News Links for May 11th

      

Victory for pro-family forces at UN

Legatus files suit to block contraceptive mandate

Bishops publish blessing for unborn child

Promiscuity declines among US high school students

Whistleblower Says Texas Abortionist is Breaking New Ultrasound Law

Secret Public Records of Non-Physician Abortion Project Demanded

Fr. Pavone Welcomes News of Latest Lawsuit Against HHS Mandate

Fr. Frank Pavone Statement on Guilty Plea of Man Who Threatened Him and Other Pro-Life Leaders

Post Abortive Woman Responds to War on Women

AZ defunding of P. Parenthood continues trend

California Senator Pulls Abortion-Expansion Bill

Missouri Seeks Protections for Pregnancy Resource Centers

Judge: TX can't cut funds to Planned Parenthood

Arizona says NO to Planned Parenthood

Idaho RU-486 case watched closely

Film awarded for 'subtle' pro-life message

Dems reject 'radical' move against women

The many problems of SB 1338

More businesses against ObamaCare

Crucial pro-life bill on the line in Miss.

Dold to Defend Planned Parenthood, Illicit Sex Programs and Abortion

      

Planned Parenthood is up to another round of embarrassing, taxpayer-funded high jinks -

Washington state college students are getting high-tech condoms in a social media experiment by Planned Parenthood. In a bizarre promotion of "safe sex" bragging social media posts, students received specially packaged condoms, which included a special QR code. The codes can be scanned by smart phones, allowing the participants to "check-in" their sex activities on the website, www.WhereDidYouWearIt.com. The various locations of the "safe" sexual activity are then posted on an area map.

And the same day comes word that Illinois Congressman Bob Dold (IL-10) is planning a press conference Wednesday to do what?  Defend and stand with Planned Parenthood. Really?

"In response to the growing number of efforts to discriminate against and exclude organizations like Planned Parenthood from participating in health care programs, Dold's legislation would protect the inclusion of any hospital or health care entity that seeks to participate in the Title X family planning program," his office said in a release.

We thought Dold was a moderate on promoting abortion and illicit sex.  At least that what conservatives in his district were led to believe. Terribly disappointing, Rep. Dold.

His DC office number is 202 224 4835 and his defense of Planned Parenthood is inexcusable.

Source: Illinois Review

Federal Court: Texas Must Resume Funding Planned Parenthood

     

After three court rulings within the space of a week, a three-judge panel from the 5 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Texas must continue using taxpayer dollars to fund Planned Parenthood as a lawsuit continues.

Planned Parenthood is suing the state over a law passed in 2011 which says no organizations affiliated with abortion sellers will receive public funds. Because some Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas don't perform abortions, the group claims it is constitutionally entitled to a share of the Medicaid funds that fuel Texas' Women's Health.

A week ago, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel agreed with Planned Parenthood and issued an injunction that restored funding.

But one day later, Judge Jerry E. Smith, a judge on the 5th Circuit, granted a temporary halt of the injunction, allowing the state to enforce the law and stop the funding. But Smith also asked Planned Parenthood to submit its written arguments against the granting of the temporary stay. It did so later that same day.

Then on Friday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit — including Smith — revoked the stay. That restored funding under Yeakel's injunction pending the circuit court's more in-depth review of Yeakel's decision.

The appeals court is expected to hear the state's appeal of district court injunction on June 4.

Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the Susan B. Anthony List, questioned Planned Parenthood's pursuit of public funds when it has more than $1 billion in assets.

"You have to wonder about the wisdom of this standoff between Planned Parenthood and the American taxpayer," she said.

In addition to the lawsuit Planned Parenthood is waging, the Obama administration pulled $30 million in annual federal funding to the Texas program over the new law. The current funding covers the program through November.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has vowed to find a way to continue the women's health program without the federal funds. But it appears state officials are willing to end the program if they are required to make payments to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood.

"The state of Texas is under no obligation to provide taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, which accounts for less than 2 percent of the more than 2,500 Women's Health Program providers statewide," Perry's spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, told reporters in April. "Texas law has been very clear from Day One of this program that abortion providers and their affiliates, like Planned Parenthood, are not qualified providers."

Texas Right to Life agreed."By launching this politically motivated lawsuit against the state of Texas, Planned Parenthood has shown that they are not the champion of women's health they say they are," said Director Elizabeth Graham. "They are clearly willing to throw women's health under the bus to maintain their government funding and further their abortion agenda.

"As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, if they can't have the money, then nobody can."

Source: CitizenLink

Embryonic stem cell 'success' a lie

     

A British scientist, who has been working in the United States on embryonic stem-cell research, has resigned for fabricating results of his work.
 
Ophthalmologist Peter Francis has received permanent resident status in the U.S. on the basis of the country's interest in clinical researchers. In 2002, while still in Britain, he won the National Research prize for "Best up and coming medical researcher in the U.K.," and as of late, he has been working in Oregon on a pilot experiment funded by two federal grants.

But Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council (FRC) says that money was given because of the researcher's fabricated results.

"He puts in a couple of grant proposals to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] where he claims that he's gotten these great results essentially restoring sight to blind rats using embryonic stem cells," Prentice details.

But as it turns out, says the FRC spokesman, Francis never did those experiments; and in fact "he made the whole thing up."

"It came to light this was all a fraud. He decided discretion was the better part of valor and resigned his appointment," the FRC life sciences senior fellow reports. "In the meantime, all the NIH finally agreed to with him was a slap on the wrist. Basically, for the next two years, anything he writes, somebody else has to take a look at to just verify that he actually did an experiment, or so on."

Prentice believes the NIH "really ought to nail" Francis and anyone else who makes up research and commits fraud to get a grant. He also points out that embryonic stem-cell research, which kills a tiny human being, has produced no results. Adult stem cells, however, have produced dramatic and positive results.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Attorney: State letting pro-suicide grandmother off easy

       

In one attorney's opinion, an elderly California woman should be prosecuted by the state for selling suicide kits online.
 
Ninety-one-year-old Sharlotte Hydorn of La Mesa has been sentenced to five years of probation for not filing tax returns. She has also been ordered to stop selling her infamous suicide kits that create a suffocation device that uses helium to take away life. The sentence was part of a plea deal reached with federal prosecutors, but Hydorn was not charged in state court for assisting in six suicides.

The 91-year-old made headlines after selling roughly 1,300 suicide kits priced at $40-$60 online under the name of The Gladd company. Hydorn confessed she generated over $66,000 in income and did not pay taxes. She entered the business after her own husband died a painful death from colon cancer. According to The Huffington Post, she says she is doing what she can "to improve the world."

Dana Cody, president and executive director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, believes the elderly woman should "absolutely be prosecuted by the state."

"Our culture is so pro-death that I'm finding that people just aren't interested in the assisted suicide issue, which is unfortunate," Cody laments. "But definitely, the state should prosecute her under Penal Code Section 401 for felony counts for assisting in individual suicides to the extent that they have evidence to show that people followed through with it."

California Penal Code Section 401 makes it a felony to deliberately aid another in committing suicide. Investigators say Hydorn's kits were sold to at least 50 individuals in San Diego County and were successfully used by at least four people.

Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow

Unborn babies count in the White House

     

One pro-lifer finds it interesting that pregnant mothers must register their preborn babies before taking a tour of the White House, considering the fact that the current occupant of the White House is pro-abortion.

A recent e-mail newsletter distributed by Ellie Schafer, director of the White House Visitors Office, provides specifics about the information required for an unborn baby visitor, including the child's gender. "Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour," Schafer writes.

Given the president's stance on abortion, Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) does not understand this security measure.

Douglas Johnson (NRLC)"We think that it's ironic that President Obama's staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House, and yet there's no indication that President Obama has any problem, for example, with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth," he notes.

And since the information has to be updated once the baby is born, the pro-lifer has another question regarding security.

"We think it's notable that the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted." He wonders, "Do they deregister the child?"

The NRLC spokesman suggests that if the president is concerned about the security of an unborn child inside or outside the White House, he ought to endorse the District of Columbia's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act when it comes up in a House committee hearing next week. But Johnson adds, "We're not holding our breath for that."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

NARAL President to Resign

     

In an exclusive interview with the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff released tonight, NARAL President Nancy Keenan announced that she would be stepping down from her post at the end of the year.
 
Kliff writes in her story:
 
In recent years, Keenan has worried about an 'intensity gap' on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARAL's own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.
 
In other words, Nancy Keenan's conclusion is something we have known for years: the post-Roe generations are pro-life – and more passionately so than their parents' generations and their pro-abortion, post-Roe counterparts.
 
We know from Gallup that 61% of the country believes abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or legal only in a few circumstances. We know from Gallup that 45% of the country self-identifies as pro-life. We know from Gallup that 51% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong. And we know that when those questions are asked of the post­-Roe generation, the numbers tend to skew higher.
 
More important, I know that none of this would even be possible without you and the work you do with National Right to Life and our nationwide network of state affiliates and local chapters. Every day you are educating your communities, touching hearts and changing minds. Every day, you are helping us make a difference for the most defenseless members of our society.
 
Look back to 2003 when the New York Times Magazine quoted David J. Garrow, a hard-core pro-abortion "legal historian" at Emory University, as stating, "There's been so much media attention over the last seven to eight years on partial-birth abortion, we shouldn't be surprised that some of it has had an effect on 12-to-14-year-olds, and it is a public relations coup for the National Right to Life Committee."
 
The other side has noticed. And they're "worried."
 
Contact: Carol Tobias
Source: National Right to Life

News Links for May 4th

     

Illinois to get nearly $10 Million in early Obamacare funds

Georgetown University will not offer student contraception coverage

Pro-lifers not protected at WKU

Personhood USA to Appeal Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision to US Supreme Court

Leaked Documents Show Private Medical Records Illegally Dumped by Kansas City Abortion Clinic

Kansas Attorney General Asked to Reopen Kline's Investigation Into Non-reporting of Child Sex Abuse by Abortion Clinic After Document Leak

Denver Manufacturer Sues Over Obamacare Mandate

Alabama Health Officials: Abortion Center to Close as Scheduled

Georgia Governor Signs Pro-Life Laws

Pro-life group seeks investigation of clinics

Personhood proponents relying on petition

Crucial pro-life bill on the line in Miss.

Seminary to honor Planned Parenthood officials

Calif. Dems 'waking up' to life issue?

TX ban on abortion funding reinstated

What China's one-child policy is doing to women

SCOTUS - next stop for Okla. personhood initiative?

Does Splenda harm unborn babies?

     

A new project aims to warn women about "pseudo-scientific" studies on food.
 
The Women for Food Freedom project is overseen by the Independent Women's Forum. Julie Gunlock is project director and serves as a senior fellow covering food regulations and culture issues.

"We really want to focus on some of these sort of pseudo-scientific reports that have come out and warn women that these things are often baseless," she says. "The facts, the science is completely dubious. We want to warn them about these reports and say look -- this is not true. Don't worry about it. Talk to your own doctor."

One study of late involves the artificial sweetener, Splenda.

"This latest report is coming out of a very questionable Italian public policy institute, and they're warning that Splenda may harm unborn babies," Gunlock cites. "When you look at the details, though, of the study, the research was done on rats, where they were injecting massive quantities of this product into rats. I don't know of any humans that are consuming that much Splenda."

She relates with pregnant women and recognizes that they are more cautious. When she was pregnant, for example, she avoided fish because of the mercury. But two years later, a report blamed scary reports for causing women to completely avoid any kind of fish product. As a result, they were missing Omega-3 fatty acids and other things that help brain development in children.

Gunlock concludes that these types of studies and warnings are unnecessary and harmful to industries. "These companies employ people, and when messages are put out there like this, this can hurt business," she contends.

Contact: Chris Woodward
Source: OneNewsNow

Famed photographer Michael Clancy, the earliest human encounter, and the cover-up

      

"I didn't really want kids," says Michael Clancy. A terrible, abusive childhood left him with no desire to have children of his own. And when it came to the subject of aborting children in the womb, he sat on the sidelines, believing that it was a woman's issue. "I thought that as a man, it wasn't my fight!" he said. That was until he witnessed the extraordinary event that happened 12 years ago: the event that changed his life forever.

Last week, Clancy was the keynote speaker at the Knights of Columbus Michigan Council and Michigan Right to Life's 34th Respect Life Dinner in Livonia, Michigan. He shared his amazing story and the controversy surrounding him since the day he found himself in just the right place at precisely the right time to take extraordinary photos – photos that the Tennessee native declares are the earliest recorded human interactions. The images are so powerful that a battle has raged for over 12 years about their validity. Clancy travels the world to tell the truth about what happened and why we should believe him.

Michael Clancy is the photojournalist who was hired by USA Today to record the fetal surgery of 21-week-old Samuel Armas. According to Clancy, during the surgery to correct for spina bifida, he saw that the mother's uterus began to shake from within, and as he watched, the tiny fist "came through the opening with a fury" to reveal the whole arm. The doctor lifted the tiny hand, and Samuel then "reacted by squeezing the doctor's gloved finger." As if to test for strength, the doctor, Joseph P. Bruner, shook the fist, but "Samuel held firm," according to Clancy.

The veteran photojournalist was able to take several pictures in progression at 1/60 of a second. Not even sure if the pictures were in focus, Clancy submitted the roll of unprocessed film to USA Today per their policy to avoid manipulation.

But immediately after the surgery, Clancy was shocked when the doctor asserted to others that the event was staged and that he had purposely pulled the baby's hand out of the womb to provide a photo op. "Untrue!" says Clancy as he suddenly found himself in the center of a very difficult situation.

"I knew this was important! You can look back and see the earliest human interaction! This was history…I knew as a journalist that history is important whether we like it or not!"

It came down to Clancy's word against the doctor, who, suggests Clancy, needed to protect his reputation from the evidence that Samuel had come out from under the anesthesia too early – an occurrence, Clancy says, that "happens[,] and we all know it. It [anesthesia] was experimental for mother and baby at the time."

It would be reasonable to think that the man who snapped such an amazing photo would receive a Pulitzer Prize. But the controversy served to end Clancy's journalistic reputation and the twelve-year career he loved.

Ever since, he has been speaking to people about the event and the historic and political impact on the journalistic community at the time.

The photograph, meanwhile, has made a significant and untold impression on the whole world, and the dramatic moment has been recreated on major television shows: "Scrubs," "House," and "The Good Wife."

You know, you want a ticker tape parade, you want a Pulitzer Prize but I have learned that sometimes it's the journey…sometimes it's the one heart a day that we need to win this battle.

When asked what caused him to change from being uninvolved in the pro-life movement to becoming someone who fights for the unborn, Clancy says, "I didn't want to be in this position. It's tough to be in the middle of this. It was Samuel who did it… I have a lot of questions – did he feel the cold air or see light? In my opinion, he came out of the anesthesia and he did feel pain for whatever duration that was… [I wonder,] what motor senses did that baby use for his fist to come flying up?" But what did Dr. Bruner and medical science learn that day? Says Clancy, "Not to let a photographer in [to the operating room]!"

What Clancy saw in that operating room was all the proof he needed to change his life. "Samuel proved to us that the child is a reactive human being – it's as simple as that and it is important to fight for!"

"I want to prove that this picture is real because it is history. Someday, it is going to happen again, and people will look back and say that I was telling the truth the whole time!"

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews.org via LifeSiteNews

Contact: Karen Dudek
Source: LiveActionNews.org via LifeSiteNews

Georgia becomes 6th state to protect pain-capable preborn children

     

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal today signed into the law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, making Georgia the sixth state to enact this legislation, based on a model bill initiated by National Right to Life and first enacted in Nebraska in 2010.

Georgia's HB 954, sponsored by Rep. Doug McKillip, passed the legislature last month with strong support from Georgia Right to Life and the Georgia Catholic Conference.

The law protects unborn children from 20 weeks fetal age (about the start of the sixth month, in layperson's terminology), based on legislative findings that there is compelling evidence that an unborn child by that point (if not earlier) is capable of experiencing excruciating pain during the process of dismemberment or other abortion procedures.

"We commend Governor Deal and the Georgia legislature for taking the steps necessary to ensure the protection of unborn children who are capable of feeling pain during an abortion procedure," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., Director of state legislation for National Right to Life. "As Georgia joins other states around the country in passing this life-saving legislation, we look ahead to a day when all children are protected from brutal death by abortion."

In enacting the law, Georgia joins Kansas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Nebraska.

"In a world where most animals have more rights than unborn members of the human family, we are thankful Georgia has recognized their vested interest in protecting the lives of the most vulnerable," Balch said.

Earlier this year, the Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act was also introduced in Congress, to apply to the District of Columbia, which the Constitution places under the sole authority of Congress and the president. The bill (H.R. 3803 / S. 2103) currently has 183 co-sponsors in the House, and 21 in the Senate.

"Many members of Congress have been shocked to learn that, in the nation's capital, unborn babies now can be brutally killed up to the very moment of birth," said Douglas Johnson, federal legislation director for NRLC.

Source: National Right to Life Committee

Justice Department Seeks to Have ObamaCare Case Dismissed

Justice Department Seeks to Have ObamaCare Case Dismissed

     

The U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal district court this week to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a federal mandate for all employers to provide insurance that covers contraceptives and possible abortifacient drugs for workers.

According to the lawsuit, filed jointly by six state attorneys general, the Obama administration is violating the First Amendment by requiring church-affiliated schools, hospitals and other programs to provide the coverage.

The Justice Department sought dismissal based on the Obama administration's decision not to enforce the mandate until August 2013 — nine months after the presidential election — saying the delay provides a "safe harbor" while the rules are being reviewed.

"With such a long time before the inception of any possible injury and the challenged regulations undergoing amendment, plaintiff cannot satisfy the imminence requirement for standing (to bring the lawsuit)," Justice Department officials told the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.

Though religious organizations and conservative groups raised the alarm about conscience violations in the law well over a year ago, President Obama said in February the only concession they'd receive is an extra year to figure out how to comply with the contraception mandate. All other businesses nationwide are required to offer the insurance coverage by this August.

The Obama administration offered to shift the requirement from the employers to the health insurance companies, a move which failed to address the overriding legal and moral issues.

"ObamaCare's latest mandate tramples the First Amendment's freedom of religion and compels people of faith to act contrary to their convictions," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, one of the plaintiffs in the case, told CitizenLink today.

"The president's so-called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game. The mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles. The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions."

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is leading the suit, told The Associated Press the move to dismiss is nothing more than a ploy to push implementation past the November election.

"Regardless of the continuous promises of change offered by this administration, the results are nothing more than bait and switch," he said.

The other states represented in the suit are Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina. In addition, three Nebraska Catholic organizations, a nun and a missionary are plaintiffs in the case.

Source: CitizenLink

Sweet news follows boycott of PepsiCo

     

The boycott of PepsiCo launched by a pro-life ministry is over. That ministry reports the food and soft drink giant has agreed to stop using a cell line from aborted babies to test flavor enhancers.
 
Children of God for Life (CGL) launched the boycott last year after discovering PepsiCo had a large contract with Senomyx to use human embryonic kidney cells to test the flavor enhancers. As recently as March, PepsiCo had denied its involvement in the practice and, according to Children of God for Life, its business relationship with Senomyx.
 
But a recent letter to CGL from PepsiCo's VP of global public policy, Paul Boykas, stated Senomyx "will not use [human embryonic kidney] cells or any other tissues or cell lines derived from human embryos or fetuses for research performed on behalf of PepsiCo."
 
Debi Vinnedge, who heads Children of God for Life, says the victory belongs to God and to those who cared enough to be involved.
 
"Actually this news came after 11 months of very strong boycott efforts by the public," she tells OneNewsNow. "So I want to make sure your [readers] all know that it is their efforts that we are lauding here -- and it is because of their hard work that we actually have won this battle here on the culture of death."
 
Both Senomyx and PepsiCo have agreed to not use cell lines derived from human embryos or unborn babies, the result of a "David versus Goliath" campaign -- a small pro-life ministry against a large corporation.
 
"You know, I cannot do anything except thank God, really," says Vinnedge. "People think that they can't do anything, that you're taking on the big corporate giants in the world and we really can't make a difference -- but we can. We really can."
 
According to a CGL press release, PepsiCo took the matter "very seriously" and fully intends to live by its official statement on responsible research.
 
Other corporations have been using the same type of research to test flavor enhancers. Vinnedge is hopeful to have positive news from those corporations within weeks.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Another case against unacceptable mandate

      

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed suit against an ObamaCare mandate that requires companies like Hercules Industries to provide free birth control, the "morning-after" pill and sterilization.
 
The Denver-based HVAC product manufacturer is a family-owned business led by devout Catholics with sincerely held beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. Even though the healthcare mandate would violate the family's religious beliefs, the new rules would require the business to begin providing the controversial coverage when its self-insured plan renews at the first of November.

"The government shouldn't punish people of faith for making decisions in accordance with their faith," contends ADF attorney Matt Bowman. "Every American should know that a government with the power to punish people for their faith can do that, and worse, to everyone. The abortion pill mandate unconstitutionally coerces the leadership of Hercules Industries to violate their religious beliefs and consciences under the threat of heavy fines and penalties."

Bowman concludes "that is not acceptable in America."

The lawsuit is the second one filed against the mandate on behalf of a business that would be forced to finance the new insurance coverage and violate its religious beliefs.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

News Links for April 27th

      

Stem Cell Scientist Fabricated Experiment

Pro-life views in Hollywood encouraged

Congressman Makes Fool of Clueless Sebelius Over Free Birth Control Rule

Renewed action urged against HHS mandate

Nearly 100 Notre Dame faculty call for bishop's resignation from board

Missouri House passes bill on use of RU-486

California's SB 1338 = illegal abortion cover-up

California To Allow Non Doctor Abortionists?

Licensing fees for Minnesota abortuaries?

Alabama Dept. of Health Plays 'Shell Game,' Keeps Open Abortion Clinic Plagued by Code Violations

Life Affirming Mobile Pregnancy Center Fleet Growing at a Rapid Pace

AZ Senate votes to de-fund Planned Parenthood

Personhood USA Calls on Governor Fallin to Lead the Way for Oklahoma Personhood Act

Abortionist Brigham locked out of Allentown mill, ordered out of Pennsylvania

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood halts medication abortions while bans march through states

Iowa House, Senate to battle over abortion funding

Another abortuary down, thanks to inspection

The REAL War Against Women -- Forced Abortion and Gendercide in China

Pro-Abortion Congressman Fails Abortion 1001

      
      Pro-abortion Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

The responses continue to pour in to my query, how do you respond to someone who (in the 21st Century) is so far behind the curve that she likens the unborn to a "parasite"? Identifying herself only "Sasharusha," the blogger entered this bizarre comment as an on-line "diary" entry.

But invincible ignorance about the biological development of unborn children (or when most abortions actually take place) is, sadly, not confined to bloggers who find a home at loony places like the dailykos website. Writing in yesterday's Washington Times, Cathy Cleaver Ruse used a series of exchanges that took place in the House Judiciary Committee over  the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) to illustrate that in opposing even the most commonsense laws, pro-abortionists thrown commonsense (and elementary biology) out the window.

The antagonists were pro-life Rep. Trent Franks (R-Az.) and pro-abortion Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

What is CIANA? It is a modest attempt to deal with the truth that not all states require notification of or consent from at least one parent, or authorization from a court, prior to performance of an abortion on a minor.

As a result minors in states which do have such laws can avoid them by crossing state lines, either on their own or with the collaboration of abortion providers and others. CIANA would require any abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state, with certain exceptions.

(Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, once served as chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee.)

According to Ruse, Nadler's litany of remarkably ill-informed comments began after Mr. Franks said, "I don't understand what is so liberating about killing little children – it just kind of escapes me."

Nadler's first response was, "I don't believe most abortions are killing children." Perhaps even Nadler was uncomfortable with this, so later he adds,  "I do not believe that a blastocyst … is a human being." But this is even sillier. The debate is no longer whether the unborn is human (what else would she/he?) but whether she merits legal protection.

And "blastocyst" refers to the unborn's development the first few days after fertilization. Does Nadler really believe that more than 55 million abortions have been performed before women even know they were pregnant?

But, magnanimous fellow that he is, Nadler did offer (Ruse writes) that "On the other hand an 8-month-old fetus or a 9-month-old fetus, in my opinion, is a human being." Mighty generous of Nadler to acknowledge that children who have long since passed the point at which they can survive outside the womb have attained the status of "human being."

A good reminder that adhering to the pro-abortion mantra requires the suspension of all critical thinking skills and the willingness to utter the most stupendously callous statements in public.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life

HHS hire of Planned Parenthood spokesman reflects close relationship

     

Pro-life leaders see the Obama administration's recent decision to hire a Planned Parenthood media specialist as an intentional move to make its abortion policies appealing to the American people.

"I'm not surprised at all," said Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow at the Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute.

Crouse told CNA on April 25 that the Obama administration is following its well-established pattern of offering positions of strong influence to abortion supporters.

"It's going to be disastrous," she said. "Here you've got someone with a definite agenda."

On April 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was hiring Tait Sye, former media director of Planned Parenthood, as its deputy assistant secretary for public affairs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has been under fire in recent months for issuing a controversial mandate that will require employers to offer health plans that cover contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

Sye defended the mandate amid widespread protest, calling contraception "basic health care" and saying, "It should not be left up to a boss's personal beliefs whether his employees should be allowed birth control coverage."

According to Reuters, he also chided groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who opposed the 2010 health care reform law over concerns that it would provide funding for abortion. Sye accusing these groups of "launching misleading attacks," despite the fact that the law does provide for the collection of mandatory insurance premiums to fund abortions.

Crouse believes the decision to hire someone with experience in the abortion industry was intentional.

"This is someone who is very skilled at shaping public opinion," she said.

Moving into an election year, it is important for the president to have people in public relations who can make his abortion policies "palatable to the public," she explained.

Crouse said that Americans should find it "unconscionable" that the administration would put its abortion ideology before the well-being of women.

With this decision, she said, it is pushing the sexual revolution forward and encouraging promiscuity, which research clearly shows to have negative results.

"In the long run, it's going to hurt women," she warned.

Controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood has grown in recent months. The organization is currently the subject of a Congressional investigation due to allegations of fraud and illegal failure to report cases of sexual abuse. Such allegations have also led several states to initiate efforts to defund the organization.

But in spite of this controversy, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, believes that "the ties between the abortion industry and this administration grew stronger with this appointment."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, agreed, saying that Planned Parenthood and the Department of Health and Human Services "have practically become synonymous."

"We've seen repeatedly that as soon as a state defunds Planned Parenthood, HHS steps in and threatens to take funding away from vulnerable populations," she added.

Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, noted that "Americans should be horrified" by the close relationship between the Obama administration and Planned Parenthood.

He told CNA that he's disappointed to see the administration partner with Planned Parenthood in health care issues rather than with the Catholic Church, which has a rich legacy of the caring for the sick and needy.

The decision is particularly troubling, he added, because "Planned Parenthood is a lightning rod of controversy." The allegations surrounding the organization should prohibit its top employees from holding positions of government authority, he said.

However, Scheidler explained, the administration realizes that people are not happy with its policies, such as the contraception mandate.

Planned Parenthood has a great track record with public relations and maintaining a "positive public image," he observed, so hiring someone like Sye is a huge step to "sell the American people" on the administration's proposed health care policies.

"It makes perfect sense," he said.Births to cohabiting couples dramatically increase

    

The number of babies born to unmarried couples who are living together in America has increased dramatically during the past decade, according to a new report by the National Center for Health Statistics.

"We were a little surprised in such a short time period to see these increases," Gladys Martinez, a demographer and the lead author of the report, said.

About 23 percent of the reported births in the study -- based on face-to-face interviews of 22,000 men and women from 2006 through 2010 -- were to unmarried heterosexual couples who were cohabiting when the child was born. In 2002, the figure from a similar study was 14 percent.

'It just could be that it's OK now to have a kid outside of marriage.' -- Sociologist Kelly RaleyResearchers in the study did not attempt to explain the increase, but a sociologist from Bowling Green State University in Ohio told USA Today that it could be attributed to the economy.

"Marriage is an achievement that you enter into when you're ready. But in the meantime, life happens. You form relationships. You have sex. You get pregnant. In a perfect world, they would prefer to be married, but where the economy is now, they're not going to be able to get married, and they don't want to wait to have kids," Karen Benjamin Guzzo said.

Another sociologist, Kelly Raley at the University of Texas-Austin, told USA Today, "It just could be that it's OK now to have a kid outside of marriage."

Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said children with cohabiting parents are three times more likely to experience their parents' breakup by the age of 5 than children whose parents are married.

"They have less stability, security, legal and cultural support," Wilcox told TIME, adding, "... [Cohabiting] gives couples more flexibility but less stability to the kids born into these relationships."

Contact: Erin Roach
Source: Baptist Press

Births to cohabiting couples dramatically increase

     

The number of babies born to unmarried couples who are living together in America has increased dramatically during the past decade, according to a new report by the National Center for Health Statistics.

"We were a little surprised in such a short time period to see these increases," Gladys Martinez, a demographer and the lead author of the report, said.

About 23 percent of the reported births in the study -- based on face-to-face interviews of 22,000 men and women from 2006 through 2010 -- were to unmarried heterosexual couples who were cohabiting when the child was born. In 2002, the figure from a similar study was 14 percent.

'It just could be that it's OK now to have a kid outside of marriage.' -- Sociologist Kelly RaleyResearchers in the study did not attempt to explain the increase, but a sociologist from Bowling Green State University in Ohio told USA Today that it could be attributed to the economy.

"Marriage is an achievement that you enter into when you're ready. But in the meantime, life happens. You form relationships. You have sex. You get pregnant. In a perfect world, they would prefer to be married, but where the economy is now, they're not going to be able to get married, and they don't want to wait to have kids," Karen Benjamin Guzzo said.

Another sociologist, Kelly Raley at the University of Texas-Austin, told USA Today, "It just could be that it's OK now to have a kid outside of marriage."

Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said children with cohabiting parents are three times more likely to experience their parents' breakup by the age of 5 than children whose parents are married.

"They have less stability, security, legal and cultural support," Wilcox told TIME, adding, "... [Cohabiting] gives couples more flexibility but less stability to the kids born into these relationships."

Contact: Erin Roach
Source: Baptist Press

Adult Stem Cell Researchers Ask Federal Appeals Court to Reverse Ruling that Federal Law Does Not Ban Federal Funding of Illegal, Unnecessary, and Unethical 'Research in Which' Human Embryos are 'Knowingly Subjected to Risk of Injury or Death'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asked to reverse federal district's ruling dismissing action to enjoin federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.

      

On behalf of the adult stem researchers it represents, the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and their co-counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, having filed their opening Appellants' Brief and Appellants' Reply Brief, will appear for oral argument asking a panel of the United States Court of Appeals, composed of Chief Judge David Sentelle, Judge Karen Henderson and Judge Janice Rogers Brown to "reverse the district court's judgment in favor of Defendants, reverse the grant of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the denial of [Appellants'] Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand with directions to enter summary judgment for [Appellants]." Appellants argue that The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for funding human embryonic stem-cell research "are invalid because they violate [the federal law known as] the Dickey-Wicker Amendment" and because they were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, Appellants will argue that they--"not Defendants--are entitled to summary judgment."

Appellants are appealing the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's July 27, 2011, decision dismissing their challenge to the Obama administration's unprecedented and unlawful federal funding of destructive human embryo research. Appellants argue that the district court erroneously interpreted and applied the Court of Appeal's April 29, 2011, ruling vacating the district court's August 23, 2010, preliminary injunction of the NIH Guidelines that the Obama Administration promulgated to permit the federal funding of "research in which" human embryos are "knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." While again affirming the standing of adult stem-cell researchers to challenge these regulations, the federal district court dismissed the case saying that it had no choice under the "mandate rule" but to follow the Court of Appeal's April 29 ruling that Congress' ban on human embryonic research was written in a sufficiently "ambiguous" fashion to ban the use of federal funds that risked the "injury or death" of human embryos, but not the use of federal funds to do research on the embryonic stem cells that were derived from such injury or destruction. In the words of U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth explaining his July 27 decision: "While it may be true that by following the Court of Appeals' conclusion as to the ambiguity of 'research', the Court has become a grudging partner in a bout of 'linguistic jujitsu', Sherley, 2011 WL 1599685, at 22 (quoting Henderson, J. dissenting), such is life for an antepenultimate court."

The case began almost two years ago when, in response to President Obama's March 9, 2009 Executive Order, the NIH published and noticed for public comment regulatory guidelines allowing federal funds to be used for the first time for the creation of new stem cell lines (hESC) requiring the destruction of living human embryos. Before these guidelines became law, the Law of Life Project's General Counsel, Sam Casey, with his co-counsel Tom Hungar of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, representing the DO NO HARM Coalition, formally filed over 140 pages of legal and scientific comments objecting to what many people saw as the grossly irresponsible use of public funds to support research which is illegal, unnecessary, and an unethical breach of long-standing Congressionally-acknowledged principles barring such human subject experimentation. When NIH patently ignored and prejudged these comments and approximately 30,000 other comments opposing federal funding of destructive human embryonic stem cell research, the ongoing legal action was required.

LOLP's General Counsel, Sam Casey, who has been arguing the issues in this case for more than a decade, said: "Each time grant-awarding officials and federally funded scientists support or engage in hESC research, living human embryos are 'knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,' in violation of the federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The federally sponsored hESC research that the Guidelines support inevitably creates a substantial risk—indeed, a virtual certainty proven by the evidence in this case--that more human embryos will be destroyed in order to derive more hESCs for misdirected research purposes at the unwilling taxpayers' expense. Congress first enacted the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to avoid this exact result, as an instructive "friend of the court" brief filed by 16 bioethics scholars in support of this appeal so clearly demonstrates."

"The NIH chose to ignore both our DO NO HARM et. al. Comments, as well as approximately 30,000 other comments--60% of those received in the mandatory guideline review process—which raised serious and highly relevant questions about the ethics and scientific merits of human embryonic stem cell research," said Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher partner, Tom Hungar, Mr. Casey's co-counsel. Hungar added, "the challenged NIH Guidelines clearly violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, but NIH's decision to turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of comments demonstrating that human embryonic stem cell research can't be justified even under the government's own criteria means that the NIH's guidelines were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and must be struck down for that reason as well."

After the NIH took any real consideration of the merits of hESC research "off the table" during its pre-ordained review process, effectively pushing a very specific and controversial policy despite laws designed to prevent exactly that action, the Law of Life Project and its co-counsel were left with no recourse but direct litigation, and the hope that the judicial system will ultimately rectify the injustice the NIH continues to unlawfully perpetrate at the taxpayers' expense. Since that time, after going to the Court of Appeals the first time in 2009 to establish their clients' "standing" to assert their claims, and a second time in 2010 unsuccessfully defending a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court on the strength of only the first of their three claims for relief, Casey says, "the Law of Life Project now must return to the Court of Appeals to respectfully ask it to give full consideration to all of plaintiffs' arguments, including those that it has not previously addressed. Given the legislative intent and legal history involved in this case and the enormous destruction of human embryonic life costing hundreds of millions of dollars Congress never intended to permit in passing the Dickey-Wicker amendment banning such expenditures, we have no choice but to now exhaust all of our judicial remedies before returning to the Congress, if necessary."

Contact: Samuel B. Casey
Source: Law of Life Project

Obama Lawyers Desperately Try to 'Dismiss' Lawsuit by Pro-Life Catholic Group Against ObamaCare

     

Priests for Life, a New York-based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, has announced that the Obama Administration's lawyers are trying desperately to "shut down" the lawsuit that's been filed to stop ObamaCare from violating the conscience and morals of America's Catholics.

The lawsuit, Priests for Life v. Sebelius, seeks to permanently block the implementation of the HHS mandate that imposes clear violations of conscience upon any and all citizens who morally object to abortion and contraception.

"Since the HHS mandate directly affects Priests for Life -- and every U.S. citizen -- through compulsory funding of contraception and abortion-inducing drugs and devices, our lawsuit is 100 percent legitimate," says Priests for Life's lead attorney Charles LiMandri.

LiMandri elaborates: "And yet, the Obama lawyers are trying to say that we don't have 'standing' because the abortion mandate 'doesn't go into effect' for PFL for several months. This is a thoroughly ridiculous and embarrassing argument for Obama's attorneys to make. It shows how desperate they are to dismiss our lawsuit -- even to the point of resorting to outrageous arguments such as the ones they're using now."

LiMandri points out that the HHS 'Abortion Mandate' forces Priests for Life to either pay for abortion-causing pills... promote them... or be heavily fined if their employee health-care plan doesn't comply with the audacious dictatorial decrees of ObamaCare.

"According to the ObamaCare law as it's written, Priests for Life would be fined as much as $100 per day, per employee. This could cost Priests for Life over $1 million a year in fines. And we're not going to accept this at all."

Priests for Life is preparing its response, which must be filed with the court by April 30, with the assistance of the American Freedom Law Center. The group's attorneys are working overtime to respond so quickly.

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, said, "As our attorneys do their work, I ask our supporters to join in our prayer campaign and our Citizens' Amicus brief. Of this I am confident: We will prevail, life will prevail!"

Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life

Chuck Colson, 1931-2012

     
 
On Saturday afternoon, Prison Fellowship Ministries Founder Charles Wendell "Chuck" Colson died. He was 80 years old.

Colson collapsed while giving a speech in late March, and had emergency surgery to remove blood that was pooling in his brain. Though his death was expected — Prison Fellowship announced on its Web site Wednesday that he had taken a turn for the worse during a lengthy hospitalization, and his family had gathered by his bedside — his loss rocked the evangelical Christian world nonetheless.

"America has lost a gentleman and statesman of the highest integrity and character," said Focus on the Family President Jim Daly. "I've lost a dear friend and mentor who, most importantly, modeled for me how to stand for God's truth with Christ's heart. Chuck was an endlessly selfless man, whose love for and ministry to those in prison made him one of the great modern-day lions of the faith."

Colson rose to prominence as special counsel to President Richard Nixon, but fell from grace during the Watergate scandal in 1972. As one of the "Watergate Seven," he was the author of the president's infamous "enemies list," and later said he was willing "to be ruthless in getting things done."

Colson was indicted for covering up the Watergate break-ins. While the charges were pending against him, a friend gave Colson a copy of the C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity — forever changing the course of his life. Colson became a committed Christian, which led him to plead guilty to obstruction of justice while a judge was considering dismissing the case against him. He served seven months of a one- to three-year prison sentence.

In 1976, Colson founded Prison Fellowship Ministries, which now operates in 113 countries around the globe. Colson personally visited 600 prisons in the U.S. and 40 other countries over the last four decades of his life.

"God uses prisons," Colson once said, "to train people for future roles of leadership or martyrdom."

The number of lives Colson touched is inestimable: In addition to sharing the Gospel with prisoners, Prison Fellowship grew to include the Angel Tree program, which coordinates with churches and volunteers to care for prisoners' children; Justice Fellowship, which advocates for criminal justice reforms; BreakPoint, a worldview ministry that airs on 1,400 outlets each week; The Centurions Program, which is an intensive Bible study program for people seeking to leave their stamp of faith on the culture; and the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, a resource ministry.

At one point, 50,000 church volunteers worked with Prison Fellowship Ministries. This year alone, 220,000 prisoners in 1,367 prisons across the country have attended one of its Bible studies.

Colson wrote 30 books, selling more than 5 million copies total. In 1993, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion — the largest in the world — and donated the $1 million check to Prison Fellowship. The bestseller Born Again was made into a feature film, and to date, more than 600 Christian leaders have completed the Colson Center's Centurions Program.

From his own personal trial, Daly said, Colson "emerged as a shining example of the redemptive power of Jesus and spent the rest of his life setting aside his own ego for the sake of others, investing his time and energies in those besides himself.

"Chuck was never threatened by anyone else's success, especially those of the 'next generation,' " he noted. "He was actually energized by it. That is the mark, and the legacy, of a great man."

Colson spent his early career in the 1950s with U.S. Marine Corps, eventually becoming assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. He started his own law firm in 1961, joining the Nixon administration in 1969.

He was married twice: to Nancy Billings in 1953, having three children before the marriage ended in divorce in 1964. Colson married Patricia Ann Hughes that same year.

He is survived by her, as well as three children and five grandchildren.

Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitizenLink

News Links for April 20th

      

Chicago doctor discusses how faith led him to abandon IVF

Advice to Komen: Drop the 'middle man'

Imagine the Elder Exploitation in an Assisted Suicide World

Pushing "The Pill" leads to loss of liberty

Planned Parenthood challenged on drug policy

Arizona Governor Signs More Pro-Family Legislation

Urgent action needed TODAY to ensure Alabama abortion mill closes as ordered

Troubled Virginia Abortion Clinic Puts Bleeding Botched Abortion Patient in Hospital

New MS law will protect women from shoddy abortion practices

Pro-life group wants answers re: SB 1338

Law could shutter state's only abortuary

Multinational Prayer Event for Unborn Babies

One less Penn. abortuary

Abortion group desperate for taxpayer money

California Considers Allowing Non-Physicians to Perform Abortions

Reason to inspect Jackson, MS abortuary

Sparse info re: RU-486 risk harms women

Romney support among women increases, CBS News/NY Times poll shows

      

The new CBS News/New York Times poll which came out in the morning, shows pro-life Mitt Romney and pro-abortion Barack Obama deadlocked at 46%. For reasons best known to these news outlets, the "internals" were not released until later. What do we see?

Long-term, by far the most important consideration is found in the headline of a CBS News story: "Poll reveals gap between married and single women" and one sentence by Jan Crawford: "A month ago, President Obama had an 11-point lead over Mitt Romney among women voters. Today's poll, taken after Hillary Rosen's comments and the subsequent firestorm, puts the gap at six points."

It is true that Romney trails among ALL women just as he leads among men. But Mr. Romney actually is running ahead among married women, 49% to 42% while Obama has a large lead among single women, 62% to 34%.

Crawford's story has one other piece of particularly chilling news for President Obama.

"The poll also shows that Romney has a real opportunity to introduce/define himself with voters–or Obama campaign has an opening to do that for him. Despite the tough Republican primary, 37 percent of voters say they are undecided or need to know more about Romney before expressing a view on him.

"On the other hand, voters know the incumbent–only 13 percent say they're undecided or need to know more on President Obama. Of those who have a view, 45 percent now view the President unfavorably, compared to 34 percent with an unfavorable view of Romney."

Romney leads in two polls– Gallup and Rasmussen—by 2 points and 4 points, respectively. The two that Obama is ahead in—CNN  by 9 points and Reuters by 4 points—have huge flaws. All this while (a) Republicans presidential candidates harshly criticized one another and Mr. Obama faced no primary challenge; and (b) Mr. Obama's support among Independents continues to sink by the week.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life