In 1996, then-President Bill Clinton famously said he would like to see abortion "safe, legal and rare." Seventeen years later, abortion remains legal. It kills more than a million unborn babies a year, so it is certainly not rare. And as a new project called "Safe & Legal" demonstrates, abortion is not safe for women.
"We are bringing graphic visuals to the truth that abortion harms women," explains Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, which is co-sponsoring this project along with Operation Rescue and Life Dynamics (the group which initiated it).
A new brochure, entitled "Safe and Legal," shows a beautiful photo of Marla Cardamone, and then her horrific autopsy photos following her death by "safe and legal abortion" at a respected hospital in Pittsburgh, PA.
"I am grateful to Marla's mom, Deborah, and her husband for their full support of this project and their permission to use these photos," said Fr. Pavone. "As they know, this project isn't just about Marla; it's about the countless women Marla represents, who are killed by abortion without the world ever knowing."
This past July, Priests for Life and its Director of African-American Outreach, Alveda King, helped bring attention to a young mother, Tonya Reaves, who was killed after a botched second-trimester abortion in Chicago.
"The utter failure of the abortionist to get help for Tonya after she developed complications constitutes nothing less than murder," Fr. Pavone explained.
The case of Tonya, and many others, will be highlighted along with that of Marla on the special website, SafeAndLegal.com that has been developed for this project.
The brochure about Marla will be distributed widely by Priests for Life and others at this year's March for Life. Moreover, also at the March, Priests for Life will release Executive Director Janet Morana's new book, Recall Abortion, which makes the case that abortion is a failed product that should be recalled by the government just as other harmful products have been recalled. This book, along with the annual gathering of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, which Janet co-founded, will reinforce the same message about how abortion harms women.
"We ask everyone to get involved and to spread the truth about Marla and others killed and wounded by abortion," said Fr. Frank. "As Deborah Cardamone has said often, we have to speak, because if we are silent, we are part of the problem."
For more info, and for audio and video format of this press release, visit Priestsforlife.org/Marla.
Source: Priests for Life
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans View Abortion as Morally Wrong
Four decades after the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new KofC-Marist Poll shows that more than 8 in 10 Americans (83 percent) favor significant restrictions.
The poll reveals that support for significant abortion restrictions has increased by four points since last year -- rising from 79 percent to 83 percent.
Of the 83 percent who support significant restrictions on abortion, 10 percent believe abortion should never be permitted; 12 percent believe abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother; 34 percent would restrict abortion only to cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother; and 27 percent would limit abortion to -- at most -- the first three months of pregnancy.
Just 11 percent would allow abortion at any time, while 6 percent would allow it during the first six months of pregnancy.
"After four decades of legalized abortion in this country, Americans have had ample time to understand that abortion has terrible consequences," said Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. "They understand abortion's true legacy -- a child loses life, and parents lose a child. And after witnessing the effects of abortion for the past 40 years, Americans are not legally or morally comfortable with that legacy. It is time for our country to chart a new course on this issue -- a course that protects both the mother and the child."
The survey also found that nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) believe abortion is "morally wrong." And 84 percent of Americans say laws can protect both mothers and unborn children.
"For years polls have found that Americans divide on labeling themselves as pro-life or pro-choice," said Lee Miringoff of The Marist Poll. "By asking more detailed questions about their specific views on abortion, we have been able to go beyond those labels to get a more complete picture of what Americans actually think about this issue."
Source: Knights of Columbus
On behalf of the adult stem researchers it represents, the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and their co-counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, expressed great disappointment that the United State Supreme Court declined to hear their petition for certiorari. The petition made two central arguments: first, that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in holding that President Obama's Executive Order issued in 2009 can and did excuse an agency's failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act; and second, that that a preliminary injunction ruling is binding 'law' of the case. In declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court did not decide these questions, but did effectively end the case.
Petitioner adult stem cell researcher Dr. James Sherley said:
"There are many human histories that teach us that the path to ending obvious inhumanities against humanity can be blocked by the blunt dismissal of knowledge and reason. The course of our court case to emancipate human embryos from research slavery sponsored by the NIH is yet another of these histories. Today's refusals by the Supreme Court to hear our case is not the ending of our cause. Instead, it provides a new basis for educating the world that embryos are living human beings, worthy of all the safeguards provided to other human research subjects. "
Petitioner adult stem cell researcher Theresa Deisher said:
"This lawsuit brought critical information into the public forum that had been suppressed by embryonic stem cell proponents. While the legal fight seems to have been lost for now, unless and until Congress acts to correct this waste of taxpayer funds, this case brought adult stem cells to the forefront of many scientists' minds and contributed significantly to the adult stem cell progress and focus that many scientists and clinicians are following. Without this suit many of these scientists and clinicians might have traveled blindly down the embryonic and aborted fetal stem cell roads. Patients will benefit because we raised the issue and brought awareness to the importance of adult stem cells. Adult stem cells continue to be safe, effective and affordable while embryonic and aborted fetal stem cells therapies fail patients by their tumor forming capacity, exorbitant cost and moral harms."
Petitioners initially brought this case over three years ago when, in response to President Obama's March 9, 2009, Executive Order, the NIH published and noticed for public comment regulatory guidelines allowing federal funds to be used for the first time for the creation of new stem cell lines (hESC) requiring and providing incentives for the destruction of living human embryos. The Petitioners contended then--and, indeed, continue to argue--that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for funding human embryonic stem-cell research are invalid because they not only disregard the limitations in the Executive Order but also violated the plain language of federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and because they were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Dickey Wicker Amendment currently prohibits the use of federal funds for "(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 C.F.R. 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g (b))." Pub. L. No. 112-74, § 508. "Congress enacted the Amendment 'in reaction to a 1994 NIH panel report,'" which "advocated federal funding of research 'designed to improve the process of in vitro fertilization, to determine whether embryos carried genetic abnormalities, and to isolate embryonic stem cells." Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 400 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Henderson, J., dissenting). The Dickey-Wicker Amendment has been included in every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 1996, and has not been altered in any material respect. Thus, Congress continues to prohibit federal funding for "research in which" an embryo is "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
Sam Casey, JC-LOLP's General Counsel who served as co-counsel for Petitioners in the case, described the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling today saying:
"After almost four years of litigation the courts are apparently telling Congress that the Dickey-Wicker Amendment's language isn't plain enough to achieve its intentions. To fix this 'ambiguity' Congress at least will need to consider changing the phrase "research in which" to "research involving" and the phrase "are destroyed" to "are or have been destroyed." Hopefully, Congress will do so, along with any other steps deemed necessary to once again make plainly unlawful the federal funding of destructive human embryo research which the record shows continues to be an unnecessary, unethical and a wasteful use of the federal taxpayer's money."
After the NIH initially promulgated its proposed guidelines, they received approximately 49,000 public comments, more than 60% of which—that is, approximately 30,000—raised serious and highly relevant questions about the ethics and scientific merits of human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH refused to consider those comments, however, erroneously saying that the President's Executive Order precluded such consideration that would otherwise have been required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals incorrectly held that NIH's refusal to address numerous comments that it received in promulgating the Guidelines was justified by an executive order (Executive Order 13,505) issued by President Obama.
Petitioners' request for certiorari argued that the D.C. Circuit's holding embraces a fundamentally mistaken and unprecedented view of Executive power, authorizing the President to exempt agencies from the APA's requirements at will: "If allowed to stand, the decision below would eviscerate the vital checks that Congress has imposed on agencies to ensure transparency, accountability, and rationality in administrative decision-making."
Under the D.C. Circuit's erroneous rulings, Petitioners couldn't challenge the NIH's guidelines directly. Accordingly, the petition argued that because the President cannot dictate the outcome of a rulemaking in advance, declare all dissenting views and contrary data irrelevant, and essentially circumvent the ban on arbitrary and capricious agency action by instructing an agency to act in a way that plainly violates federal law, the D.C. Circuit was wrong to reject Petitioner's claim that the NIH Guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the petition contended that the D.C. Circuit wrongly declined to resolve Petitioners' claim that the NIH Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, by ruling that the preliminary-injunction decision in this case was a "definitive, fully considered [one]" made on what it later deemed a "fully developed factual record." Petitioners were relying on Supreme Court case law holding that rulings by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at later stages of the case, so the D.C. Circuit panel erred in concluding that the preliminary-injunction ruling resolved the Dickey-Wicker Amendment claim.
Thus, this appeal to the United States Supreme Court was necessary to correct procedural errors made by the courts below so that this important case could be resolved in the courts below on the merits. The Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project's General Counsel, Sam Casey, concluded by saying:
"Sure we are disappointed that the Court declined to hear our clients' case. Each time federal grant money is awarded to support human embryonic stem cell research, living human embryos are at risk. Not only is this an ethical tragedy, as well as a waste of taxpayers' money on unethical research that has not to date led to any therapeutic benefits, but it is also a clear violation of what we believe Congress intended when it passed the current federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Sadly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeal found ambiguity in the statutory language that we continue to believe is not there. We also think that the President, by authorizing NIH non-compliance with federal law, overstepped his legal boundaries, and it is now imperative that Congress step in to clarify the law. The Constitution and the Supreme Court say Congress enacts the laws in this country, not the Executive Branch. Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear our case, the matter necessarily returns to Congress who will have to decide whether to amend the Dicker-Wicker Amendment to make it even clearer for the courts that Congress does not want NIH expending federal taxpayer funds on unethical and unnecessary embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of living human embryos."
Source: Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project
Last February, the ACLU released an Illinois-based poll saying that only one in three thought doctors offering ultrasounds to expectant mothers before undergoing an abortion was acceptable. The poll, conducted by Fako & Associates of suburban Lisle, found the majority of both men (57%) and women (53%) opposed the bill.
But now, only a year later, ultrasounds are in the news again. Ultrasounds have become so popular, that expectant mothers are hiring medical technicians to provide entertainment at their baby showers. A live, in utero introduction to a welcomed baby has now become the "must do" for trendy moms.
But ultrasounds being offered to expectant moms outraged Illinois' ACLU activists in 2012. The bill required abortionists to simply offer an ultrasound to all clients considering an abortion. All the woman would need to do to opt out is decline the offer in writing, using a form provided by the abortionist and retained by the Departent of Public Health.
HB 4085 would have provided mothers an image of their expectant child and insight into its superficial health condition.
Another attempt at offering ultrasound images of an unborn child may find less resistance among the public in 2013, but it's for certain the ACLU will remain firmly opposed.
Source: Illinois Review
In the aftermath of November's election, many are wondering if there's any life left in the Republican Party's pro-life movement.
Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List tells OneNewsNow that when Republicans lose, they tend to point "an accusing finger at social conservatives" -- an attitude she says is a mistake, as the pro-life issue has not been at the forefront of party politics.
"That is disheartening to think about the real base of the Republican Party that are the faithful voters, the ones who do all the grunt work in election time," she comments.
"You know, leaving those people with just the impression that Yes -- it'll be in the platform, but we're really not going to act upon it is really politically disastrous for the Republicans."
So Musgrave says Republicans need to re-engage on the sanctity of human life. She also believes pro-life groups took a blow in the last election.
"But … I've been in this battle a long time, and we are on the right side of this when we stand for life," the former U.S. congresswoman asserts. "And I know that we will be always ready to stand for the sanctity of human life, even when dealt a blow like seeing the most pro-abortion president ever reelected in this country."
Musgrave goes on to stress that pro-lifers, regardless of political affiliation, have certainly revived and are fully prepared to press on in the fight for life.
Source: OneNewsNow.com
In response to a motion for preliminary injunction filed by attorneys with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society, the Federal District Court in Chicago today ordered that the Federal Government may not enforce its contraception mandate on Plaintiffs Triune Health Group and its owners
Triune Health Group and its owners, Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, represented by attorneys with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society, are among the dozens of employers around the country challenging the HHS required coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortifacients on religious liberty grounds.
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 requires 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.
"We applaud the court's decision to enjoin pending further litigation the imposition of these unnecessary and unconstitutional federal regulatory requirements. The federal governments ought not to be able coerce our clients to violate their conscientious convictions in a fashion that is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Samuel B. Casey, Managing Director and General Counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. Mr. Casey 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 free conscience."
Mr. Casey concluded: "The Yeps and their company, Triune Health Group, are far from alone. More than 47 lawsuits like the Yeps' federal suit are pending in the federal courts with some courts granting the preliminary injunctive relief requested and others declining to do so. We are particularly encouraged that the Court today, pending further litigation, enjoined the HHS from applying the federal contraceptive mandate to our client health management company."
The most recent polling data from December 2012 shows Americans support a religious exemption to the HHS contraceptive mandate for individuals and organizations like the Yeps and Triune.
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. The 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. By issuing its Order today granting a preliminary injunction that Court has indicated that it believe Triune is likely to prevail on these claims.
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.
Source: Illinois Review
Attorneys for Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society await decisions by federal and state courts on their motions for preliminary injunction to stop the State of Illinois and the Federal Government from imposing confiscatory fines and other legal sanctions on a Roman Catholic health management company for exercising their state and federal free exercise of religion rights not to be forced to pay for abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and the related counseling now being imposed upon non-exempt businesses by state and federal law.
Christopher and Mary Anne Yep, the devout Roman Catholic founders and owners of Triune Health Group, Ltd., having already filed separate federal and state court complaints, now await each court's decision on their pending federal and state court requests for preliminary injunctions to stop the federal and the Illinois state governments, pending further litigation, from forcing them under sanction of severe monetary penalties and other regulatory requirements to provide insurance coverage and pay for abortifacients, sterilizations, contraceptives and related counseling that they conscientiously believe constitutes material cooperation with evil as taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Yeps, devout 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 contraceptive mandate, administered by HHS and the other federal agencies named in the lawsuit, as well as the Illinois insurance contraceptive mandate, administered by Illinois' Department of Insurance, require the Triune to provide and pay for 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 in a fashion that is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Samuel B. Casey, Managing Director and General Counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. Mr. Casey 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 free conscience." Mr. Casey concluded:
"The Yeps and their company, Triune Health Group, are far from alone. More than 47 lawsuits like the Yeps' federal suit are pending in the federal courts with some courts granting the preliminary injunctive relief requested and others declining to do so. We are particularly encouraged that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal on Friday, pending further litigation, enjoined the HHS from applying the federal contraceptive mandate to a Roman Catholic construction company in a case whose constitutional and statutory claims are factually and legally indistinguishable from our own. We trust the federal court in our case will consider the Seventh Circuit's decision persuasive if not binding precedent to follow in our case."
The most recent polling data from December 2012 shows Americans support a religious exemption to the HHS contraceptive mandate for individuals and organizations like the Yeps and Triune.
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. The 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.
Copies of the key Illinois and federal court filings in the Triune Health Group cases are available here or upon request.
Source: Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project
Arts and crafts retailer Hobby Lobby says it is willing to pay fines of $1.3 million per day to follow its owners' religious beliefs, which conflict with the federal mandate that requires coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.
"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby in the case.
"To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs," he explained.
Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, David Green, has said that his family – which has owned the company since its 1972 founding – will continue seeking to serve God through their business decisions.
In addition to making significant charitable donations, the company closes all of its stores on Sundays so that its employees can have time to worship and rest with their families.
However, the Greens' ability to run their company in accordance with their religious beliefs is being threatened by the contraception mandate, which was finalized by the Department of Health and Human Services in Jan. 2012.
The mandate requires employers, regardless of their religious convictions, to provide health insurance plans that cover sterilization and contraception, including some drugs that can cause early abortions. As Christians, the Greens are opposed to facilitating any type of abortion, including those caused by "morning after" and "week after" pills.
Hobby Lobby is one of more than 100 plaintiffs that have sued over the mandate, arguing that it violates the First Amendment's religious freedom protections.
The federal government has argued that the owners of "secular, for-profit" companies cannot exercise freedom of religion in their business decisions.
Both a district court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction to block the mandate from taking effect while the lawsuit works its way through the court system.
The company then made an emergency injunction appeal to the Supreme Court.
On Dec. 26, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – who is responsible for hearing emergency requests from the 10th Circuit – denied the appeal, saying that the case did not meet the extreme standard necessary for the nation's highest court to intervene.
The Greens can now continue their appeal before the federal appellate court. However, because they were not granted an injunction, they are subject to fines of more than $1 million per day – beginning Jan. 1 – so that they can follow their consciences while their case is being considered.
Duncan emphasized that the case is not over.
"The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time," he said. "It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit."
Source: CNA/EWTN News
2012 brought with it a major Supreme Court decision, plus a massacre that plunged the nation into sadness.
On Friday, December 14 -- less than two weeks before Christmas -- a gunman forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, gunning down six adults and then 20 children in two rooms of the school. OneNewsNow talked with Liberty Counsel Action vice president Matt Barber, who said as a result both the nation and individuals need to experience change.
"We see that the culture of death -- which has been pushed certainly since 1973; since the Roe v. Wade decision -- coming out of the left is a culture that embraces violence in entertainment," he stated. "We find that America is sick in the soul."
Barber went on to say that the only thing that will save America is a revival to change the hearts of men, and a return to respecting and honoring God -- but added it's a certainty that cannot be legislated.
Will Marotti, pastor of New Life Church in Wallingford, Connecticut, was one of the first to respond to counsel families and emergency responders. He said churches in the area, including his, were packed the Sunday after the massacre, and not with just the expected Christmas crowd.
"The problem is that many times, though they run to God and then they begin to feel a sense of safety and security come back; and as we saw in 9-11, churches all over the country saw this swell in attendance. But as soon as the security and safety came back, it was like the tide rolled out and took a lot of folks back with them -- so it's a temporary faith."
Pastor Marotti told OneNewsNow that's not the kind of faith that is needed. "Saving faith is long term, lasting faith in the good times, bad times, and everything in between," he said.
Marotti added it is up to the individual members of the Body of Christ to take the gospel out into the community to bring people to Christ, disciple them, make them feel welcome in church, and encourage them to continue on the path laid out in the gospel. There have been four mass shootings in as many years.
ObamaCare before SCOTUS
The entire country was waiting for the Supreme Court's decision on whether to uphold ObamaCare or declare it unconstitutional. Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver forecast what it would mean if the court upheld the individual mandate.
"It means that the Supreme Court has authorized the federal government to have unlimited power far beyond the original intent of the constitution," said Staver. "It's going to go beyond the mandates that we've recently seen with regards to abortion funding. It'll cover all kinds of things that the federal government will have the power to do to literally override our religious beliefs and collide with our moral values."
In its split decision sustaining the law, the Supreme Court left the door open a bit by saying that upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare's individual mandate did not mean that constitutional rights could be violated.
In November, Liberty Counsel learned that the Supreme Court had decided to revisit its case challenging the employer mandate, which requires businesses and institutions to offer insurance, and the coverage required by law, regardless of the employers' religious beliefs. That includes contraception, abortion-causing drugs and sterilization -- all for free. Liberty Counsel's case is on behalf of Liberty University.
Lower courts go against mandate
Several courts, however, have ruled that the mandate does violate constitutional protections of religious freedom. One is Weingartz Supply Company and its owner Daniel Weingartz, who is a committed Christian.
Weingartz is represented by Thomas More Law Center's Erin Mersino, who said the federal court ruling impinges on their religious freedom.
"Basically the court went through every step of the analysis and said that it was unclear that the government had a compelling interest in the HHS mandate in promoting women's public health," Mersino reported.
Federal Judge Robert Cleland said in his ruling that "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."
Essentially, this is the furthest reaching injunction rendered from the court so far.
The various federal court rulings are making their way through the system to the nation's high court, where attorneys are hopeful the majority of the nine justices will rule that religious freedom overrides the authority of the mandate.
Planned Parenthood responsible for death
Several organizations kept a close watch on abortion clinics around the country in 2012. In a Chicago Planned Parenthood, 24-year-old Tonya Reaves had an abortion that went awry. Operation Rescue's Cheryl Sullenger said Reaves was left bleeding for five-and-a-half hours before an ambulance was called to rush her to emergency room doctors.
"They found out that she had been given an incomplete second-trimester abortion," said Sullenger. "They had to redo the abortion, and then they found out the uterus had also been perforated and that's what was causing the uncontrolled bleeding."
That was repaired, but it was too late and Reaves died. Operation Rescue has requested an investigation.
In Birmingham, Alabama, complaints were filed against New Woman All Women Health Care after ambulances were called to rush women to the hospital three times in one day. State authorities have closed the clinic after an investigation resulted in 71-pages of health code violations.
In Rockford, Illinois, pro-lifers maintained a constant vigil on an abortion clinic and were finally able to convince state authorities to investigate. They did and the clinic is permanently closed.
Activist, family leave China for U.S.
One of the thrilling stories of the year involved Chen Guangcheng, a blind, self-taught lawyer and activist against China's forced-abortion policy.
Chen was imprisoned and tortured time and again for over four years, and upon his release, authorities kept him and his wife imprisoned in their home, where they were regularly beaten.
Chen escaped in the dead of the night, made his way to the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and then was hospitalized. Bob Fu of ChinaAid was able to call him from America.
"Basically, he was in the hospital, feels very isolated and even during my conversation with him he was crying and kept telling me that please help and bring my family to the U.S.," reported Fu.
That situation caused a diplomatic tussle between the two countries, but eventually Chen, his wife, and two children were able to fly to New York where he is now a student.
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Attorney Christopher Johnson has filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asking the court to allow Mr. Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo, to serve as Guardian for Mr. Gary Harvey. In 2006, Mr. Harvey, a Chemung County resident, was involved in a home accident, which left him with a profound brain injury. His spouse, Mrs. Sara Harvey, sought guardianship only to be denied by the Chemung County Supreme Court who ultimately appointed the Chemung County Department of Social Services as Mr. Harvey's guardian. Since that time, Mrs. Harvey has been in a prolonged court battle with Chemung County officials and the New York State Court System.
Indeed, it was in May of 2009 when the ethics committee from the hospital where Mr. Harvey was residing recommended the removal of his nutrition and hydration tube, and also issued a "do-not-resuscitate order" (DNR). Fortunately, the court denied that request. However, inexplicably, the DNR stayed in place and Mr. Harvey remains under the control of Chemung County, despite the fact that the county tried to end his life.
"I have raised the question many times, 'How can Chemung County, Guardian of Mr. Harvey, be acting in his best interest when they, in fact, tried to kill him?' From all indications, it appears that Mr. Harvey has been warehoused and denied the opportunity to receive the care and rehabilitative services that would benefit his condition," stated Bobby Schindler.
It is the hope that with this filing, the court will recognize that Mr. Harvey deserves the chance to receive aggressive therapy and rehabilitation. Certainly from Mr. Schindler's experience with brain injured persons, he would afford Mr. Harvey the help he needs in the hopes to significantly improve his quality of life.
Bobby Schindler is the brother of Terri Schiavo and is the Executive Director of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, established in 2005 to protect the rights of the medically vulnerable.
Source: ProLifeBlogs
When Arizona new mother Alicia Atkins posted a photo taken by her husband during her recent c-section on Facebook, she thought it would only be viewed by a handful of friends. Instead it has drawn the attention of thousands of complete strangers, as well as the media.
The remarkable photo shows Alicia's newborn daughter, Nevaeh ("heaven" spelled backwards) reaching out and grasping the gloved fingers of a doctor. Already the photo has been viewed thousands of times, and is rapidly being shared on Facebook.
Source: Illinois Review
As we look back on the past year, we conclude that 2012 is a year that will go down in infamy.
For the first time in history, the government has attempted to force Americans to pay for the ending of human life – even if abortion violates their religious beliefs.
The issue came to a head this summer when the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate was scheduled to go into effect. The mandate forces employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. And many employers are compelled to provide these in spite of their sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary.
A family business in Denver decided to take a stand and say "no" to the Obama Administration abortion pill mandate. The Newland family realized that they and their business faced a terrible choice: either comply with the mandate and violate their religious beliefs, or refuse and face crippling fines and penalties.
Alliance Defending Freedom came to the defense of the Newland family. Thankfully, we were able to win an important victory in court. The judge granted an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the abortion pill mandate against the Newlands. However, while this decision is a tremendous victory, it is not the end.
Rather, it is the first battle in an ongoing war—a war to determine whether the government gets to decide not only who is religious, but which religious beliefs are worthy of protection.
Here are five reasons why the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate should concern you.
1. If you are an employer, you may be forced to pay for health insurance that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization whether it violates your religious beliefs or not.
2. If you are an employer and provide health insurance but refuse to include abortion pills, you may be fined $100 per employee per day.
3. If you are an employee where your conscience about abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization was previously respected, you may now be forced into a health plan that violates your religious beliefs.
4. If you are an employee who refuses coverage, you will be fined the greater of either the cost of the plan or 1% of your salary for the first year, 2% of your salary the second year, and 2.5% each year after that.
5. Finally, you should be concerned that Planned Parenthood helped craft the mandate and applauded the abortion pill mandate's provisions. This is not surprising when you consider Planned Parenthood is the largest provider in America's abortion industry.
With the implementation of ObamaCare, the government has become the dictator of conscience. Because of the abortion pill mandate, people must either comply and violate their religious beliefs, or resist and pay the penalty for their faith.
Source: Alliance Defending Freedom
Pro-life advocates worry that the November elections might have resulted in a weakening of congressional pro-life sentiment.
The unanimous passage through the Senate of a defense spending bill that expands abortion access for military personnel has generated concern that pro-life politicians are in retreat because of the November election results.
"It's extremely disappointing," Tom McClusky, vice president of the Family Research Council, said of the National Defense Authorization Act's almost certain endorsement by the House of Representatives after passage by the Senate. "And we're concerned that we've allowed the other side to frame the debate entirely in terms advantageous to helping women. Everyone wants to help women. But we also want what happens to the child to be part of the debate. The child is a human being."
But McClusky said he saw the passage of the bill as a result of a general failure by the pro-life movement. "We all have to take responsibility," he said. "If we point fingers, the pointing would go full circle."
The defense bill was passed by the Senate unanimously Dec. 4 with an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., that provides medical coverage for military personnel to obtain abortions at military facilities in the case of rape or incest. It otherwise leaves in place the existing ban on funding or facility use for other abortions except when a servicewoman's life is in danger because of her pregnancy.
Since 1976, Congress has annually attached an amendment to all funding bills banning federal spending on abortions except when the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. The amendment is named after its initial proponent, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois. During the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats forced the rape and incest exemptions into the Hyde Amendments, and these have remained in place. But they were never added to military appropriation bills until now, said McClusky.
McClusky and other pro-life analysts said the House was almost certain to accept the inclusion of Shaheen's amendment when the Senate and House negotiate the final version of the defense bill.
Victimizing Unborn Children
In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II confirmed that "the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral."
Added Blessed John Paul II, "The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end" (57).
Marie Hilliard of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia said that politicians were wrong to vote for the bill, but pro-life Americans should have been contacting their congressional representatives to let them know "there are two victims or potential victims when there is a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, the woman and the child."
Hilliard added, "It is a tragedy when a woman is sexually assaulted, but the unborn child should not be treated as a perpetrator. The child is innocent and should not become a victim too." Society, or, in this case, the military, should reach out to support women in this situation and offer them alternatives to abortion, she said.
As for congressional politicians, Hilliard rejected the idea that they had to vote for the bill because its good features outweighed the pro-abortion aspects.
"Pope John Paul II's teaching on incremental legislation allowed politicians to support laws that made abortion a little more difficult though not eliminating it altogether," she said. "But I don't think this teaching allows support for laws that make abortion a little bit easier."
Among supporters of the bill was a leading pro-life senator, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. Some pro-life observers were concerned about her support of the bill's inclusion of funding for military abortions, particularly in light of her previous 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee and 0% from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Ayotte's compromise on this pro-life issue came in the wake of a call from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to fellow Republicans to play down their beliefs about abortion and life issues.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday on Nov. 25, he suggested that, while "I can state my position on abortion," Republicans should, "other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation that we're in." McCain also voted in support of Shaheen's amendment to the defense bill.
'Complex Politics'
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, refuses to find any fault with the pro-life senators who supported the bill, given the "complex politics involved."
But Dannenfelser shares McClusky's concern about the impact of the election on pro-life advocacy in the corridors of power.
"I am concerned generally about the lack of courage shown by the Republican Party and about the wrong conclusions being drawn from the election results," Dannenfelser said.
What is worrisome to pro-life activists are the implications of the measure's passage unanimously through the same Senate that managed to muster 38 socially conservative votes early in December to defeat a U.N. disabled-rights treaty.
McClusky said the way the abortion issue played out in the November elections was problematic for the pro-life cause, especially in the case of Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin, whose controversial use of the term "legitimate rape" to explain his opposition to abortion in the case of rape contributed to his loss.
Richard Mourdock similarly lost his bid for a Senate seat in Indiana after he said that a pregnancy resulting from rape was "something that God intended to happen." This was widely and deliberately misconstrued by Democrats and mainstream news media to mean that he thought God approved of rape when it resulted in pregnancy.
McClusky said, "The pro-life movement has failed to defend or argue well enough the position that we care about women, yes, but we care about children in all circumstances." He added that the Republican Party and the pro-life movement should have prepared its candidates better to advocate for life and not fall back into a defensive stance.
Another Washington activist for an organization with strong pro-life views who spoke with the Register on condition of anonymity said that Mourdock and Akin were known to stumble over explanations of pro-life positions and should have been better prepared.
The pro-life advocate was worried about a misperception growing within the Republican leadership that the party lost the presidential election and some other close races because of social issues and, consequently, should now tread softly with positions regarded as conservative in these areas, especially with life issues.
Dannenfelser agreed strongly that this is a misperception. "There is no data to support the idea that the Republicans suffered generally or in the presidential race from socially conservative positions," she said. It is true that in a few individual races they did suffer.
"But, overall, it was a wash; socially conservative issues helped in some areas and hurt in others."
Defensiveness Doesn't Work
But the Republican Party's pro-life position on abortion would have been more of an asset, Dannenfelser believes, if Republicans had been more willing to promote it during the campaign and if they had defended themselves less feebly against attacks that accused the party of being anti-women.
"The Republicans were on the defensive from the start," she said. "They let the other side slap the extremist label on them without response. They never tried to label the other side as extreme."
Contact: Steve Weatherbe
Source: National Catholic Register
Though new studies confirm a link between abortion and breast cancer, that information is not being widely reported.
Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer tells OneNewsNow the studies [PDF] conducted in France and China between 2009-2011 confirm that breast cancer cases are related to the number of abortions a woman has. LifeNews.com reports that the authors examined information on disease diagnosis, demographics, medical history, and reproductive characteristics of the patients involved. They also looked at a number of other factors.
"There have been 71 studies now that have been published, epidemiological studies showing a statistical relationship between having an abortion and having an increased breast cancer risk," Malec notes.
Even so, she says, most women remain uninformed about it because many cancer-related not-for-profit organizations look the other way.
"They are ignoring it, and they're misrepresenting the research," the pro-lifer laments. "It's simply not good for fundraising to tell women that their abortions may be responsible for their breast cancers. It's a very emotional issue."
At the same time, the standard medical text shows that childbearing protects women because it has a significant defensive effect. Dr. Joel Brind, a professor at Baruch College in New York City, has compiled a statistical review of previous studies confirming the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the French and Chinese studies of late tend to confirm his findings
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has refused to block enforcement of that part of the HHS mandate which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill.
In September, Hobby Lobby Stores, a private chain of over 500 arts-and-crafts stores with 13,600 employees in 41 states, and a sister company (Mardel, Inc.) filed suit against the HHS mandate. The chain is owned by an evangelical Protestant family whose members have no objection to the contraception provision of the HHS mandate.
"However, the Green family's religious convictions prohibit them from providing or paying for the abortion-inducing drugs, the 'morning-after' and 'week-after' pills, which would violate their most deeply held religious belief that life begins at conception," stated the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby Stores.
On December 20, a federal court denied Hobby Lobby's request to block enforcement of the mandate, and six days later, Justice Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby's petition to block enforcement.
Beginning January 1, Hobby Lobby will face a fine of $1.3 million per day if it refuses to offer the insurance coverage. Justice Sotomayor ruled that the company may continue to challenge the constitutionality of the mandate in lower courts.
Source: CWN
The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, late Friday, December 21, 2012, filed an Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on behalf of Tom Monaghan to stop enforcement of the HHS Mandate in order to prevent immediate irreparable injury to his fundamental rights.
The HHS Mandate requires employers to pay for health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization under threat of draconian fines. It also requires employers to educate their employees about use of those drugs. Tom Monaghan is a staunch pro-life advocate and Catholic philanthropist. His religious beliefs prohibit him from paying for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization.
TMLC attorney, Erin Mersino, asked Federal District Court Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff to hear the Motion "at the earliest possible time" because the HHS Mandate takes effect against Monaghan and his Domino's Farms Corporation on January 1, 2013. If granted, the TRO would permit Monaghan to continue to provide insurance for his employees that does not violate his constitutionally and statutorily granted rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, and free association.
In a strongly worded brief, Mersino accuses the Government of blatant violations of Mr. Monaghan's constitutional rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution as well as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Click here to read entire TRO Motion
The TRO motion is part of a lawsuit TMLC filed a week ago, December 14, 2012, in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of Monaghan and his Company. This is the second lawsuit challenging the HHS Mandate filed by the Thomas More Law Center.
Earlier in the year, the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michigan-businessman Daniel Weingartz and his Weingartz Supply Company, as well as the staff of Legatus, an organization of top Catholic business owners and CEOs. TMLC was successful in obtaining a Preliminary Injunction banning the Government from enforcing the Mandate against Weingartz and his company. Legatus also remains free of the Mandate's requirements under the Mandate's safe harbor provision.
Both lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. Both lawsuits also claim that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Source: ProLifeBlogs
The Muskegon Fire Department has posted closure notices on the Women's Medical Services in Muskegon, Michigan, and boarded up the abortion clinic until further notice, thanks to the work of Operation Rescue.
"We are happy to announce that the closure of Women's Medical Services is the twenty-fourth abortion clinic to close in 2012," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.
"There is a lot more to tell about this closure, but we cannot disclose further details at this time. Suffice it to say that there were serious violations at Women's Medical Services that made it unsafe to continue operating. This is one less abortion clinic that can prey upon vulnerable women and their pre-born babies, and for that, we are thankful."
Operation Rescue received photographs showing the closure notice, dated December 26, 2012. One of the clinic's doors was boarded up with a plywood panel.
"Abortion clinics are closing at a rate of about two per month," said Newman. "In 1991, there were 2,176 abortion clinics in America. Today, there are just 660. Nearly 70% of all surgical abortion clinics have closed for good. We look forward to the day when all abortion sites have been shut down and the pre-born baby is once again protected by law."
Contact: Troy Newman, President, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue/Pro-Life Nation
Planned Parenthood has released a study that claims the abortion drug RU-486 is safe. But as one pro-lifer points out, a closer look gives a different conclusion.
The study covering one year shows one death from RU-486 and 385 patients suffering serious complications. Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue tells OneNewsNow more than 250 other women had to be hospitalized "to be treated with things like blood transfusions and intravenous antibiotics."
"So we see this as an indication that these abortion pills are not safe," she asserts. "And this is just a typical spin from Planned Parenthood, trying to make us think that up is down and that wrong is right -- and in this case, we're not buying it."
Sullenger reports that the study was not conducted by independent parties.
"In fact, the people who were involved in this survey were members of Planned Parenthood, were on advisory boards to Planned Parenthood," she relays. "In one case, one received financial compensation from Danco Laboratories, which is the sole distributor of the abortion pill in the United States. So these people all had a vested interest."
The Operation Rescue spokesperson emphasizes that RU-486 is dangerous. Even so, its use is becoming more common. In fact, Planned Parenthood plans to have all affiliates doing abortions and will promote "telemed" abortions, which does not directly involve a doctor.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Tom Monaghan, the founder and former owner of Domino's Pizza, is suing the federal government over a controversial mandate that requires him to violate his Catholic faith in his business decisions.
The lawsuit described the contraception mandate as "an unprecedented despoiling of religious rights" that both "attacks and desecrates a foremost tenet of the Catholic Church."
It pointed to Thomas Jefferson's statement that "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority."
Filed Dec. 14 by Thomas More Law Center, the lawsuit challenges a federal mandate requiring employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs, even if doing so violates their firmly-held religious beliefs.
More than 110 business owners, non-profit organizations and religious charities have sued over the mandate, arguing that it violates their constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom.
At age 75, Monaghan is best known for founding Domino's Pizza in 1960. He sold the pizza company in 1998 and no longer has any active affiliation with it. However, he remains the owner of Domino's Farms, the property management company for a Michigan office park that is home to more than 50 corporations, professional firms, non-profits and entrepreneurial businesses.
Monaghan and Domino's Farms were both listed as plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit, which explained that they are committed to "a common mission of conducting their business operations with integrity and in compliance with the teachings, mission, and values of the Catholic Church."
The legal challenge noted that Domino's Farms offers its tenants a Catholic bookstore and on-site Catholic chapel, which has Mass four times per day.
In accordance with Church teaching, Monaghan and his company believe that all human life is sacred, bearing the image and likeness of God from the moment of conception, it added.
They also agree with Church teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality, it said, explaining that they view contraception, sterilization and abortion as "gravely immoral practices" rather than true medicine or health care that provides for the well-being of persons.
The lawsuit observed that Monaghan is a pro-life Catholic who "has devoted his life and resources to Catholic philanthropic causes," including the promotion of Catholic education and charity.
He has founded numerous Catholic organizations, including Ave Maria University, Ave Maria School of Law and Legatus, a group for business leaders to bring together faith, family and business.
In his business practices, Monaghan "is guided by his religious beliefs" and "follows the teachings of the Catholic faith as defined by the Magisterium," the legal document stressed.
As part of this commitment to live out his "deeply held religious beliefs" in all aspects of his life, Monaghan offers a health insurance plan that specifically excludes coverage of contraception, sterilization and abortion, it said, noting that Domino's Farms has never offered coverage of these products and procedures.
However, the mandate threatens the ability of Monaghan and Domino's Farms to remain in business, since failing to comply with it would result in "ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically," it explained.
Monaghan and his company are now asking the court to grant them an injunction blocking the enforcement of the mandate. So far, two for-profit businesses have been denied an injunction, while four have secured one.
Such an injunction is necessary, the lawsuit said, so that Monaghan and Domino's Farms may continue "to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith."
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Nurses in a big city hospital never know what a day's shift will bring – straightforward cases or medical miracles, major crises or minor first aid. Whatever her station, whatever the duty of the moment, a nurse tries to ready herself for anything. But some things, you just can't see coming.
It was Beryl Otieno Ngoje's turn to work the desk in the Same Day Surgery Unit at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), in Newark. She was busy with the usual administrative duties – filing charts, handing out forms to the patients, answering visitors' questions – when another nurse hurried up beside her.
"Oh, something just happened, you won't believe it," the woman said, visibly excited. "I have it in my hand." She held up a clenched fist, palm up. "I have it in my hand," she said again.
"What do you have in your hand?" Beryl asked, bemused at the woman's demeanor.
"Do you want to see?"
"Yes," Beryl said – and instantly regretted it.
The other nurse opened her hand to reveal the tiny, tiny form of a baby, just aborted.
"I felt like somebody had just hit me with something in my face," Beryl remembers.
She began to cry, to the consternation of her coworker.
"I'm sorry – I didn't know you were going to react like that," the woman said.
It was a moment that seared Beryl's soul and haunted her memory, and it would come back often, in the days ahead. For the other nurse was not just a co-worker, but her manager... with the power to hold not just an unborn baby, but Beryl's career in the palm of her hand.
The dozen-or-so nurses of the UMDNJ Same Day Surgery Unit – like nurses at any other hospital – are a lively mixture of backgrounds and personalities. Beryl, a native of Kenya, is a quiet ICU specialist who's been with the hospital for over 15 years. Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, a veteran of the ER and ICU, is from the Philippines, and speaks with cheerful delight about her love for music and for her church. Lorna Mendoza has been a nurse for 25 years, at University for more than a dozen, and takes both her work and her Christian faith very seriously.
"We high-five each other," Beryl says, "Most of us are there 12 hours, and that is a good portion of your day. It is important that you get along and feel relaxed and free."
Because: "you get to socialize a lot," Fe says. "You're less busy here than in the ER."
The nurses of Fe's unit are responsible for monitoring, medicating, and placating patients going into and coming out of surgery. That means a lot of bedside comfort, encouragement, and interaction with both patients and their families, so conversations between coworkers tend to be quick exchanges in the hallway or on break. What the nurses share, more than close friendship, is delight in and commitment to a job they love.
"It's a noble job," says Fe. "Very fulfilling... a healing profession. Everything you do for the patient just makes them feel better, and satisfies my entire being, because I've helped someone."
"A lot of people don't realize... we usually see somebody at their worst," Beryl says. "They're not perky, happy – they're ailing and hurting. They just want somebody to be there. I can make a difference. I can help in whatever little way. I find that very gratifying."
All operations on this unit are elective – that is, the patient chooses to have a specific procedure done: a tonsillectomy, a hernia repair, the removal of cataracts. And, sometimes, an abortion.
Not the kind of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, Beryl says. "They just choose to end it. These are people who go to the doctor and say, 'Look, I don't want this pregnancy.' The age range is mostly teenagers – 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds – and a lot of times, they come back."
"To some, it's like contraception," Fe says. "Five or six times, you see them there."
If she ends up talking to those patients, she says, "I always tell them, 'I'll be praying for you, and I hope that this is the last time I'll see you doing this kind of procedure.' I can see in their faces how guilty they feel, the guilt in their hearts." Many say, "Yes, definitely this is my last time."
And yet, so often, they come back.
Fe knows, all too well, about that guilt in their eyes. Twenty years ago – still new to America, still learning the language and culture, just getting the hang of her first nursing job – she found she was pregnant. But her doctor said the number of rubella antibodies in her blood was too low, and posed far too great a risk for the baby. He urged her to get a therapeutic abortion.
Fe and her husband pressed the doctor repeatedly – was this absolutely necessary? He assured them it was, and, out of their depth in a new country, they didn't realize they had any choice. Fe soon found herself in a clinic, surrounded by half-a-hundred teenagers, all waiting their turn to abbreviate the life in their wombs. Fe sat with her husband and sister.
"We were the only ones crying," she says.
Right up until the moment of the procedure itself, Fe was on the phone with her doctors, trying to get their okay not to end her baby's life. But her pediatrician and the specialist were adamant, and she went through with what they told her to do. The decision has troubled her ever since.
"I wasn't able to sleep for a long time," she says. "It took me years to just feel that, okay, it's done. I asked for forgiveness. The Lord knows my heart, that I didn't want to have that happen."
Within a year, Fe was pregnant again. She is now the mother of three... yet her thoughts linger, sometimes, on the one she lost. The experience makes it that much harder, she says, to watch the young teenagers come through to eliminate a child just because it might complicate their lives. She knows how their hearts will be haunted in ways they can't imagine now.
Which is why she was horrified to learn that she was being ordered to help with their abortions.
The change came in September of 2011, with the news that a peer was being promoted. Though employed in the same unit as Fe, Beryl and the rest, this particular nurse had long been assigned to a special team that carried out the abortions without any involvement or assistance from other nurses on the Same Day Surgery floor. The abortion team had always drawn its staff from nurses who had expressed no qualms about helping end a child's life.
Promoted from that team to a supervisory position over all the nurses, the new assistant manager announced that – since she and others had to help with abortions – she saw no reason why every nurse shouldn't help. Hospital officials agreed, and passed a new, mandatory policy to make it so. The assistant manager quickly set up a training program that would give each nurse on the unit hands-on experience in how to assist with and clean up after abortions.
"As long as you work here," she told the 12 nurses who openly protested, "you're going to have to do it. If you don't, you're going to be fired or transferred out."
"We were all shocked," Fe says. "All these years I've been a nurse, I was never told to help kill children."
But the managers remained adamant. Hospital administrators supported them. When the nurses brought up a long-standing, in-writing agreement exempting them from taking part in abortions apart from a medical emergency, officials told them "an emergency" would hereafter be defined as any situation in which the patient was "bleeding." And every birth involves bleeding.
"I knew we were going to lose our jobs," says Lorna, who, at one point, amid the flurry of discussions with the managers, was asked to provide a patient with a bedpan. Retrieving it, she found an aborted baby inside. Horrified and sobbing, she called for help, telling the manager who responded, "I don't know what to do with this. I can't do this." She soon found herself in the office of the vice president of nursing, where she was accused of refusing to help patients and threatened with termination. She wasn't the only one called in.
"Our jobs were hanging by a string," Beryl says. "We were like, 'All right. If they're going to fire all 12 of us, fine. But this is against what we believe God wants us to do.' We didn't come into this profession to do [abortions]. We told them we weren't comfortable with it and didn't feel they should force us. And if that meant our jobs, well... God was going to provide."
When even their own union declined to help them, Fe wrote a letter to hospital officials saying that she and her coworkers would not participate in abortions. She passed it around for the other nurses; 15 signed it. She gave the letter to her manager, who took it to the director of nursing.. Response was swift. A meeting was called for the next day, with each of the signing nurses, the labor board, a union official, the managers, and "an expert on ethics" scheduled to be on hand.
The day of that announcement, Pastor Terry Smith, of Life Christian Church in West Orange, New Jersey, returned from a trip. A staff member told him that one of his parishioners – Fe – had called, shared what was happening at the hospital, and asked for advice. The pastor immediately phoned Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.
"I'll be all over this," said Deo, who hung up and called Alliance Defending Freedom. Shortly afterward, staff attorney Matt Bowman was on the phone with a local allied attorney, Demetrios Stratis, enlisting him to help defend the nurses. The two immediately called Fe.
"I remember... I was driving and speaking to them three-way," says Fe, who had just been convincing herself the nurses' case was hopeless. "I didn't know a thing about conscience law – it was very, very new to me." The two told her she had a legitimate case, and offered to defend her. Best of all, Stratis said he could be on hand for her meeting with the managers the next day.
"Is there a catch?" Fe asked. Visions of sky-high attorneys' fees danced in her head.
"No catch," Stratis said. "We're pro bono lawyers." Fe drove home in a daze.
Next morning, she met Stratis at the hospital entrance. She took him upstairs to the Same Day Surgery Unit and introduced him to the nurses on duty and others waiting for the meeting. Twelve of the 15 immediately agreed to have him and Bowman represent them in the case.
"A godsend," Beryl says. "We had no idea which way to go. It was like something from heaven just dropped in our lap at the right time. It boosted our morale a lot." It did considerably less for the morale of the nurse managers and others gathered for the meeting, who had not reckoned with the nurses hiring outside counsel.
"Who are you?" a manager asked Stratis.
"He's our attorney, and he is going to speak on our behalf," replied Fe. Everyone split into huddles – Stratis and the nurses in one room, administrators in another. After a few minutes, the nurse manager came to cancel the meeting, but not before Stratis made it clear that he would be defending "my clients' legal right not to be forced to participate in terminating a pregnancy."
"It was like we had been talking to a brick wall, and that brick wall just got smashed," Fe says. "We were very happy after that. It gave us a sense of hope."
Stratis and Bowman reminded hospital officials – face to face and in writing – that their new policy transgressed both state and federal laws that make it illegal to compel medical professionals to violate their conscience by forcing them to help with a non-emergency abortion. With their actions, the hospital was not only risking a lawsuit, but more than $60 million in federal funding. Still, administrators stubbornly contended that all abortions in the Same Day Surgery area – each scheduled weeks in advance – were "emergencies."
"These surgeries are, by definition, elective, outpatient procedures," Bowman says. "If they weren't, the ER is just 30 seconds away." Plus, he points out, "these are pre- and post-operative nurses. They're not even supposed to be there for a surgery, whether it's abortion or not."
To get around that, he says, the abortion team "would give a woman a pill that induced labor, give it in the pre-op area, and leave her there. After a couple of hours, she'd start going into labor." And now, she was outside the surgical area – in a section for which the 12 pro-life nurses were responsible.
With the hospital unwilling to budge, Alliance Defending Freedom filed suit on behalf of the 12 nurses to defend their legally protected right of conscience. Their managers, meanwhile, insisted on including the 12 in abortion training, which included interactions with abortion patients and handling dead babies. Three were forced to take part before the nurses enlisted Bowman and Stratis. Once hired, though, the two quickly obtained an injunction that prevented other nurses from having to undergo training the following day.
One of the three forced to train did not quite accomplish, perhaps, what her managers had in mind. During her shift, a patient expressed reluctance to go through with the procedure. The nurse talked with her awhile, then – at her request – quietly brought in the woman's husband. After a bit, the woman dressed and they left... having decided not to have the abortion.
For weeks, the 12 nurses worked in a decidedly tense environment. "It was scary," Beryl says. "We prayed a lot. We came into work and stepped off the elevator and said, 'God just let the day go by well, without incident' – because we had our incidents. It was very, very uncomfortable." The 12 drew strength, she says, from each other, from praying friends, and from their faith that, "Our God is greater than this."
As a court date drew nearer, the hospital came up with another threat: if the 12 would not help with abortions, administrators would hire nurses who were willing to do so. Soon, officials intimated, there might not be work enough for everybody... in which cases those nurses willing to do anything might well enjoy greater job security than those only willing to do most things.
Amid all the tension, threats, and growing media coverage, the judge in the case stunned everyone by suddenly announcing, in a preliminary hearing, that a settlement had been reached.
"We had gotten everything [the 12 nurses] requested," Stratis says. "We'd gotten the hospital to agree not to force them to perform these abortions. There would be no retaliatory measures against them, and they could feel free and sleep at night, knowing that the next day they would not have to be trained on the abortion process or help a woman kill an innocent child."
"I was crying – really crying," says Lorna, who heard the news from one of the other nurses. "And very thankful. The next day, I went to work, and all of us were hugging and very happy."
"Before, I used to think that some prayers won't be answered," Fe says. "Sometimes, I'd feel very hopeless. But with this case, I saw how the Lord moves... providing the resources, the people who would help us out. It just strengthened my faith. I really thank God for Alliance Defending Freedom."
"I'm not sure I know where we'd be today if it wasn't for them, really," Beryl says. "We were up against some really big guns, and Alliance Defending Freedom was determined to support us."
"This case took an emotional toll on all of these nurses," Stratis says. "To stand up, to be part of a lawsuit against their employer, is very, very hard to do. There was a lot at stake. Some were the sole breadwinners for their family. Being faced with termination of their job or standing up for their faith... that is a very, very difficult decision, especially in these economic times."
But "I couldn't do what they were asking me to do," Beryl says. "I could not. You go against what you believe, what are you? What's left? Just a shell of what you are."
Spoken like a woman whose conscience is in good hands.
Source: Alliance Defending Freedom
Musical Reminder of Christ Child Encourages Women to Choose Life for their Babies
Sometimes a song can save a life. That's what happened one year during the Pro-Life Action League's annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling Day at abortion facilities in Chicago and the western suburbs.
"We were singing 'Silent Night' at American Women's Medical Center when a young woman came out of the clinic," said the Pro-Life Action League's executive director, Eric Scheidler. "She approached one of our pro-life counselors and said we got her thinking about Mary and Baby Jesus. She just couldn't go through with her abortion." The counselor directed the young mother to a nearby pregnancy center for help.
The Pro-Life Action League hopes for similar life-saving results during this year's 10th annual "Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling Day on Saturday, December 22. "These beloved Christmas carols remind us all of the hope and joy brought into the world by a newborn baby," said Scheidler. "We want to share that hope with the mothers entering these abortion clinics. We want them to know that just like Baby Jesus, their unborn babies are a gift, too."
Last year, 130 carolers participated in this annual event, and similar caroling tours were held at abortion facilities throughout the country, with even more groups signing on this year. "We encourage more pro-lifers to join this national event," said Scheidler. "Simply download and print out our caroling booklet and gather a few friends to sing carols at the abortion facilities in your area."
Two simultaneous caroling tours will take place the morning of December 22, one visiting five abortion facilities in Chicago and the other visiting four in DuPage County. Maps and more information, including other caroling sites across the country, are available at ProLifeAction.org.
At each abortion facility, pro-life carolers will gather around an empty manger, which symbolizes both the hope that new life can bring as well as the emptiness left behind when an unborn child is killed by an abortion—especially at Christmas time.
"Empty Manger" Christmas Caroling Tour, Saturday, December 22, 2012:
CHICAGO CAROLING TOUR:
• 9:00 Family Planning Associates, 659 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago
• 9:45 Planned Parenthood, 1200 N. La Salle Dr., Chicago
• 10:30 All Women's Health Center, 2000 W. Armitage Ave., Chicago
• 11:15 American Women's Medical Ctr., 2744 N. Western Ave., Chicago
• 12:00 Albany Medical Surgical Ctr., 5086 N. Elston Ave., Chicago
DUPAGE CAROLING TOUR:
• 9:00 ACU Health Center, 736 N. York Rd., Hinsdale
• 10:00 Aanchor Health Center, 1186 Roosevelt Rd., Glen Ellyn
• 11:00 Access Health Center, 1700 75th St., Downers Grove
• 12:00 Planned Parenthood Aurora, 3051 E. New York St., Aurora
VISUALS/AUDIO:
• Pro-life carolers gathered around Christmas crèche-style empty manger
• Christmas caroling
• "White Christmas" weather
• Pro-life signage
• Possible opposition counter-protest
• Backdrop of abortion facilities
More details available at ProLifeAction.org
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Pro-Life Action League
