Operation Rescue is conducting a research project on Nebraska abortionist Leroy Carhart.
LeRoy Carhart clinic (Abortion & Contraception Clinic of Nebraska)
Operation Rescue president Troy Newman wants to hear from women who may have been harmed or suffered botched abortions and have not spoken out. He also tells OneNewsNow about Carhart's working environment in Nebraska.
"Mr. Carhart has a long history of operating a shoddy, slovenly abortion clinic," he explains. "Things like trash piled up in the basement that would cause a fire. After that fire, he actually tried to operate his abortion clinic from a generator."
Newman also says an old pickup truck, sitting on its wheel rims, has been parked in front of the building for weeks. The shop was closed down temporarily by local officials. Newman says there are further reasons for his research.
"We believe he's breaking the law, but we're also asking for women who have had abortions or have had contact with Mr. Carhart in the last five years to contact us and tell us of some of the miseries or complications that they've had from their abortion," he says. "We want to include that in a report to the attorney general."
According to Newman, all information will be kept confidential. The pro-life group will be asking the attorney general to close the clinic, and will ask the Nebraska Medical Association to revoke Carhart's medical license.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
'Groundbreaking' invention creates life-sized 3D models of unborn children
An art design student in Britain has developed a new method to use ultrasound and MRI scans to create life-sized plaster models of living embryos. One leading obstetrician has called the invention "absolutely unique" and a "fantastic development."
Jorge Lopes, the Brazilian design student whose invention was part of his Royal College of Art doctorate work, calls the method rapid prototyping, the Daily Mail says. The device used is comparable to a printer that prints plastic powder instead of ink, slowly building a three-dimensional model.
"It's amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it," Lopes remarked.
Lopes is sponsored at the college by the Brazilian government. His research examined the practical use of model-making over the centuries, beginning with mummies then moving to dinosaurs and then fetuses.
His work uses computer techniques first shown by Ron Arad, a designer famous worldwide who heads design products at the Royal College of Art.
Arad called Lopes' work a "ground-breaking new field of world importance."
One reviewer of Lopes' doctoral work said he did not know whether he was looking at science or art.
King's College head of obstetrics Stuart Campbell, who supervised Lopes, said the technology was "absolutely unique" and "a fantastic development."
Campbell, a pioneer in ultrasound use, hoped the development would help mothers, especially blind mothers, bond with their babies, the Daily Mail says.
Source: CNA
Publish Date: July 1, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
'One by one, with hard work and prayer, these facilities are closing down'
Planned Parenthood's Eastside clinic, El Paso, Texas
Seventy-two years ago Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger visited El Paso, Texas, delivered a speech proclaiming the need for the acceptance of birth control and helped found the city's first family planning clinic.
But last week, Analinda Moreno, Planned Parenthood of El Paso's interim executive director, announced all seven of the organization's clinics in the El Paso area would permanently close today. She cited financial
reasons.
"There were many factors that came into the decision," Moreno told the El Paso Times. "We knew eight days ago that there was just absolutely no other way other than to close."
Rita Diller, national director of the American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood project, was encouraged by the closings, and sees them as part of a larger trend.
"We expect many more closures in the days to come as people become aware of Planned Parenthood's sex-crazed birth control and abortion business," Diller said in a statement. "One by one, with hard work and prayer, these facilities are closing down, no matter how entrenched Planned Parenthood may seem to be in a particular community."
El Paso's reaction to the news was mixed:
"I was sick to my stomach," said Kathleen Staudt, a political science professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. "I was shocked. How could the 21st largest city in the United States - El Paso - not have Planned Parenthood clinics?"
Barney Field, an abortion protester and executive director of El Paso for Jesus, however, told the El Paso Times that even though the Planned Parenthood clinics weren't active medical abortion providers, the organization's advocacy for abortion overshadows its other offered services.
"I am sure Planned Parenthood has done a lot of good, but they also recommend and encourage abortions," Field told the newspaper. "From that perspective, it seems very good news that they are closing. It seems miraculous."
Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, further explained to WND why his organization celebrates the closing of the clinics' doors.
"They didn't perform medical or surgical abortions, what the general public considers 'abortions,'" Sedlak said, "but ... they did distribute various drugs and devices that prevent implantation of a conceived child in the womb, which causes what we call 'chemical' abortions.
"Our STOPP project focuses on every Planned Parenthood facility in country, regardless of whether they do medical, surgical or chemical abortions," he continued. "Our objective is to cause such discontent with Planned Parenthood programs that it will have no choice but to close its doors. The reason we do that is Planned Parenthood is the financing behind the abortion industry in the country. They hire the lawyers and bring the cases that keep the abortion industry thriving."
Contact: Drew Zahn Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: June 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.
Obama's New Budget for DC Allows Taxpayer Funding for Abortions
President Obama has issued a budget recommendation for the 2010 fiscal year that would ease the restrictions on taxpayer funds for abortions in Washington D.C., a change that has drawn criticism from pro-life organizations across the nation. Unlike other U.S. states and territories, the budget for the District of Colu
Click here for the full article.
Missouri Judge Clears Proposal on Abortion, Cloning Funds
A Missouri judge has cleared the path for a constitutional amendment banning public money from going to abortion and human cloning to appear on the 2010 ballot. Supporters of the proposal challenged the secretary of state's ballot summary as biased, while critics objected to the state auditor's cost estimate. Opponents said the original petition was not properly drafted and shouldn't have been allowed to proceed.
Click here for the full article.
ACLU of Florida Releasing Guide to 'Help Pregnant Teens Sidestep Parents'
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida is releasing a guide to teach pregnant teenagers their legal options and rights. ''The Legal Guide for Pregnant Teens in Florida'' includes information on legal aspects of abortion, adoption and raising children. Other topics include getting public assistance for housing, health insurance and how to get an immigration status change. Brandon Hensler, director of communications for the ACLU of Florida, said the publication is the first of its type.
Click here for the full article.
MTV Greenlights Season Two of Hit Series '16 & Pregnant'
Reflecting on one of the most controversial and thought-provoking topics, MTV President of Programming Tony DiSanto announced today that after only 3 episodes aired, the network is picking up a second season of the captivating series "16 and Pregnant." The open discussion will provide a platform to address the controversial topics that were shown in season one: birth control, adoption, abortion, marriage, religion, gossip, finances, high school graduation and employment.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Life Democrats Urge Pelosi to Exclude Abortion Funding from Health Care Reform Bill
Nineteen pro-life House Democrats signed a letter last week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing their opposition to any health care reform that includes abortion funding.
"We cannot support any health-care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," the letter read.
The congressmen did not take a position for or against the so-called "public option" feature of the health care reform bill, which involves the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance poll, but the congressmen were blunt about what they do not want.
"Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable," they wrote.
"We want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of benefits package," the letter further stipulated. "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care."
"Nineteen Democrats breaking the fold is a sign that not everybody within the Democratic Party is completely sold out to the abortion lobby," Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States, told CNSNews.com.
The fact is, taxpayer dollars are already going towards programs that fund abortion, Kenney said.
"Planned Parenthood alone consumes about $349 million a year in federal and state tax subsidies," he added.
According to a report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, state policies restrict insurance coverage of abortion in only a few states.
"A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge," the report said.
Kenney told CNSNews.com that an amendment to prevent any and all taxpayer money going towards abortion and abortion-related programs would be a "rational next step" and "entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed in the letter."
Either way, Kenney expressed optimism no matter the speaker's reaction to the letter.
"What this ultimately is, is the spark, and whether or not Speaker Pelosi listens to them, it certainly is going to encourage the conversation as to whether or not the principles of social justice ultimately coincide with the principles of the abortion lobby," he added.
The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boran (D-Okla.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Colin Peterson (D-Minn..), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Mike Mclntyre (D-N.C.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.).
Contact: Monica Gabriel Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: June 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Obama promotes euthanasia in healthcare plan
From the LA Times, June 25:
President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
Read that again. Obama was subtly promoting euthanasia...
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.
Or maybe, President Obama, the decision should be left to the patient and patient's family?
This prime-time ratings fiasco was hosted by ABC News, with 164 invited guests, pre-screened questions, and no rebuttal time for the opposing view on Obama's rationed healthcare boondoggle. Thus, this was no surprise:
The audience - which included doctors, patients, health insurers, students and people with ailing relatives - clearly was unhappy with the current healthcare system. Gibson asked for a show of hands to see how many wanted to leave the system unchanged. No one raised a hand.
This was a set up. It was not media reporting, it was an unpaid infomercial.
Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform blog had this to say about Obama's ominous comments during the "propaganda special extraordinaire":
Who will decide whether "you're better off" without the surgery? Not your doctor but Mr. Obama. Does Mr. Obama really know "who is about to die" and who "don't stand to gain" from extra care? And what care is "extra?" As usual, Mr. Obama illustrates his point with a very dishonest, false dilemma. Of course you don't do a hip replacement on his very elderly grandmother whose very aggressive and terminal cancer meant she might not have survived the surgery. But the type of treatment decisions often criticized by rationing radicals are seldom that obvious.
Mr. Obama is willing to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his patient when the doctor is trying to save a life but not when the doctor is trying to take a life. Is this the most anti-life president in American history?
And this, from the Canada Free Press:
But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim, it is a flat out untruth and he knows it....
... [N]o doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's....
Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving"... [o]riginally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but... it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to die and/or suffer....
And whatever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com Publish Date: June 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Undercover Student Video Shows Planned Parenthood in Alabama 'Bending the Rules' of Mandatory Reporting for Sexual Abuse
A Planned Parenthood counselor in Birmingham was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic "does sometimes bend the rules a little bit" rather than report sexual abuse to state authorities. This is the seventh Planned Parenthood clinic implicated in a multi-state child abuse scandal involving the deliberate and unlawful suppression of evidence of statutory rape. (Click here to view the video)
Lila Rose, 20-year-old UCLA student and president of the non-profit Live Action, went undercover at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Birmingham and told a counselor that she was 14-years-old, pregnant by her 31-year-old "boyfriend." Rose said she needed a secret abortion so her parents would not find out about her sexual relationship with the older man.
After telling the counselor that her "boyfriend" is 31, Rose asks, "Is it a problem about my boyfriend?" The counselor, identified as "Tanisha" in the video, responds, "As long as you consented to having sex with him, there's nothing we can truly do about that." Rose then says that her boyfriend "said he could get in big trouble," and Tanisha acknowledges that "he could, especially if your parents find out that he's 31." She then tells Rose that the clinic manager, OB/GYN Dr. Desiree Bates, "sometimes does bend the rules a little bit" and states that "whatever you tell us stays within these walls" and "we can't disclose any information to anybody."
Alabama code 26-14-3 requires health professionals to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately.
"The law is explicit about a healthcare provider's duty to report, yet Planned Parenthood pretends they cannot say anything," Rose notes of the investigation. "Planned Parenthood increases its business and influence by circumventing state reporting laws, but inflicts terrible harm upon the vulnerable young girls sent back to statutory rapists."
In the video, Tanisha also seems to tell Rose that a signature from an "older sister that's over the age of 18" or someone "with the same last name" could function as a substitute for parental consent so Planned Parenthood could perform an abortion on a minor. Alabama Code 26-21-3 specifies that the written permission of either a parent or legal guardian is necessary before a minor may obtain an abortion.
The new video is sixth in Live Action's "Mona Lisa Project," a nationwide undercover investigation that documents Planned Parenthood's repeated noncompliance with state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors. Alabama is the fourth state to be implicated in the controversy, along with Arizona, Indiana, and Tennessee. Recently, the investigation of a clinic in Memphis, TN assisted state legislators in their effort to successfully divert nearly $1 million in taxpayer subsidies from Planned Parenthood to law-abiding local health clinics.
"When to 'bend the rules a little' means hiding a case of statutory rape from Child Protective Services and looking for ways around the parental consent requirement, Planned Parenthood becomes directly responsible for ensuring that statutory rapists can continue their abuse of young girls," Rose says.
Click here to view the video.
Contact: Lila Rose Source: Live Action Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Is ObamaCare the End of Roe v. Wade?
Is ObamaCare poised to extinguish Roe v. Wade?
Talk about the law of unintended consequences.
Stated or unstated, a driving force behind modern liberalism takes root in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, in which abortion was legalized. The Court found a "right to privacy" guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, saying that a woman had a constitutional right to abort her child up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." The Court quite specifically defined viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
Quite aside from the political acrimony the Roe decision has generated from the day it was issued, the hot debate over President Obama's health care proposal alters the abortion debate in a fashion quite unintended. If passed, ObamaCare could instantly set up a legal confrontation between the principle behind President's health care system -- and the principle undergirding Roe v. Wade. Which in turn would launch a political battle royal between proponents of government health care and abortion rights.
Why?
A reading of the Roe decision leaves no doubt whatsoever of what abortion advocates have claimed ever since the opinion was handed down. To quote the Supreme Court decision directly:
We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.
If, as Roe clearly states, "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health [emphasis mine] of the pregnant woman" -- why doesn't it have "an important and legitimate interest" in protecting the health of the rest us?
Like, say, the President's own late grandmother? Or U.S. Senator Arlen Specter? Or you?
According to the President himself in his recent health-care infomercial with ABC News, his late grandmother was "somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer. There was unanimity about that. They expected that she'd have six to nine months to live. She fell and broke her hip. And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren't sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery."
Stop the tape.
What if the diagnosis of his grandmother's terminal cancer had been wrong?
The U.S. Senate's newest Democrat, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, has vividly written of his own diagnosis with Hodgkin's disease, Stage IVB. Specter's doctor informed him that he should get his affairs in order because his time was short -- Specter was going to die and soon. A stunned Specter decided instead to get a second opinion. By his own account, this decision saved his life and (to the irritation of all sorts of people in both parties) Arlen Specter is still here years later famously running for re-election on the cusp of 80. This was not the case of Obama's grandmother, but a misdiagnosis like Specter's is something that happens all across America every day.
If you don't think so, just check in with those longtime stalwarts of the modern Democratic Party -- medical malpractice lawyers. Indeed, a random visit to the website of lawyers advertising their services as medical malpractice attorneys highlights the fact in detail. Their practice is based on patients who have received a "misdiagnosis" from a physician. Specifically, the law practice seeks clients who have received a misdiagnosis for heart attacks, stroke, and cancer. In the case of cancer patients who have been misdiagnosed, the list of misdiagnosed diseases handled is quite specific: "Breast Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Colon/Rectal Cancer, Skin Cancer." Also listed is "Prenatal Misdiagnosis" resulting in "Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Spina Bifida/Neural Tube Defects, Thalassemia."
Got that?
It is the self-appointed job of these entrepreneurial lawyers to go to every length available to prove the doctor in question simply didn't do enough to correctly diagnose and correctly treat the diseases listed by the lawyers themselves. The lawyers are thus at one with patients who believe (as did Arlen Specter) that one more test, one more opinion correctly done -- a second or third or a fourth -- is the one that would have resulted in eventually restoring the patient to health. A health that Roe v. Wade quite specifically says is "an important and legitimate interest" of the State.
Yet here is the President on ABC (with anchor Charlie Gibson) responding to the notion at the very core of the medical malpractice profession and, indeed, of most Americans: that Americans want the freedom -- indeed have the right -- to seek the best health care that exists for themselves and their families. Says the President in the transcript provided by ABC News:
OBAMA: I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.
GIBSON: But you don't know what that test is.
OBAMA: Well, oftentimes we do, though. There are going to be situations where there are going to be disagreements among experts, but often times we do know what makes sense and what doesn't.
Let's parse. The "problem" says the President, "is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."
In other words, the President has just said it that his health care plan, what we will call here ObamaCare, intends to insert a third party -- the government -- between you and your doctor. Why? Because the President, a third party, believes "a whole bunch of care...may not be making us healthier." This is in direct conflict with Roe, which says:
The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
A "woman" as defined in Roe is a person, as in someone who, along with all other Americans of both genders, is entitled to "the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people" and the 14th Amendment's "concept of personal liberty." She may be pregnant, something not doable for men, but that both men and women are "people" is not in dispute. And whatever else one may say of abortion, it is precisely a medical procedure just as everything from brain surgery to stitches.
According to the principle laid down in Roe, every American (except, of course, the unborn) has the constitutionally protected right to have our health care decided on by ourselves and our doctors, without disapproving courts, legislatures, presidents or health care bureaucrats getting in the way. (In the case of Roe, the third party was the state of Texas.) Roe specifically forbids third parties interfering in the patient-doctor relationship. To say, as the President has said, that "every study, every bit of evidence" produced by some third party (an ObamaCare medical bureaucrat, for example) is somehow relevant to the treatment of a patient -- and that it will be mandatory to heed -- is a direct contravention of the two-party patient-doctor relationship legalized by Roe on the grounds of "personal liberty" and the "right to privacy." The President's ambition is simply to insert the federal government into the role played by the state of Texas in the original Roe decision.
Roe is quite specific as well that "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman." In that one partial sentence every American becomes a pregnant woman, their health protected for the same reason as the pregnant woman's -- because the Court found a constitutional protection that does so. If there's any doubt about the sacredness Roe attaches to this principle, which in political and constitutional shorthand has become known as "the right to privacy," Roe restates it a second way. The State, says Roe, has still another "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." Which it proceeded, to much controversy, to define as the "point at which the fetus becomes viable."
So in ruling out the unviable life -- the fetus -- as worthy of protection, the Court left no doubt whatsoever that "viable" human beings must be protected as the State has a "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."
Read those phrases again: "viable" and "protecting the potentiality of human life."
If you are reading this, you are a "viable" human being as specifically defined by Roe v. Wade. If you have plans for five minutes from now, we are talking about your potentiality for human life.
Whatever else is said about Roe and the argument over the unborn, there is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the born -- until their last breath is drawn -- meet exactly Roe's standard of "the potentiality of human life." Your beloved spouse, parent, child, relative, friend has at the minimum a potential for something as long as they live. That something could be a Michael Jackson-style 50-concert extravaganza or your 90-year-old mother bringing joy to life by simply holding your hand. Both are physical manifestations of the "potentiality of human life" as specifically defined by Roe. The much publicized exertions to save Michael Jackson are emblematic of the point, and in fact such ministrations go on all across America every single minute of the day. The entire point of frantic efforts to save a life -- Michael Jackson's, yours, your spouse's or the life of someone you have never heard of -- is because of the fundamental belief in that person's "potentiality" in human life.
As long as that question can be answered with any response that implies breathing by a born human, it is very clear that Roe, citing the 14th and 9th Amendments, protects not just the health of a woman but the health of us all. It gives every American with a beating heart a "right to privacy" to make exactly the medical choices they wish to make with their own bodies. Or, in the blunt words of a feminist blogger (the bloggers stylistic phrasing and caps included) over at one very typical liberal site called progressivesonline.com:
Keep Your Hands Off My Body!
I'll make it simple for everyone.
MY BODY belongs to ME
I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY
KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!
OK, then! Are we clear?
Well, apparently the President is not.
When it comes to the Roe v. Wade principle that the progressivesonline blogger has stated -- "I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!" -- the President tells Charlie Gibson "that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."
In discussing care for seniors, the president is even more explicit: He says that people not of your choosing (Government bureaucrats) "one way or another" are going to be making decisions about your body.
Meaning, contrary to the constitutional language of Roe and the more colorful lingo over at progressivesonline, Obama feels third party "evidence" from "every study" is more important in deciding what goes on with your body than the rights liberals insist have been granted by Roe. This "evidence" in turn is what Obama is using to justify the presence of a Third Party empowered to step between you and your doctor. A Third Party of government bureaucrats authorized to put their medical hands on your body or, notably, to refuse to do so because they -- not your doctor -- have judged you to be too old, too sick or too something else that is not convenient to their system. Not to mention a third party that gets to decide when and at what cost to do or not do. The State of Texas lives, this time as the Obama Administration.
The progressive feminist blogger and her pro-choice friends are being informed by Barack Obama that when it comes to Roe v. Wade versus Obama's desire to have government bureaucrats deciding who puts whose hands on whose bodies, well, Roe loses. "A woman's right to choose" is now made legally vulnerable by the demand of the Obama Administration that, in fact, one does not have any right at all to choose whose hands are going on one's body or what those hands will do once there. In the President's words, (bolded emphasis mine):
"But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
Again, let's parse. Let's translate.
• "We" means a third party -- the federal government in this case. The State of Texas in the original Roe case.
"Make sure" means that third party is going to tell you and your doctor what the two of you can or cannot do -- the principle specifically rejected in Roe.
• "..that's not making anybody's mom better" means a third party is issuing a judgment that may or may not be shared by you and your doctor -- or another and another doctor if you choose to go that route. Remember Arlen Specter's rejection of this principle, choosing instead to get a second opinion his own cancer diagnosis -- and saving his life because he did so.
• "….that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care" again implies third party interference in the patient-doctor relationship, deliberate government interference in the "right to privacy" found by Roe.
• "…we can let doctors know and your Mom know…" means a third party -- in direct violation of the right to privacy stated by Roe will be informing both your doctor and you what is and is not permissible. This was, of course, exactly the position of the state of Texas in Roe -- letting Jane Roe "know" what was and was not permissible with her body in a medical procedure. Texas said no to her abortion. The Supreme Court said yes.
• And last but not least, the President said: "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." In other words, not only has the President inserted a third party into your relationship with your doctor, you must now do what that third party -- the government -- tells you to do. Just as the government of Texas was insisting to Jane Roe that, in the President's words, "maybe you're better off not having the surgery."
What does all this mean? It means there will be trouble -- big trouble -- between Obama and a core constituency of his political base when realization dawns on the pro-choice movement about what ObamaCare could do to Roe. Either Roe wins -- or ObamaCare wins. The principles behind each cannot exist in the same universe. One of them must lose.
Contact: Jeffrey Lord Source: The American Spectator Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Teachers' union to consider abortion issue
Conservative teachers within the NEA will call for the union to drop its support of abortion.
The National Education Association will convene for their national meeting in San Diego July 1-6. Jeralee Smith, one of the co-founders of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus, says one of the items her group has placed on the agenda is abortion.
"The union contributes to candidates who will maintain the current Roe v. Wade decision and make sure that the abortion industry is alive and well," she explains. "And this supposedly is done with the portion of union dues that...is optional. But a lot of times we found sneaky ways that the union supports things that we don't believe in."
OneNewsNow asked Smith that if the NEA supports issues that some teachers disagree with, then why not just leave the union.
"The union, in 30 of the states, is required -- and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get out of the union," say Smith. "And you're told a lot of scary stories...should you try to leave, which most of the time they're exaggerated."
A secret ballot vote has been slated for the meeting in which members will have an opportunity to vote that the union take a "no position" stance on abortion.
Contact: Pete Chagnon Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Challenge filed against court order permitting 'Plan B' for 17-year-olds
Several Christian and pro-life groups have filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a court order which requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow the "Plan B" drug to be sold over the counter to minors.
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a motion on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the Christian Medical and Dental Association and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International. The groups say that the order disregards parental rights and the safety of minors.
On March 23 a federal court ordered the drug Levonorgestrel—also known as the "morning after pill" or "Plan B" --be made available to girls 17 and older without a prescription. The drug aims to prevent pregnancy when used within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.
Many doctors believe the drug can cause the abortion of a recently-conceived child by preventing its implantation on the uterine wall.
"The life and health of women, especially minors, is more important than the political agenda of pro-abortion activist groups. Minors are least of all in a position to make an informed decision about the life or death of a child, or even about their own safety. It is a lie that over-the-counter sales of this drug increase safety for women, including minors," remarked ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.
Bowman said the organizations seeking to intervene in the lawsuit represent "thousands of medical personnel" who will be affected by the court's order and believe "strongly" that it will result in excluding parents and doctors from minor children's care.
"The order allows minors to bypass being seen by a doctor who can check for sexually transmitted diseases and other potentially serious medical conditions," Bowman added. "Our motion argues that the case should be dismissed because, under the law, the plaintiffs have not established sufficient reason that they can even ask for an order like this."
In 2005 the pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) successfully sued the FDA to force it to require Plan B be provided over the counter to women age 18 and older. A second suit by the CRR resulted in the FDA lowering the age limit to 17 years-old and above.
Source: CNA
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.
White House Readies Abortion Plan
As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health [sic] issues and reducing the need [sic] for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion. Many abortion rights [sic] advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. Rachel Laser, who directs the culture program at the Democrat-leaning think tank Third Way and some prominent abortion rights [sic] supporters are pushing the White House to support the Reducing the Need [sic] for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which is expected to be reintroduced by Democrat Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan in coming weeks. The bill attempts to reduce unintended [sic] pregnancies by providing low-income women with better access to contraception and to reduce the need [sic] for abortion by giving women who ask for it information about alternatives to abortion, among other things.
Click here for the full article.
Barack Obama and Margaret Sanger's 'Negro Project'
Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's so-called "Negro Project" is alive and well as the most pro-abortion candidate in American history promises to not only protect Roe v. Wade but to use the presidency and his judicial appointments to push an even more radical social agenda.
Click here to view the video.
Groups to Make Another Try for 'Personhood' Measure
Two Pro-Life Groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new "personhood" initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot. Colorado voters soundly defeated a similar measure, Amendment 48, in the 2008 election. But initiative sponsors say things will be different in 2010 because they will be better-funded and better able to articulate their message and will introduce a measure that's more accurately worded. "The fact that we got over half a million Coloradans to vote for personhood in 2008 shows us that people care about ensuring that all humans are protected under the law," said Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of Personhood Colorado, an arm of the national Denver-based organization Personhood USA.
Click here for the full article.
New Health-Care Conscience-Rights Site
Congress will continue its retooling of the U.S. health-care system when members return from their break next week. Committee votes could come quickly, with full congressional action shortly thereafter.
Family advocates are skeptical of the direction the Obama administration and Congress are taking on health care "reform." President Barack Obama has already taken steps to weaken the conscience rights of health-care providers and advance the abortion industry's agenda by overturning key Bush administration policies.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Life Youth to Picket Office of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Youth activists will demand that not penny of taxpayer funds be used to pay for abortions while teachers and community services are being cut in California due to budget concerns.
The demonstration will take place on Tuesday, June 30 at 11:00 A.M.
The location will be at 300 South Spring St., Los Angeles
The 65 youth activists will be carrying large signs and banners.
This event kicks off a national campaign by Survivors called "Teachers not Abortions."
Click here for the full article.
PETA's lack of tact
Recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a VA-based animal rights activism organization, proposed that 2 billboards promoting vegetarianism be erected in Wichita, KS, in the wake of the late Dr. George Tiller's death. Tiller, an extreme late-term abortionist, was shot to death May 31 while working as an usher at his church in Wichita.
The Wichita Eagle reported the explanation by PETA's campaign manager Lindsay Rajt...
While our hearts go out to the family and friends of George Tiller, we are hoping that these billboards will make those who are rightly shocked by his murder sit up and realize that behind closed doors, millions of animals are suffering every day, and that we as individuals can help to reduce the amount of violence and suffering in the world.
Rajt's insulting proposal, which allegedly attempts to equate the manufacturing of beef burgers and animal-tested cosmetics with the tragic loss of human life, was not well-received by the Wichita community.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility.
"The strongest argument for not restricting abortion is personal liberty. Yet liberty always has been constrained when another person is involved. Especially when the other person exists only because of one's free choice. Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility. Other than in the case of rape, pregnancy results from the decision to have sex, freely made. People are, rightly, legally free to have sex with whomever they desire whenever they desire. That being the case, they also should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions. One of those consequences is a baby." -Doug Bandow, The American Spectator
Click here to read more of this article from The American Spectator.
On Tuesday, June 30th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., Rep. Lipinski is hosting a forum on the healthcare issue at an American Legion hall at 6050 South Harlem in Summit, IL near the heart of the 3rd Congressional District. We are asking that pro-lifers, especially those living in the 3rd district quietly PACK this meeting by 6:30 or earlier and POLITELY let Rep. Lipinski know that we are concerned about this issue and would appreciate his support for pro-life positions. We specifically would appreciate his opposition to federal funding of life-destructive (embryonic) stem cell research. We ask Rep. Lipinski to separate the abortion issue from one's overall support for or opposition to any of the healthcare proposals. If he continues to stand up for life, we are ready to stand strong with him in the face of any challenge from the pro-aborts in the House.
Is Pro-Choice the New Pro-Life?
According to the New York Times, it doesn't really matter, because you probably don't understand the terms anyway.
According to the Times the recent Gallup Poll showing that a majority of Americans are pro-life is faulty at best, and downright sinister at worst.
The poll, conducted May 7-10, found that 51% of Americans are now "calling themselves 'pro-life' on the issue of abortion and 42% 'pro-choice.' According to Gallup, this is "the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995."
Not only did Gallup find these results to be consistent in two other surveys, they also gave a rather forthright opinion as to why they thought this shift was occurring. President Obama's radical policies, Gallup said, are actually alienating many Americans who would consider themselves to be "pro-choice," causing them to shift over toward the pro-life position:
It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.
This sounds quite reasonable to me. Having a president who is radically pro-abortion might well cause the significant shift in opinions concerning abortion that Gallup detected.
Liberal opinion leaders, however, have been quick to condemn the poll as faulty, irrelevant, or simplistic.
"Young people are not suddenly turning prolife," scoffs Ruth Coniff of The Progressive. "They just view the abortion issue differently. The fact that we grew up in the era of safe, legal abortion makes women under the age of 50 a bit complacent about the issue."
Mark Mellman of The Hill agrees, saying that "typically, after some useless result escapes into the ether, reporters and interest groups proceed to spin some new theory of public opinion based on faulty analysis of a meaningless question."
Dalia Sussman of the New York Times goes even further. She first says that it "does not necessarily indicate a marked shift in Americans' views on this highly complicated issue." Then she cites other polling data done by different agencies to show how the numbers vary. She concludes by insulting the people Gallup polled, saying that "there is no way of knowing whether people being asked the question even know what the two labels mean."
The shift in polling data—and the liberals' efforts to discredit it--is cast into sharp relief by President Obama's recent address at Notre Dame. The President, in his speech, expressed the hope that pro-life and pro-choice advocates could find "common ground" on the subject of abortion.
"Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term," said Obama. "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
This speech, which is full of such glowing, hopeful rhetoric, rings hollow when compared with Obama's record. What in the world does he mean by a "sensible conscience clause", given that he has already struck down existing conscience provisions?
Obama's rhetorical flourishes are cited ad nauseam by the media as evidence of "bipartisan progress," but they are actually little more than deceptive propaganda.
Pro-lifers have not, and will not, be lulled to sleep by such mouthings. We realize that human life is at stake. We agree that women should have better gynecological care; that there should be fewer teen pregnancies, that there should be more adoption. We agree that women should be happy and safe and free. But we will not willingly allow anyone to take a human life, which is what an abortion does.
It is thus ludicrous to suggest that the two sides "work together" on the issue of abortion. There can be no common ground on the morality of abortion..
I believe that, contra the New York Times, those surveyed by the Gallup poll knew exactly what they were being asked when they were questioned on whether or not they were "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The terms outline positions that have existed on our political landscape for more than 30 years. To suggest that somehow, the idea of the pro-life movement is shifting, becoming more oriented around issues that "really matter," like women's health or reproductive freedom, is naïve.
And to President Obama: it's our movement, you can join us if you like, but the terms of the debate are already well defined, and are not subject to redefinition.
Contact: Colin Mason Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: June 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Music in Utero - The Smiling Unborn Child
In 1984, a video called The Silent Scream helped change the way people think about the unborn child. The footage of an actual abortion and the fetus's reaction reminded us that abortion involves the death of a real person.
A recent bit of footage has similar potential, only it couldn't be more different from The Silent Scream.
The footage was part of a recent PBS special, The Music Instinct: Science & Song. The program was an exploration of, among other things, music's "biological, emotional and psychological impact on humans."
Part of this "exploration" included how music affects babies. If we are, as some scientists believe, "wired for music," then babies are ideal test subjects since their reactions are, by definition, instinctual.
Part of this research involved the effect of music on fetuses. While we knew that mothers often sing to their unborn children, we weren't sure that the unborn child could hear them.
We are now. A segment of The Music Instinct featured Sheila C. Woodward of the University of Southern California, who has studied fetal responses to music. A camera and a microphone designed for underwater use were inserted into the uterus of a pregnant woman. And then Woodward sang.
The hydrophone picked up two sounds: the "whooshing" of the uterine artery and the unmistakable sound of a woman singing a lullaby.
Then something extraordinary happened. Upon hearing the woman's voice, the unborn child smiled.
It was one of those moments that makes you catch your breath. The full humanity of the fetus could not have been clearer if he had turned to the camera and winked.
Apparently, fetal responses to music aren't limited to smiling. They have been observed moving their hands in response to music, almost as if conducting. They have been soothed by Vivaldi and disturbed by loud tracks from Beethoven. They have even responded "rhythmically to rhythms tapped on [their] mother's belly."
Perhaps understandably, the connection between fetal responses to music and abortion weren't mentioned in the show. What is not so understandable is that the program's website contains no mention of Woodward and her findings. It's as if someone realized the implications and hoped nobody would notice.
I don't think that there's some kind of conspiracy afoot. I just think that the PBS people's worldview won't allow them to make the obvious connection. Abortion on demand is only possible if people minimize the similarities between the fetus and us.
That kind of denial is hard work because what we have learned in the past 25 years makes any denial of the fetus' humanity absurd. So instead of looking at the evidence, many people don't see it. Call it "worldview-induced blindness."
In other words, they have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear.
Humans, we are told, are a "musical species" whose brain devotes more to the appreciation of music than even the processing of language. That makes someone who smiles and moves his hands in response to music undeniably human, whether we notice it or not.
Contact: Chuck Colson
Source: Breakpoint
Publish Date: June 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
One Solitary Child
I recently had a conversation with a woman named Laura, who volunteers in the mail room at Priests for Life. She told me an interesting story about her son, Salvatore, who was born in 1973, the year Roe. Vs. Wade legalized abortion.
After she had given birth and was in the hospital recovering from her caesarian section, she was struck by the fact that even though the maternity ward seemed to be full of women, there were no other newborn babies around except hers. In fact, her infant son was all alone in a room full of empty incubators. It was a strange and almost eerie site.
One morning, Laura was awakened by screaming and moaning coming from down the hall. Thinking it was simply the labor pains of other women giving birth, she asked the nurse why someone didn't help them. The nurse replied matter-of-factly: "Oh they're not in labor. They're having abortions. They didn't think it would hurt."
It turned out that the hospital Laura was in specialized in providing abortions, and following the 1973 Supreme Court decision, their business was booming.
The image of that ghostly maternity ward, devoid of all but one, solitary child; devoid of all the happy sounds of crying, newborn babies, with only the agonized sobbing of post-abortive mothers echoing through the empty corridors, reminded me again of how much emptier our world is because of all the abortions that have taken place since this most horrible of all atrocities was legalized.
And make no mistake, it is the most horrible of all atrocities. Sometimes people in our own Church attempt to trivialize abortion by lumping it together with the other evils of the world - by comparing it with poverty, disease, war, etc. But as the numbers clearly demonstrate, there is no comparison. Since 1973 there have been 50 million abortions in the United States alone. Worldwide, there are 42 million abortions every year. That means that in the last thirty years, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions!
1.5 billion! That's the equivalent of approximately one quarter of the entire population of the planet! One quarter of the earth's population, murdered; snuffed out; gone.
There's a famous poem about Jesus that concludes with the memorable lines: "All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as that One Solitary Life."
Unfortunately, we can say about abortion:
All the wars ever fought,
All the holocausts ever perpetrated,
All the plagues that ever raged,
All the bombs that ever dropped,
All the famines that ever laid waste to the land, put together, have not killed the number of human beings wiped out by abortion.
And yet, hope endures, because God's grace abounds, even amidst such devastation.
And what ever happened to Laura's baby? As she proudly related to me, her son, Fr. Sal, just celebrated his one year anniversary as a priest of the Catholic Church!
Contact: Fr. Frank Pavone Source: Priests for Life Publish Date: June 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Operation Rescue Office Attacked in Broad Daylight
Friday afternoon, June 26, a man on a bicycle attacked Operation Rescue's national headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, and attempted to disable the security system. There were four people working in the office at the time.
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman heard noise outside his office and observed the assailant through the security cameras attempting to gain access to the roof. Newman rushed outside and confronted the man, who then tried to punch Newman. When that failed, he flung his bicycle at Newman then fled the scene.
One security camera was stolen causing an estimated $1,000 in damage. No one was hurt in the fracas.
Police were called and a report was filed, but the suspect is still at large.
Ironically, at the time of the attack Newman was on the telephone giving an interview to a reporter from the Washington Times about the increase in threats against Operation Rescue staff members in the wake of the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller.
"In light of the recent events, the targeting of our security system is troubling. We can't help but think that if this attack happened to an abortion clinic, there would be federal marshals patrolling and investigating. The police seemed apathetic. It's almost as if pro-lifers are second-class citizens," said Newman.
"We are just thankful that no one was injured and that the attacker was interrupted before he could do more damage. We will be increasing our security precautions as a result of this incident. We have a very dedicated staff, and no amount of intimidation will deter us from our work."
Click here to view video footage of the attack.
Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger Source: Operation Rescue Publish Date: June 27, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.
School Allows Students to Leave School for Abortions Without Parents Knowing
Sided with Planned Parenthood'
School board votes to allow students to leave campus during school day for 'confidential medical services' without parents knowing. A divided Modesto City School Board has voted to permit junior high and high school students to leave campus during the school day for "confidential medical services," including abortions, without the consent or knowledge of their parents. After what the Modesto Bee described as "impassioned arguments for both sides," the board voted 4-3 at its Monday, June 22, meeting to adopt the new policy.
Click here for the full article.
Amnesty International attacks Poland abortion policy
Amnesty International has continued its promotion of abortion with a report on the state of human rights which criticizes Poland for denying Polish women "access to abortion." The organization's actions could reflect its partnership with a pro-abortion group to redefine abortion as a "human right."
The Amnesty International (AI) 2009 report's entry on Poland cites May 2008 criticism of its abortion policy by the Human Rights Council, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) reports.
Click here for the full article.
'Plan B' Abortion Pill Approved for Teens
A generic version of the morning-after-pill known as Plan B has received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for prescription use by women aged 17 and under. For the present the pill is available only to those under 17, but it will be available for other ages after August 24 when the exclusive market rights of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufacturers of the original Plan B expires. The new generic version is manufactured by Watson Pharmaceuticals of Corona, California. They call their version "Next Choice."
Click here for the full article.
2005 South Dakota Abortion Law Back In Federal Court
A federal judge will hear oral arguments next month in Sioux Falls over a lawsuit challenging a law that requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure ends a human life. The Legislature passed the measure in 2005 but Planned Parenthood appealed. It operates the state's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier temporarily prevented the law from taking effect. But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled that order last July, so the state started enforcing the law.
Click here for the full article.
Oregon Senate Approves Bill Criminalizing Attacks On Pregnant Women
A bill that increases the punishment for the murder of a pregnant women unanimously passed the Oregon Senate Thursday evening and now heads to Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who is expected to sign it into law. House Bill 3505 had earlier been approved 58-1 by the House and passed the Senate 30-0. The legislation came in response to the murder of Heather Snively, 21, who was found dead June 5th inside the crawl space of her Beaverton home. Anyone convicted under the bill faces life without parole, or a minimum of 30 years with a chance of parole and those who assault pregnant women also face stiffer charges.
Click here for the full article.
Man Tries Running Down Planned Parenthood Protestor With An SUV
A Planned Parenthood protestor was nearly struck by a motor vehicle Wednesday morning in Chico when a 40-year-old man allegedly tried to mow him over with an SUV. Police later arrested Matthew Reid Haver, of Chico on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. According to witness statements gathered by police, Haver allegedly tried to strike 60-year-old protestor James Canfield with a 1991 GMC sports utility vehicle at the Planned Parenthood office on Vallombrosa Avenue. Haver was transported to the Chico Police Department Holding Facility for prisoner intake. At the holding facility, however, Haver had a medical emergency which required him to be transferred to Enloe Medical Center for treatment. Carrillo was unable to elaborate on the medical emergency, but he did say it was such that it required an ambulance and fire department to respond. He said no one attempted to harm the suspect, but he would not say if Haver attempted to harm himself. Officers decided the best course of action would be to release Haver on a citation to appear in court.
Click here for the full article.
Abortions Double Premature Risk
Women who have had an abortion or miscarriage are more likely to give birth to a premature baby, researchers have found. A single termination raised the risk by 20%. Two or more increased the chances by 90%. And women who have had more than one abortion double their risk of having a "very" premature baby - classed as being born before 34 weeks.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion and Contraception Key Tools in Black Genocide: New Film
Planned Parenthood and similar groups have been using abortion and artificial contraception to control and reduce the African-American population of the US in a slow but deliberate and planned "genocide" that has been ongoing for 150 years, a new documentary claims.
The recently released documentary, "Maafa 21," produced by Life Dynamics Incorporated, the Texas-based pro-life investigative group, traces the history of the contraception and abortion industry from its origins in the racist eugenics movement of the early 20th century that un-apologetically targeted the black population and other groups it regarded as inferior.
Planned Parenthood was targeted by Civil Rights movement activists in the 1960s and '70s for its involvement in a "black genocide" that had its origins in the early days of the eugenics movement in the 19th century. The film points out that since 1973, legalised abortion has been specifically aimed at the African-American population and has killed more than "cancer, diabetes, heart disease and gang violence combined."
"Every week, more blacks die in American abortion clinics than were killed in the entire Vietnam War. And the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States is operated by Planned Parenthood."
It quotes Frederick Osborn, a founding member of the American Eugenics Society, who said in 1973, "Birth control and abortion are turning out to be the great eugenic advances of our time."
Pastor Stephen Broden, of the Fair Park Bible Fellowship, says in the film that the first "anti-abortion groups" were started by civil rights activists who spoke out against the use of birth control and abortion to eliminate the black race "long before the contemporary pro-life groups of today existed." Support for the abortion movement among African-Americans, he said, came about in response to "powerful influentical African-Americans" who were "willing to sell out the community" and who looked the other way to "advance their own personal political agendas."
The release of the film comes at the same time as it has been revealed that racist eugenics ideas had been shared by the late President Richard Nixon, who endorsed abortion for "mixed race" babies. Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that Nixon's comment is "one more reminder that abortion and racism are inextricably linked."
"Since its inception, the abortion movement has been eliminating people that it considers undesirable - people of colour or those with low income."
To watch the trailers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeusbhevqao (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oV5eznv6ro (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds_VQMoD5MI (Part 3)
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: June 25, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
New UNFPA Annual Report Prioritizes "Reproductive Health"
Last week, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released its annual report for 2008, highlighting the organization's work on maternal health and its "continued efforts to ensure the universal access to reproductive health and the right of all people to decide the number and timing of their children."
Though UNFPA refuses to subject its books to an independent audit and also refuses to share specific budget reporting to its board of directors, its annual report asserts that in 2008, almost half of UNFPA's program expenses went to "reproductive health" programs, at a cost of $165.1 million, up from $146.6 million the previous year. In all five regions, more funds were spent on reproductive health initiatives than any other program.
UNFPA's 2008 activities to help achieve "universal access to reproductive health" include family planning promotion, particularly through "securing reproductive health commodities" such as condoms. UNFPA's report claims that its work has resulted in 80 countries having national budget lines for contraceptives and other reproductive health supplies.
UNFPA steadfastly denies its programs have anything to do with abortion and its report does not mention the word. However, critics at the UN suspect that UNFPA's use of the phrase "maternal mortality" shows adoption of what some call the "motherhood and apple pie approach to abortion rights." By focusing on creating a new "right" to maternal health, reproductive rights advocates believe they can consolidate gains while avoiding scrutiny by abortion opponents. Then, once they are confident the new right to "maternal health" is established, they can assert the claim that abortion is part of the new right.
UNFPA continued its focus on mental health as an "integral aspect of reproductive health." UNFPA and the World Health Organization published "Mental Health Aspects of Women's Reproductive Health: A Global Review of the Literature" which seek to forge linkages between the biological, psychological and social factors to push for "an integrated approach to mental and reproductive health." In the United States and elsewhere "mental health" has been used radically to expand abortion rights beyond cases where a mother's physical well-being is at issue.
UNFPA's youth advocacy includes supporting "activities that led seven countries to ratify the Ibero-American Convention on the Rights of Youth." The Convention is a document that worries Latin American social conservatives for references to "sexual and reproductive health" as well as "sexual orientation," which they feared would be used to promote abortion and homosexuality in the region.
Even though the leadership at UNFPA has expressed support for transparency and has spoken in favor of using international accounting guidelines in response to concerns from United Nations member states, the organization has not released detailed accounting of its programs. The 2008 annual report lacks the detailed financial tables commonly found in annual corporate filings, and only provides anecdotal descriptions of agency expenditures.
While the Bush Administration withheld funding from UNFPA over the agency's support of China's population program, which includes forced abortions and sterilizations, the agency can look forward to a cash injection from the Obama administration in 2009. Earlier this year, the United States announced it would reinstate UNFPA funding and pledged $50 million dollars for 2009 -- a figure that would put the US in the agency's top five donor countries alongside the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
(This article reprinted with permission from http://www.c-fam.org/)
Contact: Samantha Singson Source: C-FAM Publish Date: June 25, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
