European Court: No Human Right to Kill a Baby With Down Syndrome in Abortion

In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights heard a case concerning a woman who filed a suit against a doctor for breaching his obligation to prescribe a screening test for Down syndrome. The woman, Anita KRŪZMANE, gave birth to a baby with Down syndrome and claimed that her right’s had been violated in respect to her right to have an abortion.

However, the court denied the suit in June.

The JérômeLejeuneFoundation said the following about the case in their press release:

The Jérôme Lejeune Foundation has applauded the fact that the court abstained from considering a child with Down syndrome a cause of harm to the mother. It did not expressly recognize the abortion of a child with Down syndrome as a right in the name of  the European Convention on Human Rights (article 8 concerning the respect to the right  to a privacy), but only and indirectly recognized a right to information of women concerning the health of their expected babies.

The Foundation has noted with satisfaction that the Court did not grant the applicant, on the ground of material harm (the lack of resource and the allowance for the child), the 253.000 euros demanded. Thus, it did not consider that there was any wrong done on the grounds of the birth.


This decision from the European court means that they denied KRŪZMANE’s request for compensation and she will not receive any money from the suit. It also means that it is not a human right to abort a baby with Down syndrome.

Unfortunately, her case isn’t the only one of a mother filing a lawsuit against medical professionals because her baby was born with Down syndrome. In 2012, an Oregon family won a $2.9 million dollar “wrongful birth” lawsuit after a hospital missed their daughters Down syndrome diagnosis. The parents said that they would have terminated the pregnancy if they had not been assured that their baby did not have the genetic condition.

Additionally, this year we saw yet another example of inhumane treatment toward children with Down syndrome. David and Wendy Farnell abandoned their son with Down syndrome in Thailand but kept his healthy twin sister and escaped to Australia. Ever since, the Child Protection officials of Thailand have been working tirelessly to locate his parents. However, it emerged last week that they have been hiding in their own home in Australia. Sadly, before Gammy was born, his parents wanted a surrogate to abort him because of his diagnosis. But the surrogate refused and gave birth to both children.

While these examples of abuse and eugenic ideologies toward children with Down syndrome are disheartening, pro-abortion advocates stick to it because they believe aborting a disabled baby is better than the alternative. In other words, they would rather have abortionist’s dismember children limb by limb, than let them live. They even argue that this would be the “humane choice”.

Ask yourself, if your father was limited by cancer and had to suffer through chemotherapy, or you had a child with autism who was ridiculed by peers, would you be ok with someone killing them simply because they would face hardship? Would you say the kindest thing society could do would be to end their life? Of course not. People with disabilities are worthy of the same dignity given to the rest of us.

The same goes for children with Down syndrome. They should not be defined by their capabilities or struggles, but by the fact that they are a part of the human family. When we begin to define a person’s value by what they can or cannot do, we are taking steps toward an ugly future, where society decides when a life is worth eliminating.

By Sarah Zagorski
Source: LifeNews.com

Ginsburg Wants to Make Abortion Right Equal to Second Amendment

I have come to believe that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned–a big if–it will be from the other side. That is, I think it is more likely that a future Supreme Court will find Roe and its progeny to be too restrictive and overturn the case in the cause of forging an all-encompassing right to abortion, instead of returning abortion to state regulation. From a piece I wrote about that in First Things, “A Pro-Abortion Reversal of Roe v Wade?”:

[Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg believes adamantly that women are denied “equal citizen stature” by boundaries placed around access to abortion. Not only that, but in an angry dissent to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion, she (joined by Justice Breyer among the current justices) railed against the majority allowing “moral concerns” to “override fundamental rights.”



That sounded to me as advocacy for an unfettered right to abortion at any time and for any reason. So, I asked expert anti-abortion attorney Clarke D. Forsyth, the senior counsel for Americans United for Life. whether Ginsburg’s view would abolish all abortion regulation. Yes, he told me: If the right to an abortion were based on “equal protection of the law,” as opposed to other constitutional standards, it would “permit no regulations at any time,” perhaps even, “requiring [government] abortion funding.”

Now, the New York Times’ legal reporter Linda Greenhouse–who makes little pretense about objectivity in her journalism–provides more fuel for my fire. Lamenting the successful restrictions on abortion in states such as Texas, she lauds a recent Federal Court of Appeals ruling that the right to abortion is equivalent to the right to keep and bear arms. From her piece:

Guns and abortion? That’s a pairing no previous judicial opinion has made. “At its core, each protected right is held by the individual,” the judge explained. “However, neither right can be fully exercised without the assistance of someone else. The right to abortion cannot be exercised without a medical professional, and the right to keep and bear arms means little if there is no one from whom to acquire the handgun or ammunition.”

Do I have to point out how delicious this analogy is? Of course, it’s unthinkable that Alabama would regulate firearms dealers to the point of extinction. But recall the June day 22 years ago when the Supreme Court, to the surprise of nearly everyone, reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was unthinkable then that nearly a generation later, states would flagrantly be regulating the practice of abortion (in the name of women’s health and safety, no less) out of business — a goal that Texas, enabled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is close to achieving.

Except that gun ownership is an express right, protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In contrast, the right to an abortion was invented by Justices based on implied so-called “penumbras and emanations”–but never mind.

No right is absolute, or course. We aren’t allowed to own machine guns, for example.

But I think that advocates like Greenhouse–and certainly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg–want abortion to be. Indeed, check out Greenhouse’s last paragraph:

Still, judges’ willingness to step outside the abortion frame and to weigh, from that broad perspective, whether the abortion right has become unduly burdened is something new and potentially of great value in the struggle to preserve women’s reproductive freedom. Even in the face of cynical and unrelenting political attack, the right to abortion can become stronger the more tightly it is stitched into the constitutional fabric, the more that smart and gutsy judges are willing to treat it as what it is, a right like any other.

As I said in my First Things piece, I believe the successes of the pro life movement has liberals ready to replace the cracked wall of Roe by transforming abortion into an absolute right through the ninth month. Comparing access to abortion to the right to own a gun is a step down that path.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

Source: LifeNews.com

Nations Silent as UN Presents Plan to Push Abortion in War-Torn Countries

A new UN directive to promote abortion in war-torn areas went unchallenged when it was presented to member states at UN headquarters last week.

The high level UN officials who presented a guidance note of the Secretary-General with the new directive in a packed meeting room at UN headquarters were visibly anxious. It is the first time the Secretary-General has openly instructed UN staff and officials to promote abortion. No one used the term “abortion” during the meeting, but it was clearly on everyone’s mind.

Officials and delegates looked around furtively, scouting the room as if to anticipate where the challenge might come from. In the end, the challenge never came.



The guidance note on reparations for conflict-related sexual violence goes beyond what UN staff has ever dared to say about abortion, at least publically. The controversial document instructs UN officials and staff to lobby for changes in law to permit abortion as a form of reparation for sexual violence against women. In the wake of the Secretary-General’s note, UN officials advocating abortion won’t seem “rogue” officials any longer, but rather good foot soldiers for the Secretary-General.

The meeting on Friday was a non-official launch of sorts. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, head of the UN’s agency for women, UN Women, highlighted the section that contains the offending new directive to promote abortion in her brief speech, as if daring anyone to challenge her.

She called this effort part of a “broader struggle” for gender equality, but acknowledged the directive has no legal or normative value. “To leave it at this level is not enough” she said, highlighting the need to change laws.

Ivan Šimonović, second in command in the UN human rights bureaucracy, said the contents of the guidance note are worthless unless implemented. He suggested criticizing states through treaty bodies, special rapporteurs, and the UN process called Universal Periodic Review, to pressure states to liberalize their laws.

The UN bureaucracy faces an uphill battle, however, especially in delicate post-war situations. On Friday, the only country held up as an example of how to address sexual violence in war torn areas was Colombia, where legislators rejected a right to abortion for cases of rape in March.

None of the countries that would normally object to this kind of maneuver in the UN bureaucracy objected to the directive during the presentation on Friday. This may be because the document is not considered worth the aggravation of a public scuffle with the UN bureaucracy. The causes and consequences of wars are something national leaders would rather put behind them, especially at a time when they need the UN bureaucracy to help fund programs that are much higher on their nation’s list of priorities.

This does not mean the Secretary-General is not hearing complaints, only that they are not made in public. Sources have told the Friday Fax that several member states, mostly from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia are preparing a cautionary note for the Secretary-General on this and other matters where they believe he is interfering with exclusively national prerogatives.

The Secretary-General, who heads up the UN bureaucracy, frequently tests the outer limits of his mandate. Even so, the note goes far beyond his competence or that of the UN bureaucracy. Abortion is a subject to be dealt with under national legislation in UN consensus, and it is the kind of subject that the framers of the UN Charter never contemplated coming under the purview of any UN entity.

African countries— many of which are in conflict or only recently emerged from it—mostly prohibit abortion and are the primary targets of this new bureaucratic campaign. In these vulnerable states, the UN has a hefty responsibility to protect all people from further harm. The Secretary-General’s use of post-conflict situations to promote abortion is a scandalous moral failure and betrayal of trust. He got away with it on Friday, But it won’t be for long.

LifeNews.com Note: Stefano Gennarini, J.D. writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group’s Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.

Source: LifeNews.com

Offer preteen girls sex ed and abortion while they are still ‘malleable’: Georgetown researchers

A new report from Georgetown University suggests that public school children should be exposed to sexually explicit sex education at age 10 – while their views are still “malleable” – and that schools could lower STD and abortion rates by providing all girls capable of reproduction with “contraceptives and safe abortion” without “parental approval.”

The report promotes the sex ed and abortion-on-demand regimen for “Very Young Adolescents (VYAs),” defined as children between the ages of 10 and 14.

“Investing in very young adolescents’ sexual and reproductive health” was written by Susan M. Igras, Marjorie Macieira, Elaine Murphy, and Rebecka Lundgren of the Institute for Reproductive Health at Georgetown University and published in Global Public Health.

According to the researchers, it is unfortunate when children view their parents as the authority on sex.

“Younger adolescents see parents as a primary source of information and support, but most parents are ill-equipped to address issues related to puberty, SRH [sexual and reproductive health], and gender roles, and lack communication skills attuned to the young adolescents in their lives,” the researchers write. “Parental desire to protect their children is often exercised through behavioral regulation and monitoring."

“Parents worry that their daughters’ emerging fertility and sexuality could lead to premarital pregnancy and keep their daughters close to home to ensure safety," the report adds.

The researchers are also concerned that parents teach their children “gender-related ‘rules'” about behaviors appropriate to each sex, such as when “parents begin preparing their daughters for roles as future wives and mothers.”

In general, “parental and community norms serve to reinforce individuals’ behaviors and relationships that lead to poor adult SRH,” the authors conclude.

They also say parental authority violates “VYA rights,” such as denying children in the 10-14 age-range birth control and abortion.

“For those older VYAs who become sexually active, access to contraceptives and safe abortion remains largely unavailable due to regulations requiring parental approval or informal health care policies,” they state.

Their proposed public education courses are intended to combat that.

“If programs…are implemented at a time when adolescents are still malleable and relatively free of sexual and reproductive health problems and gender role biases, very young adolescents can be guided safely through this life stage,” the report concludes.

Parental groups said the proposals would harm children and insert the state in the unique relationship of a parent and child.

“Concerned Women for America supports reform of public education by returning authority to parents,” Alison Howard, communications director for Concerned Women for America, told LifeSiteNews.com. “We should be working toward restoring the quality of education to a level of excellence in academics without governmental mandates that are detrimental to parental rights.”
She warned that the report's suggestions of furnishing preteens with birth control and possibly abortion, with or without parental consent, will have “serious emotional and physical consequences” for young people.

“There is no denying the fact that we are in the middle of an STD epidemic, with more than 20 million new STD cases every year - the majority of them affecting 15- to 25-year-olds. Yet supposedly responsible adults still encourage early sexual activity for young boys and girls,” she said.

Her view contrasts with that of leftist publications such as Think Progress, which complains that “just 18 states and the District of Columbia require sexual health courses to cover information about birth control. Instead of providing teens with medically accurate information about their bodies, many public school districts still rely on 'abstinence-only' courses.”

Sex education is sometimes provided by Planned Parenthood, although a series of exposes have uncovered the organization giving young teens potentially dangerous advice.

“Parents are fighting an uphill battle to protect their children from well-funded opponents like Planned Parenthood, who work within schools to infiltrate curricula with an agenda of increased sexual activity for America’s young people. Our schools and our children are not to be used as social experiments,” Howard told LifeSiteNews. “Concerned Women for America and an alliance of groups including Live Action, Alliance Defending Freedom, and the National Abstinence Education Association are working to draw attention to the emphasis and motives these groups have in targeting the most innocent among us with their message of sexual promiscuity and deterioration of parental involvement.”

LifeSiteNews.com

You'll be Amazed at How This Couple Announces Their New Baby in this Coke Ad

As many of you may know, Coke’s summer marketing campaign, launched in June, has people searching the soda displays at stores for their own personalized Coke bottles. According to a press release from the company, Coke bottles around the world have the 250 most popular names among teens and millennials.

 

 

One couple used these Coke bottles to make a very cute and clever video to announce their pregnancy.

 

Known only as the McGillicuddys, this young couple is seen drinking Diet Cokes and quickly realizing that their voices change according to the names on the cans.

 

They first swap each other’s voices. Then they go on to hilariously take on famous voices, varying from Morgan Freeman to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

Their voices finally come back to normal, and when they look at the cans to see why, their pregnancy is announced.

 

Such a creative and sweet way of announcing such an important event in their lives. Best of luck to the McGillicuddys and their baby on the way!

 

Click here to view the video

 

LifeNews.com, Steven Ertelt

LifeNews Note: This post originally appeared at Live Action News.

 

Planned Parenthood Does Abortions and Wastes $115 Million of Your Tax Dollars

You work hard for your money, and as a good, upstanding citizen, you pay your taxes, trusting that those dollars will be used to benefit the greater community. They should not be wasted. They should not be abused. And it’s reasonable to believe that any organization that benefits from those dollars should not be caught up in potential fraud.

But, if actions speak louder than words, that’s clearly not how Planned Parenthood sees it.

We recently released our Annual Report on Planned Parenthood Affiliates and State Family Planning Programs. So, what did we find?

A large number of federal and state audits have documented that improper practices from Planned Parenthood and state family planning agencies have resulted in a minimum of $115 million in losses to American taxpayers.

A minimum of $115 million…lost.

What else could those tax dollars have gone to? They could have been used to help the homeless, improve education, or support foster or adoptive families. Perhaps they could have been used to help the economy or support our veterans. Instead, they went to support waste, abuse, and potential fraud by Planned Parenthood and other state family planning programs.

Is that where you want part of your paycheck to go?

Much of Planned Parenthood’s potential fraud was found in their unlawful billing practices, including: duplicate billing for examinations and products, billing for services that weren’t medically necessary, billing for services that weren’t really provided, and more.

You read that right. In some circumstances, Planned Parenthood was paid for services they didn’t even provide! Could you imagine paying your doctor for an annual physical without him actually giving you an annual physical?

Ridiculous.

The potential fraud goes even deeper. As the report indicates:

·     “At Planned Parenthood of Southwest Michigan (PPSWMI), a May 2010 audit revealed bank statements accumulated for up to six months before being reconciled, and personal expenses such as household bills being paid as company expenses.”

·     “In Vermont, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Action Fund agreed to pay a $30,000 fine to the Vermont Office of the Attorney General for failing to comply with political committee reporting requirements relating to $119,437 it spent in the 2010 gubernatorial election.”

·     “Planned Parenthood affiliates have also been fined or settled in cases involving wrongful death / medical malpractice, failure to report child sexual abuse and rape, and regulatory violations.”

These are just some of the stories. But, don’t just take it from me. You can read about it all in our annual report on Planned Parenthood.

Take Action

It’s time to hold Planned Parenthood accountable. We must investigate their plan.

Spread the word to your friends, family, and followers on social media. And be sure to contact your local congressman or senator to investigate Planned Parenthood for waste, abuse, and potential fraud.

Question: What other ways can $115 million be used to benefit society? Share in our comments section below.

LifeNews Note: Eric Porteous is Director of Digital Marketing for Alliance Defending Freedom

LifeNews.com by Eric Porteous

 

Amazing New "Pea Pod" Invention Helps Premature Babies Survive

Barbara Kozol, a Medford pediatric therapist, has invented a “pea pod” for preemie babies to assist them during the first month after their arrival. Most premature infants struggle through a unique set of challenges before leaving the hospital and require constant monitoring. One of obstacles they may face is the inability to experience healthy and complete bone growth. Sarah Lemon, a freelance writer, said the following in The Mail Tribune about bone growth and preemie babies:

“An increased risk of fracture accompanies preemies‘ poor bone growth and density, leading to diminished height as adults. Consequently, the past decade has seen providers focus on physical-activity programs for infants in neonatal intensive care to stimulate the skeletal system.”

However, inventions like Kozol’s peapod give preemies a greater chance of developing normally and in a comforting environment. The therapeutic pod is designed to imitate the secure, stretchy, and warm womb of a pregnant mother.

At the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Special Care Nursery at Rogue Regional Medical Center in Oregon, Kozol is conducting a federally approved study of the pods’ affect on premature infants. The most recent recipient of the benefits of her invention is a little boy named Colton Shaw. Lemon describes Colton’s experience in the peapod this way: “Unless he is being handled by family or care providers, Colton resides 24 hours per day in the pea pod, where he pushes against the elastic material much as he did for 30 weeks in utero.”

She continues, “Pulling the pod’s hood up over Colton’s ears elicits a squall from the 3-pound, 5-ounce boy. But for the most part, the pod is a soothing mechanism as much as a therapeutic tool.”

The pod is an alternative to stimulation and joint compression that many pediatric therapists use to facilitate healthy bone growth. Although these therapies have positive outcomes, preemies are often irritated by the manipulation and unnecessary stress is put on the infant.

Additionally, Lemon said that the pod allowed Colton to stretch his limbs and strain against the confinement at his own pace and comfort level. “A month of this therapy is the goal of Kozol’s study, but some subjects do so well that the hospital discharges them from care before they can finish,” Lemon concluded.

This past year, 10 preemies have completed Kozol’s study, and many more are expected to be beneficiaries of the new pea pod.

LifeNews.com by Sarah Zagorski

The devastating reality of Post Abortion Stress Syndrome

 

She sat across from me, tears streaming down her face. The subject of abortion came up and this woman struggled to discuss it. ‘Emotionally damaging’ was the phrase she used to describe the procedure.

 

She thought about her child. She wondered how old he or she may be. As she reflected on her past she wrestled with feelings of regret. She admitted to choosing abortion without knowing all of the facts. She felt rushed into the decision, wishing now that she would have gathered more information before she decided.

 

This woman’s story is all too common. In the decade I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement I’ve heard similar tales. I met a woman who was so affected by her abortion that she couldn’t talk about it for 20 years.

 

Another lady shared a chilling story of using the RU-486 pill and the absolute horror she faced witnessing her unborn baby pass. I remember the African-American woman who pulled me aside and whispered her confession. The pain of her choice etched upon her face.

 

Susanne Babbel is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist who has a P.H.D in Psychology. She is also a psychotherapist with an emphasis on trauma and depression. In an article for ‘Psychology Today’ titled, ‘Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS) – Does It Exist?’ she writes: ‘No matter your philosophical, religious, or political views on abortion, the fact of the matter is, the actual experience can affect women not only on a personal level but can potentially have psychological repercussions.’

 

Babbel refers to this as Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. (PASS) is based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD). It’s the name given to the psychological aftereffects of abortion. Babbel notes that the disorder is real, although the term has not been recognized by the American Psychological Association.

Sadly those who support abortion often refuse to acknowledge that long term negative effects that it can bring to many women. The National Abortion Federation calls (PASS) a ‘myth‘ and the popular liberal Ms. Magazine says it’s a ‘bogus affliction invented by the religious right’.

 

However Babbel asserts “any event that causes trauma can indeed result in PTSD, and abortion is no exception.” Babbel is not declaring this because she’s a pro-life therapist. She further states, ‘Believing that PASS exists does not mean that one does not believe in a woman’s right to choose; it simply means that one believes in supportive and constructive counseling around the trauma symptoms’. Babbel lists ‘guilt, anxiety, numbness, depression, flashbacks, and suicidal thoughts as symptoms of PASS.

 

Babbel makes no claim that these symptoms will follow after every abortion. She writes: While abortion can induce post-traumatic stress in some, others will suffer no repercussions at all. I can understand that statement.

 

I personally believe there is an undeniable, emotional, physical, and even spiritual connection between a mother and a child. However, I’ve met a number of post-abortive women who have a range of experiences. I don’t oppose abortion solely because I believe it will cause trauma to a woman’s soul. I oppose abortion because it’s morally wrong to destroy the life of a fetus. Some women will make that destructive decision with little sorrow, regret, or negative emotional consequences.

 

We live in a society that views abortion as a private decision which women need not regret. Therefore women with seemingly ‘positive’ abortion experiences are often encouraged to share them with pride. However women with negative experiences find themselves in a difficult place. They suffer from the pain of their abortion, all the while living in a society that tells them that pain isn’t real or necessary.

 

Thankfully organizations are here for that very reason. They are safe places for women who need healing after their abortion. If you or anyone you know has suffered emotional or physical pain from an abortion, there is help available to you. You are not alone. You don’t have to carry the secret or live in shame. Check out resources like Afterabortion.org and take a step towards freedom.

 

Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Christina Martin

 

Illinois Congresswoman attempts to play down her pro-abortion record

This week the national pro-life Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund blasted Illinois Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (photo above) for concealing her support for abortion on-demand up until the moment of birth.

Last summer, Bustos voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill to stop late abortion after 5 months, more than halfway through pregnancy. The Wall Street Journal has reported that, nationwide, candidates endorsed by the pro-abortion EMILY's List are avoiding the issue of abortion this election cycle. Yesterday, the New York Times also reported that the abortion lobby is purposefully changing its messaging to avoid the subject of abortion and "shunning" the term "pro-choice."

When asked by the Sauk Valley News, Rep. Bustos previously refused to explain her position on taxpayer funding for abortion, parental notification laws, and third-trimester abortions.

"According to the Lozier Institute, the U.S. is one of only seven countries to allow brutal abortion after 5 months – a distinction we share with China and North Korea. Cheri Bustos wants it to stay that way," said SBA List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Last year, Congresswoman Bustos was part of the extreme minority to vote against a modest, compassionate measure to protect babies after 5 months – when science shows the child feels excruciating pain. Bustos' views have earned her the endorsement of EMILY's List and the support of America's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, but what about Illinois voters? Her silence on this issue is evidence that she is aware her fringe position drives away her constituents."

The SBA List Candidate Fund previously endorsed Bustos' opponent, Bobby Schilling, in March 2014.

Source: Illinois Review

US senator introduces bill to see taxpayers cover cost of abortifacients for military women

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, has introduced legislation that would require all FDA-approved birth control and abortion pills and devices be made available at no cost to women in the military. Sens. Patty Murray, D-WA, and Harry Reid, D-NV, also acted as sponsors.

"Female service members deserve access to the same basic health care as the women they protect and it's unacceptable that they don't," Shaheen, whose amendment to expand abortion coverage for military women became law in 2013, said in a statement this week.

The 2014 bill, called the "Access to Contraception for Women Service members and Dependents Act of 2014," requires no co-pay for military women for all 20 FDA-approved birth control and abortifacient drugs and devices.

"Giving women in the military access to basic preventative health care, including contraception and family planning counseling, will strengthen our military as a whole," she says. "And it will make sure that women who get their health insurance from the military never have to worry about how they're going to pay for their contraception."

Currently, female service members are required to provide a co-pay if they order contraceptives and abortifacients at retail pharmacies and by mail.

Abortion groups and several retired military officials have supported the bill. The heads of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, among others, praised the expanded contraception access, with NARAL President Ilyse Hogue declaring,"Senators Shaheen, Reid and Murray have come to the defense of our military servicewomen and families with legislation that will ensure access to the comprehensive health care they deserve, including birth control and accurate family-planning counseling."

In their statements of support for the Act, Shaheen, Hogue, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and others failed to differentiate between the 16 contraceptives approved by the FDA and the four abortifacients and potential abortifacients also approved by the FDA. Coverage of these four drugs and devices were what the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood opposed in their recent lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

Likewise, a coalition of supporters for the Act -- including Catholics for Choice, the ACLU, and a number of Jewish and Protestant organizations -- failed to mention abortifacients and potential abortifacients in their support. Contrary to this portrayal of abortifacients as contraceptives, Just Facts President James Agresti recently pointed to both scientific and government sources that show intrauterine devices end the life of an unborn child, and morning-after pills "may block implantation."
Agresti noted that implantation takes place more than a week after fertilization, and thus anything that blocks implantation is destroying an unborn child.

Shaheen's office did not respond to LifeSiteNews' request for clarification as to whether the senator finds this concerning.

LifeSiteNews also asked Shaheen, who has been an outspoken proponent of changing how the military handles sexual assault, if she had concerns about the potential for rapists to cover up their crimes with abortifacients. Pro-life groups such as Life Dynamics, Inc. and Students for Life of America have shown such cover-ups occur with underage girls who are raped by adult men.

The bill had more than 15 Democratic co-sponsors as of publication time. The Democratic-controlled Senate may be able to get the bill past a Republican filibuster, but the GOP-controlled House is considered more pro-life than the Senate. However, some are concerned in light of the fact that in 2013 the House approved the defense authorization bill that included Shaheen's abortion amendment.
Congress goes on recess at the end of this week until September, which means the bill would only have a few weeks to pass before elections in November, and a few weeks after the elections in a lame-duck session.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Did a Federal Court Just Rule That Every Single State Has to Have an Abortion Clinic?

Earlier this week, in a transparent act of judicial slight-of-hand, two judges on the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a pro-life bill in Mississippi unconstitutional.

They enjoined the law not because of what it says — it merely brings abortion regulations back in line with state standards for ambulatory surgical centers — but because holding abortionists to standard medical standards would shut down the last abortion facility in the state. In other words, two unelected justices decided that keeping abortionists in business is more important than the safety of women. Even more amazing is that the same Circuit ruled in favor of a very similar law in Texas.

At issue in Mississippi is a 2012 law removing a special exemption for abortionists from the state's requirement that all doctors at ambulatory surgical centers — medical clinics, dental offices, etc. — maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Thirteen other states already require abortionists to have either admittance privileges or some other agreement with a local hospital.

This common-sense requirement ensures that out-of-state abortionists cannot come into the state, perform a rapid series of abortions, and move on to another state . A traveling abortionist leaves women at greater risk for life-threatening medical complications requiring them to seek emergency care. Sometimes these women have had little or no help in the hand-off to hospital physicians.

Mississippi's last remaining abortion clinic sued to have the law enjoined because no local hospital would give admittance privileges to two of their abortionists. Private hospitals can deny physicians admittance privileges for a variety of reasons — type and volume of practice, medical malpractice history, etc. — but five of the seven hospitals cited abortion as one of the reasons. On Tuesday, two justices on the 5^th Circuit put the abortion agenda ahead of women's safety and ruled that the law cannot be enforced because it would shut down Mississippi's last abortion facility.

This is a dangerous and novel attempt to rewrite judicial precedence to require at least one abortion facility in a state. What if that abortionist is like the "house of horrors" revealed two years ago at abortionist Gosnell's Philadelphia clinic? We sure hope other states continue to pass these regulations and that any similar laws will be upheld for what they are, common sense regulations aimed to help women.

Source: LifeNews.com
LifeNews Note: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.

Abortion Costs US Over $16 Trillion in Federal Revenue

Mark Olson, a former liberal activist, has published research demonstrating the devastating economic impact abortion-on-demand has had on the American economy. Olson's research finds that more than $16 trillion in federal revenue, roughly the size of our national debt, has been lost due to abortion.

"The figure of 55 million persons aborted, typically reported by pro-life groups, is a significant undercount," says Olson, a pro-life political consultant. "Abortions did not magically begin occurring in 1973 [when the Supreme Court allowed them], yet that is when everyone starts counting."

Using widely accepted pre-Roe v. Wade estimates, Olson's research additionally accounts for the compounding nature of population by including the generations of offspring that would have been born to those persons otherwise aborted. The result: The United States has suffered a population loss of over 125 million persons due to abortion.

When the per-capita individual federal tax burden for each respective year is applied to the population loss model, the result is a statistically significant correlation between our current national debt and federal revenue loss due to abortion.

Basic macroeconomics says that any such loss in population will result in a collapse of the necessary aggregate supply and demand to sustain long-term national economic growth. The population loss due to abortion would have the same negative economic impact as any population loss due to war, epidemic or natural disaster.

Olson adds, "We can argue over a balanced-budget amendment or tax-and-spend policies, but the reality is that we have lost over 125 million persons—no liberal or conservative economic policy can make up for that loss. We need to stop destroying our most precious economic resource, our people."

Olson additionally introduces "The Reagan Plan," an informed method for legally ending abortion in America. In 1980, Ronald Reagan laid out an achievable plan to accomplish the legal abolition of abortion. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement has yet to follow this plan.

By Mark Olson
Source: CharismaNews

Pregnancy Support Phone Line Has Helped Two Million Moms Save Their Babies From Abortion

Last Monday night I was contacted by a friend who turned to me for assistance with adoption. It was not for herself, but rather for a resident of her city who came to her looking for help while she was working for her local government.

I felt a sense of appreciation that this friend recognized the mindset I have when it comes to women facing pregnancies which may not be planned and that women may want options other than parenting. I looked up pregnancy centers from Option Line and was able to find a close by location to refer her to.

That same week, on Thursday, Life News was contacted by Heartbeat International, the organization which runs the Option Line service. Option Line was writing to share that they had reached 2 million contacts!

The e-mail sent out shares the story of one of those 2 million contacts, an 18 year old named Morgan.

Morgan was 18 and facing an unplanned pregnancy, which came to be while she was living with her father. While her father wanted her to get an abortion, and even scheduled her an appointment, Morgan was able to fly to her mother in Washington state. Fortunately, Morgan not only had her mother to turn to, but a pregnancy center.

The friend who reached out to me is not the first person to contact me for information regarding pregnancy centers or the forms of assistance they provide. I have gladly referred others to Option Line to look up pregnancy centers in their area, or have done the looking up for them. And just as Morgan turned to the same pregnancy center for assistance where she once volunteered for, I would turn to one should I ever face an unplanned pregnancy. I would know that I would be met with dignity and respect while being assisted.

Secular Pro-Life Perspectives featured a piece from an anonymous blogger  in April, in which the author discussed how thinking she could have been pregnant affected her pro-life views. One such view point of hers specifically mentions the pregnancy center she turned to:

7.       The attacks that crisis pregnancies are under seem even more shameful and unnecessary. I turned to a pregnancy center for a pregnancy test. The staffer there was kind, helpful and non-judgmental. I was also promised confidentiality. The test was explained to me, and was free. My partner, who is neither pro-life nor a Christian, felt being at the center went positively. (This blog just recently reported on the hypocrisy of the legal trouble pregnancy centers have to endure when abortion clinics are allowed to operate without being inspected and under deplorable conditions.)

As the point on pregnancy centers mentions, pregnancy centers are subject to battles in court, their first amendment, as well as their ability to best help those women who turn to them, being threatened. Fortunately, the courts ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in Austin and Baltimore. However, pro-abortion groups still continue to attack these centers, as NARAL Pro-Choice America did so by sharing an article on their Facebook page just earlier this month. And, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have pages "warning" women about them. Despite these shameful attacks, pregnancy centers, such as those which Option Line assist women in finding, pregnancy centers continue to operate to truly help women, women just like Morgan.

By Rebecca Downs | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

Abortion's grim reality may explain 'pro-choice' label drop

A woman looks at a sonogram image of her unborn baby. Credit: Katy Senour/CNA.

Abortion advocates' recent shift away from the term "pro-choice" could be due to improving medicine and technology showing the harsh reality and effects of the procedure.

"Health is a popular buzz word for abortionists, but is much weakened as medical science shows women's health is harmed by abortion," Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, told CNA.

A July 28 article in the New York Times detailed how abortion rights activists are beginning to change the pro-choice label to more vague terminology, saying that they do not want to limit the abortion spectrum to the term. The issue has been transferred to the general labels of "women's health" and "economic security," but advocates have still not found a suitable alternative name.

Yoest believes that abortion rights supporters are seeking another term as they are working to normalize abortion by creating the misconception that – since it is publicly funded – abortion is healthcare.

"The abortion industry is moving from choice to coercion, changing their strategy from mainstream abortion in culture to integrating it into healthcare," she said.

Planned Parenthood released a video in January 2013 promoting the change in terms, called "Not In Her Shoes." This production discussed how abortion advocates do not want to be limited to the pro-choice label because they hold that the issue encompasses more than just a choice.

However, pro-life activists see this shift as a victory, noting that after a forty-year battle, abortion advocates are needing to change their strategy. Advances in medical science and technology have also been viewed as dismantling abortion advocates' cause.

"Thanks to the miracle of the ultrasound, generations are able to see what the abortionist's 'choice' is – the death of an unborn child. And thanks to a growing body of medical research, we know that 'choice' hurts women as well," Yoest said.

According to the Times, various polls have shown that many women – when asked if they are pro-life or pro-choice – will answer pro-life, even if they supported the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S.

"As exposure to the horror of abortion grows, more and more people identify as pro-life based on their concern for both mother and child," Yoest noted.

"Today, the abortion industry has moved from 'choice' to coercion, attempting to use the force of government to force compliance with an abortion agenda, or face dire consequences."

Yoest added that Americans are increasingly aware of this phenomenon, and that it is making them rethink what the term "pro-choice" really means.

"Pregnancy is not a disease 'cured' by the death of a child," she reflected. "Real health care respects life."

By Maggie Lawson
Source: CNA/EWTN News

UN committee’s abortion attack renders it unfit for its purpose

Even in the increasingly bizarre parallel universe of the United Nations, you would expect a Human Rights committee to understand this fundamental principle: human rights are inherent for all members of the human family, they are not bestowed by any government, and cannot be denied by any self-styled Council.

This is Human Rights 101: the basic level of understanding required before any discussion of human rights can commence. By that measure then, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has shown itself to be unfit for its purpose by attacking the rights of a section of the human family and seeking to deny the most vulnerable human beings on the planet their fundamental rights.

Their behaviour in Geneva earlier this month was shameful. The UN is often criticised for its inability to deal with international conflicts, for being a 'toothless tiger', and for failing to investigate fraud and corruption and more. However in demanding that Ireland make abortion even more widely available, the UNHRC has failed in its primary mission, and its entire raison d'être is called into account.

A human rights committee that argues some human beings can be denied a right to life is not fit for its purpose. They have shown themselves to be driven by an ideology that chooses to discriminate and destroy human beings who are so helpless that they can't even raise their eyes in their own defence. It's always easy to attack the weak and the voiceless – but that a so-called human rights committee would choose to do so is simply reprehensible.

Worst of all, the UN committee deliberately misrepresented genuine human rights covenants to try to justify the killing of unborn children, and to argue that unborn children are 'not fully human'.

In fact, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, used by the UNHRC members to push for abortion, never mentions abortion at all, but does say in Article 6 that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

In order to sidestep this Article, the committee claimed that the unborn child was not a human being nor fully a member of the human family, a position so ignorant of basic biology or any scientific understanding that is actually laughable.

Equally astonishing, but not remotely humorous, is the UNHRC's claim that Ireland's protection of unborn children amounted to "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," when they understand very well that abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn child, is the most extreme form of torture imaginable.

What needs to be understood here is that this committee of so-called human rights experts know exactly what abortion is: they know very well that it is not medically necessary, that it kills children and hurts women, yet they still choose to try to foist it on sovereign nations who protect both mother and baby.

Lined up against the unborn child in Geneva was the usual gaggle of abortion pushers, mostly funded by US billionaires who want to browbeat and bully Ireland into accepting abortion. Then the Irish media were on standby as usual to report and endlessly repeat the UNHRC's demand that Ireland legalise abortion for children with disabilities or who have been conceived through rape and incest: this despite the fact that the UN is urging countries to ratify their Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In fact, no 'right' to abortion exists in international law, while the right to life of every person is widely accepted and well established.

Of course, this latest debacle at the UN is wholly expected and the callous hypocrisy in their targeting of innocent children is what we have come to expect from the pro-abortion bureaucrats at the UN riding an endless gravy train of cushy appointments and taxpayer-funded expense accounts.

Their shameful attack on Ireland has shown that the UNHRC are not fit. A real human rights body recognises the rights of every human – without exception.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

“Chloe’s Law” stands for providing expectant mothers with information about Down syndrome, not for denying them evidence-based information

By Mark Bradford, President, Jérôme Lejeune Foundation, USA

Chloe Kondrich prays as Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett signs "Chloe's Law" (used with permission of Kurt Kondrich)

On July 18, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the "Down Syndrome Prenatal and Postnatal Education Act" commonly known as "Chloe's Law." Pennsylvania became the 7th state to implement legislation intended to provide to new and expectant parents "Up-to-date, evidence-based information about Down syndrome that has been reviewed by medical experts and national Down syndrome organizations" and also "contact information regarding First Call programs and support services."

Pennsylvania's law, as is true with the majority of other state laws, reflects the common ground first established in the 2008 federal legislation, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. That Act was co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Brownback, again showing the common ground agreement that women should receive all of the information recommended by professional guidelines.

The need for Chloe's law is two-fold: [1] the Kennedy-Brownback Act has never been funded or implemented, which is why states have taken on state-level measures; and [2] while professional guidelines recommend offering prenatal testing for Down syndrome to all patients, those same guidelines recommend that patients receive up-to-date, accurate information about Down syndrome and referral to parent support organizations, but that is not happening with the same regularity as the offering of prenatal testing.

Author Tara Murtha responded negatively to Chloe's Law in an editorial published at RealityCheck.org on July 25. At its website, RealityCheck describes itself as a "daily publication providing news, commentary and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and justice issues" that claims to contribute "to the global effort to empower people with the information, services and leadership they need to safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights against false attacks and misinformation."

It is peculiar that a site dedicated to countering misinformation would criticize and make false attacks against a law whose very purpose is to ensure that women are fully and factually informed with accurate information regarding the outcomes of a prenatal diagnosis, should that diagnosis reveal the child has Down syndrome.

Ms. Murtha has made Chloe's Law about something that it is not. In citing the bill's sponsors positions on abortion she implies that the purpose of the law is to, in some way, restrict a woman's right to abort a child following a prenatal diagnosis. There is no language in the law that would imply even an incremental move toward restricting access to abortion. The sole purpose of the law is to provide to women evidence based information on the outcomes of having a child with Down syndrome. After that, they are free to make whatever decision they choose.

She also joins the Pennsylvania Medical Association in criticizing the law because it requires physicians to provide information to women prepared by a third party, thus "interfering" in communications between the patient and physician. Murtha misleads her readers by claiming that the law requires that doctors read a script to patients developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

On the contrary, the law states that it will be the Department of Health's responsibility to make available on their website information reviewed by medical experts, including information on physical, developmental, educational, and psychosocial outcomes, life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual development and treatment options. Dangerous and intrusive information, to be sure.

A true reality check reveals why provision of this information may be necessary. During debate over the Maryland law earlier this year, Heather Sachs gave testimony that 9 years ago when she received the result of her prenatal diagnosis she was simply given a pamphlet entitled So You've Had a Mongoloid: Now What?

Stories like hers are not uncommon. For too long, study after study, and parent testimony after testimony, has demonstrated that prenatal testing for Down syndrome has never been administered according to the full professional guidelines because too often parents are simply told the test result and that is it. In a recent study, women reported negative experiences of receiving a prenatal diagnosis outnumbering positive ones 2.5 to 1.

Chloe's Law implements the guidelines physicians were supposed to be following but have not done so consistently. This law is a caring law that will improve patient care. That is why it has received the broad, near unanimous bipartisan support it deserves.

Let's stand for providing women information, not for denying them information about a condition that remains too often misunderstood – even within the medical community.

Source: NRL News

Scientific Review of 72 Epidemiological Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

A scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research. The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, "Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors."[1] Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.

 Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained: 

 "...21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countries...."[2]

 The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.[3]

The authors identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of the risk: i.e., failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of breast cancer; excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; confining their analyses to young women in their reproductive years; only comparing childless aborting women with childless never-pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); and ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions (i.e., abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions).

 The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not associated with breast cancer, but Lanfranchi and Fagan said the NCI's conclusion contradicts not only epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts including premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full term pregnancy and childlessness.[4]

The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and Fagan concluded: 

 "We see that many studies of induced abortion demonstrate significant associations, across multiple cultures and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone exposure). The association manifests itself in the appropriate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically plausible and coherent with existing science and has been demonstrated by analogy."[5]

 ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting a link, but they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women in New York and two ecological studies.[6-8] Lanfranchi and Fagan called the recall bias hypothesis "unproven."

 In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a research data network located in existing mammography screening centers that would collect standardized data on forms concerning women's reproductive, hormonal and breast histories that would include all potential risk factors.

 The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

 References:

1.  Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: <http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf>.

2.  Ibid, p. 101.

3.  Ibid, p. 102.

4.  Ibid, p. 100.

5.  Ibid, p. 103.

6.  Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.

7.  Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510.

8.  Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.