People with pro-abortion and pro-life views aren't necessarily rigid or consistent in their views.
In direct contrast to common assumptions, not all evangelicals and conservatives believe abortion should be outlawed in every situation, and many liberals do not want abortion available in all circumstances. Ron Sellers of Grey Matter Research conducted a survey that found evidence of this.
"Only 28 percent of all Americans believe that abortion should be legal in every situation," he indicates. "Only 18 percent believe abortion should be illegal in every situation. Thirty-eight percent said there are some cases where it should be legal; others said it should not. And then 16 percent frankly said, I honestly haven't decided how I feel on this issue. I just don't know."
So Sellers says the survey stresses that people may lean in a particular direction but are not totally one-sided. Sellers is not surprised that 30 percent of those surveyed support sex-selective abortions.
"The attitude among some of the folks who believe that abortion should be legal is that it is not a life, it is not a baby -- it is simply a mass of cells," he explains. "I mean, from a moral standpoint, [they believe] it's really no different than the mother having a growth or a tumor removed from her body."
What did surprise Sellers, "in a sense, is the lack of constancy from those on both sides of the debate."
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
A new report from the United Nations Population Fund declares that family planning is a global "right" for women, and calls for the removal of any social and financial obstacles to it.
"Every adult, adolescent and young person everywhere, regardless of sex, social status, income, ethnicity, religion or place of residence must be empowered to decide freely and responsibly how many children to have and when to have them," the document said.
On Nov. 14, the United Nations Population Fund released the report, titled "The State of World Population 2012." It is subtitled "By Choice, Not By Chance" and links family planning to international development.
In its analysis, the UNFPA called the July 2012 London Summit on Family Planning a "sign of progress."
The event, which the population fund hosted with the help of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, secured $2.6 billion in pledges from countries and foundations to provide family planning to 120 million women. It said $4.1 billion is needed to provide family planning to 222 million women who reportedly would use it but lack access to it.
The summit drew intense backlash, however, from critics ranging from the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano to global pro-life advocates.
Meghan Grizzle, research and policy specialist at the World Youth Alliance, and Greg Pfundstein – executive director of the Chiaroscuro Foundation – said the figure of 222 million women in need of family planning is "misleading" and likely overstated.
"Many women have access to contraception and choose not to use it. Social scientists and public policy experts identify women as having an unmet need for contraception even when those women have not expressed a desire to use contraception," Pfundstein and Grizzle said in a July essay published in Public Discourse.
Wendy Wright, interim executive director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, in July charged that the summit marks "a new chapter in the population control movement." She said the summit would use the goal of helping poor women to secure permanent funding for abortion-promoting and population control groups.
Wright said that resources used for family planning could be better directed to providing access to basic health care and maternal health care.
In its new report, UNFPA included some population control advocacy and depicted access to family planning as a "sound economic investment."
It attributed the growth of some Asian economies to a family planning-driven demographic shift which caused the numbers of income-generating adults to be higher than those dependent upon them for support. The report predicted a $30 billion growth in the Nigerian economy if its fertility rate falls by one child per woman in the next 20 years.
The UNFPA report summary said family planning is "almost universally recognized as an intrinsic right" that should be "available to all." It said family planning should be promoted as "a right" which enables "a whole range of other rights."
The report does, however, include a favorable mention of family planning methods the Catholic Church does not recognize as sinful.
"Fertility awareness-related methods are also quite effective if used correctly," it said, citing Guttmacher Institute statistics indicating that these methods are only slightly more likely to result in pregnancy in the first year of use than condoms and are much less likely to result in pregnancy than no family planning method.
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Apparently, Planned Parenthood is no longer content exploiting just women and children–so they've moved on to the federal government. Over the past several years, it seems the country's biggest abortion provider has also been running one of the country's biggest scams: a Medicaid racket that's ripped off millions of taxpayer dollars.
Today, it appears that at least six states have been targeted by Cecile Richards's scheme, which reportedly conned the government with hundreds of thousands of bogus reimbursement claims.
One of those states–Texas–will be hearing its first arguments on the issue this week in U.S. District Court, thanks to former Planned Parenthood director-turned-whistleblower Abby Johnson. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she plans to expose at least 87,000 instances of fraud during her time as a clinic manager in Southeast Texas.
Based on her testimony and supporting documents, Planned Parenthood routinely submitted ineligible claims on everything from pap smears to STD and pregnancy tests. In fact, Johnson says her bosses at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast were under so much financial pressure that they would repeatedly tell staff, "We must turn every call and visit into a revenue-generating client."
A ring of at least 10 clinics were falsifying patient charts, which they would "fix" and "cover up" before the auditors and inspectors came.
"People may hold different views about abortion," Johnson says, "but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else. It certainly isn't entitled to any public funds, especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer."
In states like Iowa, the plot was so sophisticated that clinics were getting $26.32 reimbursement checks for a $2.98 package of birth control. State and local governments have poured more than a billion dollars into Richards's group–and this is how she repays them? Twenty-eight million in stolen funds in Iowa, $6 million in Texas, $180 million in California, and similar allegations in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
And while we can't say exactly where the dollars went, evidence suggests President Obama's campaign was one of the biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood's largesse. Thanks to this extra revenue from overbilling, Richards's group had the flexibility to spend a whopping $15 million to put Barack Obama back in the White House, where he can keep the money flowing to his favorite chain
Contact: Tony Perkins
Source: Ililnois Review
Martin Cullen, an intensive care physician in Sydney, writes that the increasing acceptance of euthanasia has helped increase patients' distrust of doctors.
"I never cease to marvel how deeply some families of my patients distrust the medical profession," says Martin Cullen. "Between me and them is a wall of suspicion. I know how used car salesmen must feel."
"No longer do families assume that their loved one will be cared for," he continued. "Families feel they need to be advocates for their sick relative. They aggressively question all of my suggestions for care. I really can't blame them. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalized, non-voluntary euthanasia, aka murder, is no longer unknown."
"Nowadays when I bring bad news to families and tell them that death is imminent and that we can do no more, I expect resistance and hostility," he added. "Just a few weeks ago I was treating an elderly woman who was very sick. Her family told me that they believed that their father had been euthanased years before. They weren't going to let us doctors take their mother, too. They looked at me as if I were a murderer. It was very unsettling for me."
Source: CWN
In June of this past year, photos of a Chinese woman and her dead child flooded the Internet, accompanied by the account of how Feng Jianmei was abducted from her home and forced to undergo a late-term abortion by local family-planning officials. Mrs. Feng's story spread across international news headlines and provoked outrage by national governments. The European Parliament issued a terse statement calling the incident "unacceptable."
A recent article makes the case that any law which restricts abortion--such as waiting periods or parental consent--is the equivalent of China's brutal forced abortion policy that victimized Mrs. Feng. The article from the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion group Planned Parenthood, says this because both represent "coercion in reproductive decision making." According to their analysis, "forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wants or to continue a pregnancy that she does not want both violate the same human rights."
The article equates legal restrictions on abortion to enforced abortion by drawing false parallels with regard to both the nature and intent of the laws being compared. The article's author notably contrasts the continuation of a pregnancy, rather than conception, with its termination. No mention is made of any government policy which provides for the forced impregnation of women, only those which protect a pregnancy which has already been established. While this may be in part due to the fact that no country has a policy which allows for government-sanctioned rape, it also attempts to change the context of the debate.
A large portion of the article focuses on United States laws such as those requiring counseling prior to abortion and blocking taxpayer funds from subsidizing abortions. According to the author's thesis, these policies, like the Chinese family-planning regulations, force women "either to have or to not have children for the greater good of those other than themselves." While the article provides examples of national policies providing incentives or deterrents to childbearing enacted in response to fears of population explosion or implosion, no mention is made of the good of the child itself. The Guttmacher article fails to acknowledge any possible motivations for restricting abortion outside of "pronatalist" efforts by leaders to increase national birth rates.
However, government policies intended to increase childbearing typically focus on factors existing prior to the conception of a child, such as increased maternity leave, tax incentives, and housing benefits, such as those introduced in Russia in the 1980s. While abortion rates in Russia have been declining since the 1970s, the pronatalist policies instituted by the government have been incentives to childbearing, not restrictions on abortion. However, while the Guttmacher article fails to explicitly define which policies encouraging larger families it deems coercive, it provides only the most extreme instances of forced abortion and sterilization as counter-examples.
In their attempt to characterize restrictions on abortion in the United States as human rights violations comparable to forced abortion in China, the author completely ignores the argument that abortion itself is a violation of the human rights of the child, despite the fact that many Americans believe that life begins at conception.
Contact: Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
Source: C-FAM
Many pro-life groups have issued statements regarding the election
results. So perhaps it is time for the Illinois Federation for Right to
Life to issue a post-election statement to our membership, affiliates
and pro-life activists. Perhaps even past time. I have been thinking
about what to say to you. I will not insult or offend you by even
suggesting that giving up or giving in is something that you have
seriously considered. I know you. That is not the spirit that governs
your life. Your heart drives you to do what is right in the face of
great adversity. You simply cannot turn away from confronting evil with
good. So I know you will be on the front line defending innocent life
at all costs no matter how dark the days may appear. You are the light,
you must show up.
The Federation is and will always be a grassroots organization. The
strength of this organization is our foundation. You are our strength.
So I have concluded that it is not time for me to issue a statement to
you but a time for me to seek wisdom from you. It is a time for
questions.
The IFRL Board of Directors will meet soon. And we will begin a process
of evaluation. It is time to think about new ideas, new methods and
new strategies. We intend to do so. We want to hear from you. You are
the past, the present and the future of the pro-life movement in
Illinois. What do you think we need to do to change the direction of
this state? What are your ideas? What has your experience taught you?
Please write us. I am certain that together we will discover the
answers.
We all worked hard. We gave our all. I am aware that it is tough to
face the results. But we are tough. We live in a state that has turned
its back on innocent life but we will not let that stand-ever. So we
get up, brush ourselves off and march on proclaiming the eternal truth
that life is sacred.
Give up? Not a chance.
Contact: Dawn Behnke
Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life
The people of the United States ensured an Obamacare future by
apparently reelecting President Obama and maintaining a Democratic
Senate. Here are the immediate consequences:
1. The IPAB will go into effect: As I have written, IPAB is the
cornerstone of a planned bureaucratic state. The only way now to thwart
that is pure obstructionism. First, by filibustering the nominations
that President Obama will make to the Board. Not going to happen.
Second, by defunding. Even though the House will stay Republican, I
don’t see them taking that route on what, to most people, is an abstract
issue.
2. The attack on religious freedom will continue: The Obama
Administration is an implacable foe of faith operating outside the four
walls of church or cloister. Don’t look for the president to offer
religious institutions who oppose the free birth control rule anything
other than lip service to accommodation of religious institutions.
Businesses will be forced to take their cause to the Supreme Court.
Don’t count on help there, as the technocratic statists control the
court 5-4, perhaps 6-3. Eventually, we will see a free abortion rule.
3. The Mandate will now be carried out: States that have been resisting
will now begin to cooperate with the Feds by establishing exchanges.
4. There will be death panels: In a centralized system, rationing is the
cost containment method of choice. The UK shows us the future of the
USA. Already, powerful liberal voices on health care such as the New
York Times and New England Journal of Medicine, have called for it. It
is going to become very scary to be considered unproductive.
5. Single Payer, here we come: Obamacare is going to eventually implode.
That will also take down the private insurance market. The result, in
about 10 years, will be single payer. And that is by design. Oh, and
single payer’s inevitable outcome is health care rationing.
Obamacare isn’t just about health care. It is–as designed–a cultural
bulldozer, forcing the left’s liberal social views on all of society.
And at this point, I am not sure what can be done about it.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The number of lawsuits against the Obama administration over a rule
forcing employers to provide insurance covering contraceptives and
possible abortifacient drugs reached 40 this week, when a medical supply
company in Minnesota filed a complaint on Nov. 5.
Stuart Lind, who owns Annex Medical, Inc., is a Catholic dedicated to
“conducting business in a way that is pleasing to God and is faithful to
Biblical principles and values,” according to court documents. He says
the mandate is forcing him to violate his religious beliefs.
“This case follows the successful challenges of the (Health and Human
Services) mandate by for-profit businesses in other states,” said Erick
Kaardal of the Minneapolis-based law firm Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.,
one of the attorneys representing Lind. “We are the first to file in
Minnesota. We hope to have the Constitution applied to protect business
owners’ religious liberties elsewhere.”
The Obama administration gave secular businesses until this past August
to comply with the mandate. Faith-based organizations, including
Catholic hospitals, universities and ministries, have a so-called “safe
harbor” extension that gives them until August 2013 to find a way to
comply.
Annex Medical refuses to adhere to the mandate and will drop its
insurance plan altogether by Jan. 31, unless courts provide relief, the
law firm stated.
Tom Janas, a businessman and entrepreneur, is another plaintiff in Annex
Medical, Inc. et al. v. Sebelius. Earlier this year, Janas, who also is
Catholic, sold his company, Roffe Container, Inc., to a competitor
after learning he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs in
order to comply with the HHS mandate. Janas plans to purchase another
business in 2013, and is suing for relief from the mandate.
The 40 lawsuits against the Obama administration currently comprise more than 110 plaintiffs.
Last week, a federal court in Oklahoma heard arguments from Hobby Lobby,
the largest corporation so far to challenge the mandate. The Becket
Fund for Religious Liberties, which is representing Hobby Lobby, said a
ruling on the request not to be forced to comply while the lawsuit
proceeds is expected in the next few weeks. Should the court grant the
request, Hobby Lobby would be the third company to receive temporary
relief from the mandate.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
ADF today is in federal court in the nation's capital defending Tyndale
House Publishers in the first post-election challenge to the HHS
mandate.
Based on its biblical convictions, Tyndale objects to the requirement
that it provide free insurance coverage for drugs that cause abortions.
The Bible publisher actually filed suit October 2 on behalf of the Carol
Stream, an Illinois-based organization that is owned by a foundation.
As OneNewsNow reported earlier, the largest privately held Christian
publisher of Bibles, Christian books and biblical media is not
considered "religious" -- even though it is a non-profit foundation that
provides grants to meet physical and spiritual needs of people
worldwide.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman tells OneNewsNow very serious constitutional issues are at stake.
"Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish," Bowman contends.
"For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is
alarming. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is
willing to disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom
to achieve certain political purposes."
The foundation that owns Tyndale distributes 96.5 percent of its profits
to religious non-profit causes worldwide. Still, the publisher is
subject to the mandate because the Obama administration rules for-profit
corporations as categorically non-religious.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
With the re-election of Barack Obama, the international pro-life movement faces more threats
As Barack Obama prepares for another term as America's president, Human
Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet is calling on
pro-lifers around the world to stay vigilant, to pray, and not to give
up hope.
"Under the most radical anti-life president America has ever seen, the
U.S. taxpayers have funded a destructive foreign policy, which has
already done great harm around the world," said Father Boquet. "But we
must continue to fight for those who cannot defend themselves, and we
cannot lose hope, because the Lord of Life is on our side.
"We need prayer now more than ever for our unborn brothers and sisters
around the world facing death due to the policies of the Obama
administration, and for those facing persecution for daring to spread
the Gospel of Life," Father Boquet said. "May Our Lord Jesus Christ give
us the strength to run the race and win the fight for life."
Contact: Stephen Phelan
Source: Human Life International
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement about President Obama's re-election:
"The collision course of the Obama Administration with the Catholic
Church could have been averted, but now it is assured instead.
"It is therefore time to recommit ourselves to the basics: a clear
proclamation of the truth, an uncompromising fidelity to our principles,
and an unwavering commitment to civil disobedience.
"Many in Church leadership failed to connect the dots between personnel
and policy. They prayed and preached against the HHS mandate, but then
were silent about the election, and called the police to remove citizens
who leafleted the Church parking lot trying to inform voters about
where the candidates stood on this issue.
"Meanwhile, the national pro-life groups have done outstanding work in
this year's election, with initiatives, creativity, and energy as great
as I have ever seen, and there is no doubt that the election results
would have been far worse without that activity.
"The pro-life cause will prevail in America. In the elections of 2014,
we will work for a pro-life Senate majority to further blunt the ability
of President Obama to damage the cause of life.
"And in the meantime we will continue the cultural progress that is so
clearly on the side of life, as more minds and hearts embrace the
unborn, as more abortion mills close, and as more women and men speak up
about how abortion harmed them.
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
Despite pro-life setbacks in the Nov. 6 election, there is still hope
and ample opportunity for progress in promoting a culture of life in the
coming years, pro-life advocates are saying.
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, explained
that the election “confirmed for every pro-lifer that we cannot rely on
politicians to abolish abortion.”
“We first must change the culture and then the culture will shape our politicians and laws,” she told CNA.
On Nov. 6, President Barack Obama was elected to a second term by the
American people after committing himself to furthering tax-payer funded
abortion without restrictions.
Deep political divisions between the U.S. House and Senate also make it
unlikely that major federal pro-life legislation will pass in the coming
years.
At the state level, a Florida measure that would have prevented taxpayer
funds for paying for abortions failed, while a parental notification
law for girls under 16 seeking an abortion in Montana was passed. An
attempt to repeal the death penalty in California also failed to win
voter approval.
But Hawkins believes there is still important work to be done in changing minds and hearts across America.
The election “showed that we can't be afraid to talk about these ‘hard
issues,’” she said, pointing to the Democratic Party’s strong emphasis
on abortion at its national convention and throughout the campaign.
The Republican Party failed to respond with an equally strong emphasis,
she said, and exit polls indicate that “there were a lot of pro-lifers
missing” on Election Day.
“We need to march forward, courageously, doing what we have been doing
for the past four years,” Hawkins asserted. She listed her priorities as
reaching out to women in need, spreading the pro-life message and
working through local efforts to expose and de-fund Planned Parenthood
and remove its presence from schools.
“We need to work to develop better alternative and resource centers in
our communities, so no women is ever forced to sacrifice her kids to and
to put her life in the hands of Planned Parenthood,” she added.
Hawkins also stressed the importance of reaching out to young people.
While support for Obama was down from 2008 among young voters, the
president still captured a significant majority of the youth voting
bloc.
“There is much more work to be done educating young people about abortion,” she said.
While Gallup polls indicate that this generation of young people is
pro-life, it can be difficult for them – having been taught all their
lives that truth is relative – to move from the understanding that
abortion is wrong to the conviction that abortion should be illegal, she
explained.
“We must continue forward, speaking to our young people about their
worldview, why life is intrinsically valuable, and how making a horrific
act such as abortion illegal is the morally right thing to do,” she
said.
Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, agreed
that there is a need to continue building on the “dramatic success”
achieved in the past decade.
The election was definitely a loss for the pro-life movement, she said,
but the good news is that groups like Americans United for Life have a
“clear, direct and strategic plan” for moving ahead.
Despite the hostile atmosphere at the national level, there is
significant hope for pro-life advances at the state level, she
explained.
In the past four years, Americans United for Life has promoted the
passage of nearly 100 pieces of pro-life legislation in states across
America, including sonogram laws, clinic regulations and other abortion
restrictions.
“We’re seeing a tidal wave of pro-life legislation sweep across the
country,” Yoest said, noting that the “accumulation of victories” is
encouraging.
While she acknowledged that it would be good to have Supreme Court
justices who respect the right to life, she added that it is still
possible to navigate around the court’s infamous 1973 decision and
“start legislating for a post-Roe America.”
Yoest also pointed to the importance of changing minds and hearts through one-on-one engagement with women in need.
She cited efforts to partner with pregnancy care centers to show women
that although abortion may be a legal option, it is not a good option.
“By working with those women, we shape the culture,” she explained.
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Two states have pro-life amendments under way, as Mississippi gets set to launch another petition drive for a Personhood Amendment -- and Florida prepares to vote on a proposed pro-life constitutional amendment on Tuesday.
Mississippi's Amendment 26 failed to gain voter approval in last November's election, but that won't stop a renewed effort. Les Riley of Personhood Mississippi tells OneNewsNow the group actually started working on a new campaign the day after the 2011 election.
"The main job has been researching and listening to what voters had to say, what their objections were [to Amendment 26]," he describes. "We're working on another amendment that will address all the concerns that people had, but still protect all children."
That's because in the weeks preceding the 2012 election, Planned Parenthood and even then Governor Haley Barbour confused the issues related to the amendment, according to Riley.
"They said that it would ban birth control and all kinds of other craziness to try to scare people," Riley explains. "Because, you know, Planned Parenthood didn't want people to have an up-or-down vote on banning abortion -- because they knew if they did they would have voted to stop abortion in our state."
According to Mississippi law, a constitutional amendment that fails cannot return to the ballot for two years. Riley hopes to make an announcement soon on launching a new petition drive in early 2013 to put a revised Personhood Amendment on a 2014 ballot.
And in The Sunshine State ...
In a campaign similar to Mississippi's recent campaign for the Personhood Amendment, Florida is presenting the pro-life Amendment 6 for a vote on the 2012 ballot. Yes on 6 Campaign manager Jim Frankowiak tells OneNewsNow the measure has the usual list of opponents, including Planned Parenthood and the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He explains what the amendment would do for the pro-life cause in Florida.
"We want to align Florida law with federal law," he says. "That means no government funds for abortion or health benefit coverage of an abortion. And perhaps of even greater importance is opening the door to future legislation that would restore parental consent for abortion involving a minor female."
At present, Florida does not require parental consent in such cases.
"So a young lady under the age of 18 does not have to tell her parents or guardian if she plans to have an abortion," Frankowiak remarks. "Current law does not require parental notification. It takes 60 percent of the vote in Florida for approval of a constitutional amendment."
Florida's Amendment 6 has been endorsed by many people, including former Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Baptist Convention and Florida Family Action.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
We are told repeatedly that assisted suicide will be a mere "last resort" that needs to be available as an escape valve when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. Never mind that countries in which the populations have embraced assisted suicide/euthanasia, life-terminating practices have expanded to people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, the elderly "tired of life," the mentally ill and depressed–and even widely acknowledged (if still technically illegal) infanticide.
Yet, here in the USA, we are supposed to believe the death agenda is just a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty, miniscule adjustment in medical norms.
Baloney. Assisted suicide advocates are just following the well-worn path of cultural transforming campaigns; insist that there should be little fuss about a minor change about which we need to "have a conversation"–until the radicals control the castle walls. Then the hammer comes down, the minor change grows exponentially, and the conversation is stifled.
But now, with Massachusetts perhaps poised to pass an assisted suicide legalization initiative, we are seeing a little more candor. In Slate, Lewis M. Cohen says that the MA vote will "change how the nation dies." From the article:
But the Massachusetts ballot question has the potential to turn death with dignity from a legislative experiment into the new national norm. The state is the home of America's leading medical publication (the New England Journal of Medicine), hospital (Massachusetts General), and four medical schools (Harvard, Boston University, University of Massachusetts, and Tufts). Passage of the law would represent a crucial milestone for the death with dignity movement, especially since 42 percent of the state is Catholic and the church hierarchy vehemently opposes assisted dying. Vermont and New Jersey are already entertaining similar legislature, and if the act passes in Massachusetts, other states that have previously had unsuccessful campaigns will certainly be emboldened to revisit this subject.
Well, MA is one of the country's most liberal state–and that often counts more than stated religious affiliation. But that point aside, I think that if MA does pass assisted suicide, other states in New England could follow.
And that would be lethal to the Hippocratic value of treating all patients as moral equals. Consider the full-throated advocacy these days for cutting medical costs. What could be cheaper than transforming intentional drug overdoses into a "medical treatment?" About $1000 is about all it would cost to get a patient dead, and that probably includes doctor's visits. But it could cost more than $100,000 to provide the kind of care required so that patients didn't want assisted suicide.
Don't think that issue hasn't crossed the technocrats' minds. Vermont, for example, has created a single payer state health care system. But they don't know how to pay for it. Some are now suggesting legalizing assisted suicide and joining it with health care rationing. Not only that, but the latter could help drive the former.
Normalizing assisted suicide could also put pressure on the dying and seriously ill or disabled to move on. If you think this sounds like a potential "duty to die," you are not crazy. That too is bubbling on the bioethics burner.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The controversy over comments made by U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock reveals the undeniable ugliness of American politics. At the same time, the media firestorm underscores the importance of getting the pro-life position right -- and expressing it well.
Mourdock, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, was debating his opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly when the issue of abortion emerged. Both candidates claimed to affirm that life begins at conception, but Mourdock called for the end of abortion on demand. He then extended his remarks with these words:
"This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen."
Immediately, Mourdock was charged with claiming that God intended a rape to happen. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign said that President Obama "felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women." Democratic operatives and media voices denounced Mourdock as hateful, extremist, and worse, and even many of his fellow Republicans scattered and ran for cover. Some demanded that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should pull an ad supportive of Mourdock.
A closer look at Mourdock's comments reveals that the candidate was not in any true sense calling rape "something that God intended to happen." Everything Mourdock said in that answer flowed from his stated presupposition that life begins at conception, and that every human life is a gift from God.
Nevertheless, the liberal media went into full apoplexy, painting Richard Mourdock as a woman-hating extremist with reprehensible views on an issue as serious as rape.
Almost none of those who quoted Mourdock in making these charges used the full quotation, much less the audio of its delivery in the debate. The full quote reveals that the candidate was affirming the full dignity of every human life, regardless of the circumstance of conception.
To their credit, some in the media saw through the controversy. Writing for The New Republic, Amy Sullivan made clear that she disagrees with Mourdock's position, but she honestly explained his words, and she expressed disappointment in his treatment by many liberal commentators.
In her words:
"Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don't think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they're totally oblivious and insensitive and can't for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I think most don't particularly care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesn't have over her own body. But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about."
She is exactly right, and bravely so. She continued:
"Take a look again at Mourdock's words: 'I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And ... even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.' The key word here is 'it.' I think it's pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen."
Amy Sullivan also acknowledged that Mourdock's position is "a fairly common theological belief." Her candor and honesty were refreshing exceptions to most of the coverage.
Similarly, Kevin Drum, writing in the liberal journal Mother Jones, also registered his disagreement with Mourdock's argument. Nevertheless, he was bold to ask the obvious -- "can't we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?" He added, "What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public."
Both Drum and Sullivan described Mourdock's argument as a form of theodicy, meaning a defense of God that points to good coming out of evil. They are certainly right to identify this argument as germane to the context of rape and pregnancy, but Mourdock did not actually go so far as to make the argument.
The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock's words amount to nothing less than lies.
At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions.
The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock's answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.
The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life's conception. No one would deny that this is true of a 6-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.
No doubt, Mourdock meant to express this point, but his words fell far short of an adequate expression of the argument. In his political situation, that failure might be fatal. In terms of the cause of defending life, his argument makes the task more difficult.
And yet, this controversy was really not about a failure of communication. Behind it all is the great chasm that separates those who defend the sanctity of life and those who defend abortion on demand. With that in mind, how should the defenders of life think about exceptions that might justify an abortion?
One truth must be transparently clear -- a consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.
The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these?
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.
Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.
How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains.
In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year.
Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough.
We must argue for the dignity, humanity and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock's comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.
Contact: R. Albert Mohler
Source: Baptist Press
The American Nursing Association has a draft opinion out reiterating its opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is well worth the read. From the draft opinion:
The American Nurses Association (ANA) is strongly opposed to nurses' participation in assisted suicide and active euthanasia because these acts are in direct violation of The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (herein referred to as The Code, 2001), the ethical traditions and goals of the profession, and its covenant with society. Nurses have an obligation to provide humane, comprehensive, and compassionate care that respects the rights of patients but upholds the standards of the profession in the presence of chronic, debilitating illness and at end-of-life.
The ANA notes that the lives of the terminally ill have just as much value as the lives of other people:
Provision 1, Interpretive Statement 1.3 of
The Code (2001) speaks to the nurse's commitment to the inherent:
"worth, dignity and rights of all human beings irrespective of the nature of the health problem. The worth of the person is not affected by death, disability, functional status, or proximity to death."
That is a hugely important point, but typically, one the media continually ignore or refuse to see in their emotive and one-sided coverage of this crucial cultural issue.
The point of the publication of the draft position is to obtain public comment. May I suggest applause?
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The mother of rock star Steven Tyler's aborted baby continues to advocate for unborn children after writing a 5,000-word account of her experience last year in LifeSite News.
Among the upcoming speaking engagements for Julia Holcomb, now a mother of seven, is a Life Legal Defense Foundation dinner event Nov. 17 in Santa Clara, Calif.
More than 35 years after her abortion, Holcomb recounted the story of her relationship with Tyler, lead singer of the rock band Aerosmith and a former "American Idol" judge, in the 5,000-word account.
She became Tyler's girlfriend in 1973 when she was only 16. Her mother gave guardianship of Holcomb to Tyler, enabling her to travel with him across state lines on the band's tours. He requested she have his child and proposed marriage to her after she became pregnant in 1975.
Tyler changed his mind, according to Holcomb, and pressured Holcomb to abort their child, who turned out to be a boy. In recalling the abortion, Holcomb wrote, "My baby had one defender in life; me, and I caved in to pressure because of fear of rejection and the unknown future. I wish I could go back and be given that chance again, to say no to the abortion one last time. I wish with all my heart I could have watched that baby live his life and grow to be a man."
Holcomb said, "Nothing was ever the same between us after that day, though I did not return home for over a year.... I was grieving the loss of my baby and I could never look at Steven again without remembering what he had done to our son and me."
In his autobiography, Tyler acknowledged the abortion's impact, saying, according to LifeSite News, "You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated." He asked himself, "[W]hat have I done?"
After Holcomb returned home, she began attending a United Methodist church with her family. She "found forgiveness in Jesus," Holcomb said. She met her future husband during her first year in college, and they have been married for more than 30 years. They converted to Roman Catholicism in 1992.
Of her burden to share the pro-life message, Holcomb wrote, "I pray that all those who have had abortions, or have participated in any way in an abortion procedure, may find in my story, not judgment or condemnation, but a renewed hope in God's steadfast love, forgiveness and peace."
Holcomb's account can be accessed at www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-light-of-the-world-the-steve-tyler-and-julia-holcomb-story.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
A pro-life legal organization believes a federal appeals court decision yesterday underlines the importance of the November election.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Indiana's ban on Medicaid tax dollars for Planned Parenthood violates federal rules. The court said the state cannot eliminate the funding just because the abortion giant provides abortions.
Attorney Mary Harned of Americans United for Life tells OneNewsNow she disagrees with how the court interpreted Medicaid rules.
"We believe that [those rules] can be read right now to permit a law like Indiana's -- but of course they're not going to do it that way," she concedes. "What we need is a new administration to clarify that the Medicaid program permits states to prohibit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds; that the states can actually impose these kinds of prohibitions on who can receive their funds."
Harned believes what would be even more effective is for Congress to pass a bill permitting the states to do so, rather than depend on the interpretation of bureaucrats or the courts.
"Absolutely -- that would be the best solution," she says. "And so again that shows why the Senate races are important as well, and of course the House races. We need to have a friendly Congress that could actually revisit this statutorily as well."
Texas also banned Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds. The Obama administration denied Texas funding, so the state is handling the financing of it on its own.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Live Action Advocate has released another video of an undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood.
The probe shows the abortion provider lying about medical emergencies and a patient death. The phone calls were made to different Planned Parenthood locations that have needed ambulances to respond to medical emergencies.
Caller: "Has anyone been hurt? Like, has anyone … had a problem after having [an abortion]?"
Planned Parenthood: "I mean, you have some cramping, you have some bleeding, and, you know, some people faint."
Caller: "But is it dangerous?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
Caller: "Not at all?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
Caller: "So, I'm not gonna get like hurt or anything at the clinic?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
At another facility, the Planned Parenthood worker assures the caller that "both of our procedures are safe and effective" and that no one has been hurt at the clinic. But Live Action reports that there had been medical emergencies at both locations.
The pro-life group also called the Planned Parenthood in Chicago, where Tonya Reaves recently died after undergoing a second-term abortion:
Caller: "Is it safe?"
Planned Parenthood: "Yes, it's safe."
Caller: "Well, has anybody gotten hurt because of having an abortion?"
Planned Parenthood: "Again, it's a very safe environment. It's very clean."
Caller: "So, no one's ever been hurt at your clinic?"
Planned Parenthood: "No."
That clinic worker omitted the situation of Tonya Reaves, who had an incomplete abortion at that facility, which resulted in a perforated uterus. An ambulance was not called for her until more than five hours later. She died at the hospital.
Live Action Advocate called Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states that had had medical emergencies, and not one acknowledged injuries to women.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Here's some food for thought from Trevin Wax at thegospelcoalition.org blog — 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:
1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?
2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on "the war on girls" and the growth of "gendercide" in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?
3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?
5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would deem "unfit" to live?
6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?
7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best friend," pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
8. You describe abortion as a "tragic choice." If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?
9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?
10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?
Contact: Cathy Ruse
Source: Family Research Council
The Texas-based legal firm Liberty Institute sent a letter Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking officials to clarify whether the Family Research Council (FRC) must offer contraceptives and possible abortion-inducing drugs under its employee health care plan.
FRC — a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C. non-profit organization dedicated to advancing faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview — is one of many similar groups nationwide that falls into a gray area under the HHS rule, issued earlier this year. The only groups totally exempt from it are churches; ministries that serve a variety of people have been given only until August 2013 to find a way to comply, compared with the secular businesses that were forced to begin complying this year.
So far, 37 lawsuits from religious organizations, as well as secular businesses owned by people of faith, have filed federal lawsuits against the Obama administration, saying the mandate violates their First Amendment rights.
"We certainly hope the Secretary will read the statute broadly and understand that organizations like FRC, which is a Christian 501c(3) religious nonprofit corporation, ought to be exempt from this draconian requirement," said Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Michael Johnson.
If the Obama administration does not respond by Nov. 5, another lawsuit could soon be added to the growing count.
"If FRC is forced to comply with this unconscionable mandate, we will be happy to file an immediate challenge on its behalf," Johnson said.
FRC President Tony Perkins said the organization will not comply with a mandate that forces it to violate the statement of faith that every job applicant there is required to sign.
"We are committed to repealing and replacing President Obama's unjust health care law, which used taxpayer dollars for abortion, further burdens American families, raises taxes and restricts religious liberty," Perkins said.
So far, only one plaintiff has won relief from the mandate: The Newland family of Denver, Catholics who own a secular heating and air-conditioning manufacturing company. A federal court in Colorado said the family does not have to comply with the rule while its case proceeds.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
A patient advocate group is greatly concerned that hospitals may be deliberately hastening the death of patients.
A survey conducted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) questions whether penalties for hospital readmission and other factors might cause hospitals to hasten the death of patients. The survey finds most people do not know patients who were placed on "terminal sedation" and denied fluids and nutrition.
However, as Dr. Jane Orient of the AAPS tells OneNewsNow, a majority of those surveyed believe Medicare's punishment for hospital readmission may be the cause of some patients' early death.
Of those surveyed, "17 percent said they did have first-hand knowledge of patients who were placed on terminal sedation with denial of fluids and nutrition when, in the doctor's opinion, they could have recovered with aggressive treatment," Orient details.
The survey was launched after one individual heard that a patient who had been relatively healthy was near death.
"She came back from a trip and found that someone who was usually in very good shape was near death in the hospital, being treated with terminal sedation," Orient notes. "[She] managed to stop this, and the patient recovered and did fine afterward."
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was founded in 1943 to protect against government takeover of medicine.
Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading abortion provider, has spent $12 million on this year's presidential election through its political action committees.
That is more than it has ever spent in an election, and about half of it has gone for television ads in such battleground states as Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to the Associated Press.
Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's president, said she has "taken a break from [her] day job" to campaign for President Obama. In a video released by the Obama campaign on Oct. 19, Richards said, "Our daughters' and our granddaughters' future depends on" working to re-elect the president.
Richards' announcement came three days after the second presidential debate, when Obama mentioned Planned Parenthood five times, advocating continued federal funding for the controversial organization. In contrast with previous presidential campaigns, Obama has been outspoken in promoting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Richard Land doesn't "blame Planned Parenthood for being actively involved in the Obama campaign," the Southern Baptist pro-life leader said.
"If one reads the platforms of the two parties, it's in their self-interest to do everything they can to bring about President Obama's re-election, because the Republican platform called for Planned Parenthood to be defunded and the Democratic platform supported continued funding of Planned Parenthood," Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said.
"Unfortunately, there are hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, so I imagine Planned Parenthood sees a $12 million investment as a wise use of their funds in order to protect the gift of hundreds of millions of dollars they receive every year from the federal government.
"Personally, I find it unconscionable that our government is funding Planned Parenthood, and I strongly support their being reduced to zero in the federal budget," Land said.
Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, which are under investigation by a congressional subcommittee, received $487.4 million in grants, contracts and reimbursements from all government levels in 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Planned Parenthood centers reported performing 329,445 abortions in 2010.
During the Oct. 16 debate, Obama again seemed to repeat his mistaken contention that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. He said millions of American women "rely on [Planned Parenthood] for mammograms."
Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms, however, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the FDA said no Planned Parenthood clinic has a license to operate mammogram equipment, according to CNS News.
Planned Parenthood refers women to other clinics for mammograms, the organization acknowledged Oct. 17.
A subcommittee of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee initiated an investigation of Planned Parenthood more than a year ago. It has been looking into reports of potential fraud and failure to report suspected sex abuse and human trafficking.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
A leading abortion rights organization has enlisted Academy Award-winning actress Meryl Streep and other movie/television stars in a campaign against pro-life legislative efforts.
The "Draw the Line" campaign of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) kicked off with online videos Oct. 9 featuring Streep, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Lisa Kudrow, Tea Leoni, Audra McDonald, Olympia Dukakis, Amy Poehler and others.
"Every day, the opponents of our fundamental reproductive rights are passing laws designed to take those rights away," Streep says in her video. "They're shutting down doctors and clinics across the nation. They're making it nearly impossible for millions of women to get the essential health care they need."
The effort urges endorsements of CRR's "Bill of Reproductive Rights," which calls for protection for the right to abortion and other services.
C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., asked by Baptist Press for comment, noted, "Even wonderfully talented people need to be educated about the sanctity of EVERY human life. Women's rights matter. And so do the rights of unborn children, especially the right not to be killed in the womb.
"Pro-life Christians are at least as concerned as these actors and actresses about every woman's right to get accurate information about abortion," said Mitchell, who serves as editor of Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics.
Source: Baptist Press
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's profession that he is personally opposed to abortion while supporting its legalization fails to acknowledge the life-taking reality of abortion, said critics including a prominent Notre Dame law professor.
"It is a matter of yes, or no, and there is no 'personal' as opposed to 'public' about it," said Professor Gerard V. Bradley. "The question is intrinsically, and entirely, public."
Bradley told CNA on Oct. 12 that an analysis of the positions expressed by Biden and other "pro-choice Catholics" suggests that they "simply do not believe what the Church believes, namely, that abortion is the unjustified killing of a human person."
The connection between Catholicism and one's stance on abortion was discussed at the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky.
The 2012 presidential campaign marks the first time that Catholic candidates have run for vice president in both major parties. Moderator Martha Raddatz asked the candidates about their Catholic faith and the role it has played in shaping their contrasting views on abortion.
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said that his pro-life stance is the result of faith, reason and science.
"I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith," he said. "Our faith informs us in everything we do."
In contrast, Biden argued that his support for legalized abortion is compatible with his lifelong Catholic faith, which he said "defines" his identity.
"Life begins at conception, that's the Church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life," he said. "But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others," Biden said.
Bradley said that this line of thought can be traced back to a small gathering of Catholic moral theologians in 1964 who met with the Kennedy family to discuss how one could "support liberalized abortion laws without overtly abandoning 'Catholic teaching' on the matter."
The "personally opposed, but" view on abortion became well-known largely through Catholic politician Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor and presidential candidate who laid out his beliefs in a 1984 speech at Notre Dame, he said.
But Bradley said that "efforts such as those of Cuomo and the Kennedys and of Joseph Biden last night utterly fail."
Their "central flaw," he explained, is a failure to acknowledge "what it is that one is actually opposing."
He observed that "if one judges - as everyone should and as the Church does - that the reason to oppose abortion is the reason to oppose killing any other innocent human person, then the 'personally opposed, but' position sounds ridiculous."
"The reason is that such killing is objectively, and gravely, wrong, a great injustice," he said, noting that no one says they "personally oppose" killing those with Lou Gehrig's disease but think the state should refrain from passing laws against such killing.
When the question is examined clearly, Bradley said, "the issue before public authority when it comes to abortion is the equal protection of the laws against killing."
"The question is not one's 'personal opposition' to anything," he explained. "The question is about public justice."
Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor for the Catholic Association, told CNA that the vice president's comments show a "remarkable disconnect."
"Vice President Biden said that he accepts that life begins at conception, but that he wouldn't impose that belief on others," she said. But the "very purpose of laws in a civil society are to impose limits and to protect the powerless."
Ferguson compared the vice president's position to saying that one is personally opposed to robbing someone at gunpoint but that "I won't impose my belief on others by supporting laws that protect people against robbery."
"His position is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church on the foundational issue of respect for life," she added.
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
ADF is backing Arizona's ban on non-emergency abortions after 20 weeks and has filed a brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Alliance Defending Freedom contends the law is based on expert medical proof that babies have pain sensors by the time they are 20 weeks in the womb, though some argue even sooner. Senior counsel Steven H. Aden tells OneNewsNow, "Every innocent life deserves to be protected."
"Not only does this law protect babies in the womb who feel horrific pain upon being torn apart in an abortion, the law is constitutional because it protects mothers from risky abortions, and it protects society from the barbaric effects of abortions that cause horrific pain to babies," he continues.
According to Aden, those are the core issues.
"The ACLU and The Center for Reproductive Rights, who brought this lawsuit, apparently don't care about that," he gathers. "What they care about is advancing their own political agenda and making money for the abortion industry."
ADF filed the brief on behalf of Doctors on Fetal Pain, an unincorporated association of physicians and medical researchers.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Walking to class with red tape across her lips last year, college student Betsy Joy was approached by a fellow student who asked what she was doing. She gave him literature describing her participation in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. He confided to her that his girlfriend had recently had an abortion.
"I told him where he could go to find healing," said Ms. Joy, a resident of Lansing, Mich. "It was a very powerful experience."
Tomorrow, young people across the country, in more than 1,000 schools and ministries, will take part in this year's Day of Silent Solidarity, which was founded in 2004 by Bryan Kemper, the founder of Stand True Pro-Life Outreach and the Youth Outreach Director for Priests for Life.
"Sometimes silence is the most powerful statement," said Kemper. "As pro-lifers, we try to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, but once a year, we join our silence to their silent suffering. It's not too late to join us." For more information about the event, or to sign up, go to www.silentday.org.
The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity is a project of Stand True, the youth outreach of Priests for Life, and is co-sponsored by LifeNews.com, Students for Life of America and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, challenged people of all ages to get involved with the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity: "Are you willing to give up your voice for a day for those who will never have a voice,'" he asked. "Can you do it for the least of our brothers and sisters?"
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reiterated his pro-life views after he made a statement in an interview that sparked concern about his dedication to protecting the unborn.
"I think I've said time and again that I'm a pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president," Romney told reporters in Ohio, according to Politico.
The former Massachusetts governor said that he would immediately "remove funding for Planned Parenthood."
"It will not be part of my budget," he stated.
"And also I've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president," he added. "I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas."
The comments came one day after controversy was raised by reports that the GOP contender had contradicted his previous position on abortion.
In an Oct. 9 interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney said, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
He explained that he would use an executive order rather than legislation to revive the Mexico City policy, which President Obama had removed. Recent presidents have used executive orders to either remove or reinstate the policy according to their views on abortion.
The statements caused a stir among those who feared that the former governor was backing off of his commitment to the pro-life cause.
Some of Romney's critics have been skeptical of his claim that he had a pro-life conversion in 2004, after he confronted the issue of embryonic stem cell research and saw that it was wrong to create a human life simply to later destroy it.
However, Romney's advocates say that he has maintained a solidly pro-life record since his conversion, even in difficult political situations. As governor, he supported abstinence education in schools and vetoed legislation to allow the morning-after pill to be sold over-the-counter.
Spokeswoman Andrea Saul reiterated that Romney is "proudly pro-life" and "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
Romney has previously voiced support for the Hyde Amendment, which is already part of current law and largely prohibits the use of taxpayer money for abortion, as well as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortion from the point at which unborn children can feel pain.
He has also repeatedly promised to appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution rather than activist judges who seek to define it in alignment with their own views.
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Human Life International took a close look at a study suggesting Obamacare will reduce abortions and concludes it is not true.
After thoroughly examining the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare"), Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International suggests that if the government wants to reduce abortions, it is going about it in the wrong way.
In the first place, Clowes points out that in states that fund abortion, the abortion rate is 50 percent higher. Secondly, he is convinced the government will get as many teenagers as possible on IUDs and injectable birth control.
Clowes
"The problem with this is IUDs and injectables have chemicals that cause early abortions," he says. "I was just looking at the patient information pamphlets, and they say on all of these things they cause early abortions by rendering the uterine lining hostile to implantation."
Plus, he believes teens will feel a false sense of security, resulting in promiscuity and a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The study in favor of ObamaCare, however, stresses that every unwanted pregnancy that is avoided will save $13,000.
"But they completely neglect that over the 80-year lifespan of even an unwanted baby, they pay tremendous benefits back into society in taxes and goods consumed and so on, which amounts to millions of dollars each," Clowes tells OneNewsNow.
"I did a little calculation and found that for every single dollar that you save by using this kind of birth control, you lose $150 in the long run."
He concludes the long-term financial impact of ObamaCare will create an additional societal burden.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
