The National Institutes of Health issued final guidelines on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research Monday that largely mirror an earlier draft, although it left a loophole that pro-lifers say could lead to ethical abuses, conflicts of interest and manipulation of infertile couples.
As expected, the regulations -- ordered March 9 by President Obama -- restrict federal grants for research to embryos that are 1) produced by in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes, and 2) that are donated by couples who no longer want them and voluntarily provide their written consent. Stem cell lines eligible under President Bush also can receive funding.
Draft guidelines were issued in mid-April, beginning a period for public comment. Of the 49,000 comments received, approximately 30,000 expressed opposition to federal funding, the NIH said.
The guidelines also make clear that stem cells derived from therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, are not eligible for federal funds -- a stance that pro-lifers applauded.
But those same pro-lifers expressed concern that the NIH guidelines fail to require that the fertility doctor and the embryonic stem cell researcher be different people. In other words, the fertility doctor who derives the embryos can, by law, also wear the coat of embryonic stem cell researcher.
"As a general matter, the NIH believes that the doctor and the researcher seeking donation should be different individuals," the NIH said in its July 6 report. "However, this is not always possible, nor is it required, in the NIH's view, for ethical donation."
Pro-lifers, though, disagreed, arguing that a researcher who doubles as a fertility doctor will have a natural desire for more embryos in the lab -- and thus may lead infertile couples to create far more embryos than needed.
"The guidelines purport to have tight informed consent requirements, but don't even require the IVF doctor and the stem cell researcher to be separate persons, opening a gaping loophole for researchers to increase embryo production for their own purposes," Tony Perkins, president of the pro-life Family Research Council, said in a statement.
Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of the days-old human being and has yet to lead to any cures, even in the private sector. Critics argue that federal money would be better spent on adult stem cell research -- which does not involve embryos and has led to treatments for 73 ailments, supporters say -- and to induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS) research, a growing field whereby skin cells are reprogrammed into an embryonic-like state. Pro-lifers support both alternatives. "Dr. Oz" of Oprah fame told a nationwide TV audience he believes the "stem cell debate is dead" because of the promise of iPS research.
The NIH's final guidelines accompanied a transcript of all 49,000 comments and NIH's response to the most common comments.
Some commenters, NIH said, worried that couples could be paid for their embryos. To that, the NIH said it revised the guidelines "to state that there should be documentation that 'no payments, cash or in kind, were offered for the donated embryos.'"
On the other end of the ideological spectrum, some commenters suggested that the NIH broaden its guidelines so as to allow federal funding of stem cells "created expressly for research purposes" -- such as from therapeutic cloning.
"The Guidelines reflect the broad public support for federal funding of research using hESCs [human embryonic stem cells] created from such embryos based on wide and diverse debate on the topic in Congress and elsewhere," NIH said. "The use of additional sources of human pluripotent stem cells proposed by the respondents involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged."
Therapeutic cloning, NIH said, requires women to donate eggs, "a procedure that has health and ethical implications, including the health risk to the donor from the course of hormonal treatments."
Although pro-lifers were thankful therapeutic cloning won't be funded for the moment, they were quick to note that NIH didn't completely rule it out for future funding.
On other matters, the final guidelines make clear that an infertile couple who gives informed consent can change their mind and "withdraw consent," provided the embryos can still be traced.
Perkins said the guidelines are full of problems.
"Embryonic stem cell research requires dissecting and commoditizing the youngest, most vulnerable humans," he said. "The new guidelines demanded by the President promote poor science, reflect bad health care policy, and do nothing to fund treatments with adult stem cells that are providing documented benefits for suffering patients. The guidelines implement a plan that will force taxpayers to foot the bill for research that involves human destruction, not healing."
Obama's March order overturned the policy by President Bush, which permitted federal grants for experiments on embryonic stem cell lines, or colonies, already in existence prior to his August 2001 order, while prohibiting research on any lines created after his order. Unlimited private funding was allowed to continue. Later in his administration Bush also signed orders providing federal funds for non-embryonic stem cell research.
Contact: Michael Foust Source: BP
Publish Date: July 7, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
There is much advocacy around the issue of cost containment as we enter the great debate over health care "reform." Here is the gig that seems to be developing:
* We have to cut costs.
* People having their lives extended when they can't be "healed" cost too much.
* They should choose hospice or refuse treatment.
* If they won't make the right choice, it is now often hinted (while not stated explicitly), we will.
An article called "Reform Health Care Now: End of Life Costs are Too High", by Russell Kirk, MD, seems to follow that road map. From the article:
This same scenario is played out again and again: A situation is more or less hopeless but gets dragged out for weeks, months and sometimes years. It seems as though the patient's quality of life takes a backseat to treating the problem at hand. More to the point, most family members don't consider the staggering costs of end-of-life care since Medicare covers many people who end up in this situation. In a report issued in April, Dartmouth researchers found that total Medicare spending in the last two years of life ranges from an average of $53,432 for patients treated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to $93,842 for those at the U.C.L.A. Medical Center in Los Angeles.
What's the alternative? No clear answer has emerged, but almost everyone agrees that we have to figure out how to manage end-of-life care in a more cost-effective way as the baby boomers age. And we need to distinguish between care that prolongs life and care that actually heals the sick. For example, one option for cancer patients when it's clear the disease is terminal is to utilize hospice care.
I am all for hospice care and refusing unwanted ICU–if that is what the patient wants. As long time readers know, I have been a hospice volunteer. My dad died of colon cancer receiving hospice as have other relatives and very close friends. But here's the thing: Once we say that a life is not worth preserving based on costs, we have instituted explicit rationing and created a duty to die.
The doctor then talks about a "well thought out plan" for end of life care and the signing of advance directives. Again, I'm all for it, but recall that there are many forces wanting to give faceless bioethics committees the right to veto your desires–even if set in writing. I suspect the good doctor would, too.
One final point: This article was linked and promoted at the assisted suicide advocacy group Compassion and Choices, and that set off alarm bells. Assisted suicide is the elephant in the living room of health care reform that Kirk ignored. But the fact that C and C lauded the article means that the money issue is coming to the fore in assisted suicide advocacy, just as I always predicted it would. I mean think of all the money to be saved if instead of hospice or an extended time of debilitation we could give the patient a lethal jab or a poison brew! Indeed, it's already happening: Recall, in Oregon, Medicaid has refused life-extending treatment to cancer patients but explicitly offered to pay for assisted suicide. Not that assisted suicide will become the cornerstone of health care reform. But make no mistake: It is the monster lurking in the shadows that we ignore at all our peril.
So, here's the gig as I see it developing: In the new health care order, "choice" will be sacrosanct if the choice is death–either naturally or by lethal means. But if the choice is is to go on living–at a certain point "choice" will cease to be operative because you will have become unwanted ballast. Eventually, that could even mean non voluntary euthanasia as now occurs with regularity in the Netherlands.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: July 7, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Offering brochures on pro-life alternatives to abortion may appear a safe enough act, but for one Arizona sidewalk counselor, the message of "no thanks" instead came through a drawn handgun allegedly held by a man determined that his girlfriend would get an abortion.
Local Phoenix station 3TV reported that a pro-life woman was offering literature on abortion alternatives to a man who had taken his girlfriend to the Planned Parenthood facility near Seventh and Campbell avenues, when suddenly the man pulled out a pistol, pointed the weapon at the woman for a few moments, and then drove away.
Lt. Larry T. Jacobs stated that Phoenix police were able to track the man down through the license plate number written down by the side-walk counselor, and arrest him.
The incident follows just a week after a man in Chico, California, had been arrested for allegedly attempting to run down an abortion protestor with his SUV near the local Planned Parenthood facility. The Chico Enterprise Record reports that Matthew Haver, 40, had become enraged with veteran pro-life advocate James Cantfield, 69, after Haver's two children sitting in the back of the vehicle pointed at Cantfield's sign and asked their father to explain the sign's prominent image of an aborted baby.
Police later arrested Haver at his home; he was later admitted to the hospital for an unexplained medical condition. As of Friday authorities had not decided whether to charge Haver with a crime.
However the minimal attention given to the acts of violence in the mainstream media has prompted pro-life advocates to point out the disparity in coverage of pro-abortion and anti-abortion violence.
"I think this proves all pro-aborts entering [Planned Parenthoods] are prone to violence against postborns as well as preborns and should be placed on Janet Napolitano's domestic terrorist watch list," stated pro-life advocate Jill Stanek on her blog, dryly noting the double standard applied to pro-life advocates.
Stanek was recently accused on national television of inciting the murder of abortionists by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and subsequently received death threats.
Stanek also pointed out that the lackluster coverage of the incident omitted important information, such as that this particular Planned Parenthood had been exposed along with another Phoenix Planned Parenthood about four months ago as willing to cover up statutory rape by undercover pro-life journalist Lila Rose.
Rose's documented exposé on the abortion clinic's willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors and provide clandestine abortions provoked the state attorney general to order an investigation.
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 6, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
On July 6, 2009, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter in which she invited cosponsorship of the "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA), sometimes referred to as the "Women's Equality Amendment," which she apparently intends to re-introduce soon.
Rep. Maloney's resolution would add to the Constitution the following amendment: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This Amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Congress proposed the same language to the states in 1972, with a seven-year ratification deadline. The deadline passed without ratification by the required number of states. Congresswoman Maloney apparently does not intend to attach any deadline for ratification to her new resolution.
THE ERA-ABORTION CONNECTION
Leading pro-abortion groups – including NARAL, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood -- have strongly urged state courts to construe state ERAs to require tax-funded abortion on demand, and state ERAs have been so construed in New Mexico and Connecticut.
The proposed federal constitutional amendment is very similar to the language of the ERA which New Mexico added to its state constitution in 1973, which says, "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person." On November 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion differently from "medically necessary procedures" sought by men, and the court ordered the state to pay for elective abortions under the state's Medicaid program. (NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005)
In its ruling, the court adopted the construction of the ERA urged in the case by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The doctrine that the ERA language invalidates limitations on tax-funded abortion was also supported in briefs filed by the state Women's Bar Association, Public Health Association, and League of Women Voters.
These briefs, and a court's agreement with their argument, should not come as any surprise to knowledgeable observers. During the 1970s and 1980s, many pro-ERA advocates insisted that there was "no connection" between ERAs and abortion, but NRLC warned otherwise. As we predicted, pro-abortion advocacy groups have increasingly employed the ERA-abortion argument in state courts, and in New Mexico we saw the devastating result of enacting an ERA that does not include explicit abortion-neutral language.
Once a court adopts the legal doctrine that a law targeting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion. For example, under this doctrine, the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state restrictions on tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it would nullify any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought only by women). Also vulnerable would be federal and state "conscience laws," which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions. Moreover, the ACLU's "Reproductive Freedom Project" published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion litigators to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and parental consent laws.
THE REMEDY: AN ABORTION-NEUTRAL AMENDMENT
All of the pernicious results outlined above could be avoided if the following "abortion-neutral-amendment" -- originally proposed by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner in 1983 -- is added:
"Nothing in this Article [the ERA] shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof."
This proposed revision would not change the current legal status of abortion, nor would it permit the ERA itself to be employed for anti-abortion purposes. Rather, the revision would simply make the ERA itself neutral regarding abortion policy.
REGARDING THE THEORY THAT THE ORIGINAL 1972 ERA IS STILL ALIVE BEFORE THE STATES ("THREE-STATE STRATEGY")
Curiously, at the same time they are urging Congress to approve a new federal ERA resolution, many ERA proponents insist that the ERA that Congress approved in 1972 is still eligible for ratification by state legislatures. They also insist that only three more ratifications are needed to make the 1972 resolution part of the Constitution. The legal reasoning behind this "three-state strategy," originally set forth in 1994, is quite unpersuasive -- so much so, that not a single state legislature has passed a ratification resolution in the 15 years since the theory was concocted.
Based on Rep. Maloney's July 6 letter, we can only conclude that she must be doubtful about the notion that the 1972 ERA is still alive before the state legislatures. In fact, Rep. Maloney's letter acknowledges that "the deadline passed" on the 1972 ERA without ratification being achieved, and she adds, "We believe Congress should give the states another chance" (i.e., by proposing a her new, no-deadline ERA resolution to the states). It would not make much sense for Congress to begin the entire constitutional amendment process over again from square one, if the identical language really was still pending and available for ratification before the state legislatures.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: July 7, 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 Embryonic Stem Cell Rules Turn Americans Into `Cannibals'
"The United States once stood for equality and justice, based on the dignity of the human person – the basic building block of our society. Yet, today our country has taken another huge step backward, as it embraces ever-worsening dehumanization. The Obama administration's new embryonic stem cell research guidelines mark a new low in our government's tax-funded and imposed culture of death. The nation's most vulnerable human beings are now being torn apart for research and treated as leftover table scraps that need to be recycled. The new rules confirm, in black and white, that human beings created in the laboratory by in vitro fertilization, are now considered mere products that, if `no longer needed,' `left over' or destined to be `thrown away,' can also be destroyed in a laboratory."
Click here for the full article.
Appropriations Bill Could `Eliminate DC Funding Ban for Abortion'
The federal appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2010 includes several items that would end funding bans affecting several different issues in Washington, DC. If passed in its current form, the bill would eliminate a prohibition on using DC-raised monies for abortion, would end a ban that prohibits the use of federal funds for registration of domestic partners in the District, and would end a federal funding ban on needle exchange programs in DC. Another provision would allow DC to conduct a referendum on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Click here for the full article.
Obama, Democratic Congressional Leaders Push "Health Care Reform" Bills That Mandate Abortion Funding and Nullify State Abortion Laws
Lots and lots and lots going on today, so let me get right to it. Let me first thank all who wrote about yesterday's TN&V, the topic of which was pro-life Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The numerous hit-jobs needed a response, and I tried my best. If you have a chance, go to www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24606.html. It is the finest rebuttal of the venomous nonsense spewed out against Palin that I've read. (And I've read a lot of 'em!)
I've attached a link to the latest from NRLC concerning the attempt by pro-abortion President Obama and the equally pro-abortion Democratic leadership in the House and Senate "to smuggle into federal law sweeping expansions of access to abortion on demand, including federal funding of abortion, through 'health care reform' legislation.'"
Click here for the full article.
Media Utter Inability to Report Assisted Suicide Stories Accurately
The media everywhere can't–or won't–report assisted suicide-related stories accurately. Example: Most stories still report that Jack Kevorkian assisted the suicides of the terminally ill when 70 percent or so of his victims were not terminally ill and five had no illnesses upon their autopsies.
The same thing happens in Australia. In August 2001, I traveled to Australia to bust Philip Nitschke for arguing that "troubled teens" should have access to assisted suicide. It created a national media firestorm with television reporters chasing me down for interviews at restaurants. At first, he admitted it: After all, he had said that explicitly in an interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez over at NRO. Then, he turned on a dime and denied it: Rather than point out his different stories, the media simply pretended his lie settled the matter despite the evidence to the contrary in black and white.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Life Ireland Unites Against Threat of Abortion from London, UN and EU
An organizer of a massive pro-life rally in Dublin says she and the other key figures were "jubilant" at the turn-out of seven thousand people on Saturday. Bernadette Smyth, Director of Belfast's Precious Life, also told LifeSiteNews.com that pro-life leaders in Ireland are especially encouraged by a growing cooperation between North and South in the pro-life movement in Ireland.
A major breakthrough of the pro-life campaigns in all of Ireland, she said, has been the growing awareness that if legalized abortion is forced into Northern Ireland, it will be effectively made available in the Republic of Ireland as well.
The All-Ireland Rally for Life was organized by a cross-border coalition of pro-life groups such as Youth Defence, the Life Institute, and Precious Life.
Smyth told LSN, "If abortion becomes legal in the north, it becomes legal in the south. It's only a car journey across the border. Irish children will die regardless of whether it is in the north or the south."
Click here for the full article.
Woman Charged For Using Abortion Pill
A young woman charged with procuring her own miscarriage will face a committal hearing alongside her boyfriend in September. Tegan Simone Leach, 19, of Cairns, became the first woman to be charged with the offence in half a century after using a smuggled pill to abort her foetus. Her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan, 21, is charged with attempting to procure and supply drugs to procuring an abortion. Pro-choice advocates have blasted the decision to charge the couple, saying it's an unprecedented breach of the rights of women.
Click here for the full article.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has released its final guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research. The rules allow the funding of research which uses stem cells harvested from fertility clinic embryos and also outline informed consent standards for women or couples who donate their embryos.
The guidelines, which implement a March 9 executive order issued by President Barack Obama, become effective July 7.
Msgr. David Malloy, General Secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has been critical of the NIH rules. In a May commentary on the guidelines, he said the rules were "broader or more permissive" than any previous research policy in key respects.
He also insisted it was a human right not to be subjected to harmful experimentation.
"As the President noted," Msgr. Malloy said, "we must not make 'a false choice between sound science and moral values.' In fact, these sources of guidance both point in the same direction, away from destructive embryonic stem cell research. His executive order and these Guidelines nonetheless insist on a course of action that is both morally objectionable and, increasingly, scientifically obsolete."
"This is not merely a political or ideological problem, or a problem of religious dogma, but a deeply human problem: We are testing the limits of our obligation to treat all fellow human beings, of every age and condition, with basic respect," Msgr. Malloy wrote.
There was doubt about whether the new NIH requirements for informed consent would have disqualified some existing stem cell lines, the Associated Press says. The NIH now requires documentation of voluntary informed consent from a woman or couple who donate the original embryo. They must have been told of other options for "leftover" embryos, such as donating to another infertile woman.
The NIH designed a compromise which deems old stem cell lines eligible for government research dollars if scientists can prove they met the spirit of the new ethics standards.
An NIH registry will list all cell lines that qualify.
Acting NIH Director Raynard Kington portrayed the informed consent guidelines as a "reasonable compromise" which will achieve President Obama's stated goal of "advancing science while maintaining rigorous ethical standards," the Associated Press reports.
Stem cell research hopes to harness the power of adult or embryonic stem cells to create better treatments for ailments ranging from diabetes to spinal cord injuries. Embryonic stem cells are harvested by destroying human embryos.
Source: CNA Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (AP Photo)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama supports existing federal laws that prevent federally funded health care providers from forcing doctors and pharmacists who morally oppose abortion from either performing the procedure or providing abortion-inducing medication.
But Obama opposes a regulation put into place by the Bush administration that would require those federally funded providers to certify compliance with the law, Sebelius said.
On March 10, the Obama administration submitted to the Federal Register a proposal to rescind the "conscience clause" rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."
"There really hasn't been a change in status of what the president proposed," Sebelius told CNSNews.com during a conference call with reporters on Monday. "The president continues to support the underlying law.
"He felt the regulation issued in the final days of the Bush administration was overly broad and jeopardizes critical health services for women," she said.
The March 10 proposal states: "The department believes it is important to have an opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy and to reevaluate the necessity for regulations implementing the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment."
The Church Amendments are conscience clauses of the Public Health Service Act, enacted at various times during the 1970s, which prohibit the use of federal funds going to health care entities that discriminate against health care professionals who morally object to abortion or sterilization.
In 2005, the Weldon Amendment was adopted as a section of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and re-adopted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2009. The amendment does not allow federal funding of entities if "such agency, program, or [state or local] government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."
In explaining its proposed rescinding of the Bush administration rule, then-acting HHS Secretary Charles E. Johnson cited the public comments collected during the 60-day comment period that expired on Feb. 27, 2009.
"Commenters asserted that the rule would limit access to patient care and raised concerns that individuals could be denied access to services, with effects felt disproportionately by those in rural areas or otherwise underserved," the acting secretary wrote.
"The Department believes that the comments on the August 2008 proposed rule raised a number of questions that warrant further careful consideration," Johnson wrote.
In his summary of the rule, then-HHS secretary under the Bush administration, Michael Leavitt, wrote that the regulation was meant to ensure that pro-life health care professionals were protected and that federally funded health entities were following the law.
"The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to promulgate regulations to ensure that Department funds do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law, pursuant to the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 300a-7), Public Health Service (PHS) Act §245 (42 U.S.C. § 238n), and the Weldon Amendment (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, § 508(d), 121 Stat. 1844, 2209)," reads the summary.
"This notice of proposed rulemaking proposes to define certain key terms. Furthermore, in order to ensure that recipients of Department funds know about their legal obligations under these nondiscrimination provisions, the Department proposes to require written certification by certain recipients that they will comply with all three statutes, as applicable," the summary added.
Sebelius refused to answer a follow-up question about if and when the "conscience clause" rule would be officially rescinded by President Obama.
Contact: Penny Starr Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: July 7, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.
Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."
The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
"Right now they say they have a neutral position on abortion, which means let the woman choose," Jeralee Smith, cofounder of the Conservative Educators Caucus within the NEA, told Baptist Press.
"'No position' means that they could be sued if there was any evidence that they were spending any money or making any effort to help the Roe v. Wade decision. So 'no position' is a much stronger retreat from the current position," she said.
Debate over the issue was significant, Smith said, and a representative from the conservative caucus appealed to the union's local leaders who have been losing members who opt out as religious objectors.
"He said the union just shouldn't be involved in this, and there were a lot of people who agreed with him," Smith said of the delegate.
In a ballot vote, 61 percent were against the bylaw amendment and 39 percent were for it in what Smith described as a no-win situation for the liberal NEA leadership.
"If they had voted for it, they wouldn't have been able to spend any money on abortion," she said. "But since they voted against it, it's a much clearer case for anyone who wants religious accommodation, that the union supports abortion."
Teachers who have religious objections to paying NEA dues -- which can be used to fund the pro-choice and homosexual agendas -- have the right in some states to give money to a charity instead, Smith said. Information is available from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation at nrtw.org.
"People don't realize -- because they're told otherwise -- that they have a right to get out of the union," Smith said.
A loss of membership dues also played into the discussion over "gay marriage" when one state leader got up and said he's a liberal who supports "gay rights" but doesn't believe the NEA should be involved in the issue because they're losing members over it.
Smith said the executive committee, one of NEA's two top decision-making bodies, drafted the same-sex proposal because the committee expected proposals to come from the delegates on the floor and it wanted to preempt them with language that wouldn't be as divisive.
At previous meetings, the NEA has supported "obtaining, preserving, and strengthening basic civil and human rights under law" and specifically called for "passage of a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and expression."
By voice vote delegates in San Diego adopted the following action plan July 3:
-- "NEA will support its affiliates seeking to enact state legislation that guarantees to same-sex couples the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship pursuant to which they have the same rights and benefits as similarly-situated heterosexual couples, including, without limitation, rights and benefits with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption and immigration.
-- "NEA does not believe that a single term must be used to designate this legally recognized 'equal treatment' relationship, and recommends that each state decide for itself whether 'marriage,' 'civil union,' 'domestic partnership,' or some other term is most appropriate based upon the cultural, social, and religious values of its citizenry.
-- "NEA will support its affiliates in opposing state constitutional and/or statutory provisions that could have the effect of prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as are provided to similarly-situated heterosexual couples.
-- "NEA will take such actions as may be appropriate to support efforts to (a) repeal any federal legislation and/or regulations that discriminate against same-sex couples, and (b) enact federal legislation and/or regulations that treat same-sex couples and similarly-situated heterosexual couples equally with regard to social security, health care, taxation, and other federal rights and benefits.
-- "NEA recognizes that the term 'marriage' has religious connotations and that same-sex marriages may not be compatible with the beliefs, values, and/or practices of certain religions. Because of its support for the separation of church and state and the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, NEA supports the right of religious institutions to refuse to perform or recognize same-sex marriages."
The fourth bullet has been interpreted by some conservatives as aiming at the Defense of Marriage Amendment, Smith said. Signed into law in 1996, DOMA gives states the option of refusing to recognize "gay marriage" from other states.
"It was implied at both the state and the federal level that they would be interested in overturning DOMA, but they didn't say that directly. The way they described it, it was pretty clear that's what they had in mind," she told BP.
During discussion preceding the vote, a representative from the gay and lesbian caucus wanted to remove the fifth bullet protecting churches, but "the Representative Assembly very definitely refused to do that," Smith said.
Also during debate, a representative from the conservative caucus spoke against the action plan.
"As soon as she mentioned the words 'marriage should be between a man and a woman,' she got booed," Smith said. "The chair stopped the booing and reminded everybody that in a democracy everyone gets to have their say."
After about five speeches on each side of the issue, the assembly voted to end debate despite 20 or 30 more people lined up to speak on each side, Smith said.
"They did a voice vote and the nays were pretty strong, but you could tell that they weren't winning. It was probably again around that 60/40 split, I would imagine," she said.
NEA's executive committee will monitor the implementation of the action plan on "gay marriage" and will keep NEA affiliates informed of actions taken to achieve its objectives, the organization said.
Smith said the conservative caucus was prepared to speak further against the action plan but didn't get the opportunity.
"People don't recognize that this issue goes way beyond both equality and religious liberty," she said. "It has to do with what the next generation of children will face as far as stability and nurturing.
"The French government, a very secular government, spent a whole year studying it and decided not to grant 'gay marriage' because of the children," Smith said. "Our speech was to get away from the tug-of-war between equality and religious liberty and say it's really all about the kids and can't we all be adults and do what's best for them."
Also of interest, she said, is that for the second year in a row someone from the floor moved that a creation science exhibit not be allowed at the NEA convention.
"It lost again big time," Smith said. "Last year when they brought it up, they wouldn't even allow discussion on it. But this year, they did allow discussion, and there was one lady who got up and said, 'What is this? Christians are now the enemies of the NEA?' Some people clapped. It failed because I think the membership at large believes that people should have their say."
NEA's 3.2 million members work at every level of education, from preschool to university graduate programs. NEA has affiliate organizations in every state and in more than 14,000 communities across the United States.
Contact: Erin Roach Source: BP Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
In a meeting with several members of the Catholic media Thursday, President Obama insisted that pro-life Catholics' fears over the new administration's abortion agenda was "not based on anything I've said or done." The president also said he embraces the so-called "seamless garment" moral theory of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, which he said he feels has been "buried under the abortion debate" in recent decades.
The president called for the brief round-table meeting with Catholic media to discuss his upcoming meeting with Pope Benedict XVI July 10, but addressed the rift between his stance on abortion and the Catholic Church's moral teaching in response to questions.
The meeting was attended by representatives of the Catholic News Service, the National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, Catholic Digest, Vatican Radio, and a Washington Post religion writer.
According to the Catholic Digest report, one member asked for more information on President Obama's stance on conscience protection for doctors objecting to abortion.
President Obama said that the expectation of heavily pro-abortion policy from his administration "is not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception somehow that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push."
Obama, who in February began repealing a Bush regulation strengthening doctors' conscience rights, said he favors a "robust" conscience clause. However, he did not elaborate on what aspect of the Bush regulation he considered flawed and did not give a compelling reason for why his administration is repealing the regulation.
"[The new conscience clause] may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach," he said, "but it certainly will not be weaker than what existed before the changes were made."
Despite Obama's claim that pro-life fears are "not based on anything I've said or done," a steady stream of pro-abortion policy since his inauguration has left the pro-life community little room to doubt the President's devotion to the abortion agenda. These policies include abolishing the Mexico City Policy, funding the United Nations Population Fund, unleashing federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research, and calling for taxpayer-funded abortion in Washington, D.C.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in April confirmed that the Obama administration would work to dismantle pro-life laws around the world as part of its policy of promoting "reproductive health."
In terms of Obama's personal stance on abortion, pro-lifers have pointed to a July 2007 speech in which Obama told Planned Parenthood that the "first thing" he would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Because FOCA would establish abortion as a "fundamental right" for women, the legislation would effectively eliminate all state and federal bans on abortion, as well as the rights of medical professionals to deny to perform or refer for abortions.
"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama had said. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."
In addition to his statement on FOCA, Obama had a 100% pro-abortion voting record as a U.S. senator, including voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have mandated that babies that are born alive after failed abortions receive normal medical care.
In Thursday's meeting, President Obama mentioned more than once his attraction to Cardinal Bernardin's consistent life ethic or "seamless garment" theory of social justice, which advocates a holistic approach to the sanctity of human life by opposing abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and economic injustice.
However, Obama said, that theory has been "buried by the abortion debate" in recent years, and he expects to advance a "broader set of values" than those espoused by pro-life Catholics.
"It's not up to me to try to resolve those tensions [among Catholics]. All I can do is to affirm how that other tradition has made me, a non-Catholic, reflect on how I can be a better person and has had a powerful influence on my life," said the president. "And that tells me that it might be a powerful way to move a broader set of values forward in American life generally."
Although President Obama has more than once called upon the theory to downplay his disagreement with the Church on abortion, including in his speech at Notre Dame, Cardinal Bernardin himself strongly condemned the use of the consistent life ethic to dismiss the centrality of the abortion debate.
In 1988, Bernardin told the National Catholic Register: "I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it."
Thursday's discussion also touched on the "common ground" the administration is avowedly seeking on abortion when one journalist asked about the president's expectations for the initiative.
Obama responded that he awaits a memo from his task force mapping out common ground, and said he expected to find agreement on advancing sex education and reducing "the circumstances in which women feel compelled to obtain an abortion."
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, has criticized Obama's emphasis on reducing the "need" for abortion while staunchly refusing to support reducing the number of abortions.
Wright recounted her experience at a May meeting of the abortion "common ground" task force in which Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily's List, corrected Wright for stating that the administration wished to reduce abortions.
"It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions," said Barnes, but rather only to "reduce the need for abortions."
"Obama needs to be honest with Americans," said Wright. "Is it true that it is not his goal to reduce the number of abortions?
"More importantly, will he do anything that will reduce abortions? Actions are far more important than words."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 6, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
From Fox News, July 6 (Can't believe Fox called these images "graphic."):
Anna Amador has gone to court on behalf of her daughter, who she says was ordered by her principal to change her shirt on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day." The shirt the girl was wearing displays two graphic pictures of a fetus growing in the womb....
The incident occurred in April 2008 at McSwain Elementary School, a K-8 school in Merced, CA. Amador alleges in her legal complaint that school Principal Terrie Rohrer, Assistant Principal C.W. Smith and office clerk Martha Hernandez mistreated her daughter and denied the girl her First Amendment rights when they ordered her to leave the cafeteria and change her shirt.
"Before Plaintiff could eat [breakfast] she was ordered by a school staff member to throw her food out and report immediately to Defendant Smith's office...," the complaint reads.
"Upon arriving at the main office, Defendant Hernandez, intentionally and without Plaintiff's consent, grabbed Plaintiff's arm and forcibly escorted her toward Smith's office, at all times maintaining a vice-like grip on Plaintiff's arm. Hernandez only released Plaintiff's arm after physically locating her in front of Smith and Defendant Rohrer...
"Smith and Rohrer ordered Plaintiff to remove her pro-life T-shirt and instructed Plaintiff to never wear her pro-life T-shirt at McSwain Elementary School ever again...
"Completely humiliated and held out for ridicule, Plaintiff complied with Defendants' directives and removed her pro-life T-shirt, whereupon, Defendants seized and confiscated it. Defendants did not return Plaintiff's property until the end of the school day."
The school administrators dispute some of the allegations, said Anthony DeMaria, attorney for... McSwain....
He said he was unable to reach the administrators to determine which parts they say are incorrect, because school is out for the summer....
The school district sought to get the case thrown out due to "failure to state a cognizable claim," but a U.S. Eastern District Court judge ruled last month that all but one of Amador's claims could go forward.
The complaint quotes school district officials saying that they ordered Amador's daughter to remove the shirt because it constituted "inappropriate subject matter" in violation of the school's dress code, which bans clothing with "suggestion of tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter."
Amador claims in the legal complaint that other students at the school have been allowed to wear expressive shirts, and she blames the school for "inconsistently applying their Dress Code based upon subjective determinations as to which messages are acceptable and which messages are not."
One of the girl's lawyers, Mark Thiel, said that the images on her shirt of a fetus in the womb were same as those in her science textbooks. He said no student had complained about the shirt, and he said the girl's parents were not called when the incident took place....
A spokeswoman for the local Planned Parenthood chapter declined to take sides in the case.
"Even offensive speech is protected as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of others," said Deborah Ortiz, vice president of public affairs for PP Mar Monte....
UCLA law professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh said Supreme Court precedent appears to support the girl's case.
"During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court ruled that wearing black arm bands [at school, to protest the war] was OK," Volokh said. "If students can wear armbands in protest, why can't they wear a pro-life shirt?"
He said the case would be different if there was evidence that the shirt could have led to disruption or fighting....
But the fact that it's a K-8 school with very young children could change things, said Brooklyn Law School professor William Araiza. He pointed to the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Morse v. Frederick, where the court allowed a high school to suspend students in Juneau, AK, who waved a banner that read "Bong hits 4 Jesus" from across the street during an Olympic torch relay, because it was seen as promoting illegal drug use.
"[The school] could almost use a "bong hits" kind of rationale about protecting students from inappropriate messages," Araiza said. "For instance, would you allow a 4th grader to wear a gruesome picture of a bomb scene? You probably wouldn't."
First Amendment attorney William Becker, who represents Amador, disagreed that the shirt could be seen as containing inappropriate messages.
"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," he said. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: July 6, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Fetal Tissue in Vaccine Production May be Linked to Autism in Children Claims Campaign Group
Increased rates of regressive autism in children in the US and UK can be historically associated with the switch by pharmaceutical companies from the use of animal cells to produce vaccines to the use of aborted human fetal cells, a campaign group is claiming.
"Now when we vaccinate our children, some vaccines also deliver contaminating aborted human fetal DNA. The safety of this has never been tested," says Dr. Theresa Deisher, President of the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI).
SCPI, a group that educates the public on the use of aborted human fetal material for drug production, warns that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccines introduced to the US and UK in 1979 and 1988 respectively, were produced using aborted fetal cells, while previous versions were made using only animal cells. This switch coincides with what SCPI says are "dramatic" increases in the rates of regressive autism in children, in which the child's social and verbal development halts.
The warning comes in response to the recommendation in June by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) of the US Department of Health and Human Services for further study into vaccine safety with relation to autism. Some concerned parents of children with autism maintain that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism.
Despite assurances from health agencies and the scientific community disputing this, a growing number of parents have opted out of national vaccination programs. This has prompted the Centers for Disease Control to convene a Vaccine Safety Working Subgroup. A report by the NVAC recommended further study of the potential for vaccines to contribute to regressive autism in children.
SCPI points to studies showing an environmental factor, "a trigger," that brings on the disorder. But while scientists pointed to the presence of mercury in the MMR vaccines, SCPI says that autism continued to rise after mercury was removed.
"The early vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells, such as MMRII, don't even inform consumers that residual aborted fetal DNA is injected with each vaccine," SCPI said in a media release. More recently introduced vaccines, the group says, do inform consumers that they contain contaminating residual DNA from the "human diploid cell" but do not say that this cell is from an aborted human fetus.
"The safety of injecting our children with aborted human fetal DNA has been debated for over 40 years, but has never been studied," SCPI said.
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 6, 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.
IRS Demands that Coalition for Life of Iowa Swear It Will Not Oppose Planned Parenthood
Thomas More Society Attorneys Request that IRS Stop the Harassment and Violation of Coalition's Constitutional Rights to Prayer and Legal Protests Outside Planned Parenthood
Today, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was put on notice that the Thomas More Society in Chicago stands ready to defend the Coalition for Life of Iowa against the prejudicial questioning by the IRS, which has delayed granting tax exemption to the non-profit religious organization. After questioning the "educational" nature of the Coalition's materials, prayer meetings, talks and other Pro-Life activities, the IRS stated that it would not grant tax exemption until the Coalition swore to limit its "picketing" and "protesting" of Planned Parenthood.
Click here for the full article.
Alabama Attorney General Calls Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood Ignoring Statutory Rape 'Extremely Troubling', Seeks Investigation
Alabama Attorney General Troy King has called a new undercover video released last week showing Planned Parenthood of Alabama apparently breaking state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse "extremely troubling" and requested the full recordings. The student-led nonprofit responsible for the recordings, Live Action, immediately sent the full footage, which the Attorney General's office received yesterday.
The video shows a Planned Parenthood staffer, identified as "Tanisha," telling a purportedly 14-year-old girl with a 31-year-old "boyfriend" that Planned Parenthood "does sometimes bend the rules a little bit" when it comes to reporting statutory rape to state authorities. Despite strong parental consent laws in Alabama, "Tanisha" also explains that a person with the "same last name" as the 14-year-old would suffice as a guardian or parent to sign off for the minor's abortion. In an interview last week, King said, "If that tape is an accurate depiction of what's happening, that's very troubling," and "if that video is true and accurate and correct, it's extremely troubling from a legal and moral point of view."
Click here for the full article.
ACLU Challenges Arizona Over Sheriff Preventing Inmates' Abortions
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is again asking an Arizona court to stop Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio from preventing female inmates from accessing abortion services. A 2005 lawsuit struck down the Sheriff's policy of prohibiting jail officials from transporting a prisoner for an abortion without a court order. However, Arpaio allegedly began requiring women to pre-pay for security and transportation costs associated with acquiring an abortion.
Click here for the full article.
Wisconsin Gov. Signs Bill to Expand Birth Control, Chemically Induced Abortions 'At Taxpayer Expense'
Not many people seem to have noticed yet, but buried among the new measures signed into law last week as part of Gov. Jim Doyle's budget is a trio of family planning initiatives that are expected to expand access to birth control and contraceptive education in Wisconsin. Advocates who had fought for previous versions of the controversial measures over the past years, only to see them get beat back repeatedly by the Republican-controlled Legislature, are thrilled at the relative ease with which the measures passed this year.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-life pamphlet series provides plain talk in defense of life
The pro-life group Human Life International (HLI) has introduced a new series of online pamphlets titled Pro-Life Talking Points (PLTP) addressing claims about the necessity of abortion, the effect of welfare on the abortion rate, and the distorted claims surrounding abortion-related violence and the promotion of condom use.
PLTP titles also discuss the beginning of human life and the issue of men and abortion.
"From fertilization to natural death, there exists an unbroken and smooth continuum of human development during which the person needs only oxygen, water, and nutrients to live and develop physically," says HLI's pamphlet on fetal development.
Click here to view or download the pamphlet series.
Click here for the full article.
Dems' Health Care Reform Plans Would Include Abortion Coverage, Washington Times Opinion Piece States
As lawmakers work to pass health reform legislation, "few are talking about" the "essential question" of whether "health reform will force taxpayers to pay for abortions for the first time in 30 years," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Perkins, "the short answer is yes" because there is no "explicit provision" in any Democratic health plan that would "[p]revent taxpayer funding of abortions as part of the health care benefit Congress is considering"; avert "delays in health care services that result in the death of the patient waiting for care"; or allow health care providers "to refuse to participate in health care-related action that violates their conscience." Perkins continues that the House's reform proposal would provide federal coverage for "'family planning,' the well-worn buzz word that includes abortion unless specified to the contrary." He adds that "it would be naive to assume, unless there is an explicit prohibition in the bill, that [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not use her discretion to fund abortions with taxpayers' money." Perkins also writes that the Democratic reform plans, "in short, ... attempt to be silent on the key question of whether or not to allow the U.S. government to fund abortions with taxpayers' money," and also give the HHS secretary "the power to allow taxpayer-funded abortions."
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Has Greater Impact on Parenting than Other Forms of Pregnancy Loss, New Review Finds
A new review of studies examining various types of prenatal loss and the effects on subsequent parenting has concluded that abortion may be "particularly damaging to the parenting process."
The article, published in Current Women's Health Reviews, looks at already published studies on miscarriage, induced abortion and adoption. The author, Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, focuses on psychological reactions to these various types of loss and discusses how they might affect a mother's relationship with children born after the pregnancy loss.
It is now known that women usually begin feeling maternal attachment in the early stages of pregnancy. The paper notes that despite the increased responsibilities and stress involved in raising children, "numerous studies have documented positive psychological characteristics associated with motherhood including increases in life satisfaction, self-esteem, empathy, restraint, flexibility and resourcefulness in coping, and assertiveness." Losing a child before or at birth, for any reason, however, "can be a profound source of suffering."
Click here for the full article.
Commentary: How the WHO Skewed Maternal Mortality Data to Advance Abortion Agenda
In its recently released annual report on the state of global health, the World Health Organization (WHO) presents statistics that misleadingly appear to place maternal mortality on par with other global killers like malaria and HIV/ AIDS. This new approach contradicts other WHO reports where maternal mortality does not even make the top ten of global killers, ranking somewhere lower than car accident fatalities.
The confusion first arises in the second table of the new report, which provides data about mortality due to maternal causes, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and injuries. All of these causes of death, except maternal mortality, are among the top ten causes of death globally; yet maternal mortality is shown in the same statistics table, as if it were comparable to the others.
Even more confusing to the casual reader is that the statistics in the table for maternal mortality actually appear to be a greater cause of death than the others. The table shows that maternal mortality has a "mortality rate" of 400 while coronary heart disease, considered the number one killer in the world, has a mortality rate of 301. While the WHO itself says maternal mortality kills 536,000 per year and coronary heart disease kills 7.2 million, this seeming parity is achieved by showing maternal mortality numbers as a function of total live births while the others are shown as a function of total population - a mixing of apples and oranges.
Click here for the full article.
Operation Rescue declares abortionist Hodari a "Public Menace" and demands meaningful discipline for his reckless conduct.
Abortionist Alberto Hodari has been fined $10,000 by the State of Michigan for the 2003 abortion death of Regina Johnson. The consent order, which recently became public, was issued on March 4, 2009, over five years after Ms. Johnson's death.
"Now we know what a woman's life is worth in the State of Michigan once she walks into an abortion clinic," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "This paltry fine has reduced Ms. Johnson's life to that of chattel. Animals are bought and sold for more than this."
In exchange for the consent agreement, counts of negligence and incompetence against Hodari were dismissed, leaving only the charge that his conduct constituted a "lack of good moral character."
"Hodari was given a slap on the wrist for his part in Regina Johnson's death, even though he has been involved in the deaths of at least three additional women since 2004," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "The Board's finding that his conduct lacks 'good moral character' is a gross understatement. The man is a public menace. "
Hodari has had other problems with the law. Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered illegally dumped private medical records in open dumpsters behind several of Hodari's Detroit-area abortion clinics. He was charged with 12 counts of illegal record dumping, but another agreement allowed him to plead "no contest" to a single count, for which he remains on probation.
More shocking was the discovery of the bodies of aborted babies that had been illegally dumped in the same trash receptacles. Hodari was never charged with any crime related to the dumping of human remains. The babies were later given a proper burial.
One of Hodari's former patients came forward in February, 2009, and told of her traumatic forced abortion when she was 16-years old. She has since filed a formal complaint against Hodari with the health board in Michigan.
But Hodari appears to be so confident that he is above the law that he has given interviews and speeches bragging about his appalling abortion practices. He says that he believes abortionists have a "license to lie."
"In addition to his part in four abortion deaths, Hodari has openly admitted that he purposely places women's lives and health at risk. The fact that he is still allowed to continue his reckless behavior is inexcusable," said Newman. "The Health Department's coddling of Hodari completely unacceptable. We plan to formally demand that they take meaningful disciplinary action before he kills anyone else."
Click here for the Complaint
Click here for the Consent Order
Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger Source: Operation Rescue Publish Date: July 6, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Orlando, FL, late-term abortionist James Pendergraft has lost his appeal in the 5th District Court of Appeal, and the suspension of his license by the FL Board of Medicine stands.
According to a court document filed, "Dr. Pendergraft violated sections 456.072(1)(k) and 458.331(1)(g) when he performed a third trimester abortion in his clinic, which is not a hospital."...
pendergraft.jpgNext, Pendergraft "violated section 390.0111(1)(a)... which prohibits third trimester abortions unless two physicians certify in writing to the fact that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman."
Third, Pendergraft violated "section 390.0111(1)(b)... because he did not certify in writing "to the medical necessity for legitimate emergency medical procedures for termination of pregnancy in the third trimester, and another physician is not available for
consultation."
Finally, "the [Administrative Law Judge] found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Pendergraft committed medical malpractice."
There are no details on the news yet. Unknown is whether any or all of Pendergraft's 5 clinics will have to close during his suspension. Also unknown is whether criminal charges will be filed.
Baby Rowan, the subject of the movie 22 Weeks, was aborted alive in 2005 at 1 of Pendergraft's mills. Workers refused his mother's pleas for help.
Pendergraft's license was suspended in 2006 for the same reason.
In 2001, Pendergraft was convicted of extortion and spent 46 months in prison.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: July 2, 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.
Taxpayer Funded Abortion Referrals
Along with a "universal health care" experiment in the form of the taxpayer-funded Ennis Regional Medical Center and the Ennis Independent School District's Early Childhood Center for students' babies (EISD property taxes pay for that one) nearby, the City of Ennis is about to welcome a labratory in population control: Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was approved by city officials and the elected representatives (the city commission) voters helped elect to office to be placed in dangerous proximity to the Early Childhood facility and the hospital. This paper Defends Truth and Freedom, and the truth is, life is a gift and abortions destroy life.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls: 'No lights and sirens, please!'
This is a composite of ambulance calls to Aware Woman abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida. It shows the tragic results of botched abortions. Countless women have been injured at Aware Woman and other abortion clinics throughout the United States where abortion is legal but not safe.
Click here for Video 1
Click here for Video 2
Click here for the full article.
Obama Calls for Universal Access to Abortion at UN Meeting
At United Nations (UN) headquarters this week, the Obama administration continued its push for ever increasing access to legal abortion around the world. The Obama team has introduced language that has thrown a high level negotiation into a roil. The US proposal calls for "universal access" to "sexual and reproductive health services including universal access to family planning." The document under consideration will culminate in the 2009 Annual Ministerial Review, which convenes next week in Geneva.
Click here for the full article.
Alaska Proposal That Requires Parental Consent for Abortion Is Certified
A proposal to require parental notice or consent before a female younger than 18 could have an abortion was certified Thursday by the state so that its backers can seek enough signatures to get the initiative before voters next year. The proposed law would require the parental notice or consent except in these circumstances: -- The teen submits a notarized statement that she is a victim of abuse by a parent or guardian. -- The teen persuades a court to let her bypass notification. -- A doctor declares a medical emergency. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell certified the initiative. If its backers get at least 32,734 Alaskans from across the state to sign the initiative in the next year, the proposal will go on a statewide ballot for a public vote next year.
Click here for the full article.
Parents Denied Abortion Clinic Records
The Ohio Supreme Court Wednesday rejected a request from the parents of a girl who obtained an abortion for access to records from the clinic. The parents filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio in Cincinnati after their 14-year-old daughter's abortion in 2004. They say the clinic ignores evidence of sexual abuse, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The girl allegedly was impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach, who posed as her father to get her an abortion and gave his "consent," the Dispatch said.
Click here for the full article.
SC GOP Official Sues City over Abortion Protest
A state Republican Party official has sued the city of Orangeburg for a second time, saying a police officer prevented him from participating in an abortion protest. The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat reports that the Rev. Charles Butler's lawsuit involved a January protest about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's stance on abortion. The lawsuit says an Orangeburg Department of Public Safety officer told Butler, the second vice chairman of the S.C. Republican Party, that he couldn't protest without a permit.
Click here for the full article.
Anger At Abortion Increase
Sexual health campaigners have blasted government policy after Wales' teen abortion rate rose for the third year running. Latest figures from the Department of Health show the total number of abortions for under 18s across the nation rose from 894 in 2005 to 1,048 in 2008. Vivienne Rose, a clinic manager for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) – which runs Wales' only dedicated abortion clinic in Cardiff – said: "The Assembly Government (WAG) have all these initiatives but, at the core, what is happening?
Click here for the full article.
Planned Parenthood is facing criticism for alleged false advertising.
The organization has been running ads in Washington, DC, claiming that 90 percent of its services are preventive and primary care, just like going to a doctor's office. Jim Sedlak of American Life League disagrees. With Obama's healthcare program, Sedlak contends Planned Parenthood is just trying to position itself to be in the mainstream of healthcare.
"The problem is that according to its last annual report, Planned Parenthood...primary care patients account for only seven-tenths of one percent of its total number of customers," he says.
Sedlak was asked if Planned Parenthood's recent report was designed to get more government money.
Jim Sedlak 1"Absolutely! They're trying to set the stage so that they get recognized as an entry point into the healthcare system, and that people don't have to go to another primary care physician, and they can get referenced to Planned Parenthood, that they can just walk in the door at Planned Parenthood and that will result in millions of more dollars to Planned Parenthood," he points out.
According to Sedlak, abortion accounts for about one-third of Planned Parenthood's income -- and government-funded abortion is likely to be a part of the Obama healthcare plan.
Click here to view Planned Parenthood's TV commerical.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: July 3, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
"Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy" blares the title of the article on AskMen.com, a website which claims 7 million readers a month.
AskMen.com has been criticized for the way it objectifies women with its "Top 99 Women" poll among other unfavorable facets of the site.
This particular article lays out a guide for men who don't want their partners to give birth to their preborn children. Written by a woman, Isabella Snow, it purports to be an inside look at how women think and act in such situations.
happy pregnant.jpg"For some women, getting pregnant can start clocks ticking and make them suddenly want to be mothers, despite previous agreements," warns Snow. In other words, she's not in her usual state of mind: you are going to have to do your utmost to convince her to deny new maternal feelings.
The entire article is geared against innocent preborn life and instead focuses on wants and lifestyles, primarily of the father....
Copious hints and suggestions are given to help the man make his partner feel relaxed and comfortable as he attempts to convince her that an abortion is the most favorable option. It's for a purely selfish motive: becoming a father could "put tremendous stress on a relationship, particularly if [he doesn't] want to have a child, but [doesn't] want to lose the girl, either."
harley.jpgThe third person in the relationship is brushed aside as a mere "issue of an unwanted pregnancy" which encourages men to treat the situation as if it is only themselves and their partner that need consideration: "Will you have to sell your Harley and get a station wagon?" asks the author.
Oh, what a terrible thought! Yes, clearly ending the life of your unborn child is more preferable!
Ultimately, according to Snow, if a man has made it clear he has no desire for the pregnancy to continue, he is freed from any obligation to stick with the relationship.
The only redeeming factor to the article is it suggests if mothers insist on allowing their preborn children to live, men should feel free to change their minds and embrace their future roles as fathers.
Contact: Andy M. Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: July 3, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
