the necessity of a bill that would make it illegal for anyone to get around state parental-notification laws by taking a girl to another state for an abortion. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 2299) has 153 cosponsors in the House, and would levy fines and prison sentences on anyone taking a minor to another state in order to avoid telling her parents or getting their permission to have an abortion. It also would require abortionists to make every effort to give a girl's parents at least 24 hours notice, unless the teen's life is at stake. "Regardless of whether the girl choose to continue or terminate her pregnancy, parental-involvement laws have proven desirable because they afford greater protection for the many girls who are pregnant due to sexual assault," said Teresa Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis who's testified before Congress several times. "By insuring that parents know of the pregnancy, it becomes much more likely that they will intervene to insure the protection of their daughters from future assaults." Collett pointed out that 74 percent of sexually active girls younger than 14report having nonconsensual sex — and in California, men 25 and older father more children by teenage girls than do boys under 18. But several abortionists nationwide have been held liable for failing to report suspected cases of statutory rape. Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, said all the studies done on parental involvement laws show they're worth enacting. Not only do they reduce abortion, they also provide strong incentives for girls not to engage in unprotected sex. And an interstate abortion-notification law, he said, is needed for several reasons. "Every study that tracks out-of-state abortions finds that after a parental-involvement law goes into effect, the number of girls obtaining abortions in adjacent states without parental-involvement laws will increase by a statistically significant margin," he said. "It is safe to say that parents have more invested in the well-being of their minor daughters than a boyfriend, a friend or a relative. They also would likely have the best knowledge of their daughter's medical history. There have been reported instances where minor girls obtained abortions without their parents' knowledge and died because they did not realize they were allergic to the anesthesia." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
While another two ethicists are suggesting that it's alright to terminate the lives of babies for a period after they've been born, if it's done for the same basic reasons an unborn baby would have been aborted, a pro-lifer points out that their stance is nothing new. Rita Marker of the Patients Rights Council says Alberto Giubilin of Italy and Francesca Minerva of Australia likely have ethics, but "the question is what kind of ethics? And they're frightening." Both Giubilin and Minerva agree that an unborn baby and a newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently morally irrelevant, so what they call "after-birth abortion" should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including in cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. However, Marker explains that this is nothing new. Another Australian philosopher and ethicist, Peter Singer, co-authored a book promoting it several years ago. "If you have a child who has any type of problem that might cause difficulties for the family -- and these are such things that they described as ... hemophilia or some relatively benign conditions, not even life-threatening conditions under most circumstances -- they said that parents should be able to end that child's life for a certain length of time after birth because it would be a problem for the family," Marker details. Giubilin and Minerva are not as well-known as Peter Singer, who has a chaired professorship at Princeton University and is teaching his views on the subject to American students. The Patients Rights Council executive director urges people not to be gullible. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
A nationwide legal alliance that defends conservative values says the Obama administration's birth-control mandate is one of the greatest threats to Christians' rights in U.S. history. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Kevin Theriot says this government mandate is about religious freedom in America, not about a woman's right to contraceptives. And he views this as one of the greatest threats to Christian liberty in the nation's history "because it's … setting the precedent for the government to be able to impose its will on a religious organization when doing that completely violates the longstanding convictions of that religious group." So his firm is already defending Louisiana College and Geneva College in their lawsuits against the Obama administration (see earlier story), and they expect to file more lawsuits in the near future. "The Alliance Defense Fund is representing religious organizations who have a sincerely held religious belief not to provide abortifacients or other types of care that would violate their religious convictions, and we do that free of charge," Theriot explains. Regarding the mandate, the attorney adds, "This is a calculated and intentional attempt to eradicate constitutional protections" that should terrify every freedom-loving American. Contact: Bob Kellogg Source: OneNewsNow
According to one pro-lifer, midwives and nurses performing abortions is the latest trend spreading throughout the country, as fewer and fewer doctors are interested in the practice. Late last month, Sen. Christine Kehoe (D) introduced SB 1501 to the California Senate -- a bill that would allow physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives to do chemical and aspiration abortions. But the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tells OneNewsNow this idea is not confined to California. Legal Counsel Jennifer Popick reports that the notion is popping up in other states at the behest of abortion activists. "Those who promote abortion sort of have this two-tiered approach. They say abortion's something between and woman and her doctor and we want to keep it safe, rare, and legal. Quite frankly, they're working very hard to take the doctors out of the picture," Popick contends. "It's sort of just rhetoric masking that they want abortion on demand, and it's absolutely something that doesn't protect women." She points out that because abortion is invasive, the absence of a doctor could spell trouble if and when complications arise. However, fewer doctors are interested in that field. "Not many physicians are going into it anymore, into the practice of abortion. It's got a stigma attached to it," the pro-lifer explains. "For various reasons, nobody's going into it anymore as a practice field, and so there [are] fewer and fewer doctors across the country performing abortions." Popick also notes "telemed" abortions, where a woman speaks briefly via webcam with a doctor who is possibly located hundreds of miles away. RU-486 is dispensed with the push of a button, and the woman goes home to have the abortion by herself, which takes the doctor out of most of the picture. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
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. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
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. Contact: Ashley Horne Source: CitizenLink
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. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
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." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
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 committee voted Feb. 16. Contact: Mark Norton Source: Baptist Press
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. Source: National Right to Life Committee
