Face of Abortion Exhibition Returns to Chicagoland

 

Pro-Life Action League's Graphic "Face the Truth Tour" Reminds Public Abortion is Infanticide

 

With the national horror over abortionist Kermit Gosnell's conviction for murdering babies still fresh in the public mind, a new bill banning late-term abortion having just passed in Congress, and a dramatic confrontation over abortion legislation boiling in Texas, the Pro-Life Action League hits the streets of Chicagoland to remind the public what abortion is really all about. From July 12 through July 20, Face the Truth Tours will appear at busy intersections throughout Chicago and the suburbs, with pro-life advocates displaying large posters that accurately depict the graphic reality of abortion, juxtaposed with beautiful pictures of living children, both born and unborn.

 

One significant stop on the Face the Truth Tour will be the Saturday, July 13, visit to the controversial Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Aurora. The clinic has generated continued opposition from residents, churches and area pro-life groups, since its embattled opening in October 2007. It was the largest abortion facility in the country at the time and remains the subject of ongoing protests and lawsuits.

 

Two days of the Face the Truth Tour will be devoted to downtown Chicago, with graphic displays at Daley Plaza, Ogilvie Transportation Center, Union Station, Lake Shore Drive, the Art Institute and along overpasses on the Kennedy Expressway.

 

The schedule of communities the Face the Truth Tour will visit follows. Time and location details are available at prolifeaction.org/truth/tours.php.

 

• Friday, July 12: Joliet/Shorewood

• Saturday, July 13: Aurora/Naperville

• Monday, July 15 & Tuesday, July 16: Downtown Chicago

• Wednesday, July 17: Melrose Park/Westchester/Westmont

• Thursday, July 18: Lake Zurich/Palatine/Arlington Heights

• Friday, July 19: Chicago South Side/Burbank

• Saturday, July 20: Lincolnwood/Evanston

 

Though the Face the Truth Tour always meets with some opposition, the goal is not to offend or to shock, but rather to raise awareness and change attitudes. The Face the Truth Tour allows people to confront the horrible injustice of abortion with their own eyes—and when they do, they are more likely to take action to prevent that injustice, even if they resent having to see it.

 

"It's true that these pictures of bloody, broken, aborted babies are disturbing," explained Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League. "They should be disturbing, because abortion itself is disturbing," he continued, "This is the reality of what abortion does to unborn children. This is not some harmless, inconsequential surgery. It's violent and it's ugly."

 

The Pro-Life Action League has coordinated Face the Truth Tours for over a dozen years, and last year's event encountered some first-time obstacles, including a temperature of 102° on the first day. The Westchester police had city workers remove the tour's "Warning: Graphic Abortion Photos Ahead" signs that allow drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to detour around the display. In Chicago's 34th Ward "Special Services Area" officers—not to be confused with Chicago police officers—attempted to shut down the display, insisting that a permit was required from Alderman Carrie Austin for any protest activity

 

Despite the occasional challenges and objections, Scheidler was ready with the reason why the Pro-Life Action League will continue organizing these public education tours. "The Face the Truth Tours work. Every year people stop to thank us for sharing the reality of abortion because it caused them to reconsider a planned abortion or begin the healing process from a past abortion," said Scheidler. He added, "Last year a woman came up to us and said that she had an abortion 12 years ago, and that at the time, she felt she had no choice. She told us, 'I keep looking at your picture, and I can't believe I did that to my baby…nobody told me it was a baby.'"

 

To learn more about Face the Truth Tours and the life-saving work of the Pro-Life Action League, view the two-minute Face the Truth video at: youtu.be/-UT5zSsHxA8o or read more at prolifeaction.org/truth.

 

Source: Pro-Life Action League

Boston Men's HIV Cure is a Victory for Adult Stem Cell Research

 

The news of two men supposedly being cured from HIV (only the 3rd and 4th people ever to be cured) is cause for celebration for those promoting ethical adult stem cells, and provides motivation to increase adult stem cell research. As reported at the International AIDS Society meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the two men, now known as the "Boston patients", received bone marrow adult stem cell transplants as part of their treatment for lymphoma.

 

Their doctors believe that the adult stem cell therapy (via graft-versus-host reaction) combined with continued anti-retroviral drugs during the transplant period eliminated virus-containing cells in the men's bodies. Their adult stem cell transplants were 3 and 5 years ago, but now the men have been off of their anti-retroviral drug therapy for several weeks, and continue to show no signs of viral DNA or RNA in their blood. It will probably be two years before scientists feel more secure in labeling the men "cured".

 

Their treatment was different from the "Berlin patient", Timothy Brown, who appears to have been cured of HIV after an adult stem cell transplant in 2007. Brown, the first person apparently cured of HIV, received an adult stem cell transplant specifically from a donor whose cells carried the HIV-resistant CCR5-Δ32 gene. Recently news broke of a baby who was born with HIV but who is now apparently HIV-free, due to anti-retroviral drug treatment. Prevention is of course better, and in fact there was a recent celebration of the one-millionth baby born without HIV, as a result of the PEPFAR program started under President Bush.

 

The technique used for the two new patients apparently cured of HIV opens up a larger potential donor pool for adult stem cell transplants, though this is still a risky treatment procedure that will need refinement, and this is not a suitable treatment option for every HIV patient. Still, this is another encouraging example of the usefulness of ethical adult stem cells.

 

You can view the video on this here.

 

Written by Andrew Mullins, Source: FRCBlog

Continued major problems in HHS mandate’s ‘final rule’

 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has conducted an initial analysis of the Obama administration's 110-page final rule for the implementation of the HHS mandate.

 

"We will have more to say," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, USCCB president. "At this point, however, our study has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts."

 

Cardinal Dolan said in a statement that the USCCB continued to find "problems with the 'religious employer' exemption" and "problems with the lack of any exemption or 'accommodation' for individuals and for-profit businesses":

 

There have been no changes in those areas since the proposed rule of February. At that time, we made clear that all but one of the problems we originally identified with the definition of "religious employer" remained in place, and that the proposed rule actually made matters more troubling by preventing dioceses and other exempt employers from extending their coverage to the employees of service ministries that are not exempt. We also made clear in February that the proposed rule, like earlier versions, made no provision at all for individuals and for-profit businesses. Because the final rule remains the same in these areas, so do our concerns.

 

Regarding "the 'accommodation' for religious charities, schools, and hospitals, the overall structure remains the same as under the proposed rule," Cardinal Dolan added. "There are, however, some relatively small changes to the 'accommodation' that will take more time to evaluate. But even now, it is clear that the final rule does at least three things differently from the proposed rule":

 

For insured plans, the proposed rule would have established separate insurance policies for coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients; but the final rule does not.Now, there is only one policy, and it is the one sponsored by the Catholic employer. The objectionable items will still be paid for by virtue of the fact that an employee belongs to the Catholic employer's plan, but these amounts are described as "payments" rather than "coverage."

 

Also regarding insured plans, the final rule proposes to segregate funds in a way not specified in the proposed rule. This seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid by the employer's premium dollars. But it is unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.

 

Regarding self-insured plans, the proposed rule described three alternative roles for the third-party administrator in securing coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. The final rule selects the alternative that treats the employer's very act of objecting to coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients as the legal authorization for a third-party administrator to secure the objectionable coverage. In our comments to HHS on the proposed rule, we identified this alternative as the most objectionable of the three.

 

The USCCB statement was released in the afternoon of July 3, as the nation prepared for a long holiday weekend.

 

Source: CWN

'Hail Satan!' Pro-Abortion Fans

 
Bill Donohue comments on pro-abortion supporters in Texas:
 
While pro-life protesters were singing "Amazing Grace" Tuesday in Austin, pro-abortion fans were screaming "Hail Satan!" (A video of this scene is available on TheBlaze.)
 
It would be unfair to say that all pro-abortion supporters would support this obscenity, and indeed most would not. Among hard-core activists, though, there are no doubt more than just a few who feel comfortable with invoking Satan's name in behalf of their cause. Here's why I say this.
 
There are writers and activists who support more than abortion rights--they hail it as a positive good. For example, the book by women's studies professor Patricia Lunneborg, Abortion: A Positive Decision, boasts how abortion liberates women. The volume, Abortion is a Blessing, by militant atheist Anne Nicol Gaylor, sees abortion as a sacred right. So does French author Ginette Paris: her book, The Sacrament of Abortion, tells us exactly where she is coming from.
 
Catholics reach out to young pregnant women who have made the wrong decision, and indeed the Catholic Church has a program, "Project Rachel," that serves them in many ways. Moreover, when someone in the pro-life community acts in an offensive way, he is quickly condemned. By contrast, there are pro-abortion fanatics who draw their inspiration from Satanic forces. Worse, many of those in the pro-abortion community are quite content to stay silent about such offenses.
 
Perhaps the time has come for a mass exorcism.

Contact: The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Pro-life teachers protest pro-abortion leaders at NEA convention

Pro-life educators have sent a message to the National Education Association (NEA) at its annual session, which met recently at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta.

Bob Pawson, who heads Pro-Life Educators of America, tells OneNewsNow that pro-life teachers, with parents and teachers, sought to draw attention to the NEA leadership's pro-abortion activism and policies.

"Of course, as usual, we're not asking the union to become pro-life," Pawson says. "We're just saying get out of the abortion issue, and be truly disengaged and neutral on it."

Pro-lifers from Georgia Right to Life and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform participated in pickets asking delegates to repeal provisions that promote abortion.

Pawson says the group received thumbs-up by some delegates and obscene gestures from others, but were not deterred from their objective.

"We joined the union for representation at the collective bargaining table - not to be misrepresented by a bunch of left-wingers who have taken over our union on social, moral and political issues," Pawson says.

"These issues are important to Americans and to teachers, but they should not be important to us as a collective bargaining agency," he adds.

Pawson, who has taught in New Jersey since 1980, finds it ironic that the organization promotes the killing of future students.

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

After crisis pregnancy, young mom finds fulfillment

 

A 22-year-old single mom who chose life during an unplanned pregnancy says that she has found "purpose and love" in the joys and trials of motherhood.

 

"Being a mom is definitely the road to sainthood for me; it requires total self-sacrifice, but dying to oneself through motherhood has only brought me closer to Christ," Raquel Kato told CNA in a recent interview.

 

Kato's story spread on the internet last year, after she experienced God's unconditional love in a powerful and life-changing way.

 

When her 21st birthday led to an unplanned pregnancy, she felt terrified and alone as a single college student. Keeping her pregnancy a secret, she scheduled an abortion, even though she knew in her heart that it was wrong.

 

However, a week before her scheduled abortion, Kato attended daily Mass and felt God's merciful love touching her heart. She cancelled the abortion and gave birth to a baby girl, whom she named AveMarie Rose, in October 2012.

 

She went on to share her story through online venues including Catholic Exchange, FOCUS blog and One Billion Stories. In the nine months since AveMarie was born, she has received positive, supportive reactions.

 

"In general, I would have to say I have gotten a great response," she told CNA, explaining that she has received many comments from people who were "very grateful" for the perspective that she had to share.

 

Kato described motherhood as "the greatest blessing" in her life.

 

"I've never been so challenged, grown so much, or been so joyful," she said. "I love making my daughter smile, rocking her to sleep, and watching her reach different milestones."

 

"Seeing how much joy she has brought to my parents, friends, and community is so rewarding. My daughter brings a deeper sense of purpose and love to my life and I can't imagine my life without her."

 

While she acknowledged that "being a single mom has its hard moments," she added that "it's all worth it" when her daughter is "peacefully sleeping, or giggling uncontrollably, or cuddling in my arms."

 

Kato said the most important thing she hopes that people are able to take from hearing her story is an understanding of "how to love mothers who are found in unplanned pregnancy."

 

These women, she explained, "are broken and scared and they need to be reminded that they are loved in the midst of brokenness."

 

Reflecting on her own journey, she said that the loving support of those around her – and particularly offers to babysit for free – have been crucial.

 

"Because of the support of my friends, family, and neighbors I have been able to complete my undergraduate degree, maintain a part-time job (at a pregnancy resource center), and begin graduate school," she said, explaining that this support is paving the way for her to be able to support her daughter with a stable job.

 

"None of this would be possible without those people helping me with childcare," she stressed.

 

This type of support is the most valuable resource that can be given to a single mom, Kato advised, emphasizing the need to show compassion and love to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

 

"If the women in a crisis pregnancy don't understand their own worth and dignity, they will have a hard time understanding the dignity of their unborn child," she said.

 

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Hobby Lobby saved from hefty mandate fines

 

Hobby Lobby gained relief just in time to avoid a hefty penalty for refusing to comply with the Obama administration's abortion/contraception mandate.

 

A federal court blocked enforcement June 28 against the popular craft store chain of a federal regulation that requires employers to pay for coverage of contraceptives, including ones that can cause abortions. The temporary restraining order prevented the mandate from going into effect Monday (July 1) and spared Hobby Lobby a penalty that could have reached $1.3 million a day.

 

The next step in a lawsuit by Hobby Lobby and a sister Christian bookstore chain, Mardel, is a July 19 hearing regarding their request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the abortion/contraception mandate while the court case continues.

 

The order from Joe Heaton, federal judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, came only a day after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Hobby Lobby and Mardel had demonstrated they probably would prevail in showing their religious freedom had been infringed on by the mandate. The eight judges for the 10th Circuit also instructed the lower court to reconsider whether it should grant an injunction.

 

A lawyer representing Hobby Lobby commended both courts.

 

Hobby Lobby and its owners "faced the terrible choice of violating their faith or paying massive fines starting this Monday morning," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "We are delighted that both the 10th Circuit and the district court have spared them from this unjust burden on their religious freedom."

 

The Obama administration issued final rules on the abortion/contraception mandate the same day Heaton issued his order in the Hobby Lobby case. The rules did not provide a religious liberty accommodation to for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel, and religious freedom advocates said they failed to remedy the conscience problems for non-profit organizations that object.

 

Hobby Lobby, which has 550 stores in the United States, and Mardel filed suit last year against the portion of the 2010 health care reform law that requires employers to pay for coverage of drugs defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as contraceptives, even if they can cause abortions. Members of the Green family -- evangelical Christians who own Hobby Lobby and Mardel -- do not oppose all contraceptive methods, only those that have abortion-causing qualities. They have said they will not obey the mandate.

 

The FDA-approved drugs in question in the case include Plan B and other "morning-after" pills with a secondary, post-fertilization mechanism that can cause an abortion by preventing implantation of tiny embryos. The mandate also covers "ella," which -- in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486 --- can act even after implantation to end the life of the child.

 

More than 60 lawsuits have been filed against the abortion/contraception mandate. Before the June 28 order, Hobby Lobby had been one of only seven for-profit companies that had failed to win an injunction or restraining order blocking enforcement of the controversial requirement while their suits proceeded in court, according to the Becket Fund. Courts now have granted injunctions or restraining orders to 22 for-profit corporations. No action has been taken in four lawsuits by for-profit companies.

 

The Obama administration's final rules for the abortion/contraception requirement extended the implementation date for Christian institutions and other non-profit organizations from Aug. 1 to Jan. 1, 2014. It will take effect when each organization's health plan begins a new year. The mandate's start-up date for for-profit organizations was Aug. 1 of last year.

 

Hobby Lobby seeks to honor God "by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles," according to its statement of purpose. Its stores are closed on Sundays. The Oklahoma City-based chain contributes to Christian organizations selected by the Green family that seek "to share the Good News of Jesus Christ to all the world," according to its website.

 

The case is Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.

 

Compiled by Washington bureau chief Tom Strode, Source: Baptist Press

Revised Obamacare Abortion Pill Mandate Provides No Exemption for Religious-Owned Businesses

 

 

 
The Obama administration released its final revised rules surrounding its controversial contraception mandate on Friday, which pro-life organizations note still lacks an exemption for religious-owned businesses.
 
As previously reported, last December, two colleges won a challenge against Obamacare's abortion pill mandate after the government vowed that it would rewrite the requirement so that it would not to pertain to sectarian educational institutions.
Wheaton College, a Christian entity located not far from Chicago, Illinois, and Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution west of Charlotte, North Carolina, both previously had their lawsuits dismissed by lower courts. However, during proceedings in the appellate courts, the Health and Human Services Department promised that it would make an adjustment to the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare to exempt colleges like Wheaton and Belmont Abbey.
 
In February, the administration released a draft of its revised rules, redefining the phrase "religious employer," and allowing universities and religious hospitals to take part in the exemption. In such cases, the insurance company will pay for the contraceptives instead of the organization. On Friday, the mandate was officially finalized.
 
"Today's announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other non-profit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work," Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
However, pro-life organizations said that the revised rule did not go far enough to protect religious freedom, specifically in regard to religious-owned businesses.
 
"When it comes to religious liberty, the Department of Health and Human Services is acting like a kid who doesn't want to eat his lima beans," said Eric Rassbach of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has been representing the craft chain Hobby Lobby in the courts, as well as numerous other non-profit institutions. "Our Constitution and laws require them to protect religious exercise, but they really don't want to, so they are trying every trick in the book to avoid doing so. But we will keep suing until the courts make HHS comply with its obligations."
 
"Unfortunately the final rule announced today is the same old, same old. As we said when the proposed rule was issued, this doesn't solve the religious conscience problem because it still makes our non-profit clients the gatekeepers to abortion and provides no protection to religious businesses," he stated. "The easy way to resolve this would have been to exempt sincere religious employers completely, as the Constitution requires. Instead this issue will have to be decided in court."
Gregory Baylor, senior counsel at the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, released similar comments.
 
"All Americans should be free to live according to their faith rather than be forced into violating that faith. The Obama administration insists on waging war on religious freedom, and the final rule issued today confirms that," he said. "It ignores the voices of numerous Americans who expressed concern about the mandate's impact on for-profit, faith-based job creators. And it does nothing to alleviate the concerns of the non-profit religious organizations we represent, who are still subject to the mandate."
"On multiple levels, the president is articulating what is arguably the most narrow view of religious freedom ever expressed by an administration in this nation's history," he added.
 
In spite of the new rules not containing an exemption for religious businesses, this week, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, reversing the denial of a federal injunction and sending the matter back to the district court for further review.
 
"A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values," the panel wrote. "As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other."
 
Source: ChristianNews.net

Giving more freedom to dangerous drug raises questions

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is telling the Oklahoma Supreme Court to think twice about its decision on the use of an abortion drug.

 

Oklahoma's high court struck down a law that stipulates that RU486 must be dispensed according to guidelines established by the Food and Drug Administration. Most abortion clinics do not adhere to those guidelines. Americans United for Life General Counsel Ovide Lamontange tells OneNewsNow the U.S. Supreme Court wants Oklahoma to answer some serious questions about its decision.

 

"The Food and Drug Administration issues protocols and instructions for various drugs," he says. "That's how the drugs are supposed to be used in every other setting in health care, and that's the way it should be for abortion as well."

 

So he is saying an abortion drug should not be given a pass.

 

"The abortion industry isn't about logic," he adds. "It's about making money. It's about exploiting women. It's about taking advantage of the poor and those women who are victims of their greed. And so they want a special class treatment for bringing abortion about."

 

That is in spite of the fact that using RU486 has caused at least 14 women to die and more than 2,000 others to be hospitalized due to serious side effects. After the Supreme Court gets answers to the questions, the justices will decide whether to accept the case.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Thomas More Society in Chicago defends life for 15th year

 

The Thomas More Society in Chicago is celebrating a birthday as it continues to fight to preserve life and constitutional freedoms.

 

Thomas More Society was born fifteen years ago, fathered by attorney Tom Brejcha, for the sake of defending Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League who had been sued by the National Organization for Women. The National Organization for Women accused Scheidler of racketeering because of his work to save the lives of preborn children. Scheidler says Brejcha and the Thomas More Society went to the U.S. Supreme Court three times before gaining victory.

 

"A decision in our favor was that we were not racketeers," Scheidler says. "We had put our house in escrow, we were being assessed triple damages as they do in racketeering, and all of that was thrown out because of the diligent work of Tom Brejcha and the Thomas More Society."

 

During that period, Thomas More Society was not solely focused on that major case.

 

"Now Tom has gone on to take dozens and dozens of cases similar to ours," Scheidler tells OneNewsNow. "And one reason I wanted Tom was because when we went out to lunch and he first was being introduced to me, he said, 'I win cases.' And that was what I needed to hear."

 

In fact, Brejcha looks for cases to handle, including representing Live Action in their ongoing ministry to expose the abortion industry for what it is.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Pro-life gatherings for experienced activists – and for younger ones, too

 

The National Right to Life Committee is holding its 43rd annual convention in Dallas starting today, in hopes of building up those in the pro-life movement. At the same time, young people within the pro-life movement will be having their own convention.

 

NRLC spokesman Derrick Jones tells OneNewsNow that leaders from throughout the country are gathered for three days of workshops, education, and networking.

 

"This is bringing together our chapter leadership, our state leadership, individual activists all coming together to learn the latest developments that are affecting the pro-life movement," which includes, he says, "advances in stem-cell research [and] new legislative efforts, including bills to protect pain-capable unborn children."

 

While the pro-life movement suffered setbacks in the 2012 election, more people have come to terms with life issues. A Gallup poll shows an increase in people describing themselves as "pro-life." The convention, Jones says, is a serious one for delegates.

 

"This gives them a chance to kind of come together for a few days, recharge, regroup and get ready to go back and really go," he offers, "but also [it's about] educating newcomers and getting them excited to get involved and take the pro-life message back to their communities."

 

According to the pro-life spokesman, that is vital because most of the successes in passing pro-life bills in recent years have been on the state level.

 

One of the featured speakers at the NRLC gathering is  Texas Governor Rick Perry, who just today  called a special legislative session to allow the GOP-controlled statehouse another attempt at passing a pro-life bill after angry pro-abortion people in the gallery interrupted a vote this week.

 

Teens for Life gathering as well

 

Amanda Gilioli of Wisconsin is on the National Right to Life youth advisory board and tells OneNewsNow that no effort has been spared to obtain standout pro-life speakers for the Teens for Life gathering.

 

"We're having Wesley J. Smith, Melissa Ohden who is an abortion survivor, Bobby Schindler who is Terri Schiavo's brother, [and] Senator Ted Cruz from Texas," she shares, adding that the list includes several youth speakers because young people are influenced by their peers.

 

Gilioli says life is an issue of growing importance to her generation.

 

"Abortion just affects our generation a lot more powerfully than maybe generations before," she sahs. "I think we recognize that our parents had a choice and they could have chosen differently than what they did, and I think that really affects us. You know, we see that people in our classrooms are missing and we know people who had abortions or different things like that."

 

Her hope is that young people attending the convention will leave fully prepared to go home and energize other youth to join the ranks of the pro-life movement.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Fetuses may feel pain as early as 20 weeks, doctor clarifies

 

An Italian doctor has clarified that fetuses may be capable of feeling pain and pleasure as early as 20 weeks after their conception, after a June 19 article in Time may have led some to believe otherwise.

 

The Time article quoted a paper co-authored by Carlo Bellieni, from the department of pediatrics, obstetrics and reproductive medicine at the University Hospital of Siena, which says there is "consistent evidence of the possibility for the fetus to experience pain in the third trimester, and this evidence is weaker before this date and null in the first half of pregnancy."

 

Time used this quote to characterize Bellieni as having reported that "while it was difficult to truly determine when the first feelings of pain emerged, such sensations likely begin in the third trimester."

 

"But this can look like I said that the fetus doesn't feel pain in the second trimester at all," Bellieni told CNA June 24.

 

While acknowledging that his paper was correctly quoted by Time, he added that "saying 'this evidence is weaker' does not mean that it is absent."

 

"In fact, I pointed out that evidence of fetal pain is 'null in the first half of pregnancy'" – meaning that after 20 weeks, there is evidence that fetuses can experience pain.

 

That fetuses "can feel pain in their twentieth … week can't be excluded," Bellieni said.

 

While "we don't know exactly when pain sensations begin," it is as early as 20, and as late as 24 weeks.

 

Bellieni has also written that "painful stimuli can arrive to the brain at 20-22 weeks of gestation.

 

"We need more research, because there is not so much out there," he emphasized.

 

The doctor believes this is due to a "lack of interest," adding that "we have the moral obligation" since fetal surgery is possible.

 

"Fetal surgery has greater possibility of success the bigger the fetus is, but studies show surgery is possible in the first half of the pregnancy."

 

"Most of fetal pain research has been made on babies who are outside the womb and have been born, but are premature," he added.

 

The Time article was written against the background over debate around the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was passed in the House June 18.

 

The bill would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, stating that "there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier."

 

Though the bill has passed the House, it must still pass the Senate, and the White House has suggested that if it arrives on President Obama's desk he will veto it.

 

The administration stated that the bill "shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution."

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the legislation, argued in a June 13 statement that "knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be."

 

"This is not who we are," he said.

 

Source: CNA Daily News

Baptists, Catholics join to fight abortion mandate; ERLC, USCCB leaders write Congress

 

The United States' two largest religious denominations have joined forces in an effort to protect freedom of conscience as full enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion/contraception mandate nears.

 

The leading religious freedom spokesmen for Southern Baptists and American Roman Catholics -- Russell D. Moore and William Lori, respectively -- urged Congress in a letter Friday (June 21) to pass legislation designed to bolster conscience protections in health care. The letter from Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and Lori, archbishop of Baltimore and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' ad hoc committee for religious liberty, went to all members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

 

The proposal for which they sought support -- the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, H.R. 940 in the House and S. 1204 in the Senate -- addresses health care generally, but Moore and Lori cited the abortion/contraception mandate as the most immediate challenge to religious freedom in that arena.

 

The mandate, part of regulations implementing the 2010 health-care reform law, requires nearly all employers to carry insurance plans that cover drugs defined by the federal government as contraceptives, even if they can cause chemical abortions. Among those state-defined contraceptives are Plan B and other "morning-after" pills, which can prevent implantation of tiny embryos, and "ella," which, in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486, can act even after implantation to end the life of a child. The rule mandates plans to underwrite sterilization for women and related "education and counseling."

 

The abortion/contraception requirement is the target of more than 60 federal lawsuits and will be implemented for Christian institutions and other non-profit organizations beginning Aug. 1. It will take effect when each organization's health plan begins a new year. The mandate's start-up date for for-profit organizations was Aug. 1 of 2012.

 

While acknowledging Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics differ theologically, Moore and Lori said in their letter they are united in believing legislative action is needed to protect freedom of conscience.

 

"[M]any people are being forced -- and many others will soon be forced -- to either follow what the government compels or suffer" for their beliefs, they wrote. Southern Baptists and Catholics both "value God's gift of procreation," Moore and Lori told senators and representatives, and they also agree regarding the mandate:

 

-- "[I]t is wrong to promote drugs and devices that destroy a newly conceived human life at any stage. . . .

 

-- "[U]nmarried minors must not be subject to government-mandated 'counseling' on sex and birth control without their parents' knowledge or over their objections....

 

-- "[T]he religious beliefs of our faith communities and others must not be suppressed or ignored by a government supposedly committed to protect the religious freedom of all."

 

They also cited the need to protect the conscience rights of medical workers, who increasingly face pressure to assist in "the destruction of innocent life."

 

Regarding the letter, Moore said, "We will not stand by as deeply held beliefs are being trampled by the federal government."

 

There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest non-Catholic denomination with about 15.8 million members in more than 46,000 churches.

 

While the USCCB opposes coverage of all contraceptives, the ERLC's objection is to contraceptives that can cause abortions.

 

The abortion/contraception mandate, also known as the HHS mandate because of its issuance by the Department of Health and Human Services, gives those who object to it, the ERLC says, three options, all unacceptable: (1) violate their consciences by obeying it; (2) violate the law, which could produce hefty fines; or (3) stop providing health coverage, which could force workers to purchase insurance with provisions they object to and possibly open the employers up to penalties.

 

At a Capitol Hill briefing June 21 Barrett Duke, ERLC vice president for public policy and research, said the federal government "is basically putting us in a position where we have to decide whether ... to obey God or to obey our government."

 

"Southern Baptists are determined to obey God, and we are standing with Catholics on this because this isn't only a Catholic issue," Duke said. "This is a Southern Baptist issue; this is an evangelical issue; this is a faith issue."

 

While the "offense is abortion-causing drugs," he said, the "real issue here is religious freedom, and that's what we believe is at stake right now."

 

Duke joined other pro-life and religious liberty advocates in providing background to staffers for senators and representatives regarding the Health Care Conscience Rights Act.

 

The bill amends the health care reform law to protect Americans from having to purchase or provide insurance that includes coverage of abortion or another service to which they object on "moral or religious" grounds. It also bars discrimination by the government against health care workers or institutions refusing to participate in abortions.

 

The House bill, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R.-Tenn., in March, has 177 cosponsors. Sens. Deb Fischer, R.-Neb., and Tom Coburn, R.-Okla., introduced the Senate version the same week Moore and Lori sent their letter to Congress.

 

Of the 61 lawsuits that have been filed against the abortion/contraception mandate, 32 are by for-profits. Included are Christian publisher Tyndale House, Christian-owned Hobby Lobby and businesses owned by Catholics, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Courts have granted injunctions to 20 for-profit corporations blocking enforcement of the mandate, but have refused to provide such relief to Hobby Lobby and six others. No action has been taken in five for-profit lawsuits.

 

On June 18 Geneva College, a Christian school in western Pennsylvania, became the first non-profit to receive such relief from a court. Courts have dismissed 18 of the non-profit lawsuits, citing procedural issues.

 

The Obama administration proposed a rule change in February to address conscience objections to the abortion/contraception mandate. Religious liberty advocates said it appears to protect churches and church ministries, but not religious institutions and individuals.

 

The ERLC has signed onto five briefs defending the religious freedom of entities challenging the mandate at the appeals court level.

 

Contact: Tom Strode, Source: Baptist Press

High Court to weigh abortion clinic buffers

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of a Massachusetts law that restricts pro-life advocates from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.

 

A federal appeals court in January upheld the abortion clinic buffer zone law, saying it protected the rights of patients while also ensuring pro-life advocates could exercise their First Amendment rights.

 

An attorney for the seven Massachusetts residents challenging the 2007 law, though, said it's nearly impossible for pro-life advocates to speak with women entering a clinic from such a distance.

 

Life Legal Defense Foundation, which filed a friend of the court brief arguing the buffer zone is unconstitutional, said it was "delighted that the Court is going to weigh in on this clear case of viewpoint discrimination."

 

"Activists who make disturbances at military funerals, animal rights protests, and 'occupy' demonstrations are not bound by the sort of restrictions applied to peaceful pro-life witnesses who invite women to learn about abortion alternatives," Dana Cody, the foundation's executive director, said after the Supreme Court reported June 24 it would hear the case. "It's a true double standard and an unbelievable violation of First Amendment rights."

 

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in its decision, compared pro-life speech to sexually-oriented businesses by saying just as adult bookstores and theaters have harmful "secondary effects" that allow cities to impose special zoning restrictions, pro-life sidewalk counseling and picketing have harmful "secondary effects."

 

"In fact, what governments most fear about pro-life speech is not any 'secondary effect,'" Cody said in a news release. "It is that women heading into clinics are hearing the truth about abortion."

 

Cody noted that San Francisco, Chicago and other cities also have imposed similar laws to restrict pro-life speech and should take notice that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

 

"We are optimistic that the court will not only strike down the Massachusetts law but also revisit some of its own prior precedents that have led lower courts to believe that, as a matter of law, pro-life speech is less deserving of protection," Cody said.

 

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office has defended the law, said in a statement, according to Boston.com, "The Massachusetts buffer zone law strikes the appropriate balance to ensure a woman's right to safe access to health care facilities while preserving First Amendment rights. We look forward to defending this vitally important legislation before the Supreme Court."

 

Oral arguments in the case, McCullen v. Coakley, are expected next year.

 

Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Erin Roach

Siri to Prevent Suicide–But Not “Death With Dignity”

 

So Apple is putting a suicide prevention function into Siri, the "personal assistant" installed in the i-phone. From the ABC story:

 

Apple's snarky assistant has been updated with a helpful, serious feature. Siri will now respond to suicidal statements with useful suicide prevention information. Prior to this week if you had told Siri "I want to kill myself" or "I want to jump off a bridge," the service would either search the web or worse search for the nearest bridge. Now, Apple has directed the assistant to immediately return the phone number of the Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

 

"If you are thinking about suicide, you may want to speak with someone at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline," the service says aloud in response to "I want to kill myself." Siri then asks if you would like to call the number. If you don't respond for a short period of time, it automatically returns a list of local suicide prevention centers. Click on the results and it will show you them on a map.

 

Great. Except, I hear, that assisted suicide advocates have insisted that Apple ensure that Siri's GPS function first determine whether the user is in Oregon, Washington, or Vermont. If so, she will ask whether the phone user has cancer or some other terminal illness. If the answer is yes, Siri won't refer to prevention resources but instead assure users that they aren't really suicidal but merely contemplating "death with dignity."

 

Editor's note. This appears on Wesley's great blog Secondhand Smoke

 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, Source: National Right to Life

Chinese city forces all women of child-bearing age to be fitted with IUDs or sterilized

A notice posted in Huizhou offers

incentives to women to be fitted

with an IUD or be sterilized.

 

The Chinese government has given notice to citizens of the city Huizhou that all women of childbearing age must be fitted with Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) or be permanently sterilized via tubal ligations.

 

Women who are currently in compliance with the one child policy must be fitted with IUDs. However, women who are in violation of the population control law with two children must present themselves for tubal ligations.

 

The government is using both monetary rewards and threats that women will lose access to government-run social services in order to coerce women into submitting themselves for the temporary and permanent sterilizations.

 

A notice posted in Huizhou offers incentives to women to be fitted with an IUD or be sterilized.

 

Women not in compliance with the mandate, and therefore not possessing a certificate of compliance, will not be able to enroll their children in school, receive social security benefits, or have access to government services. Hospitals will not issue relevant certifications without proof of IUD insertion or sterilization.

 

Furthermore, when registering for a household registration in Huizhou for a newborn, the mother must first present a certificate that she has been fitted with an IUD.

 

Some speculate the heightened population control measures are due to regional birth rates that are too high and low abortion and sterilization rates.

 

Those who do comply within a certain timeframe are promised rewards commensurate with their form of compliance.

 

For example, in the Lilin Township, couples one with child and an IUD-fitted mother will receive 300 yuan (roughly $50 U.S.).

 

In the same township, couples who legally have two children and who have been sterilized will warrant a 2,000 yuan reward ($326 U.S.).

 

Couples who have legally had two daughters are enticed with the promise of 10,000 yuan, or $1,630, for being sterilized.

 

Other local township governments are offering different rewards, which has raised suspicions that neighborhood communities and city departments are embezzling reward money.

 

There are reports that these measures are underway in other provinces, as well.

 

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Hey, Mr. President, what about that one-child policy in China?

 

Recently there was a focus on a family-planning policy in Myanmar while the more restrictive policy in China went largely ignored.

 

Brian Lee of All Girls Allowed tells OneNewsNow the policy zeros in on one population group in Myanmar.

 

"Myanmar has a two-child policy that restricts the Rohingya people, who are a Muslim people group, to two children," Lee explains.

 

A senior government official recently expressed support for the people, saying the one-child policy helps women who are very poor and uneducated, and who find it difficult to take care of their children.

 

Myanmar, also known as Burma, is located in Southeast Asia.

 

The president of the country visited the White House in May and met with President Obama, who expressed concern over violence in Myanmar directed at Muslim communities.

 

"And yet when President Obama met with President Xi Jinping of China," says Lee, "he had no condemnation about human rights despite the fact that China has had a one-child policy, which is more brutal and more ruthless, for over 30 years."

 

Lee says Myanmar's two-child policy, directed at a religious minority locked into poverty, is a clear human rights violation.

 

Yet the United Nations has remained silent over forced abortion and sterilization in China, and Obama did not mention it in direct talks with the government.

 

Lee stresses the world can no longer turn a blind eye to China's human rights practices.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Obama administration halts appeal on Plan B

 

One version of the "morning-after" pill now is available to girls of all ages.

 

The Obama administration informed a federal judge June 10 that it would end its appeal of his ruling that struck down age restrictions for a drug that has the potential to cause abortions. Its action means even pre-teen girls may purchase the drug over the counter.

 

The decision involves Plan B One-Step, a brand of the "morning-after" pill, which also is known as emergency contraception. The drug, however, has a secondary mechanism that can cause an abortion.

 

Plan B One-Step and other "morning-after" pills can restrict ovulation in a female or prevent fertilization, but they also can block implantation of the early embryo in the uterine wall. The latter effect causes an abortion.

 

Once the Food and Drug Administration approves Plan B One-Step for unrestricted sale, companies manufacturing one-step generic pills -- such as Next Choice One Dose -- are expected to apply for FDA approval, according to The New York Times.

 

Pro-lifers decried the Obama administration decision while abortion rights advocates applauded.

 

The action "is a clear example of the administration's willingness to put politics ahead of the health and safety of girls," said Anna Higgins, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council. "We are disappointed that this administration has once again sided with its political allies and ignored the safety of girls and the rights of parents."

 

In 2011, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, established 17 years old as the minimum age for a female to purchase Plan B One-Step. Even when the FDA lowered that age limit to 15 in April, it was insufficient for federal judge Edward Korman, who had ordered sale of the pill without a prescription or age restriction.

 

The "morning-after" pill is basically a heavier dose of birth control pills that include one-step versions -- such as Plan B One-Step and Next Choice One Dose -- and two-step versions such as Plan B and Next Choice. The Obama administration has not agreed to lift the age restriction on two-step methods because of concern girls may not be able to use them safely, The Times reported.

 

The one-step version must be taken in a single dose within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. Under the two-part regimen, a woman takes a pill within 72 hours and another dose 12 hours later.

 

Contact: Tom Strode, Source: Baptist Press

Coming to a Vending Machine near You - The Morning-after Pill?

 

Last week, the President threw America's parents and their daughters under a bus. And I'm hopping mad about it—and not just because I have a young daughter of my own.

 

First, a little history: In 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the Food and Drug Administration's request to make the "Plan B One-Step" drug available to all women and girls without a prescription, no matter their age. Plan B is a so-called emergency contraception drug that its maker admits could "inhibit implantation" of a fertilized egg in the womb. Sebelius agreed with the decision to distribute the drug—but insisted girls must be at least fifteen to purchase Plan B One-Step.

 

Well, that proved too much for federal judge Edward Korman (who is a Reagan appointee, by the way). In a decision that dripped with contempt for those concerned about the impact of the drug on young girls, Korman removed ALL age restrictions on the sale of the drug. He claimed they were "politically motivated" and "scientifically unjustified." And to add insult to what will surely be many injuries to America's daughters, the Obama administration has just announced that it will not appeal the judge's ruling.

 

Now, if you're like me, you were somewhere between depressed and outraged in hearing this. My 14-year-old daughter can't go on a field trip without my permission, but soon she'll be able to legally buy the morning-after pill without my knowing anything about it. Even 11- and 12-year-old girls will be able to pick up Plan B along with their candy bars and lip gloss at the neighborhood drug store.

 

What's next? Selling abortion drugs in junior high vending machines? ("No way!" you say? Well, they're already in college vending machines. But maybe I'd better not give them any ideas.)

 

Even President Obama, the most abortion-minded president we've ever had, said that there ought to be an age limit on this Plan B. As he noted in 2011, the reason Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius insisted on an age limit was because "she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drugstore should be able . . . to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect."

 

But if the President knows this drug is potentially dangerous, why did he abandon the fight to protect our daughters? Frankly, I've known ten-year-olds who haven't mastered the art of putting the lid back on a tube of toothpaste. And yet Judge Korman and President Obama are going to trust these kids to carefully read the instructions on a potentially dangerous drug, and take it properly? Are they kidding?

 

Plan B will have another destructive impact—and this, too, will harm our daughters. By law, children and younger teenagers cannot consent to sex; if they're pregnant, it's a case of statutory rape—or worse, violent rape. Making Plan B available to young girls gives sexual predators another way to hide what they've done from their victims' parents and doctors—and the police.

 

The sad reality is that even if there were an age restriction, teens would do what they already do with the purchase of alcohol: Get somebody older to buy the drugs for them. But we ought to be angry at what an arrogant federal government is teaching our kids. The law is a moral teacher, and it's teaching kids that parents are irrelevant.

 

You and I live in a time when government is actively undermining the family. We need to fight back. Congress can pass a law insisting that no child under eighteen be allowed access to this drug, and that it be sold only with a doctor's prescription. Please urge your congressman to sponsor a bill to get this done.

 

Contact: Eric Metaxas, Source: BreakPoint

Obama threatens veto as fetal pain bill passes House

 

Despite passing the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy faces an uncertain future as President Obama's administration has suggested that he will veto it.

 

"(S)cience is on our side," Representative Marsha Blackburn, (R- Tenn.) told MSNBC in an interview.

 

Blackburn joined other pro-life representatives, including Michelle Bachmann (R- Minn.) and Virginia Foxx (R- N.C.) in defending the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy and later, based on science indicating that unborn children can feel pain by this point. Exceptions in cases of rape, incest or a risk to the mother's life were included in the final House version of the legislation.

 

The House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 232-293 on June 18, following its passage by the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation will now advance to the Senate, where opponents have vowed to fight it.

 

The Obama Administration has said that should the legislation gain the approval of both the House and Senate, the president's "senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill."

 

A statement of administration policy criticized the bill, saying that it "would unacceptably restrict women's health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman's right to choose."

 

The statement alleged that the legislation "is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution."

 

It is unclear how the Supreme Court would react to the pro-life legislation were it to be challenged as a violation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Pro-life advocates pointed to polls showing that the majority of Americans support restricting late-term abortions.

 

"May we in humility confront this national sin and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation," said Rep. Foxx.

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the legislation, argued in a June 13 statement that "(k)nowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be."

 

"This is not who we are," he said.

 

Pro-life advocates have attempted to gain support for the bill's cause, using the hashtag #theyfeelpain on Twitter.

 

Despite the pledged opposition from the Senate and White House, supporters are confident that the American people are becoming more aware of the reality of abortion.

 

Last year, a similar piece of legislation that would have applied only to the District of Columbia failed to pass the House of Representatives.

 

"The tide of the American conscience will only continue to shift toward life and away from dismembering unborn babies in the womb," said Rep. Franks in a June 18 tweet.

 

Source: CNA Daily News

Most Women Denied Abortions Have No Regrets, According to Study

Diana Greene Foster

 

"Gina" found herself pregnant and unmarried.

 

When she went to the local abortion center, the ultrasound showed she was at 23 weeks, too far along for a legal abortion. Just a few weeks later she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl.  Now Gina says her daughter is "more than my best friend, more than the love of my life.  She is just my whole world."

 

Gina's story is consistent with the results of a study conducted by Diana Greene Foster, a demographer and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco. Researchers interviewed 200 women who had been turned down for an abortion. Ninety-five percent said they had no regrets about having the baby.

 

Carrie Gordon Earll, CitizenLink's senior director for issues analysis, said pro-abortion activists often tell women that having their babies will ruin their lives, but that's just not true.

 

"For too many women, abortion seems like the only choice," she said. "But when they get to the other side, and they have the baby, they find that those circumstances may still be challenging — but the reality of the baby in your arms trumps the problems that you see when you're looking at and considering abortion."

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 

Learn more about Foster's study.

 

Read "What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?"

 

Read "What the Bible Says about the Beginning of Life."

 

Contact: Kim Trobee, Source: CitizenLink

U.S. House votes Tuesday on late abortion ban -- CALL TODAY!

 

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill to protect unborn children nationwide during the last four months of pregnancy, when they are capable of experiencing excruciating pain when they are aborted.

 

The bill is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), which is based on a model bill written by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which has already been enacted in nine states.  H.R. 1797 would extend the life-saving policy to the entire nation, protecting unborn children of 20 weeks fetal age or later.

 

This is the most important pro-life bill to be considered by the U.S. House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was enacted ten years ago.

 

Time is short -- too short to depend on emails or letters.  Instead, please immediately telephone the office of your representative in the U.S. House.  Urge him or her to vote in favor of the ban on late abortions, H.R. 1797.

 

It's easy, and just takes a few minutes. Insert your zip code into the "Take Action" box after clicking the link below -- you will be shown the phone number of your representative, along with suggested quick points you can make to the representative's staff person during your call.  If you get a busy signal or a recording, please keep trying.

 

You will also be given the option of sending a short email message to NRLC to report on the position of your representative, after your call.  This is optional, but it will assist NRLC's efforts to win passage of this bill.

 

Follow this link to Take Action!

 

http://capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=62728636&queueid=9670081506

Undercover call: 'Girl' calls Planned Parenthood, reports statutory rape

 

An undercover telephone call to a New Mexico Planned Parenthood suggests it may have failed to report a statutory rape.

 

Over the past decade pro-life groups Life Dynamics and Live Action have conducted undercover probes revealing that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics were willing to arrange for abortions for underage girls without reporting an older person who impregnated them. Those investigations caused a ruckus, but no action was taken.

 

Recently, an undercover woman posed as a child and called Albuquerque Planned Parenthood:

 

PP WORKER:Thanks for calling Planned Parenthood. This is Brandy. How may I help you?

 

CALLER: Hi, umm, I need to schedule an abortion.

 

PP WORKER: And are you making this appointment for yourself?

 

CALLER:Yes.

 

PP WORKER:How old are you?

 

CALLER:I'm 14.

 

The appointment was scheduled but the undercover caller made another phone call and talked to another clinic worker making sure her parents wouldn't be told. Plus, she advised the clinic worker that her boyfriend was 21 and wanted to be certain he would be safe:

 

CALLER:Will he get in trouble?

 

PP WORKER:That's what you and your doctor would have to discuss. I mean, it would just depend on like, the state law that we would have to report. They probably won't, but it's something that we see often. You're certainly not the first one.

 

The investigation was done by Project Defending Life.

 

Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue says the calls reveal willingness to cover up a crime against a child who is unable to legally consent. She urges authorities to take action.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Pro-abortion Pelosi asked 'simple' question about the unborn: 'What's the difference?'

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was visibly unhappy at a press conference Thursday when she was asked to explain how abortions performed at approximately five months differ from the grisly murders committed by Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

 

At the press conference, Pelosi had commented on a Republican bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks when she called on John McCormack, a reporter for conservative magazine The Weekly Standard.

 

"What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?" McCormack asked the congresswoman. 

 

"You're probably enjoying that question a lot," Pelosi replied. "I can see you savoring it."

 

The congresswoman, who is infamously pro-abortion, then preached at the reporter that she is a mother of five children, then she brought religion into the topic.

 

"As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," Pelosi said. "I don't think it should have anything to do with politics and that's where you're taking it, and I'm not going there."

 

What did Pelosi mean by "sacred ground?"

 

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List feels Pelosi was saying abortion is sacred and that is what she is protecting as a Catholic.

 

"I'm actually myself a practicing Catholic and I guess I would say that the church has taught for a very long time that life is sacred," says Dannenfelser. "And she's out there trying to protect that abortion ground, and really is more happy to protect the institution of abortion than she is the individuals who are suffering from it."

The exchange was picked up by the Drudge Report and other online media outlets. On National Review Online, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that Pelosi claimed the bill would ban abortion, which he pointed out is untrue.

 

"McCormack, note, did not bring religion into the question," Ponnuru wrote. "He asked her to justify her position on a question of public policy. She chose not to try."

 

In the press conference, Pelosi moved on to another question. But the reporter still got in the last word: "It was a simple question," McCormack told her. "You didn't answer."

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Government Approves Plan B for Children

 

The Justice Department (DOJ) decided Monday to comply with a judge's ruling that allows anyone to buy a drug that may cause early abortions. The ruling says no one needs a prescription and minors do not require parental notification or consent to purchase the drug.

 

The drug, marketed as Plan B and also referred to as the "morning after pill," contains high levels of hormones, which have not been tested on pre-teens and teenage girls. The Obama administration previously argued that age limits were "common sense" for those wanting to buy Plan B without prescriptions. Plan B activist groups claim, however, that unrestricted access to the drug is a form of "reproductive justice."

 

"The DOJ's decision comes at the same time a bill is pending in the U.S. Senate to prohibit the sale of some cough syrups to minors due to fear of abuse," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for CitizenLink. "So, teenage girls can be trusted with a powerful hormone drug available over the counter without medical supervision but not with cough syrup. This is yet another example of the politics of abortion above common sense." 

 

A district judge in April ordered the Obama Administration to drop its age requirement for buying Plan B. The Obama administration announced its appeal of the order in May, then reversed course.

 

"President Obama has yet again sided with Planned Parenthood, his favorite political ally and the single largest distributor of Plan B drugs — drugs that can destroy a life," said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Litigation Counsel Catherine Glenn Foster. "Whatever guides this administration in its decisions, it is apparently not the health and well-being of our daughters and granddaughters. The administration's decision is nothing short of shameful."

 

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved over-the-counter access to Plan B for women 18 and older, according to court documents. Those under 18 were required to have a prescription. The FDA was later ordered to make it available without a prescription to 17-year-olds.

 

"It is irresponsible to advocate over-the-counter use of these high-potency drugs, which would make them available to anyone — including those predators who exploit young girls," said Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute. "Mark my words, it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator and pedophile's dream — unlimited access to Plan B."

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

Read the district court opinion in Tummino v. Hamburg.

 

Contact: Bethany Monk, Source CitizenLink

Planned Parenthood Attacks Pro-Life Event - Hits National Media

 

Project Wildfire's initial pro-life event garnered national media coverage (see links below) showing America how vicious Planned Parenthood is to those whose choice is not to agree. It got significant national attention and trended #1 on twitter for 14 hours. According to twitter over "30,000 people used the hash-tag #ExposePP (our event tag) that day," due in a large part to the attack by PP and its army of supporters. Their coordinated effort to "HIJACK" "#ExposePP" may have backfired, as many pro-choice people were appalled at the viciousness of the attack:

 

"C'mon people. What are you doing? I am pro-choice and you are embarrassing me with these insults and personal attacks. Maybe I'm on the wrong side!" -- Carol Spencer

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/04/wisconsin-anti-abortion-activist-reportedly-sees-online-campaign-turned-into/

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/06/03/liberal-groups-overtake-exposepp.html

 

The groups next event "PROJECT WILDFIRE - #ExposePP" is scheduled for Sunday June 16. This is an online event similar to the #Gosnell tweet-fest, which resulted in the media covering the Kermit Gosnell trial. It will be from 8am - 8pm

 

http://www.facebook.com/events/614089885269275/?notif_t=plan_user_joined

 

A month ago this pro-life event started and was named: PROJECT WILDFIRE with the Twitter "Hash-Tag" -- #exposePP, with the intent to discuss FACTS unfavorable to PP. As reported by philanthropy.com, Planned Parenthood "employs an outside firm to monitor every tweet, and then targets people who disagree."

 

On May 31 they quickly swooped in on the June 1 Facebook event at 11pm Friday night. The event page was bombarded with filthy language and porn pictures. These pro-abortion zealots, sent by Planned Parenthood, announced their intent to "Hijack" #Expose PP, and by 1am it was the #1 thing trending on twitter.

 

Many pro-life people, including those with Project Wildfire, began to respond and started the event 8 hours early. For the entire day, #ExposePP remained in the top 5 trends on twitter, with PP fans bragging about the "hijacking" and pro-life people calmly speaking FACTS. This twitter war started because PP is so determined to silence anyone who dares to stand in opposition to their pro-choice agenda.

 

Considering this was the NUMBER ONE trend on twitter Saturday and with the Gosnell issue in the public eye, this event seems clearly worthy of coverage.

 

Conatct: Cary Bogue, Source: Project Wildfire