Abortion and the Political “Big Tent”

      

In the past week, two troubling comments regarding abortion caught my attention—one of which justifiably caught the attention of the entire country. Once again much heat but little light was generated in the ensuing brouhaha.

The first troubling comment was a particularly inept and painful statement from U.S. Representative Todd Akin, which included the phrase “legitimate rape.” Akin’s unfortunate comment could have provided an opportunity to explore with greater clarity and depth a philosophical and moral question of supreme importance, but instead what followed was superficial, dishonest, and exploitative noise. Our feckless talking heads and political leaders chose to use Akin’s comment for political jujitsu rather than enlightened discourse.

Some random thoughts on the Akin debacle:

 •There exists no such thing as “legitimate rape.” “Legitimate rape” is an oxymoron.
 •Akin’s disastrous sentence construction, which implies that some rapes are legitimate, communicated an idea that he does not believe and did not mean to say. The correct phraseology would be something like “legitimate claimsof rape,” meaning that some claims are false, which of course is true. Some women claim to have been raped when actually they have not been raped.
 •This clumsily expressed fact—that some women falsely claim to have been raped—could have provided an opportunity to discuss the pragmatic, intellectual, and moral problems with the position of those who oppose abortion except in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
 •The pragmatic problem of permitting abortions (or federal funding of abortions) for pregnancies resulting from rape is that such exceptions put the government in the thorny position of determining whether claims of rape are legitimate, that is to say, true. Rebecca Kiessling,  who was conceived in rape and is now a pro-life attorney, explains:

Rape exceptions in the law actually put the government in the position of having to ascertain when the child was conceived, who the father is, whether the child was conceived during the alleged rape or during intercourse with her husband or boyfriend, and if the child was conceived during the time frame of the alleged rape, then the government would need to determine whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or not….So rape exceptions serve to perpetuate the injustice against rape victims that their accounts are to be viewed with skepticism…

 •But more important are the inextricably linked intellectual and moral problems with rape and incest exceptions. If the product of conception between two humans is a human, and if human life—including inchoate human life—is deserving of protection, then the manner of a baby’s conception is irrelevant to a determination of whether that inchoate life has the right to continued existence.
 •Certainly the manner of conception has meaning to the victim of rape or incest. And society should have compassion for these victims, offering as much help as possible. But the ends of alleviating suffering do not justify the means of exterminating the innocent life growing inside rape victims. The mother’s right to control her reproductive processes and parts does not supersede the right of a baby simply to exist. Just as a rape victim had no control over the criminal act that resulted in a pregnancy, neither had the baby so conceived. The suffering of rape victims does not justify the further and more horrifying victimization of preborn babies.
 •It is intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt to argue that life begins at conception, that all human life has intrinsic value and rights, but that society has the right to exterminate the life of another if its temporary dependency status is painful to another.

The second troubling comment came from Kay Bailey Hutchison, retiring Republican senator from Texas who said this on a Sunday morning news program:

Mothers and daughters can disagree on abortion, and we shouldn’t put a party around an issue that is so personal and also, religious-based. I think we need to say, “Here are our principles, and we welcome you as a Republican. We can disagree on any number of issues, but if you want to be a Republican, we welcome you.”

Several thoughts:

 •How many times have you heard Democrats beseech the Democratic Party to abandon their position on abortion in order to accommodate pro-life Democrats?
 •The arguments in support of the pro-life position are not exclusively religious.
 •When using the “personal” nature of abortion as a defense, Hutchinson needs to remember that there are two persons involved. Who speaks for those who can’t?
 •Hutchison’s statement is quintessential political double-speak: While asserting in one sentence that opposition to abortion should not be a party position, she asserts in the next sentence that “here are our principles.” Is Hutchison saying that opposition to abortion should or should not be one of the Republican principles?

It seems that Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison are again calling for the  infamous “Big Tent” that allows for the destruction of marriage and the unborn—you know, those trivial issues that can’t hold a candle next to fiscal issues. Apparently, the Republican tent is supposed to become big enough to accommodate a herd of donkeys.

Contact: Laurie Higgins
Source: Illinois Family Institute

HHS revises mandate third time; foes say it misses the point

       

A slight revision of the federal contraception mandate offers some additional protection for certain religious employers but is not sufficient to ease religious freedom concerns, said a lawyer who is working to challenge the mandate in court.

Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNA on Aug. 27 that the Obama administration is governing by “sloppy executive fiat” and is failing to address the underlying problem with the controversial mandate.

She explained that for the third time in seven months, the federal government has rewritten the guidelines for the “safe harbor” that offers a one-year reprieve from the mandate to some non-profit religious organizations that object to its demands.

“They’re making it up as they go along,” she said. “They haven’t really thought through these issues carefully.”

The Becket Fund is representing Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, in a lawsuit challenging the mandate. The controversial rule requires employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

Wheaton College argued that the mandate violated its religious freedom and filed for a preliminary injunction preventing its enforcement.

As a result, the federal government changed the safe harbor requirements, allowing Wheaton College to qualify for the temporary delay in the mandate.

Smith observed that the safe harbor, as it had previously been written, did not apply to Wheaton. The Christian college does not object to all forms of contraception, but only to products that cause early abortions, she said.

Initially, the safe harbor did not apply to employers that offered coverage of some contraceptives, she explained, but that regulation has now been changed to include those that accept certain elements of the coverage while objecting to others.

In addition, she said, Wheaton College was originally disqualified from the exemption because it had offered coverage of the products it objected to after Feb. 10, which was the deadline by which employers must discontinue the coverage in order to qualify for the reprieve.

Smith explained that coverage of early abortion drugs Ella and Plan B had been “inadvertently and unknowingly included in the plans,” and when administrators discovered it, they immediately began working with the college’s insurance company to remove the coverage. This process was not completed until March.

The federal government has now decided that because the college had “made efforts” to remove the coverage before Feb. 10, it can qualify for the safe harbor, she said.

But although the new regulation offers some protection to Wheaton College, it is “not a complete victory,” Smith cautioned.

She explained that the safe harbor is merely a 12-month “delay tactic” that will postpone “the inevitable conflict that will arise” between government and religious organizations that object to the mandate.

In addition, she said, Wheaton College is not entirely protected over the next year, because employees can still file private lawsuits trying to force the college to adhere to the mandate.

After the new regulations for the safe harbor were announced, Wheaton’s lawsuit was dismissed as premature in a court decision that pointed to the administration’s promised “accommodation” for religious freedom, she noted.

But the accommodation proposals put forward by the administration “are not satisfactory to religious institutions” and do not adequately address concerns of religious freedom, Smith stated.

She said that the Becket Fund will be carefully assessing options and following possible developments with the administration’s proposed accommodation to determine what further legal action may be necessary.

Source: CNA/EWTN News
 

News Links for August 24th

    

Documents from KS judge show Planned Parenthood charges fraudulently dropped

Woman Rushed to Hospital from Haskell's Late-Term Abortion Clinic Outside Dayton

'We are Women' DC Rally Countered by 'Women Speak for Themselves' and Pro-life Prayer Response

Pro-life groups in Uruguay denounce new attempts to legalize abortion

Fr. Frank Pavone's Statement on Republican Platform Committee's Abortion Plank

US, UK medical journals increasingly tout euthanasia

Survey shows US voter confusion on abortion

New 911 Call from Haskell's Abortion Clinic: 'She's Bleeding Quite Badly'

Woman-friendly Catholic business sues over HHS mandate

Stanek: Obama is "most pro-abortion president ever" (video)

Genetically Engineered Babies Are Moral Duty, “Ethics” Guru Claims

Abortionist admits, ‘most women having abortions are not raped’

Two more non-Catholic Christian colleges sue over HHS mandate

New 911 call from late-term abortion facility: ‘she’s bleeding quite badly’

Joan Appleton dies: Abortion nurse turned pro-life activist

“Why is there this huge fuss about sex-selection abortion?”

Who Really Cares About Women?

Why should we trust the pro-euthanasia lobby if they can’t even agree amongst themselves about what they want?

Pro-life Democratic group criticizes platform

     

The Democratic platform committee has rejected an effort to acknowledge the diversity within its party over the abortion issue, and the party is poorer for it, according to Democrats for Life of America.

Meanwhile, the Republican platform committee has again approved language advocating for the legal protection of unborn babies. The section endorsed by the committee Aug. 21 said: "Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

The Democratic draft platform released Aug. 9 did not include a recognition that Democrats hold divergent views on abortion, thereby rejecting an effort by Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) to include language that was in the 1996 platform. DFLA said the exclusion of language welcoming both pro-life and pro-choice voters greatly weakens the platform.

"For the good of the Democratic Party, we will continue to advocate that the platform language should reflect the true diversity of views within the Democratic Party," DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day said. "Our message is simple: If you are pro-life and a Democrat, you can make a difference, thus the case for recognition. Inclusion can make a critical difference in this fall's election."

The Democratic Party has increasingly become identified with abortion rights in recent decades, though DLFA said nearly one-third of Democrats identify themselves as pro-lifers. In 1978, Democrats held a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with 292 seats, including 125 (43 percent) pro-life party members, according to DFLA. Now, only 17 (9 percent) of the 184 Democrats in the House are pro-life, DFLA said.

DLFA cited the following results from Gallup polling in 2011 to demonstrate the diversity in the party:

-- 84 percent of Democrats support informed consent for a woman seeking an abortion.

-- 61 percent back parental consent for a minor before an abortion.

-- 60 percent endorse a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

-- 59 percent support the ban on partial-birth abortion.

-- 49 percent back requiring an ultrasound test before an abortion.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press

Federal and State Civil Rights Violations Cited in New HHS Mandate Lawsuit Filed in Federal District Court in Chicago for Private Employer

Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society File Suit on Behalf of "Best Place to Work for Women" Suing Obamacare to Stop Forced Group Insurance Coverage for Abortifacients, Sterilization, and Contraception

    

Triune Health Group, recently named by Crain's Chicago Business as the Best Place to Work for Women in the Chicago metro area, filed suit yesterday in U.S. District Court against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS"), the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Illinois Department of Insurance for a "declaratory judgment" and injunction to prevent and stop an infringement of their civil rights. Christopher Yep, founder, president and CEO of the family-run business, along with Mary Anne Yep, co-founder, Vice President and Chief Personnel Officer, and the company as a whole, are suing the federal and state governments for violating their fundamental rights to religious liberty and free speech by requiring them to provide group insurance coverage of abortions, sterilization, and birth control for their employees.

The Yeps, devoted Catholics, embrace a belief which is embedded in Triune's mission statement that each individual be "treated with the human dignity and respect that God intended." The Obamacare mandate, administered by HHS and the other federal agencies named in the lawsuit, as well as the Illinois insurance mandate, administered by Illinois' Department of Insurance, require the company to provide abortion-related and contraceptive coverage for its employees and their families, which imposes a gravely oppressive burden on the Yeps' deeply held religious beliefs.

"The federal and state governments are coercing our clients to violate their conscientious convictions, which is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, the national public interest law firm representing Triune and the Yeps, together with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. "As a federal court ruled just last month in Colorado, no government official may impose such an insupportable burden on American citizens' deeply held religious beliefs without a compelling reason. But there is no compelling reason here, when so many other options are available for providing these services, which are fully compatible with Triune’s corporate mission statement and the Yeps' religious beliefs," said Brejcha.

Sam Casey, managing director and general counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project, also had high praise for the Yeps' courage in standing up for their fundamental rights, applauding the Yeps for "taking a stand to defend their right to run their business in a way that does not conflict with their faith and religious conscience."

The Obama Administration has defended forcing private employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception, with an argument that people of faith forfeit their religious liberties once they opt to engage in business. But last month, Colorado-based Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns and runs it won a federal injunction to suspend the Obama Administration's mandate against that company. The newly filed Triune case also asserts the primacy of religious liberties and free speech on behalf of a private company and its owners, who view business as a form of religious stewardship and an integral part of their lives as faithful Roman Catholics.

Triune Health Group has won public plaudits, not only as "the best" employer for women but also as an outstanding employer for everybody, having also placed very high on Crain's 2012 "Best Place to Work" list.

The new lawsuit by Triune and the Yeps also names as defendants the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Illinois Department of Insurance Director Andrew Boron.

Contact: David B. Waxman
Source: Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project

Court approves Texas ban on Planned Parenthood funding

    
In a unanimous decision, a federal court on Tuesday lifted an injunction that protected Planned Parenthood from a Texas law that bars state funds from organizations that perform or promote abortion.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who backed the law, said Aug. 21 the decision is “a win for Texas women, our rule of law and our state’s priority to protect life.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Steven H. Aden also praised the decision in an Aug. 22 statement, saying it shows “abortionists and their political allies are bluffing when they say that states cannot stop taxpayer funding from being used to subsidize abortions, whether directly or indirectly.”

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted a federal district court’s temporary injunction that preserved state funding before an October trial in which Planned Parenthood intends to challenge the law, the Associated Press reported.

The court decision said the district court “gave insufficient attention to Texas’s authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs.”

The funds concern the Texas Women’s Health Program, which provides services to many women not qualified through Medicaid. The program previously funded Planned Parenthood’s provision of family planning and health services to poor women. About 65,000 women of the 130,000 enrolled in the program secured services through the abortion provider, though state funds were not used for abortion.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, said the legal case is “about the women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, birth control and well-woman exams.

However, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot said Aug. 21 that the decision “rightfully recognized that the taxpayer-funded Women's Health Program is not required to subsidize organizations that advocate for elective abortion.”

He said his office is “encouraged” by the decision and will continue to defend the Women’s Health Program in court.

State-level efforts to defund abortion providers have increased in recent years.  However, they have faced significant legal and regulatory obstacles as well as interference and threats from pro-abortion rights officials in the federal government.

In December 2011 the Obama administration threatened to deny federal funding to the Texas women’s health program if the law stood.

A similar defunding effort in New Hampshire that threatened $1.8 million in funding for Planned Parenthood caused the Department of Health and Human Services to say it would give a federal grant to the abortion provider.

In July 2012 a federal official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Chicago reaffirmed that an Indiana law barring Medicaid funds to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood is unacceptable on the grounds that it denies women the freedom to choose their health care providers, according to the Associated Press.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Forced Dehydration for 12-Year-Old Gunshot Victim?

    

Texas has an awful futile care law. It permits hospital bioethics committees to impose members/doctors’ values that a patient’s life is not worth living based on quality of life.  A story just out shows the injustice of the process–a terrible law about which I write here in more detail.

On August 6, a 12-year-old boy was shot in the head.  Even though a reliable diagnosis and prognosis for persistent unconsciousness requires at least 3 months, hospital personnel reportedly went in rapid succession from “donate his organs” to “end his life” mode. From the Spero News story:

    But on August 13, the hospital convened an “ethics panel”, a legal entity where under Texas law medical officials can make a decision that care would be futile to restore the quality of a patient’s life. If they decide care would be futile, the hospital can terminate care after 10 days.

That’s only one week from the shooting.

    Most patients who fall under a “futile care” decision are living with the assistance of ventilators and feeding tubes. But due to a mistake in procedure, the hospital said the panel didn’t technically convene. Informally, though, hospital officials told Zach’s parents that they didn’t want to treat their son anymore. Three days later, Zach was able to breathe on his own and no longer needed a ventilator.

But that improvement didn’t matter:

    On the same day, a family member visited Zach in the hospital and asked the parents why Zach was on palliative care. To the parent’s surprise, Zach was not receiving food or water. When the parents tried to discover why the hospital was denying their son food and water, they found a “do not resuscitate” order in Zach’s chart. According to Texas law, doctors can insert DNR orders into a patient’s chart if the doctor considers care to be futile, overruling both the patient’s and the family’s wishes.

Do not resuscitate is not the same thing as do not nourish!  It only applies to not performing CPR in the event of a cardiac arrest, not a general do not sustain life directive.

Because the hospital broke the rules, care was restored.  But apparently not for long:

    Rachel Bohannon, spokesperson for Texas Right to Life, said they advised the mother to confront the doctor. “The hospital broke the law when they withdrew food and water. That can’t be done without an ethics committe’s approval,” she said.

    Reluctantly, the doctor removed the DNR order, reinstated food and water, but again told the parents that he didn’t want to treat their son. “She is the legal guardian and medical decision maker. But when care is considered futile, her rights are trumped by the hospital,” Bohannon said. Bohannon said she expects the hospital to reconvene the ethics panel. “This time they’ll follow all the rules so that it sticks. When that happens, Zach has 10 days to leave the hospital or risk having his basic medical care taken away.”

Remember the Haleigh Poutre case?  She was 12 when beaten nearly to death by her step father with severe head trauma. Doctors said she would never recover and ordered her food and water removed too.  But because the process took a few months, she recovered enough clear awareness that the dehydration was called off. Today, she eats on her own and when last written about, was in school receiving rehabilitation.

There are so many things wrong here that cry out for a lawsuit. Calling Alliance Defending Freedom!  Calling Alliance Defending Freedom.  There is a life to save.  Again.  Calling Alliance Defending Freedom!

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Barack Obama, pro-abortion extremist -- and why the news media avoid tough scrutiny of Obama's abortion history

     

"The new obsession is the platform of the Republican Party on abortion, which is an obsession,” [Republican National Committee Chairman Reince] Priebus said Wednesday on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News. “What about the obsession about a guy who believes in partial-birth abortion? I mean, what about that obsession? I mean, why aren’t we talking about that very, that minority view of abortion in our country that this president holds dear to his heart? We’re not talking about that.”
("Reince Priebus attacks Obama on abortion," by Kevin Robillard, Politico, August 23, 2012.)

In the opinion piece below, "Obama the abortion extremist," published today by Politico, National Review Editor Rich Lowry asserts, "The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal." Lowry goes on to discuss how this hostility to the pro-life position manifests as a proclivity for subjecting pro-life Republican candidates to intense scrutiny on abortion-related issues, while ignoring or glossing over the extreme positions that Barack Obama has taken throughout his political career on abortion-related issues.

As the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) observed in an August 20 release, "The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the 'abortion rights' positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration."

The August 20 NRLC release is here.

In October, 2008, NRLC published a detailed article examining the news media's collaboration in allowing Obama, during the post-nomination phase of the 2008 campaign, to rewrite his history on various abortion-related issues, including legislation dealing with infants born alive during abortions. The article, which is here, also explores the news media's near-total disinterest in examining the implications of Obama's endorsement of the most extreme pro-abortion measure ever proposed in Congress, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.

An NRLC "white paper" documenting Obama's actual history on the born-alive infants legislation is here.

An NRLC statement on President Obama's recently announced (but virtually unreported) opposition to the pending legislation to ban the use of abortion for sex selection is here.

To view "Video: Obama Says He's 'Pro-Choice' on Third-Trimester Abortions," by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog, August 22, 2012, click here.

Mainstream news media again subjects Republican pro-life positions to hyper-scrutiny and extrapolation, while ignoring President Obama's positions on current legislation on late abortions and abortion for sex selection

      

 "The mainstream news media is once again demonstrating its eagerness to use any excuse to portray a Republican presidential ticket as out of the mainstream on abortion, while ignoring the truly extreme positions taken by the pro-abortion candidate -- this year, President Obama," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

The current media focus is on the position of the Romney-Ryan ticket on prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he supports rape and incest exceptions to a law providing general protection for unborn children. This is the same position taken by pro-life President George W. Bush, who did much to advance federal policies to move towards a society in which all were "welcomed in life and protected in law."

According to a 2005 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," one percent of the women who were surveyed while seeking abortions reported having an abortion because they were victims of rape. Legislation to prohibit early abortion in cases of rape and incest is not under consideration in Congress. Indeed, since 1993, Congress provided federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest. Starting that year, those exceptions were added to the Hyde Amendment (the law which generally prohibits federal Medicaid funding for abortion), in addition to the original life-of-mother exception. When the rape/incest exceptions were added to the law, the Clinton Administration estimated that it would result in federal funding of abortion "nationally to about 1,000 women," despite the huge size of the federal Medicaid program (over 33 million persons covered in 1995, and over 50 million today). (Letter from President Clinton to Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, February 22, 1994). Subsequent reports issued by HHS showed that the actual number of federally funded abortions nationwide, even with the rape-incest exceptions, ranged between 112 and 458 nationwide between FY 1994 and FY 2007.

Much has been made of Congressman Paul Ryan's cosponsorship of the "Sanctity of Human Life Act" (H.R. 212).  This resolution-like bill affirms the general principle that every individual member of the species homo sapiens should be recognized as a human being. It does not contain any prohibition of anything, or any penalty for anything. The details of implementing such a principle, including the type and definition of exceptions to any enacted law protecting unborn children, would have to be contained in language enacted by elected legislators -- generally reflecting, presumably, the majority views of their constituents.

When covering such legislation, many reporters show themselves willing to embrace even extravagant extrapolations as factual, or to adopt tendentious, advocacy phraseology as their own. For example, Stephanie Condon, identified as "a political reporter for CBSNews.com," wrote in a "news" story on August 15, concerning Ryan and the "Sanctity of Human Life Act" [italics added for emphasis]: "Supporters of reproductive rights have loudly pointed out that this type of legislation would not only outlaw abortion but potentially some forms of contraception or even in vitro fertilization. Personhood initiatives are so extreme that even card-carrying conservatives like former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour have expressed concerns that they go too far . . ."

Despite the remoteness of these matters from any legislation currently under consideration in Congress or likely to be considered by the next Congress, the mainstream news media finds them worthy of sustained attention. Yet there is little interest by these journalists in performing a symmetrical exploration of the outer parameters of President Obama's policy positions on abortion -- even with respect to bills that are under active consideration in Congress.

For example, recently NRLC brought it to the attention of Congress that currently, in the District of Columbia -- a federal jurisdiction -- abortion is legal for any reason, until the moment of birth. (This is because the "District Council," utilizing delegated congressional authority, repealed the entire abortion law.) On July 31, 2012, by a solid majority of 66 votes (220-154), the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a bill (H.R. 3803) to overturn this policy, and replace it with a ban on abortion after 20 weeks fetal age (the beginning of the sixth month), except to save the life of the mother. At the same time, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) filed the same measure as an amendment to cybersecurity legislation (S. 3414) -- a White House priority -- that was pending in the Senate when the August recess began.

So, what is President Obama's position on the pending legislation that has already commanded a substantial majority in the U.S. House, and that is at least technically still pending in the U.S. Senate? Good question -- but the mainstream media has been almost entirely uninterested in asking it. At the July 31 White House press briefing, one desultory question was posed to Jay Carney about the bill, to which Carney responded that he had not spoken to the President about this particular bill (although it had 223 cosponsors, and was to be voted on later that day in the House). There was no follow up.

Another example: On May 31, 2012, the U.S. House took up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to prohibit the use of abortion for purposes of sex selection in the United States. Only one organ of the mainstream news media showed any interest in ascertaining what President Obama's position was on the bill: ABC News' Jake Tapper pressed for an answer, and obtained it the night before the House vote -- President Obama opposed the bill. His reason? "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.” But aside from one-time, low-profile coverage on the ABC News blog, Obama's position on this legislation has gone virtually unmentioned in the news media -- although the bill commanded a substantial bipartisan majority (246-168) in the U.S. House on May 31. A recent poll found that 77 percent of the public (80 percent of women, 74 percent of men) favors banning the use of abortion for sex selection.

Thus, while consumers of the mainstream news media are likely to view and read countless stories that affirm that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have expressed opposition to abortion "even in cases of [fill in the blank]," they are likely to see far fewer reports that President Obama supports allowing legal abortion "even when used for sex selection," or exploring President Obama's position on whether abortion should be allowed "even up to the point of birth" in the nation's capital. For the mainstream news media, the "even in cases of . . ." knife only cuts in one direction.

"For the most part, the mainstream news media prefer to characterize President Obama's position in terms of hazy generalizations, avoiding specifics such as his actions to allow unrestricted abortion for sex selection and late abortions," said NRLC President Carol Tobias.

Contact: Megan McCrum, Jessica Rodgers
Source: National Right to Life Committee

News Links for August 17th

    

Polls Shifting in Romney/Ryan Direction

How pro-abortionists defend abortion up to birth and for any reason, including the baby’s sex

Olympic medallist uses win to promote adoption

Fmr. Komen Foundation insider’s new book will expose ‘Planned Bullyhood’

‘Just being human doesn’t give you a right to live’: Peter Singer sums up pro-abortion philosophy

Silence follows abortionist's racist remarks

Fired Anti Abortion Social Worker Settles With NHS

Officials: Pa. abortion clinic deaths no accident

Texas Fraud Suit Against Planned Parenthood Moves Forward

Woman Rushed to Emergency Room from Idaho Planned Parenthood

Euthanasia is a Cultural Addiction

UK Paralyzed Man Loses Euthanasia Court Request

Papal support for pro-life pilgrimage in Poland

Pro-life walk across America finishes with rally in DC

     

Over 40 young people who walked across the U.S. for pro-life service, advocacy and witness held a rally at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday to mark the end of the 18th annual cross-country trek run by the group Crossroads.

“Even though the walks are over, we still need to continue on and let the Lord work, to continue that mission of transforming the culture of death into a culture of life,” Crossroads national director Jim Nolan told CNA Aug. 13.

Walk participants began on the West Coast on May 19. They passed through 40 states, visiting hundreds of churches and standing outside of dozens of abortion clinics where they prayed and offered pro-life counseling.

Nolan found cause for hope in the reaction to the walkers.

“We’ve been saying for years that America is a pro-life country,” he said. “I can tell you, through all the experiences on all of the walks, it was all very positive.”

Crossroads groups received “very little pushback” and an “almost exclusively positive reaction” to their activities.

The closing rally featured Bryan Kemper, a speaker with Priests for Life, and Live Action President Lila Rose.

Ryan recalled that Crossroads aspires to follow Pope John Paul II’s call at World Youth Day 1993 for people to imitate the original apostles and “to help build the culture of life.”

Since then, Ryan said, there has been “a big shift” towards the pro-life position among youth.

“America is a pro-life,” he said. “The culture of death, even though it seems like it is getting worse, I think is taking its last gasps.”

Supporters of abortion, he told CNA, see the shift towards a pro-life position among the youth.

Tragedy struck the Crossroads walk earlier this year when Andrew Kentigern Moore, a 20-year-old college student from Thomas Aquinas College, was struck and killed by a car July 20 on a highway near Indianapolis.

Moore’s uncle, Paul Brilliant, joined his nephew’s group and finished the walk in his place.

When it was first founded in 1995, Crossroads only sponsored one walk across the United States. This year, in addition to the four U.S. walks, there are counterparts in Canada, Ireland, and Spain.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

We Are Woman Rally, ObamaCare Mandate Represent War on Women’s Health

     

The group, Think Progress (funded by billionaire atheist George Soros) is organizing the We Are Woman Rally which is set to take place in Washington D.C. on August 18, 2012. Its leaders claim to work for women's rights, but by promoting access to induced abortion and use of hormonal steroids (i.e. the birth control pill and Depo Provera birth control), they are sickening women.

They would have us believe the absurdity that those who dare to oppose Planned Parenthood's greed and the population control agenda of the U.S. government and some billionaires are the ones waging a war on women.

Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer said, "It is ludicrous to suggest that women will have more freedom and will be 'empowered' by taking cancer-causing hormonal steroids, i.e. birth control pills, injections, vaginal rings, skin patches and some IUDs.

"Real empowerment of women means being free from the risks associated with taking these hormonal steroids, which can include not only cancer, but heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, gall bladder disease, urinary tract infections, bone mineral density loss and increased susceptibility to HIV/AIDS. [1] Fifty-three of 69 epidemiological studies link induced abortion with increased breast cancer risk. [2]

"With its mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring insurers to provide women with free health-damaging hormonal steroids, but not free life-saving chemotherapy, ObamaCare represents not only an attack on the rights to religious freedom and conscience, but also a grave attack on women's health.

"Although the Rally's website sports a pink ribbon which allows its organizers to feign support for the breast cancer cause, they are actually damaging women's health, providing financial enrichment for pharmaceutical corporations and Planned Parenthood, and advancing an anti-woman population control agenda for the U.S. government and fabulously wealthy men."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
 
References:
 
1. For citations, see the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's newsletter dated July 31, 2012.
 
2. See the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute's comprehensive list of epidemiological studies at: <http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm>.

Contact: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer

Romney VP Pick Supports Personhood / GOP Platform

    

Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for President has selected congressional Personhood co-sponsor Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to be his running mate for the November election.

Congressman Paul Ryan is known for his defense of smaller government and for his staunch advocacy for the dignity of all human persons.  Congressman Ryan is currently one of the 64 co-sponsors of H.R. 212, known as the Sanctity of Human Life Act.  He also co-sponsored the 2009 Sanctity of Human Life Act, H.R. 227.

The Sanctity of Human Life Act states that under "Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United State ... the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person" and that "the life of each human being begins with fertilization."

The Republican party's platform states that "we support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

"In supporting Personhood, Congressman Ryan has taken a consistent pro-life position, one that is called for by the  Republican party's own platform" remarked Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., Legal Analyst for Personhood USA.

"Far from being extreme, Congressman Ryan has picked up the mantle of President Ronald Reagan in his support for a congressional declaration of personhood," commented Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D.  "We are hopeful that as Ronald Reagan did before him, Congressman Ryan will use his position of influence to advocate uncompromisingly for the dignity and full legal personhood of the preborn."

On January 14, 1988 President Ronald Reagan called for a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, stating that the "personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the 'humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth.' This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so."

contact: Jennifer Mason
Source: Personhood USA

5-state bus tour with IL's Jill Stanek to expose Obama's abortion extremism

     

Monday, the Susan B. Anthony List announced a five state “Women Speak Out: Abortion is Not Health Care” bus tour through swing states, August 20 to 30.Jill_Stanek-225x297

Led by former Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and pro-life nurse and whistleblower Jill Stanek, who exposed then state-senator Barack Obama’s refusal to protect live children who survived the abortion procedure, the bus tour will draw attention to President Obama’s extremism on abortion.

The bus tour will travel to 30 cities throughout key swing states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida.  National and local pro-life leaders will rally Americans to defeat President Obama and pro-abortion House and Senate candidates including Christie Vilsack (IA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Sherrod Brown (OH), Tim Kaine (VA), and Bill Nelson (FL). A tentative schedule is available at www.SBAbus.com.], where you’ll also find a complete list of bus tour co-sponsors and more on Obama’s abortion record.

Local and statewide pro-life women leaders will join up with the bus at various stops, including: Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, Rep. Jean Schmidt (OH-02), Dr. Alveda King, Star Parker, Polly Jordan, wife of Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04), and pro-life speaker and abortion survivor Melissa Ohden.

Source: Illinois Review

Remembering Nellie Gray, America’s Pro-Life Sweetheart

    

Nellie Gray, the founder of March for Life, passed away this past weekend. Through tireless dedication to the pro-life movement, Ms. Gray united pro-life people from all walks of life through the march she founded in 1974, which marked the one year anniversary of Roe v. Wade. She started the march so pro-life people across America could come together and mourn the lost lives of America's most defenseless and innocent population—the preborn.

Ms. Gray's heartfelt motivation to protect America's preborn children stemmed from her military service in World War II. During the war, Ms. Gray served as a corporal in the Women's Army Corps (WAC), and was deeply distraught that many innocent lives were lost in the Holocaust. Once the war ended, Ms. Gray became more aware of the perils of abortion and was propelled to combat America's very own holocaust–the unjust, merciless killing of innocent preborn boys and girls.

Pro-life unity formed the core of Ms. Gray's motivation for protecting the preborn. To accomplish such a goal, Ms. Gray encouraged African-Americans and women from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign to participate in the March for Life. Dr. Alveda King, the director for Priests for Life's African-American Outreach, said that "Nellie Gray knew that abortion took a heavy toll from the black community and she urged us to lend our voices to the fight against this terrible injustice." Also, Janet Morana, the co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, thanked Ms. Gray for "recogniz[ing] that the women who have had abortions speak with unquestioned authority about the ways they have been harmed by this choice."

Because of Ms. Gray's work, March for Life has truly changed lives by motivating Americans to take a stand for the protection of America's most defenseless population.  Father Frank Pavone, the National Director for Priests for Life, noted that "Nellie Gray and the March for Life had a most profound effect on my life" simply because both solidified his decision to seek priesthood. Moreover, March for Life, which has a high youth turnout rate, has propelled my generation to continue defending the preborns' God-given right to life.

As the 39th annual March for Life approaches, we must never forget to champion and honor Nellie Gray's humanitarian impact on the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. To further her legacy, we must continue to unite more Americans on the sanctity of life.

In the wake of Nellie's passing, the March for Life Board of Directors have named Patrick Kelly as Interim Chair of the Board and Jeanne Monahan as Interim President of the Board. The Board of Directors will continue to honor Nellie's memory by doing everything possible to protect the unborn–no exceptions, no compromise!

Contact: Anna Maria Hoffman
Source: FRC Blog

NRLC: A Solid Pro-Life Ticket for a Pro-Life America

National Right to Life Praises Romney-Ryan Ticket

    
 
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, praised Governor Mitt Romney’s choice of pro-life Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate. National Right to Life announced its endorsement of Governor Romney in April.
 
“We are thrilled that Paul Ryan has been selected to run with Governor Romney. Congressman Ryan has a deep, abiding respect for all human life, including unborn children and their mothers, the disabled, and the elderly,” said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. “Together, they form a solid pro-life ticket that truly represents the pro-life majority in the United States.”
 
In his previous elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul Ryan has received the endorsement of both National Right to Life and its state affiliate, Wisconsin Right to Life.
 
Ryan has maintained a 100 percent pro-life voting record on all roll call votes scored by National Right to Life through his entire tenure in the House, which began in 1999.  This includes support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and most recently the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, among others.
 
In a February 2009, op-ed published in The Journal Times of Racine, Wis., Ryan wrote, “Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children…I remain committed to restoring the value of human life and fighting for the rights of the unborn…Most importantly, we must ensure that the most vulnerable among us – both unborn children and mothers struggling with unplanned pregnancies – are afforded the compassion and opportunities they need to choose life.”
 
“The pro-life Romney-Ryan team stands in sharp contrast to the avowed pro-abortion administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden,” Tobias added. “With the election of a Romney-Ryan ticket, America, and her children, will be in good hands.”

Source: National Right to Life Committee

News Links for August 10th

    

Obama reaffirms support for HHS mandate, downplays controversy

WHO pushing for abortion under guise of safety

Limbaugh: ‘what is Planned Parenthood if not a death squad?’ Pittman: PP a ‘murderous organization’

Obamacare: Death Panels

Red Cross sets up blood drive outside abortion clinic

Planned Parenthood, NARAL ‘thrilled’ HHS mandate is now law

Thousands of viewers respond to pro-life TV ad's offer of help

Over 2,400 responses nationwide to Heroic Media's pro-life campaign on BET

Psychotherapist, nun win pro-life awards

'Ugly Black Babies' says Charlotte Abortion Doctor

London abortion clinic seeks injunction against Rosary vigil

Spanish youth on pro-life walk report harassment from activists

India girl dies horrific death after botched abortion

Romney Should Select a Passionately Pro-Life Running-Mate

    

"Gov. Mitt Romney, Mass., the presumptive Republican nominee for President, will soon announce his pick for a running-mate. I hope and pray that he will select a person that pro-life Americans can enthusiastically support," said Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI). "The last thing the Governor wants to do is alienate a large voting bloc by picking a person seen as lukewarm on the issue."

Scott said he is "skeptical of men like Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisc., and Gov. Mitch Daniels, Ind.," who had called on the Republican Party to put social issues on the back-burner. "I was appalled when Rep. Ryan suggested that Republicans 'rally around the tallest pole in our tent -- fiscal conservatism, economic liberty,' which essentially means pushing pro-life Americans to the back of the Republican bus." Scott said attempts by the two men to backtrack leave him unconvinced.

Scott said the one person reportedly under consideration that he just could not back is former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because "she is simply not pro-life."

"Gov. Romney needs to send pro-life people a signal that he cares about these matters we feel strongly about by picking a running-mate every pro-life person can look to and immediately say, 'I am convinced. I will work as hard as I can to see the Republican ticket win in November.'"

Scott said he fears that if the Republicans win in November, life issues and other matters of social significance will be essentially ignored. "We do not need another election in which we do everything we can for a candidate only to learn that, once again, we have been patronized. I do not want to be patted on the head, told I'm a good pro-lifer, and thanked for all of my hard work during the campaign. I want the people I work for to do everything he or she can do to help bring about a society that respects all human life."

According to Scott, there are many great men and women who would be an excellent running-mate for the Governor, including Senator Marco Rubio, Fl., Gov. Luis Fortuno, P.R., Gov. Bobby Jindal, La., Gov. Bob McDonnell, Virg., Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Wash., Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tenn., Gov. Mary Fallin, Okla., and Rep. Allen West, Fl. "We need someone on the ticket who believes social issues -- those that are literally a matter of life and death -- should be given a high place on the national agenda," Scott said.

Scott said that many pro-life politicians are poorly equipped to defend the pro-life position in a campaign. "The answers are there. Any candidate who does not believe being pro-life can be a winning position should let us know. We will show him or her exactly how to make it happen." Scott said that running from the issue makes it look like one is ashamed of being pro-life. "We are not the people who should be ashamed. We are not the people who think it is acceptable to kill preborn human beings as a 'solution' to social problems. Pro-life candidates should stand tall and proud and learn how to articulate the message to show that the real shameful position is that held by supporters of Roe v. Wade."

Source: Life Decisions International

Komen president resigning, founder shifting roles

    
     Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder Nancy Brinker

The president and the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure are both stepping down from their roles, the nation's largest breast cancer foundation said in announcing a major leadership shake-up. The high-profile departures come in the wake of continuing fallout from Komen's decision earlier this year to briefly end funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

President Liz Thompson will leave Komen next month and founder Nancy Brinker, who has long been the public face of the charity, will relinquish her chief executive's role for a position focused on fundraising and strategic planning, according to a statement released Wednesday by the Dallas-based organization.

It's the latest shake-up since news emerged in January that Komen had decided to eliminate its funding for Planned Parenthood for breast-cancer screening. Komen said it made the decision because Planned Parenthood was the focus of a congressional investigation, which was launched at the urging of pro-life activists.

Komen restored the funding after a three-day firestorm, but it didn't quell the criticism. At least five other high-ranking executives also have resigned, and organizers of many Race for the Cure events saw their participation numbers drop.

Brinker founded the organization in 1982, two years after her sister, Susan G. Komen, died of breast cancer. Thompson joined the group in 2008 to head research and scientific programs, and she was promoted to president in 2010.

According to the statement, which makes no reference to the Planned Parenthood decision or fallout, Thompson said the time was right for her to pursue other opportunities. She hailed the organization's leadership in pursuing a cure for breast cancer and for helping women and men with cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.

"That legacy will continue. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve in this role," she said.

Brinker praised Thompson's work in expanding Komen's influence in scientific, community health, advocacy and global programs. As for her changed role, Brinker said she assumed the chief executive's duties at the request of the foundation's board in 2009.

"Three years into that role, and 32 years after my promise to my sister to end breast cancer, I want now to focus on Susan G. Komen's global mission and raising resources to bring our promise to women all around the world," she said.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, praised both women for their "profound contributions to women's health" and for helping elevate the importance of breast cancer detection and prevention. She also noted that "the Komen-funded Planned Parenthood programs have helped thousands of women in rural and underserved communities get breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms. We are proud to continue this work together."

Some Komen affiliates were among those publicly opposed to cutting off Planned Parenthood. In the days after Komen decided to restore the funding, Komen policy chief Karen Handel resigned. She had opposed abortion as a Republican candidate for Georgia governor and had become a target of those angry about the decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood.

Her resignation was followed, in quick succession, by Katrina McGhee, executive vice president and chief marketing officer; Nancy Macgregor, vice president of global networks; and Joanna Newcomb, director of affiliate strategy and planning.

And organizers of individual Race for the Cure events _ 5K runs and walks that account for most of the charity's fundraising _ saw participation decline by as much as 30 percent. Most also saw their fundraising numbers sink, although a couple of races brought in more money.

Race organizers have acknowledged the effect of the Planned Parenthood debacle, which angered people on both sides of the abortion debate.

In response to questions Wednesday about the controversy, Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader said "I think Liz (Thompson) made clear in her statement that we feel that we've moved past that."

The foundation has invested $1.3 billion in community programs over 30 years to pay for screenings, education, and financial and psychological support for those fighting breast cancer, according to Komen's statement.

Contact: Terry Wallace
Source: OneNewsNow

Planned Parenthood Ignored Instructions to Call 911 in Tonya Reaves Abortion Death

    

Operation Rescue has obtained a recording and computer aided dispatch transcript that indicates on the same day that Tonya Reaves died from hemorrhage caused by a uterine perforation after a second trimester abortion, the Chicago Planned Parenthood that killed her ignored instructions from an emergency dispatcher to directly call 911 in the event of an emergency in order to prevent wasting precious time.
 
The Office of Emergency Management and Communications for the City of Chicago confirmed to Operation Rescue, in response to a FOIA request, that only one call was placed from Planned Parenthood's location on that day, and that call did not involve Reaves.
 
"This new information confirms that Planned Parenthood intentionally ignored instructions given to them earlier in the day by an Emergency Dispatcher and refused to employ the fastest means of getting help for their dying patient," said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue. "In addition to waiting five and a half hours to get Reaves to the hospital, the further delay caused by refusing call 911 as instructed could have been the difference between life and death."
 
The recording is from a call placed at 12:43 p.m. on July 20, 2012, originating from the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood, located at 18 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The Planned Parenthood office occupies the entire sixth floor of what is known as the Gage Building. The dispatcher is heard on the recording confirming that the caller's office is on the sixth floor. Operation Rescue confirmed that no other medical offices exist in that building.
 
Tonya Reaves received her fatal abortion at 11:00 a.m. on July 20. As Reaves lay hemorrhaging, an employee called to report that elsewhere in the clinic a 16-year old patient was "physically assaulted" by her mother. The caller indicated that the staff had to pull the two apart after they witnessed the mother kick and hair-pull her daughter and threaten her with further harm once her father arrived.

The 911 Dispatcher is heard admonishing the Planned Parenthood worker for calling 311, which caused a delay in dispatching aid to the scene. The 311 Call Center is used primarily to provide information regarding City events and programs and other non-emergency services.
 
The following is a partial transcript of the conversation:
 
    Dispatcher: Okay, and once you called - you see, next time you need a police car to come out for any reason whatsoever, you need to call 911.
     
    Caller: Right. Okay. I just -
     
    Dispatcher: That way you don't waste time with 311.
     
    Caller: I know, I know, I just (laugh) I just hate to use services to make, you know -
     
    Dispatcher: I know. Well, they don't dispatch police cars. All they do is transfer you to 911.
     
    Caller: Gotcha.
     
    Dispatcher: So you're waiting in that queue and then they flip you over to our office.
     
    Caller: Right.
     
    Dispatcher: Now I don't have any of your information. So, what is your telephone number?

"This information shows gross negligence in the way Planned Parenthood managed Reaves medical emergency. Delays in getting her the care she needed were intentional. It crosses the line into what is likely criminal conduct," said Sullenger. "We renew our call for a criminal investigation into Reaves death. If those responsible are not brought to justice, it is only a matter of time before another woman suffers Tonya's tragic fate."

Documentation:

    Hear Full Recording
     
    Written transcript of call
     
    CAD Transcript
     
    Video Timeline in Reaves Death

Contact: Troy Newman, President, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue/Pro-Life Nation