ACTION ALERT: The Chicago "Bubble Zone" Ordinance

  ACTION ALERT 

The Chicago "Bubble Zone" Ordinance

Chicago abortionists -- led by Planned Parenthood -- are pushing the Chicago City Council to adopt a new "bubble zone" ordinance, which would prohibit pro-lifers from coming within eight feet of any person approaching an abortion clinic.

The bubble zone would make sidewalk counseling nearly impossible within the city limits! Such a chilling attack on free speech could even halt the 40 Days for Life campaign going on right now!

The proposed ordinance was passed by the Human Relations committee last week, and could be voted on by the City Council as early as this Wednesday.

Please ACT NOW to stop the Chicago Bubble Zone and protect free speech.

Call Mayor Daley's Office TODAY at 312-744-3300
Tell them you oppose this unconstitutional restriction on your freedom of speech.

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Case Censoring "Choose Life" License Plates

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Case Censoring "Choose Life" License Plates



The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in Choose Life Illinois v. White, upholding a Seventh Circuit ruling that the Illinois system for approving specialty plates was not discriminatory.

The case was filed in 2004 after citizens had collected more than the requisite number of signatures, but were denied a "Choose Life" license plate.  In 2007, a Northern Illinois District Court judge ordered Secretary of State Jesse White to distribute the plates.  The Illinois Attorney General's office brought the matter to an appeals court, where the ruling was overturned.

"Ever-increasing numbers of pro-life Americans want to proudly display the 'Choose Life' message on their vehicles - as evidenced by the fact that 22 states now offer such plates," commented Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life.

"Illinois is unfairly censoring the freedom of speech of its citizens by not allowing them to obtain a plate with a life-affirming message."

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel, noted, "Pro-life citizens in Illinois followed the rules in applying for a 'Choose Life' license plate, but were prohibited from obtaining the plate because the Illinois Secretary of State did not like its pro-life message.  As the last defense for constitutional rights, the U.S. Supreme Court should have stepped in to correct the State's clearly unconstitutional action."

As in other states, the proceeds from the proposed "Choose Life" license plates would have gone to organizations such as pregnancy care centers that provide adoption counseling and referrals.

Americans United for Life filed a brief in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a large coalition of Illinois pregnancy care centers.  However, AUL says the court refused to accept the brief.  The Alliance Defense Fund and the Thomas More Society also intervened in the case.

The battle for the popular plates have reached the courts in several states, in most cases leading to victory for their pro-life backers.

On Oct. 7 of last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar "Choose Life" license plate case in Arizona - however, in that case, the refusal left in place a ruling favoring the license plates. A 2006 refusal also left New York's "Choose Life" license plates legal.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Health care legislation still ‘deeply flawed’ on pro-life concerns, U.S. bishops’ officials say

Health care legislation still 'deeply flawed' on pro-life concerns, U.S. bishops' officials say


Kathy Saile / Richard Doerflinger

Officials with the U.S. bishops' conference said that proposed health care reform legislation remains "deeply flawed" on pro-life issues, though they praised the bill for making health care more affordable to at-risk families.

The Senate Finance Committee rejected pro-life amendments proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), which the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had supported.

One proposal would have forbidden federal subsidies for benefits packages that cover abortions, with rare exceptions. Insurers could have offered supplemental abortion policies if they were funded solely by private premiums of those choosing to purchase them.

Another amendment proposed by Sen. Hatch would have forbidden federal agencies and state and local governments receiving federal funds under this bill to discriminate against health care providers that decline to perform, refer for, or pay for abortions.

"The bill remains deeply flawed on these issues and must be corrected," Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the USCCB's Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said in a statement.

He said it was "especially disheartening" that the committee did not support "longstanding conscience language" on abortion that has been accepted as part of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's health care reform bill.

In a recent letter to the Senate, the USCCB said that the various health care reform bills have not met President Barack Obama's pledges to bar federal dollars from paying for abortions and to maintain current conscience laws.

Kathy Saile, USCCB Director of Domestic Social Development, said the bill took steps towards making health care more affordable, but explained that many families are still vulnerable to high health care costs.

"As Congress continues to debate health care reform, it should take further steps to help at-risk poor and low-income families and implement access as soon as possible," Saile commented, suggesting that access to programs like Medicaid should be expanded as soon as possible.

The Senate Finance Committee also defeated amendments which would have placed additional restrictions on health care access for legal immigrants and their families.

"Legal immigrants, who work hard and pay taxes, should be treated equally with U.S. citizens," stated Kevin Appleby, Director of Migration Policy and Public Affairs for the USCCB. Appleby said it was "counterproductive" for the public health system to leave immigrants outside the system and thereby making them dependent upon emergency care and unable to access preventive treatment.

"The U.S. bishops will continue to push for affordability grants to legal immigrants and their families and a removal of the five-year waiting period for legal immigrants to access Medicaid," he added.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: October 6, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Abortion EU Assembly Report Delayed Due to Public Opposition

Pro-Abortion EU Assembly Report Delayed Due to Public Opposition

"Keep lobbying" says pro-life leader

  

A debate in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on a pro-abortion document scheduled for Friday has been postponed after lobbying by pro-life people all over Europe. The proposed resolution, "Fifteen Years Since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (Document 11992)," was not called to a vote on October 2 as planned, due to lack of support by the public and Assembly members.

The European Centre for Law Justice (ECLJ) said, "Mrs McCafferty, Rapporteur of a pro-abortion recommendation, has delayed in presenting her text to a vote of the Parliamentary Assembly of PACE. She asked for a delay, after being surprised by the sudden and growing opposition within the public and the members of the Assembly."

The ECLJ said, "The vote was put off because it was believed the resolution would not have had a majority of support."

Promoted by Christine McCafferty, the veteran pro-abortion British MP, the report proposed to bring legal abortion to all states by 2015. The Alliance of Romania's Families, in a letter to Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Acting Secretary General of the Council of Europe, said that the report's wording - "sexual and reproductive rights" - is a code meaning the promotion of "abortion, immoral sexual practices, risky lifestyles, and promiscuity."

"This interpretation has frequently been promoted by representatives of various countries of the European Union, some of which occasionally claimed to speak on behalf of the entire European Union on this subject," the Alliance said.

The proposed document, they said, aimed to undemocratically create "new rights," saying that international human rights law does not recognize the existence of "sexual rights." They noted that even the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) explicitly rejected attempts to recognize a right to abortion under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) had called on supporters throughout Europe to lobby their delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to stop the vote. John Smeaton, SPUC director, said, "No doubt Mrs McCafferty will try again and we must all be ever-vigilant. But as I have said before: Pro-life lobbying works. Never give up!"

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Study Shows Recession Making Women Think Again About Pregnancy

Study Shows Recession Making Women Think Again About Pregnancy



Several sources have recently covered a survey conducted by AGI, a former Planned Parenthood affiliate, which found that because of the current economy, many women want to delay pregnancy or limit the number of children they have. The poll showed that 64% of women agreed with the statement, "With the economy the way that it is, I can't afford to have a baby right now."

It's easy to see how this thought could cross the minds of couples in today's culture. "How could we care for a child in this economy when things are so unstable?" "Would we be wise to think about starting a family when the economy is in shambles?" It's funny how the voice of uncertainty can slowly creep in and start taking over.

You see, the truth of the matter is, the economy is not really the culprit here. I have heard this concern voiced to me many times...even when the economy wasn't in this shape. As young couples are just starting out, trying to "make their way in this world," they are constantly bombarded with the world's view of the proper order of things: get your life together completely, and don't have children until you have enough money and resources saved to support an entire village. If you mess up this order, you will be deemed a bad parent forever!

What IF you become pregnant and you don't have your life together by the world's standards? This particular survey was conducted of women who were conscientiously deciding that the economy was the deciding factor of whether or not to have children right now. If that's the case, what happens when they get pregnant anyway? Their minds are already made up that they can't handle it. So where do they go?

Many women who walk into pregnancy centers everyday are facing similar financial burdens. Before their visit, they are often not aware of the resources around them that can help - churches, day care co-ops, adoption support, community-based agencies, and free pregnancy center services offering parenting support and material resources - cribs, clothing, diapers, etc. Unfortunately, the lie that has been sold to them is, "You're all alone. You're weak - you can't do this. There is no help out there for you." And tragically, some women tell us later on that believing those lies caused them to choose abortion.

This is the time for pregnancy centers to step up their efforts in reaching, educating, and connecting with women in this economy. The lies are just that - lies! Women aren't alone, there is help for them out there, and they can be good parents, even in a bad economy.

So my message to the women surveyed is this: Do not be afraid! If you are pregnant, and you still have doubts and fears, find your local pregnancy center. They exist to provide free services to women and men facing unplanned pregnancies. And finally, remember that "The Lord is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in him." (Nahum 1:7)

Contact: Kay Sanford
Source: Pro-Life Blogs
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Thomas More Society Thanks the American Civil Liberties for Telling Chicago City Council: VOTE 'NO' on Speech Suppression of Pro-Life Activists

Thomas More Society Thanks the American Civil Liberties for Telling Chicago City Council: VOTE 'NO' on Speech Suppression of Pro-Life Activists


Chicago City Hall

Last week the tide turned against free speech when Chicago's leaders targeted pro-life advocates with a municipal ordinance that would restrict their speech rights and prevent them from helping women going to area abortion centers. Within 50 feet of an abortion clinic, the ordinance imposes an 8-foot "cone of silence" that prevents anyone from coming within 8 feet to speak to or pass a leaflet to a person near an abortion clinic, with a $500 fine imposed for violating the ordinance. The Thomas More Society believes this ordinance is aimed at persons who seek to offer help and support with a woman's pregnancy at abortion clinics, because a substantial number of women at Chicago-area abortion clinics who are offered assistance with their pregnancies accept that help and choose to have their children.

Even though the organization supports abortion rights, the ACLU of Illinois has issued a statement that made clear that the Chicago Council "...must honor the Constitution and tolerate the widest amount of free speech in public ways." The Chicago-based Thomas More Society applauds the ACLU for standing up for the free speech rights of all Americans, regardless of their position on abortion.

"This sort of peaceful and lawful conduct on public sidewalks in front of abortion clinics is protected by the First Amendment. We thank the ACLU for joining us in opposing this ill-conceived ordinance," said Peter Breen, Executive Director & Legal Counsel, Thomas More Society, who testified in opposition to the measure before the Chicago City Council's Committee on Human Relations.

Contact: Peter Breen
Source: Thomas More Society
Publish Date: October 6, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Irish Pass Lisbon Treaty

Irish Pass Lisbon Treaty

Fear, disinformation and vast government spending bought Irish Lisbon vote say pro-life campaigners



Fears about jobs and the recession intimidated the Irish electorate to vote Yes in Friday's referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty say pro-life No campaigners. Sixteen months after the Irish voted "No" to the Lisbon Treaty, and in the middle of a severe economic downturn, they have resoundingly changed direction and voted Yes in Friday's referendum 67 per cent to 33 per cent.

The Irish electorate, said Richard Greene of leading pro-life No campaign group Cóir were "shamelessly bullied" into supporting the Treaty. "It's a grubby victory for the elite who spent enormous sums frightening and manipulating people," said Greene. He added, "The Yes campaign was dirty, extremely well-funded and entirely based on fear and lies. This is a victory for bullies, and for those who did not respect the wishes of the people."

Pat Buckley, the EU spokesman for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), said the Yes vote will prove to be a "pyrrhic victory for the Irish Government and for Europe."

"Sadly our government were not strong enough to accept the first verdict given by the Irish people in voting No and gave in to European demands to 'do it all over again and make sure you get the right answer this time'," Buckley said. "European democracy has suffered a significant setback and the will of the Irish electorate has been disgracefully manipulated."

The Irish government lavished upwards of €20 million (US $30 million) to secure a Yes vote that No campaigners warned would leave Irish constitutional protections for the right to life vulnerable to EU pro-abortion biases at the European Court of Justice. More funding came directly from the EU who supported the creation and activities of individual Yes campaign groups. Anti-EU groups, who said the move was unlawful, have threatened a legal challenge after 1.1 million copies of an EU booklet were distributed, at a cost to the taxpayer of €151,000.

Bruce Arnold, political commentator and parliamentary correspondent for the Irish Independent, argued that the second Lisbon referendum was characterized by "fear, lies and an array of blatant illegalities by the Irish Government."

No campaigner Anthony Coughlan wrote that the threat from Lisbon includes a massive shift in power at the expense of smaller states to the "Big Four" states, Germany, France, Britain and Italy. Lisbon, opponents say, is a means to create a "supranational EU federal state," which would have the power to override the Irish Constitution and laws in all areas covered by the treaties. The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU power over national laws and remove the ability of national electorates to have a say in the process.

After the formal ratification of Lisbon by the Irish government, the only remaining obstacle is the signature of Czech president Vaclav Klaus, a noted Eurosceptic. Klaus, however, has told media that with the Irish voting Yes, it is now "too late to stop Lisbon." After Ireland's vote, the Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, said that he would sign the Lisbon Treaty Bill, "without undue delay."

An intervention from the Vatican Secretariat of State came too late to sway Irish voters, most of whom are Catholics. Speaking to a Czech newspaper on Friday, the day of the vote, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone warned that the EU dictates to individual states on "laws or views" and that the Lisbon Treaty posed a threat to Irish "traditions and history."

"Individual European countries have their own identity," Cardinal Bertone said. "The European Union prescribes its laws or views to them and they must comply with their traditions and history." Resistance to this process by states like Ireland is "logical," he said. "The Church wants to encourage the states in this."

This intervention came weeks after a statement made by the Irish bishops conference telling their flock that there were no ethical reasons not to support the Lisbon Treaty.
 
MEP Nigel Farage, a leading British Eurosceptic, described the result as "a victory for big money, a victory for thuggery and a travesty of democracy."

The eyes of Lisbon watchers are now turned toward the U.K.'s Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, who has won a 20 per cent lead in the polls against Labour, partly on his promise to give the British people a referendum on the treaty. Cameron is widely expected to win the 2010 general election handily and become Britain's next Prime Minister.

Farage, however, warned of a possible turn-about from Cameron's party, which is now in Manchester at the annual party conference. "It appeared over the last couple of days, as it became clear that there was going to be a Yes vote in Ireland, that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague were beginning to weasel out of that."

Richard Greene issued a direct public appeal to the Conservative leader to hold a referendum on Europe in the next British parliament.

As recently as the Wednesday before the vote, despite repeated promises, David Cameron had indicated that a Yes vote in Ireland might change the Tory commitment to a referendum. While the Conservative party has been lashing Gordon Brown's Labour government over their broken promise of a UK referendum, Cameron said Wednesday, "If this treaty is still alive, if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in Europe, then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign, we'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a No."

But Cameron immediately followed with the caveat, "Now, if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote Yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances (apply), and I will address those at the time."

Thus far, even with the result of the Irish referendum filling newspaper headlines, Cameron has declined to say if he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if it was ratified before the election. James Kirkup, writing on his Daily Telegraph blog from the Conservative party conference in Manchester, said there is no sign of any talk from the party Eurosceptics of Europe, the Lisbon Treaty or a British referendum.

"By rights," Kirkup wrote, "this conference should be a Tory bloodbath over Europe. David Cameron's position on a Lisbon referendum is untenable. He knows it, you know it, the dogs in the street know it. And you can be sure that Tory Eurosceptics know it: they're happy enough to say so. But only in private. Publicly, they're all nice as pie, insisting that everything will work out for the best."

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Renegade Doctor Offers Controversial 'Death Kit'

Step aside Jack Kevorkian, there's a new "Dr. Death" in town. Ten years after the notorious Michigan doctor was ultimately jailed for killing a patient -- one of 130 he helped die through lethal injection -- Philip Nitschke, a new renegade physician, is spreading the gospel of assisted suicide -- and he's coming to the United States next month. Nitschke is the 61-year-old Australian founder and director of the pro-assisted-suicide organization, Exit International. (Motto: "A Peaceful Death Is Everybody's Right.") Based in Melbourne, Australia, the vocal advocacy group has gone beyond the legislative projects of other right-to-die organizations, who want to decriminalize euthanasia, to develop an array of educational tools for people considering ending their lives on their own terms.
Click here for the full article.


City School District Settles Lawsuit Filed By Anti-Abortion Group Over Auditorium Use

The Rapid City School District has agreed on a settlement with a group that wanted to rent an auditorium for an event before a 2008 vote to ban abortion. A court document that asks for an extension in deadlines states that both sides are exchanging settlement documents, but no details were filed. Citizens For Life and its president, Allen Carlson of Rapid City, sued the district over claims the group was prevented from holding events at a school.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life Ad Rejected by Newspaper

The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh newspaper has rejected an anti-abortion advertisement as too controversial. The Advance-Titan decided not to run the 12-page insert from the Human Life Alliance. The advertisement, called iCare, contains information about abortion, its side effects, contraception, the development of a pre-born child and adoption. Virginia Zignego, a spokeswoman for Pro-Life Wisconsin, says the newspaper's decision to reject the advertisement demonstrates its bias and amounts to censorship.
Click here for the full article.


Manassas Police to Abortion Protestors: Move It?

Manassas police Chief John J. Skinner recently caught some heat when he changed up the permits for demonstrators on Sudley Road at Forestwood Lane. Right-to-life advocates often demonstrate with signs at an intersection that is near an abortion clinic. Skinner said a couple of months ago he received several complaints from motorists who said their view was obstructed when they were trying to turn onto Sudley Road. So Skinner rewrote the permits, with advise from the city manager and city attorney, to move the demonstration site away from the intersection to "create a small safety zone" and to restrict signs from being placed in the ground. After Skinner changed the conditions of the permits, several of the protesters complained to the city council, saying their First Amendment rights were being violated. Skinner said safety concerns guided his decision to place restrictions on the demonstration site.
Click here for the full article.


Planned Parenthood Group Holds Fundraiser at Museum Featuring 'Sex Life of Robots' Exhibit

Planned Parenthood of New York chose the Museum of Sex for the second year in a row as the venue for its annual "Summer, Sex and Spirits" fundraiser.
 
In July, the Planned Parenthood affiliate held a "party/benefit" at the museum, which featured exhibits at the time of the event such as "Sex Life of Robots," "Sex Machines," and a photo display documenting the "Oscars of Porn."
Click here for the full article.


Adultery & Murder: Doctor Spiked My Tea to Induce Abortion, Ex-Lover Tells Court

Doctor spiked my tea to induce miscarriage, lover tells court A medical secretary at a west London hospital has told a court that her doctor lover spiked her Earl Grey tea to make her have an abortion. Bella Prowse, 33, said she found herself pregnant after starting an affair with married hospital consultant Dr Edward Erin. But she refused to have an abortion even though he begged her to and said that she had ruined his life, the Old Bailey heard. Miss Prowse, an unmarried mother of a daughter, said she found yellow powder after Erin had made her a cup of tea.
Click here for the full article.

Chicago tightening the screws on pro-lifers

Chicago tightening the screws on pro-lifers

Chicago is considering restrictions on pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics.



The Human Relations Committee of the Chicago City Council has voted unanimously in favor of the proposed ordinance, which would restrict the proximity of picketers outside any medical clinic. Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League believes the Council is trying to take away pro-lifers' First Amendment rights to speak to people on the public sidewalk.
 
"They're talking about an eight-foot 'bubble zone' around each person coming to a medical facility, which means abortion clinic," he explains. "[And] they're trying to keep us 50 feet away from the entrance door to hospitals, medical clinics, healthcare facilities -- in other words, abortion clinics."
 
According to Scheidler, proponents of the proposed measure argue pro-life counselors scare patients and yell at them. But the pro-life activist counters that accusation.
 
"We're sidewalk counselors -- we talk to these women, we're trying to befriend them," he says. "We have to talk within eight feet of them because if you're going to hand them any literature [or] show them any pictures of fetal development, you have to be standing by them."
 
Scheidler says the ordinance, which will come up for a vote before the Council as early as Wednesday, is obviously directed at stifling the constitutional rights of pro-lifers. If it passes, he says the Thomas More Society, which is based in the Windy City, is likely to file suit.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

They Really, Really Want To Kill For Organs

They Really, Really Want To Kill For Organs



Today, we see more advocacy for lethal medicine in The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international publication.  From the article by Dr. F.G. Miller  (No link, here's the abstract):

Revisiting the still-provocative essays of Jonas on brain death and organ donation helps in mapping present and future ethical and policy options. Four options seem most salient. First, we can follow the lead of Jonas by adopting a stance of deontological rectitude that abandons vital organ procurement from brain-dead, but still-living patients. This position is logically tidy and unassailable if its major premise is endorsed: (1) doctors must not kill patients; (2) brain-dead patients are alive; (3) procuring vital organs from brain-dead patients would cause their death; therefore, (4) this practice is wrong and must cease. However, the validity of the first premise is debatable; and if applied consistently, it would have drastic consequences. For not only would it put a stop to the life-saving practice of vital organ transplantation using the organs of brain-dead individuals; it also arguably would rule out the routine practice of deliberately stopping life-sustaining treatment, assuming the reasonable, but unorthodox, view that this practice involves causing death.

Amazing.  For years bioethicists have said removing unwanted life support isn't killing. And they are right, since death comes from the underlying disease.  But now, it is because we want more organs?  This is surreal.

Here is what is going on: The very crowd–or better stated, their successors–who assured us that brain death was dead, are now saying it isn't.  And the reason for both arguments is the same–to increase the supply of organs.  But if brain dead isn't dead, the only ethical answer is to stop killing patients, not find new ones to terminate.

Miller goes through some other possible scenarios, for example, suggesting that people have a time limit on life support, which would permit killing for organs once their time was up:

A second position attempts to justify vital organ donation while maintaining (at least nominally) the dead donor rule by appealing to a distinction between the death of the human being and the death of the biological organism. According to this position, Jonas is right that the brain-dead patient is biologically alive; however, what matters ethically with respect to vital organ procurement is whether the human being has ceased to exist. In this ''higher brain'' position, the permanent loss of consciousness is regarded as the death of the human being. Once human life has ceased, stopping life-sustaining treatment is appropriate (or imperative), and there can be no ethical objection to extracting vital organs beforehand.

Like heck there can't!  Miller then suggests a third possible approach:

A third position justifies vital organ donation while retaining the traditional cardiopulmonary criteria for determining death by biting the bullet of abandoning the dead donor rule. As suggested above, this position sees vital organ procurement from ''brain-dead'' but still-living patients as exposing them neither to harm nor violating their rights as long as it is connected with a previous plan to stop life-sustaining treatment and proper consent, both for stopping treatment and organ donation. Stopping life-sustaining treatment when justified is a legitimate act of causing the patient's death; procuring vital organs before treatment withdrawal is justified on essentially the same ethical grounds of self-determination and nonmaleficence.

Miller also notes that we could keep the status quo, that brain dead patients are dead, for which he says there is "no plausible and coherent [philosphical] account."

This blatant bait and switch tactic has been used in bioethics for decades to undermine the sanctity and equality of human life.  (We should only dehydrate those in PVS/But if the seemingly PVS aren't really unconscious, all the more reason to dehydrate because they are suffering, etc.)

In the true bioethics tradition of proposing radical changes, but hedging to keep such advocacy from coming back to haunt, Miller then concludes with telling us what he really wants (in my italics):

Where do we go from here? We face an unsettled and unsettling situation characterised by the moral imperative to continue vital organ transplantation, the entrenched norm that doctors must not kill, and the increasingly transparent fiction that the brain dead are really dead. In at least the near future it is probable that we will continue to muddle through. In the longer run, the medical profession and society may, and should, be prepared to accept the reality and justifiability of lifeterminating acts in medicine in the context of stopping lifesustaining treatment and performing vital organ transplantation.

In other words, Miller thinks we will one day agree to kill for organs.  I disagree. Miller's prescription will destroy what little public faith remains in the organ transplant sector.  That is why I intend to cast as bright a light on these articles as I can: It is the best way to prevent killing for organs ever from happening. since American people simply won't stand for it. This, in turn, will help retain the necessary public support for organ transplant medicine.

Oh, and considering the ongoing debate how the weak and vulnerable would fare under Obamacere,  here's an interesting tidbit: Miller is a bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 3, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

America's pro-life, pro-abortion gap oh so slight

America's pro-life, pro-abortion gap oh so slight

A recent poll indicates Americans are more pro-life than ever.



A Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2008 showed those who favor keeping abortion legal outnumbered those with a pro-life view 54 to 40 percent. But the latest poll, the results of which were released last week, shows that gap reduced to 47 and 45 percent, respectively, with a two-percent margin for error -- a statistical dead heat.
 
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America believes the hard work by pro-lifers is paying off. "One reason why it's so important that the public supports the sanctity of human life and the protecting of unborn children is that in order to pass laws, we've got to have the public supporting those laws," she explains.
 
The poll, she adds, may reflect that Americans are seeing the reality that Washington is dominated by pro-abortion forces.
 
"Our politicians and our law enforcement should be taking a serious look at this-- and especially now that Congress is dealing with healthcare reform," Wright urges. "And this poll should encourage politicians to ensure that any healthcare package does not end up using government money to pay for abortions."
 
Polls are one thing, says Wright -- but the opinions that really register, she points out, are the ones delivered by constituents to their elected representatives.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

FDA Hold on Embryonic Stem Cell Experiments

FDA Hold on Embryonic Stem Cell Experiments



Speaking of clinical trials, in case you missed it the FDA has put another hold on Geron's proposed experiments to put embryonic stem cells into human spinal cord injury patients. Geron's human experiment was approved back in January 2009, and they were supposed to start experiments with patients in July.

As an aside, one excuse offered by Geron as to why the trial had not yet started was car airbags… apparently the airbags in accidents are keeping patients from getting severe spinal cord damage to qualify for the trial.

Many have expressed concern about the risky nature of Geron's experiments with patients, including some embryonic stem cell researchers. Evan Snyder, a leader in the stem cell field, has noted that "A clinical trial is nothing more than an experiment on a human," he says. "Most experiments fail." And James Wilson, gene therapy researcher, warns stem cell scientists not to repeat the mistakes of his own field, including rushing into unsafe clinical trials.

The FDA hold is likely due to further safety concerns with embryonic stem cells. That would seem to be the only grounds for a hold based on federal regulations under CFR sec. 312.42. Geron claims that no teratomas have been observed in animal studies, though they do admit "In some animals, human non-neural differentiated cell types were observed in the injury site". After the current FDA hold was iissued, Geron put out a statement explaining that cysts developed at the injury sites of treated animals, and they are working with FDA to answer any questions. They claim no teratomas have been seen, and hopefully nothing like this.

Still, there is cause for concern. Dr. Steven Goldman says

"It's not ready for prime time, at least not in my mind, until we can be assured that the transplanted stem cells have completely lost the capacity for tumorigenicity."

But with the political pressure in favor of embryonic stem cell research, the hold will likely be release and the experiments on patients move ahead. And Geron will likely claim success (to get another stock bump.) Despite the fact that adult stem cells have already shown documented evidence not only of their safety, but of their efficacy at treating spinal cord injury.

Evidence of adult stem cell success for spinal cord injury patients has already been published by groups in Portugal, Australia, and Ecuador. Adult stem cells–real hope and help now.

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NIH Director Ignorant On Stem Cells?

NIH Director Ignorant On Stem Cells?

Does the Director of the National Institutes of Health not know the difference between embryonic and adult stem cells? Or is he just biased?



In an interview with the New England Journal of Medicine, Francis Collins talks about the number of "stem cell" clinical trials:

Steinbrook: What will the results of stem-cell research mean for human health?

Collins: My crystal ball is just as cloudy as everyone else's. However, the developments in understanding stem cells and how they could potentially be brought to bear for a whole host of medical problems are some of the more exciting things that have happened in the last decade. In terms of therapeutics, we are just so early on. The one clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration – for spinal cord injury – is currently on hold.

What?!? The "one clinical trial" Collins refers to is the one embryonic stem cell experiment with patients that is out there. And it is indeed on hold.

But there are at least 2,000 clinical trials for Adult Stem Cells (this search term doesn't capture them all).

By the way, there are quite a few done on the NIH campus itself.
Remember, it's the National Institutes of Health…

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: October 5, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Activists Display 140 Foot Image of the Number 71 on the Lawn of the United States Capitol

Pro-Life Activists Display 140 Foot Image of the Number 71 on the Lawn of the United States Capitol
 

The display was shown on Friday, October 2

The number 71 represents the percentage of Americans who oppose taxpayer funded abortions according to a nationwide Zogby poll.
 
This display is part of national campaign organized by the Christian Defense Coalition called "Abortion is Not Health Care."
 
This initiative has included prayer vigils, rallies, demonstrations and lobbying in Washington, D.C. and across the nation over the past several months.
 
The Christian Defense Coalition and Generation Life have joined Operation Rescue in a online
campaign called "I am 71."   For more information go to Iam71.org.
 
The large display of the number 71 is to encourage members of Congress to listen to the wisdom of  the American people and ensure that not penny of public money will be used to pay for or subsidize abortions.
 
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states,
 
"Americans overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars to be spent on abortions.  They know that health care reform should be about healing and mercy not the crushing of human rights through abortion.
 
"This 140 foot image of the number 71 on the lawn of the United States Capitol is a powerful reminder to the members of Congress that they should listen to the wisdom and heart of the American people and recognize that supporting abortion through tax dollars is a betrayal of social justice and human rights.
 
"We encourage all people of good will who support the dignity of human life to get involved with the the online campaign Iam71.org and let their voices be loudly heard in this national debate on health care reform.
 
"To all members of Congress we ask you to step into the present in which America is embracing a culture of life and pledge that not penny of taxpayer money will be used for abortions."

Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney
Source: Iam71
Publish Date: October 3, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

Ireland Backs Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual E.U. Treaty

They rejected it only 16 months ago. But in a stunning about-face spurred by economic turmoil, Ireland's voters have overwhelmingly approved a far-reaching treaty meant to consolidate the power of the European Union and reorganize the way it does business, the government announced Saturday. Ireland's approval of the pact, known as the Lisbon Treaty, removes one of the biggest stumbling blocks to its eventual enactment by Europe as a whole. The treaty would give Europe a more powerful foreign policy chief and its first full-time president, and strengthen the role of the European Parliament; it is also meant to more clearly delineate the relationship between national legislatures and Europe.
Click here for the full article.


Murdering Babies By Abortion Wins Strong Support In Brisbane Australia

Australians in general, and Queenslanders in particular, hold liberal views on abortion, yet politicians' fear of small religious minorities appears to have stymied decriminalisation of the procedure in some states, a study shows. A clear majority of Australians - 57 per cent - support women's right to obtain an abortion "readily when they want one". One-third supports abortion "in special circumstances", and only 4 per cent opposes abortion outright. The findings, from the Australian Election Study, are based on polling 1873 electors at the 2007 federal election. They reveal how Australians' attitudes have become much more liberal since the same questions were put to voters 20 years earlier, when only 38 per cent agreed with women's unfettered right to abortion.
Click here for the full article.


What it Takes to Bring Planned Parenthood Down (MP3)

Planned Parenthood is the most powerful abortion provider and abortion lobby in the world. A billion dollar organization, about 1/3 of its income comes from our tax dollars. But one little homeschooled girl found five smooth stones down at the brook, and tossed one at the giant, just to see what would happen. Lila Rose is part of a team of young pro-lifers who have found a way to strip the facade off of the Planned Parenthood organization to show its true colors, and its support for eugenicist practices and other illegal perversions. In one of the most important battles of our day, these pro-lifers demonstrate dogged persistence, strong convictions, and true courage.
Click here for the full audio.  (MP3)


HHS: Everyone Can Opt Out of Government-Mandated Electronic Health Records System

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says that everyone can opt out of having an electronic health record included in the federally mandated national electronic-health-record system created by the stimulus law enacted in February.
 
The $787 billion economic stimulus bill, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" signed into law by President Obama in February, calls for "the utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014." The law says the records should include a person's "medical history and problems list."
 
The law also says the electronic health record (EHR) will become part of a "nationwide health information technology infrastructure," accessible with authorization by health-care providers and the government.
Click here for the full article.


Cardinal DiNardo pleas for unborn at 'Red Mass' attended by Supreme Court justices

One day before the opening of the Supreme Court's next term, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, issued a plea for the rights of the unborn at the 56th Annual "Red Mass," celebrated yesterday at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C. The Mass was attended by six Supreme Court justices.

The Mass is an initiative of the John Carroll Society, a group of Catholic legal professionals, and has been held at the cathedral since 1953. The celebration of the Eucharist was presided over by Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington D.C., and the homily was delivered by Cardinal DiNardo.

Five of the six Roman Catholics on the high court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito — attended the Mass. The sixth Catholic judge, Justice Clarence Thomas, could not attend.
Click here for the full article.


40 Days for Life: 123 Babies Saved - So Far!

Judging from the hundreds of e-mail messages I get daily, you like to hear stories about babies saved from abortion, and you like to see pictures of 40 Days for Life in action. So, today I bring you both!

Kristina and Michele in Syracuse, New York were praying in front of Planned Parenthood when two young women stopped to talk. One of the young women said she was pregnant and going to Planned Parenthood for an abortion.

Instead, she was encouraged to visit a pro-life pregnancy resource center where she was offered a free ultrasound. "Long story short," said Kristina, "the girl decided against having the abortion. Praise the Lord!"
Click here for the full article.

Affiliate Invitation...

Affiliate Invitation...

Right to Life, McHenry County invites you to join us for breakfast on Saturday, October 10th.

Where:  St. Mary's Church, 312 Lincoln Ave., Woodstock
Time:  8:15-10:00
Cost:  $10

Our pro-life lobbyists in Springfield will also be there to give us an update on state races and pending legislation.

This is a personal invitation which may be extended to pro-life friends but a commitment by Wednesday is mandatory.



For more information or to reserve, please contact Irene Napier at 815/459-3849 or Sue Serdar at 815/675-9539.

183 Congressional Reps Tell Speaker Pelosi: No Abortion Coverage, or No Health-Care Bill

183 Congressional Reps Tell Speaker Pelosi: No Abortion Coverage, or No Health-Care Bill 183 Congressional representatives have signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding that Congress be allowed a free vote on bipartisan pro-life measures that would truly prohibit government funding of abortion in health care. The House representatives warn that if they do not have their way, they will do everything in their power to make sure that H.R. 3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act" does not even reach the House floor for a vote. The letter, signed by 25 Democrats and 158 Republicans, requests Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Louise Slaughter, Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, that all House members have an opportunity to vote their consciences - without threat of ramifications from party leaders - on pro-life amendments offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). One amendment offered by Pitts and Stupak states that "no funds authorized under this Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," although it makes exceptions in the case of danger to the mother's life, or in cases of rape or incest. In order for these amendments to come to the floor for a vote, the Rules Committee has to give its approval. That will require the cooperation of the pro-abortion Slaughter, who is both Chairwoman of the Rules Committee and co-chair of the Congressional Bipartisan Pro-Choice Caucus. "None of the bills reported out of the three committees of jurisdiction have addressed our serious concerns about public funding for abortion," the letter states. The letter takes issue with the Capps Amendment - legislation described by abortion supporters as a pro-life "compromise" measure - which they explain, "actually explicitly authorizes the federal government (Department of Health and Human Services) to directly fund elective abortions, with federal (public) funds drawn on a federal Treasury account." "The simple fact is that under the Capps language, the US Treasury will be permitted to issue checks to abortion clinics to reimburse for abortion on demand for the first time in decades." The letter also notes that H.R. 3200 explicitly provides that government subsidize private policies that include elective abortion coverage with affordability credits. The legislation violates the spirit of the annually renewed Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the HHS from using taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Instead, the current legislation bypasses the Hyde Amendment and creates new revenue streams that will fund the public option and affordability credits that will be used to subsidize insurance coverage - including those plans that cover elective abortions. The letter cites the Congressional Research Service as having confirmed that the programs will not need any future appropriations and states that "legislation of this magnitude should include permanent language to ensure that federal funds are not used to support abortion." "Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life." Click here to read the letter. Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 1, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Another state considering 'euthanasia'

Another state considering 'euthanasia' New Hampshire's legislature is working on a bill legalizing assisted suicide. The bill under consideration is currently in a study committee, but proponents want it debated and passed this session. New Hampshire Right to Life president Kurt Wuelper says based on their past actions, lawmakers in his state just might be leaning towards passage.   "We have a legislature that repealed our parental notification law for no reason because they didn't want to deal with it anymore," he laments. "And so they just repealed it rather than wait for the courts to say...99 percent of it is good and so you can go forward with that. [And] they imposed homosexual 'marriage' on our state, apparently against a majority of the people's will -- but they did it anyway."   He goes on to say the current proposal is riddled with problems, citing one example.   "When somebody's diagnosed with a terminal illness -- that could be at any age...there's nothing in the bill that says you have to be suffering or you have to be near death or anything like that," says Wuelper. "It's just that if you have a terminal illness, you can qualify for assisted suicide."   Even if doctors estimate the individual has another 20 years to live, he adds.   Opponents of assisted suicide are organizing to try to get their message across to lawmakers and the public. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: October 2, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Pope calls for respect for life and protection of consciences in the U.S.

Pope calls for respect for life and protection of consciences in the U.S. As is customary, the audience began with Miguel Diaz presenting his letters of accreditation from President Obama to the Holy Father, followed by a speech by the new ambassador. In his speech, Ambassador Diaz praised Pope Benedict's humanitarian efforts, his efforts at promoting "inter-religious dialogue for the sake of peace," and his encouragement of "authentic stewardship of God's creation in order to combat climate change and ensure food security." The newly minted ambassador brought his speech to a close, saying, "my nation looks forward to working with the Holy See to ensure that the old and the young may embrace the audacity to hope, celebrate in the fruition of justice, and work together to defend fundamental human rights, economic opportunity for all, peace in our world, and respect for the dignity of all human persons. As I take up my position as the ninth United States Ambassador to the Holy See, I promise to serve as a bridge-builder between the United States and the Holy See." Pope Benedict began his address to Dr. Diaz by saying that he was pleased to accept his letters of credence and asked him to return his greeting to President Obama. Highlighting part of Ambassador Diaz's speech, the Pope said he appreciated the  "acknowledgment of the need for a greater spirit of solidarity and multilateral engagement in approaching the urgent problems facing our planet." "The continuing international economic crisis clearly calls for a revision of present political, economic and financial structures in the light of the ethical imperative of ensuring the integral development of all people. What is needed, in effect, is a model of globalization inspired by an authentic humanism, in which the world's peoples are seen not merely as neighbors but as brothers and sisters," the Pope said, echoing themes from his encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." Cooperation between nations should stretch across the spectrum of issues from caring for the family, to health care, to immigration, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to "climate control and care for the environment," Pope Benedict said, notably refraining from using the term "climate change."    Recalling his visit to the United States last April, the Holy Father said he was pleased to find a "vibrant democracy" at work. In order for democracies to function properly, the Pope emphasized that religious groups should not be excluded from public debates, since their contributions "enrich political and ethical discourse." "Allow me, Mr. Ambassador, to reaffirm a conviction which I expressed at the outset of my Apostolic Journey to the United States. Freedom – the freedom which Americans rightly hold dear – 'is not only a gift but also a summons to personal responsibility;' it is 'a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over to the cause of good,'" Benedict XVI said, quoting from his address at the White House last April. Saying that many modern democracies find themselves in crisis, the Holy Father urged them to redouble their commitment to "reasoned dialogue in the discernment of wise and just policies respectful of human nature and human dignity." "The Church in the United States," the Pontiff pointed out, "contributes to this discernment particularly through the formation of consciences and her educational apostolate, by which she makes a significant and positive contribution to American civic life and public discourse." One area that the Pope highlighted as in need of "clear discernment" was that of "issues touching the protection of human dignity and respect for the inalienable right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, as well as the protection of the right to conscientious objection on the part of health care workers, and indeed all citizens." Pope Benedict concluded his speech by quoting from the "prophetic words of the late Pope John Paul II" to insist upon the "unbreakable link between an ethics of life and every other aspect of social ethics." Quoting his predecessor Benedict XVI said,  'a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized.' Source: CNA Publish Date: October 2, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.

Dan Rather to Headline Planned Parenthood Event

Dan Rather to Headline Planned Parenthood Event Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota recently announced that former CBS anchorman Dan Rather will be its keynote speaker for a fundraiser dinner in Minneapolis, MN on October 13. Planned Parenthood announced Rather as their speaker, saying, "Dan Rather, the voice, heart and soul of American journalism, is one of the most recognized and renowned reporters of our time." The announcement goes on to chronicle Rather's coverage of significant world events as a reporter: including the JFK assassination, Watergate, and the war in Iraq. However, Rather's coverage of life issues makes the announcement that he will be supporting Planned Parenthood's dinner not surprising to many. Scott Fischbach, the director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told LifeNews.com, "For years viewers watched Dan Rather deliver the news of the day believing he was objective and fair, while the whole time he harbored anti-life views. "Clearly Dan Rather has never been objective, in fact his support of Planned Parenthood proves how radical his views truly are," Fischbach continued. "It is sad that Dan Rather has now agreed to raise money for the number one killer of unborn children in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood." During his time as a reporter, Rather repeatedly showed his anti-life bias in his coverage of specific stories. According to the Media Research Center, a conservative organization that tracks the bias of modern media, Rather identified abortion as a woman's right in a 1990 interview with Senator Paul Simon. "Senator Simon," asked Rather, "is there any doubt in your mind that [Souter's] views pretty well parallel those of John Sununu's, which means he's anti-abortion or anti-women's rights, whichever way you want to put it?" referring to nomination of David Souter to the supreme court. Further, Rather lauded Margaret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, in 1998 on CBS's People of the Century. "One thing America didn't talk about early in the century was sex. Margaret Sanger changed that. She was a true revolutionary who went to jail for the crime of promoting birth control, a phrase she coined … For half a century, Margaret Sanger spoke passionately in favor of women's rights, taking on all the enemies of birth control, including the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church." Also, in 1993, when then-President Clinton overturned the Mexico City Policy that banned US foreign aid from going to organizations that actively supported abortion, Rather reported, "On the anniversary of Roe versus Wade President Clinton fulfills a promise, supporting abortion rights. ... It was 20 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark abortion rights ruling, and the controversy hasn't stopped since. Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years." Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 1, 2009 Link to this article.   Send this article to a friend.