Mexico, "Vooks," and "High Decibel Charges"
First, some very good news from Mexico. As I always do with news from outside the United States, I begin with an acknowledgement I am by no means an expert. But there is this encouraging headline from the Los Angeles Times, "Mexico antiabortion forces swaying state legislatures." As you get into the story the news is strikingly good.
A photo taken by the Associated Press August 27, 2008. Pro-Lifers covered Mexico City's central plaza with paper crosses to protest a law allowing abortions through the first twelve weeks.
Understandably, the hopes and expectations of pro-abortion forces soared when the Mexican Supreme Court upheld a law in Mexico City that legalized abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Dreams of anti-life sugarplums danced in their heads: First Mexico City, then onto victories in the states.
"Instead, the opposite has happened," writes Ken Ellingwood. "In state after state, antiabortion forces have won changes to local constitutions declaring that life begins at conception and explicitly granting legal rights to the unborn. In all, 17 state legislatures have approved such measures, often with minimal debate, since the August 2008 court decision validating Mexico City's law."
There is lots of inside stuff that makes for fascinating reading. Obviously the bad guys are not laying down their curettes. Click here to read the article.
Speaking of other things about which I am not an expert, there's a piece in the Washington Post today, titled, "As books go beyond printed page to multisensory experience, what about reading?" Monica Hesse is writing about something called "Vooks," which is a sort of blend of traditional book reading and highly interactive video technology.
Vooks are intriguing hybrids you find online. "Interspersed throughout the text are videos and links that supplement the narrative," according to Hesse. To mention just one extension, "In one chapter, the Greek ambassador receives a mysterious DVD, and readers must click on an embedded video to learn what's on it."
Vooks are geared toward a younger audience. Those of us of a certain age (me!) have to remember that most kids nowadays are never more than about 5 seconds away from online access. We think in terms of going to someplace; they think in terms of we-are-already-there via [for example] iPhones.
Beyond the intriguing fact that "If readers visit every hyperlink, watch every video and play every game, it is possible for the experience of consuming a single book to become limitless--a literal neverending story," just imagine what life-affirming content such a hybrid composite could contain and link to?!
A young woman, troubled and unsettled by an unplanned pregnancy, goes online (as kids do for everything). Beginning with the Vook, she links to everything from 4-color real-time ultrasounds, to real-life stories of women who refused to buckle under the pressure to abort [Click here], to a video by Jaime Thietten that laments the loss of "My Chance" [Click here], to just scratch the surface.
I understand that technology can always cut both ways. But consider that when a young woman accesses the Internet and looks under the search item "abortion," she already sees, for instance, an ad that reads, "Gentle Abortions 4-24 wks. No pain. No memory."
She needs alternative resources, as does the young man involved! By the way, according to the article, this "new genre" has been "alternatively dubbed v-books, digi-books, multimedia books and Cydecks." Click here to read this fascinating essay at.
One other quick note. In the same issue of the Washington Post, media writer Howard Kurtz tells us he is not interested in "return[ing] to the days before instantaneous search, smartphones, online video, Wikipedia and the rowdy, raucous arena known as the blogosphere. This eruption has drawn the masses into the maelstrom, enabling them to do what the pros do, sometimes faster and better." [I love it when the media elite types talk about the "masses," don't you?]
I think a fair reading of the piece would leave the average reader highly skeptical that he actually means this. [Click here] But let's briefly talk about the two points that matters most to us.
Kurtz uses his column to bash Established Media outlets for not catching the "sins" he believes they ought to have caught. Guess what? They all occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush. No surprise there.
By contrast Kurtz (equally unsurprising) also thinks that same Established Media has done a wonderful job debunking myths and distortions about the Democrats massive health care restructuring proposal. Needless to say the "high-decibel charges" all come from conservatives whose criticisms reflect their disconnect with reality and are akin to those who deny President Obama was born in Hawaii.
Not a word from Kurtz that suggests how dangerous the bills are on abortion and rationing which are our immediate concerns, not to mention a host of concerns beyond those. The irony is, of course, that he is buying into Obama's blather in exactly the same uncritical way Kurtz alleges the Establishment Media did with various assertions made by President Bush.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: December 28, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
December 30, 2009
Mexico, "Vooks," and "High Decibel Charges"
Rights violated -- but no one's to blame
Rights violated -- but no one's to blame
A federal appeals court has backed a Louisiana town in an abortion protest case.
The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against Columbia, Louisiana, after an incident involving pro-life demonstrators who were picketing along a highway by holding photos of aborted babies.
Randall Wenger (ADF)"One of the folks was actually arrested by the police and a whole bunch of other folks were threatened with arrest if they didn't put away the signs and leave," explains Randall Wenger, the attorney who defended the pro-lifers. "Police officers said [the demonstrators] were causing a disturbance with their signs and with their pictures."
But federal courts have ruled that people have the right to free speech, even if others disagree with it. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, after five years of litigation, that Wenger's clients' constitutional rights were violated, but the city is not to be held liable.
"It's a disappointing result in my mind because it seems to be more and more difficult to hold municipalities liable for their wrongdoing, even when it's fairly clear that they were the moving force behind the violation," he contends.
No decision has been made on whether to appeal the Fifth Circuit's ruling.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Baltimore Law Aims to Undermine Charitable Work of Pregnancy Resource Centers, Say Pro-life Activists
Baltimore Law Aims to Undermine Charitable Work of Pregnancy Resource Centers, Say Pro-life Activists
A bill passed by the Baltimore City Council in November and signed into law on Dec. 4 will require pregnancy resource centers operating within the city to post signs stating what services the facilities do not offer. Signs -- to be posted outside the centers -- must state that they do not provide or give referrals for abortion or contraceptives.
Pro-life activists say this is the first time in the United States that a nonprofit service provider has been required to post such signage. They believe the law is intended to undermine their efforts to help women make an informed decision about an unplanned pregnancy. The signs will turn more women to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, they say.
“The passage of this piece of legislation may serve as serious encouragement to those who would like to see our organizations saddled with more laws and restrictions,” Carol Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns in Baltimore, told the Baltimore Sun after the council passed the bill by a 12-3 vote in November.
“I cannot think of a single situation where a non-profit organization or for-profit business is required to post a sign that states what it does not do,” Peggy Harnshorn, president of Heartbeat International said in a statement submitted at a hearing held prior to the vote on the bill.
“Planned Parenthood is not required to post a sign that states it does not provide adoption services. A car dealership is not required to post a sign that states that it does not sell bicycles or offer landscaping services,” Harnshorn added.
Planned Parenthood does have information on adoption, but according to its 2007-2008 annual report, only about 5,000 women were referred to adoption services while more than 305,000 abortions were performed at its clinics around the country.
Joe Young, vice president at Heartbeat International, a network of pregnancy resource centers around the world, said Planned Parenthood and other providers don’t offer abortions free of charge, which is the case for the services offered at centers. Those services include free pregnancy testing, parenting classes, support groups and connecting clients with services in the community that can help them with pre-natal care, housing, counseling and other support. At medically certified centers, clients can be tested for sexually transmitted diseases and get ultrasound exams, which can determine a viable pregnancy at its earliest stages.
“I am very disappointed that the Baltimore City Council would jump into the abortion issue by singling out non-profit pregnancy resource centers,” Young told CNSNews.com.
“These centers are among the few places that women in Baltimore can get medically accurate information to make a truly informed choice when facing a life changing and difficult decision about an unplanned pregnancy.
“Pregnancy centers serve the women of Baltimore without financial motivation and present the truth about all of the options available,” Young said. “The same cannot be said about the abortion providers in Baltimore and yet, they are not affected by this ordinance.”
Young, who attended the hearings in Baltimore, said that the pregnancy resource centers affected by the new law provided as evidence during hearings the paperwork that clients at the centers must sign to get services, which include a disclaimer that neither abortions nor contraceptive services or referrals are included.
Not one witness at the hearings who had used the services of a pregnancy resource center testified that they felt misled, Young said, adding that groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have a vested interest in undermining the work done by the centers.
“It ultimately cuts into the profit margins of abortion centers,” Young said.
Melinda Delahoyde, president of Care Net, which supports more than 1,000 pregnancy resource centers around the country, said in a written statement that money should have been considered when the bill was debated.
“It is nonsensical for the Baltimore City Council to undermine local efforts to provide free support to pregnant women in this city, but that’s exactly what they’ve accomplished with this legislation,” Delahoyde said. “Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Baltimore City Council to pass a resolution praising the contribution of pregnancy centers, which rely solely on charitable contributions, not on state or local funding?”
Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in federal funding, according to its 2007-08 annual report, although federal law states none of that funding can be used for abortions.
Bill 09-0406 was sponsored by Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, a Democrat and outspoken pro-abortion advocate. It was signed into law by Mayor Sheila Dixon three days after she was convicted of embezzling $600 worth of gift cards intended for charity.
Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Pro-Abortion Group NARAL Nominates Personhood USA to Abortion 'Hall of Shame'
Pro-Abortion Group NARAL Nominates Personhood USA to Abortion 'Hall of Shame'
WASHINGTON - NARAL has announced its nominees for a 2009 "Hall of Shame" -- those who pose the greatest threat to abortion in America.
Among a list of noteworthy pro-life individuals (all politicians), the only pro-life organization nominated is Personhood USA.
"We at Personhood USA are honored to be considered one of the top four threats to abortion," commented Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA. "Preborn babies are humans with a God-given right to live. NARAL is a greedy, bloodthirsty organization, but they have pegged us correctly -- Personhood USA is working to outlaw abortion, recognizing the rights of every child."
NARAL claims Personhood USA "... exists solely to establish legal rights for fertilized eggs and trigger legal battles over abortion that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only could the strategy outlaw abortion, but it could even threaten birth control, stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization. Working to outlaw abortion makes Personhood USA a strong candidate for Hall of Shame of the year."
"This is great! To be shamed by baby-murderers for our efforts to stop baby-murder is a compliment, especially after just one year," added Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA. "It shows how effective we've been to help launch efforts in over thirty states. We have seven ballot-access petition drives going, and God is answering our prayers with thousands of people working to protect every preborn child."
"Birth control, stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization would only be affected by Personhood if they kill a living human being," continued Mason. "Birth control methods that do not kill an innocent human won't be affected. Adult stem cell research won't be affected. In-vitro fertilization's current practice may be adjusted, but certainly not eradicated. The bottom line is that NARAL exists to promote killing innocent children. Even their use of the term 'fertilized egg' is dehumanizing -- once a human egg is fertilized it is no longer an egg, but a new individual with his or her own DNA. It's clear that to be on their 'Hall of Shame' list is not a bad thing."
Contact: Keith Mason
Source: Personhood USA
Publish Date: December 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
(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.)
Girls 'Using Abortion As Birth Control'
Teenagers are using repeat abortions as a form of birth control, with some girls having four or more terminations by the age of 18, it has been claimed. Nearly 1,500 of the 19,000 girls under 18 who had a termination last year had previously undergone one earlier abortion for an unwanted pregnancy – and in at least one case a teenage girl had her eighth abortion. Department of Health data for 2008 reveals 74 teenagers had their third abortion and a further 15 girls under the age of 18 had previously had between three and six earlier abortions.
Click here for the full article.
Miracle Birth: Baby & Mom Brought Back to Life
A mom and her newborn son are back home, after they both touched death on Christmas Eve morning at Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs. Tracy Hermanstorfer went into labor nearly two weeks earlier than her due date. She was discussing baby names with her husband, Mike, while she was getting an epidural. "I was feeling weird, but nothing out of the ordinary," says Tracy. She says she fell asleep, but what happened was, she stopped breathing and her heart soon after stopped beating. "Once her heartbeat and breathing stopped, it felt like mine did too," says Mike. "I sat there with my wife's hand in mine, ice cold."
Click here for the full article.
New York archdiocese sued for excluding unvaccinated pre-schooler
The New York archdiocese is being sued by a couple who charge that they have suffered discrimination because of their pro-life beliefs. The couple say that their daughter has been denied entrance into an archdiocesan pre-school program because she has not received all required vaccinations. The family (whose name is being withheld to protect the girl’s privacy) say that they have a moral objection to the use of vaccines derived from fetal tissues. The New York archdiocese requires all schoolchildren to receive vaccinations.
Click here for the full article.
Parents Want Answers In Their Unborn Baby's Death
SENATOBIA, Mississippi -- 20-year-old Brannigan Bohanna thought she would be holding her newborn baby soon. "We have two boys, but we wanted a third one." she says. But eight months into her pregnancy, Brannigan's baby died. She says it started with a little nausea. She went to Baptist Desoto Hospital and ended up hospitalized for a week with dehydration. But she says the baby was ok, until Sunday, when they couldn't get a heartbeat. "The nurse came in with a bigger ultra sound, they still couldn't find it. They told me my baby had died,"she says. The baby's father, Justin Harris, wants to know what happened. "They always said the baby was ok." says Harris. Baptist Hospital says the case is under review.
Click here for the full article.
Proposed Laws Target Fetal Killings
MONTPELIER - According to Vermont law, no one died in the Aug. 10 car accident that injured Patricia Blair. But Blair, a Pownal woman whose twin fetuses were lost as a result of injuries she suffered in the Route 7 wreck, says the accident claimed two lives. The young woman allegedly responsible for crash – Kelly Cook, also of Pownal – has since been charged with driving under the influence of drugs and gross negligence with injury resulting. Cook should face additional sanctions, according to Blair, for the deaths of the unborn twins. "I lost two children. Two lives were snatched," Blair says. "And the person that did that should be held accountable for both those lives."
Click here for the full article.
Mexico Antiabortion Forces Swaying State Legislatures
A year after the Supreme Court upheld a Mexico City law allowing abortion in the first trimester, 17 states have amended their constitutions to protect the unborn. Abortion activists dreamed of legislative victories across Mexico after the Supreme Court last year upheld a Mexico City law allowing abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Instead, the opposite has happened. In state after state, antiabortion forces have won changes to local constitutions declaring that life begins at conception and explicitly granting legal rights to the unborn. In all, 17 state legislatures have approved such measures, often with minimal debate, since the August 2008 court decision validating Mexico City's law.
Click here for the full article.
December 28, 2009
A Bill No Senator Can Be Proud Of
| A Bill No Senator Can Be Proud Of Senate passes health care bill that funds abortions, rations care, and burdens taxpayers with paying off bribes  Today (December 24th) the U.S. Senate passed Sen. Harry Reid's health care bill. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, stated, "No senator with an ounce of integrity can be proud of this bill or how it was passed. It marks among the lowest points in the U.S. Senate's history. "Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of the Democrats' health care bill and distrust how the Democrats passed it. The bill will fund abortions, deny care for patients, increase premiums, create more bloated and unnecessary government agencies and burden taxpayers with paying off bribes to senators. "As if to emphasize their arrogance, Democrat senators passed this monument to their greed for power on Christmas Eve. This gift to themselves at Americans' expense stands in stark contrast to Jesus relinquishing His divine privileges to serve and give to others. "During this holy season commemorating the humility and love of God Who came to earth as a baby, these senators voted to fund abortion. Jesus healed the sick; this bill will force health providers to deny care to patients. Jesus taught people to be good stewards; this bill will penalize people who have insurance but the government doesn't approve. Jesus treated people of all classes equally; this bill benefits those well-connected to conniving politicians. Contact: Demi Bardsley Source: Concerned Women for America Publish Date: December 24, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
The U.S. Senate's Christmas Gift to America: Abortion for All, at Taxpayer-Expense
| The U.S. Senate's Christmas Gift to America: Abortion for All, at Taxpayer-Expense "This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey."  In response to this morning's passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement: "On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer-expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self-described 'pro-life' senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade. "Today's vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today's result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any 'health care' debate. "If this bill is signed into law, for the first time, federally funded and managed health care plans will cover elective abortions. Pro-life Americans in states that choose to 'opt-out' of abortion coverage will still be forced to foot the bill for abortions in California and New York. "This is not 'compromise' or 'middle ground.' The only ones who support the senate abortion language are a handful of senators so far-removed from the consciences of their own constituents that it's laughable. Discussions of 'different accounts' and 'separate checks' are just a smokescreen. "This bill is a betrayal of conscience for millions of Americans. And it is a betrayal of the principles proclaimed by Reid, Nelson, and Casey. Today's vote is exactly the type of 'leadership' that repels the American electorate. Americans are hungry for authenticity. They are hungry for leaders whose actions follow their principles, for stalwart representatives who will never abandon their convictions for a sweet deal. Unfortunately, on Christmas Eve 2009, as a result of that lack of real leadership, Americans received the gift of abortion in the name of 'health care reform.' "The good news for the pro-life movement is that Bart Stupak is already a leader for Life in the House, and we know he won't compromise his principles. The Susan B. Anthony List plans to reinforce Stupak's leadership with our own efforts to target key members of the House of Representatives. "Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Senate bill as amended by Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) does not prohibit abortion coverage for plans offered in federally subsidized health care exchanges. The state "opt-out" provision does nothing to prevent one state's tax dollars from funding abortions in other states." The new public insurance exchange managed by the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) will cover abortions. Each state through OPM can provide two multi-state plans and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM's current health care program, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. The bill also includes a reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, without language to prevent federal funding of abortions. As part of its Votes Have Consequences project, the Susan B. Anthony List has funded television ads in Nevada (video) and Pennsylvania (video), radio ads in Nevada, Arkansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and targeted advocacy telephone campaigns nationwide to mobilize pro-life Americans to contact Congress and urge their legislators to defend Life in health care reform. Contact: Joy Yearout Source: Susan B. Anthony List Publish Date: December 24, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Mainstream Media Puts Young Pro-Lifers Front and Center
| Mainstream Media Puts Young Pro-Lifers Front and Center Cover Story Breaks Ground in Presenting Pro-Life Point of View  CHICAGO - In an unusual move by mainstream media, a major daily newspaper in Chicago has published a groundbreaking cover story which delivers a balanced debate between pro-life and pro-abortion activists in the Millennial generation, the next influential voting bloc in America. The story in today's RedEye, an edition of the Chicago Tribune, centers on the abortion debate among young people, right at a time when Congress is weighing the place of abortion in the new health care bill. Reporter Leonor Vivanco balances the story between pro-life and pro-abortion Millennials, interviewing members of the Pro-Life Action League and other pro-life organizations, as well as a NARAL Pro-Choice America representative. Corrina Gura, projects coordinator for the Pro-Life Action League, was featured in the article and in a photo on the front page of the RedEye, and League assistant communications director Matt Yonke is featured in the article, as well. "What's most encouraging to me is that this story offers true balance on the contentious abortion issue," said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "The RedEye is facing the abortion issue head-on with enough courage to give both sides a hearing. What's more, the article shows a younger face of the pro-life movement that is reaching out to the culture in exciting new ways." Click here to read the full story. Contact: Tom Ciesielka Publish Date: December 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
No Human Rights for Fetuses because of Undeveloped Nervous System: Ethicists
No Human Rights for Fetuses because of Undeveloped Nervous System: Ethicists While the unborn child could be considered a "patient," such a status should not be confused with having human rights - something the child would only gain later thanks to a more developed nervous system, insist the authors of a new report justifying the ethics of abortion. In a response to the article, however, a director at the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that the authors "really ought to learn to pick on those their own size," saying that "human fetuses or newborns do not need to be able to balance a checkbook or have a nervous system" before being given human rights. The article, entitled "An ethically justified practical approach to offering, recommending, performing, and referring for induced abortion and feticide" and written by Frank A. Chervenak, MD and Laurence B. McCullough, PhD, was published in the online American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology in September 2009. The article's goal is to craft an ethical framework that allows for the killing of unborn children - and requires doctors to refer for the procedure - by making distinctions between "autonomy-based and beneficence-based obligations" and "professional conscience from individual conscience." "Because of the immaturity of the fetal central nervous system, the fetus lacks the capacity to generate a perspective on its interests," write the doctors. "The ethical principle of respect for autonomy and the concept of autonomy-based rights therefore do not apply to the fetus." The authors state that "one of the concept's main advantages" is that "it prevents ethical analysis of induced abortion and feticide in medical ethics from being paralyzed by divisive debates about a fetal right to life that have been going on for decades, indeed centuries, without any basis for resolution." "Beneficence-based obligations to the fetus exist when the fetus is reliably expected later to achieve moral status as a child and person," they continue. The paper argues that, in the case of a viable child's severe disability, physicians and mothers also have "a beneficence-based obligation" to prevent risk of live birth by killing the child in the womb before expulsion. Should the woman allow early induction but refuse feticide, the authors conclude, "such contradictory thinking suggests significant impairment of autonomous decision making," and thus "it is reasonable for the physician to require that the pregnant woman accept feticide as a condition for performing termination of her previable pregnancy." Killing in the womb in such circumstances, they note, "exonerates the physician from being accused of performing a so-called partial-birth abortion." In the matter of conscience rights, the authors maintain that all physicians, if unwilling to arrange an appointment with an abortionist, have an "obligation" to give women seeking abortions information about local abortion providers. At the same time, the doctors claim that "providing information about fetal development or showing images of fetal development to prevent remorse or regret" is an "ethically impermissible distortion of the physician's professional role in the informed consent process." (Click here to read the full article is available) In response to the article, Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D., the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, said that "Chervenak, McCullough, and other academicians of their stripe really ought to learn to pick on those their own size, rather than leveraging their age and educational advantage to mount unjust attacks against those younger and not-yet-educated human beings still in the womb." "Human fetuses or newborns do not need to be able to balance a checkbook or have a nervous system before we will 'grant them moral status,' since their moral status and dignity doesn't depend on us granting it in the first place," Pacholczyk told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) in an email Tuesday. "Only the most pride-filled academician could ever suppose that he had the ability to grant moral status to a fellow human being who happens to be very young." Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: December 22, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Pro-Life Democrat Predicts Senate Health Care Bill Will ‘Go Down in Flames’ in House, Unless Changes Made
Pro-Life Democrat Predicts Senate Health Care Bill Will 'Go Down in Flames' in House, Unless Changes Made The Senate health care bill is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives unless major changes are made, including removal of special "carve outs" for Medicaid funding for certain states and inclusion of language barring taxpayer-funded health plans that cover abortions, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. Faced with the possibility that House Democratic leaders and the White House will try to force the U.S. House to accept "as is" the health care bill that the Senate is poised to pass on Christmas Eve, the pro-life Democrat said the Senate bill differs too much from the version passed by the House to be accepted. "If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames," Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview. CNSNews.com asked Stupak: "Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson's language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?" "No, absolutely not," said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan's Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan. "The Senate bill will not receive support in the House," Stupak said. "If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing." Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special "carve outs" for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid. "That's not what it's all about," he said. "This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it's not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That's not what health care is all about. That's not the policy, that's not the principle behind the bill. In exchange for their votes for the Senate bill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) reportedly obtained $100 million in additional Medicaid benefits for Nebraska and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) obtained $300 million in additional aid for Louisiana. In addition, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) managed to obtain a carve-out for 800,000 Floridians, who will keep their Medicare Advantage plans, while those in other parts of the country are slated to lose their Medicare Advantage plans under the bill's targeted cuts. Stupak was incensed at the special deals. "All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?" Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors "take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept" -- and that the bill would tax people who have "decent" health insurance programs. "Aren't you really going to force more people off health insurance?" Stupak said. He added: "If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests," Stupak said. "I'd have no real desire to vote for this bill the way its being outlined in the media," he said. "I know the bill's not finalized yet, but if that holds true, if they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames." Stupak, who succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health care bill, also firmly rejected language in the Senate bill regarding abortion. The "Stupak amendment," as his provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. But the abortion language in the Senate bill secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), which attempts to segregate taxpayer money from paying for health plans that provide abortion, does not contain an outright ban on taxpayer money going to fund abortion. Stupak, however, added: "Even if they fixed the abortion language, if it's the Senate language, I have to vote for – I'm not voting for it." A transcript of CNSNews.com's interview of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) follows below: CNSNews.com: "Let's talk about the health care bill. Yesterday GOP chairman Michael Steele said, quote, 'The fix is in here. There won't be a legitimate conference. The House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate comes up with. Nancy Pelosi's going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want.' Endquote." "So let me ask you about that. Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson's language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?" Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): "No, absolutely not. The Senate bill will not receive support in the House, if they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many abortion items that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing." Rep. Stupak: "I mean, you see certain states getting certain special carve-outs in this legislation – that's not what its all about. This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans its not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve-outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That's not what health care is all about – that's not the policy, that's not the principal behind the bill. There's a lot of strong objections to the Senate bill and what's been done thus far." CNSNews.com: "Okay, do you have – or are you saying -- that you have the votes to stop it, if that's the case?" Rep. Stupak: "Well, what I'm saying is, what you just read is that the House is going to have to accept the Senate bill and it would not be a true conference -- and we're just going to have to accept the Senate bill as is. Well, I'll tell you, it will not be accepted." Rep. Stupak: "Number one, you have certain [states] and certain exceptions. All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we incline to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?" Rep. Stupak: "Secondly, people who have decent health insurance programs – we're going to tax them, aren't you really going to force more people off health insurance? Thirdly, the seniors take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill members are not going to accept. If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests, so there'd be no – I'd have no real desire to vote for this bill the way it's being outlined in the media. I know the bill's not finalized yet, but if that holds true, if they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it's going to go down in flames." (Click here to listen to the interview) Contact: Pete Winn Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: December 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Do You See What I See?
Do You See What I See? "Today human relations are irregulars and seconds at the closing days of the warehouse sale of life." -- From the book, "Social Amnesia," by Russell Jacoby "O little town of Bethlehem." -- Traditional Christmas carol It was late in the afternoon the Saturday after Thanksgiving. My wife, Lisa, and I had established a temporary safe haven in our kitchen free from the usual chaos that comes with the presence of four joyfully rambunctious children. We'd somehow managed to wrest free a few minutes just to read the paper, enjoy a cup of coffee together, and chat. It was nice! For reasons I did not fully understand at the time, when I read in our local paper that the Salvation Army was experiencing a dramatic shortage in volunteer bell ringers to man its familiar red kettles, I was so shocked I jumped up from the table and searched out the local number. Violet, the gentle lady who answered, mistakenly thought I was someone inquiring about a paid position. When I assured her otherwise, she was so pathetically grateful for my willingness to help them help the poor a wave of shame washed over me. How many times, I thought guiltily, had I brushed past these magnanimous folks, who patiently waited for some sign my heart was a few degrees warmer than the temperature outside? How many times had I been so self-absorbed that these devoted volunteers simply blended into the brick facades behind them? I was mortified when I recall that even though I had occasionally given money, never once had I emerged from my self-absorption long enough to actually "see" them, let alone grasp what their silent vigil stood for. Because I had always looked through them, they never really existed for me. I hastily volunteered for several assignments. (In what was surely a feeble attempt at expiation, I made sure that one of them was on my birthday.) The moral of this story needn't be belabored to tenderhearted pro-lifers. When our culture "looks" at the vulnerable, all too often there is a failure to recognize and therefore an inability to reach out in love and compassion. This is never more true than in our treatment of the unborn, the littlest Americans. However, it wasn't just because of the news account and the subsequent phone call that I saw these kindly souls with new eyes. I was already predisposed, if you will, because Christmas was approaching, to Christians the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. Even those who do not share the faith honor Jesus for his unconditional love for widows and orphans, the sick, and the social outcast, his loving admonition to care for the least among us. This most assuredly included little children, as Luke's poignant gospel account reminds us so beautifully. Jesus healed out of a deep well of empathy and compassion. He restored many whose bodies, hearts, and souls were weighed down with terrible physical and emotional burdens. But he was also teaching us a timeless lesson: unless we are willing to open our eyes, we, too, will be blind to the hurting around us. While it is not my intention to idealize pro-lifers, it would be false modesty to ignore that they demonstrate a tremendous capacity to truly "see" what others either cannot, or choose not, to see. It is no accident that pro-lifers defend unborn babies. Love and concern for the downtrodden, the dispossessed, and the marginalized is what gives their lives a rich unity of purpose. The great hope of the pro-life movement is that despite our nation's descents into inhumanity and indifference, the self-image of Americans is deservedly of a good people, blessed in a unique way. And it is because Americans are fundamentally decent people that the significance of the debate over partial-birth abortion cannot be exaggerated. People needn't be anywhere near where we are to be virtually sent reeling. Witnessing even a simple line drawing of this abomination can turn opinions inside out. A pseudo-serious support for "choice" in the abstract cannot coexist for very long with the concrete reality of this brutal assassination of helpless children. For many, many people, head knowledge will become heart knowledge and ambivalence will be transformed into empathy. Our culture has chosen to willfully suppress what it always knew - - that unborn children are children yet to be born, a classic example of what historian Russell Jacoby once called "social amnesia." But the monstrous evil that is partial-birth abortion - - a procedure that is essentially indistinguishable from infanticide - - is shearing away the excuse people have used from the time immemorial to explain away their complicity in evil: "I didn't know." And because eyes are being opened, ears unstopped, and hearts unshackled, what William McKenna calls our "unforced revulsion" at abortion is finding a wider audience. These telltale signs suggest we are cutting through the static of lies and distortions, establishing a clear channel to convey our message of love and hope for mother and unborn child. One day soon, the ethos of discrimination and brutality toward the unborn will prove itself to have been an aberration, a loathsome interim ethic. And that glorious day will come because you have proven yourselves to be the antidote to the poison of inhumanity, indifference, and injustice. Let me say, humbly, bless you for all you have done. Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: NRLC Publish Date: December 24, 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.) Sebelius: Everyone Will Pay Into Abortion-Coverage Fund  What constitutes the notion of "public funds"? If the government forces us to pay into a fund, and then controls the distribution of those funds, are those funds not "public"? Morgen at Verum Serum catches a portion of an interview between HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and BlogHer interviewer Morra Aarons-Mele yesterday, in which Sebelius praises the abortion-funding language in the Reid bill, as it maintains a flow of funds for abortion coverage that everyone — and she means everyone. Click here for the full article. Georgetown faculty served as legal counsel to Planned Parenthood  Two Georgetown University law professors have served as legal counsel to Planned Parenthood, according to the university's web site. Professor Peter J. Rubin, according to his web page, "served as counsel in the U.S. Supreme Court for, among others, Dr. Timothy Quill and two other doctors in Vacco v. Quill, a challenge to the constitutionality of New York's ban on physician assisted suicide, and Planned Parenthood in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court challenge to the abortion 'gag rule' imposed in the 1980s upon family planning clinics that received federal funding." Professor Julie E. Cohen, who has taught at Georgetown since 1999, was a "member of pro bono team that represented Bay Area Planned Parenthood affiliates in abortion clinic access litigation" from 1992 to 1995, according to her curriculum vitate. Click here for the full article. Senate Dems Push House to Take Their Version of Health Overhaul  They aren't willing to say they'll roll over, but House Democrats on Sunday offered tacit acknowledgement of the narrow room for compromise Senate Democrats have on a massive health insurance overhaul that passed the Senate with no margin for error. They aren't willing to say they'll roll over, but House Democrats on Sunday offered tacit acknowledgement of the narrow room for compromise Senate Democrats have on a massive health insurance overhaul that passed the Senate with no margin for error. As lawmakers take a recess from the push and pull of Washington's hardscrabble politics, several Democrats on Sunday sounded ready to give in if it means getting the trillion dollar, 10-year legislation into Obama's hands as soon as possible. Click here for the full article. State Has Rising Costs in Defending Abortion Laws  OKLAHOMA CITY - The costs of defending two controversial abortion measures continue to rise. In August, an Oklahoma County district judge tossed out Senate Bill 1878, which would have required a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within an hour of the abortion and have the details explained to her. Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the measure violated a provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that requires a law to deal with a single subject. The bill also covered the posting of signs in clinics, administration of the "abortion pill" RU-486 and lawsuits. Her ruling has been appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The state spent $97,000 to hire an abortion law expert to defend the law, said Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. Click here for the full article. Senate changes 'rules' to protect 'death panels' Fine print would require 67 votes to consider amendments  Majority Democrats in the U.S. Senate pushing for President Obama's vision of a government takeover of health care have inserted in the fine print of the 2,000-plus page legislation a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." The revelation comes from the RedState.com blog, which analyzed the provisions and cited a challenge to the plan from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. After being told by Democrats that the provision changing a standing Senate rule didn't actually change the rule but was just a change in the procedure of the rule, DeMint was frustrated... Click here for the full article. |
December 22, 2009
Sen. Nelson 'betrayed' pro-lifers back home
Sen. Nelson 'betrayed' pro-lifers back home
Some Nebraskans are upset with Senator Ben Nelson over his change of heart on healthcare reform.
Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) was considered the 60th vote Democrats needed to push the massive legislation through with provisions that would require taxpayers to pay for abortions. He agreed to vote in favor of cloture, leaving the early Monday morning vote 60-40 to proceed.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, contends the Democratic lawmaker sold out to pro-abortion forces in the Senate in exchange for several concessions -- among them permanent and full federal aid for this state's expanded Medicaid population.
"That falls directly on us as a [political action committee] and on me personally because I was his biggest defender," she says of Nelson. "I'm taking it very personally that this is a real betrayal." And no pro-life Nebraskan, she laments, is more "devastated" by Nelson's actions than she is.
Nelson, says the pro-life leader, has turned against a heavily pro-life Nebraska -- and "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans" who were counting on him to stand strong.
"The backlash here [in Nebraska] is unbelievable," she exclaims. "I can't imagine that Senator Nelson thinks he's going to run for re-election in 2012." In the 2006 election, Nebraska Right to Life endorsed Nelson rather than a pro-life Republican.
Schmit-Albin believes that when Nelson cast the 60th vote, he lost all pro-life support in Nebraska -- and Republicans in the state, she adds, are extremely upset.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Some Nebraskans are upset with Senator Ben Nelson over his change of heart on healthcare reform.
Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) was considered the 60th vote Democrats needed to push the massive legislation through with provisions that would require taxpayers to pay for abortions. He agreed to vote in favor of cloture, leaving the early Monday morning vote 60-40 to proceed.
Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, contends the Democratic lawmaker sold out to pro-abortion forces in the Senate in exchange for several concessions -- among them permanent and full federal aid for this state's expanded Medicaid population.
"That falls directly on us as a [political action committee] and on me personally because I was his biggest defender," she says of Nelson. "I'm taking it very personally that this is a real betrayal." And no pro-life Nebraskan, she laments, is more "devastated" by Nelson's actions than she is.
Nelson, says the pro-life leader, has turned against a heavily pro-life Nebraska -- and "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans" who were counting on him to stand strong.
"The backlash here [in Nebraska] is unbelievable," she exclaims. "I can't imagine that Senator Nelson thinks he's going to run for re-election in 2012." In the 2006 election, Nebraska Right to Life endorsed Nelson rather than a pro-life Republican.
Schmit-Albin believes that when Nelson cast the 60th vote, he lost all pro-life support in Nebraska -- and Republicans in the state, she adds, are extremely upset.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion - a 'choice' issue for Democrats
Abortion - a 'choice' issue for Democrats
Congressional Democrats now must choose whether to exclude taxpayer funding of abortion in their healthcare legislation or risk defeat of the entire bill.
Under all existing federal health programs, taxpayer funds are not used for abortions and they do not subsidize private health insurance that pays for abortion either. However, the healthcare bill Democrats are poised to pass in the Senate authorizes federal subsidies for tens of millions of Americans to buy private health insurance that will cover abortion on demand.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, believes it is unlikely the bill that emerges from conference committee will include the House-approved Stupak amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion on demand in public and private health insurance plans. The Stupak amendment, he says, faces a "perilous" future.
"The conference committee will be directly controlled by top Democratic leaders from the House and Senate, almost all of whom are dead set against us -- and they will be working in close concert with President Obama and the White House, who have fought us every step of the way," Johnson explains.
"On the other hand, and this is the most important thing, they need to get a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to pass the final bill. So if we can show that there are enough lawmakers, particularly in the House of Representatives, who will not vote for the final bill unless it contains the Stupak amendment, then they're going to have to make a hard choice."
The pro-life spokesman warns that Democratic leaders and the White House will be trying to "wear down" pro-life Democrats in the House and offer them different inducements so they will "get out of the way" and allow the bill to pass with abortion funding included.
Contact: Jim Brown
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Congressional Democrats now must choose whether to exclude taxpayer funding of abortion in their healthcare legislation or risk defeat of the entire bill.
Under all existing federal health programs, taxpayer funds are not used for abortions and they do not subsidize private health insurance that pays for abortion either. However, the healthcare bill Democrats are poised to pass in the Senate authorizes federal subsidies for tens of millions of Americans to buy private health insurance that will cover abortion on demand.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, believes it is unlikely the bill that emerges from conference committee will include the House-approved Stupak amendment, which bars federal funding of abortion on demand in public and private health insurance plans. The Stupak amendment, he says, faces a "perilous" future.
"The conference committee will be directly controlled by top Democratic leaders from the House and Senate, almost all of whom are dead set against us -- and they will be working in close concert with President Obama and the White House, who have fought us every step of the way," Johnson explains.
"On the other hand, and this is the most important thing, they need to get a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to pass the final bill. So if we can show that there are enough lawmakers, particularly in the House of Representatives, who will not vote for the final bill unless it contains the Stupak amendment, then they're going to have to make a hard choice."
The pro-life spokesman warns that Democratic leaders and the White House will be trying to "wear down" pro-life Democrats in the House and offer them different inducements so they will "get out of the way" and allow the bill to pass with abortion funding included.
Contact: Jim Brown
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
Obama sued for secret abortion meetings
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."
"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."
Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."
"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..
"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.
Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."
Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
'In haste to socialize medicine, president violated commitment to transparency'
A legal firebrand whose work fighting corruption left both Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney on the defensive today took on Barack Obama, suing the president for secret meetings with Planned Parenthood and other lobbyists on his plans to nationalize health care.
Larry Klayman
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch USA, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The law requires disclosure of records of meetings between the executive branch and outside industry lobbyists. It also requires access to meetings.
Klayman raised the same issues during the early years of the Clinton administration, contributing to the demise of the health care proposal championed by Hillary Clinton.
The lawsuit charges that in Obama's "haste to socialize medicine in the United States, and increase government control generally," he has "violated his commitment to transparency."
"It is widely known that President Obama and his surrogates have been holding behind closed door meetings with health care industry lobbyists, cutting deals to win passage of his health care legislation," Klayman said.
Klayman contends the president's conduct falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which "requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends."
As WND reported, Klayman had returned to Washington, where his efforts to bring light to the Clinton administration made him a high-profile political figure that was parodied on television in the "West Wing" character Harry Klaypool.
Klayman said after his return he was stunned by the level of corruption in the nation's capital, telling CNN's Lou Dobbs, "I've never seen it like this."
Klayman's new case targets "the particulars behind the secret deals the White House has been cutting with private health care concerns, such as the AMA, Pharma, Planned Parenthood, AARP, and other lobbyists seeking to feed at the trough of the government."
"Freedom Watch will not rest until the American people know all the facts about this historic and ill advised health care legislation, which most Americans – be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal – think we cannot afford and do not want as it is written," he said.
Klayman said he hand-delivered just days ago a letter to Obama under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and FACA seeking copies of all minutes and final decision documents.
His letter was accepted at the White House only after he was badgered and belittled by uniformed police officers, he said.
"Egregiously, upon hand delivering the letter to the Secret Service, agents of the president, the undersigned chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch was illegally detained … at the front gate of The White House, while he was on the sidewalk (he had never entered The White House grounds), questioned for over an hour in below freezing temperatures, and berated, harassed and threatened by two of the president's Uniformed Secret Service agents for his public advocacy and he was investigated; that is, these two Uniformed Secret Service agents violated the exercise of First Amendment freedom of speech rights," Klayman said..
"Fortunately, after over an hour of interrogation, false imprisonment, and violation of his civil rights, a very professional female line Secret Service agent appeared and in an appropriate and very respectful and kind manner set the undersigned free," he said.
Klayman's letter said, "It has been widely reported and it is independently known that you and your agents and representatives have been communicating and meeting with, in secret and behind 'closed doors,' lobbyists from the private pharmaceutical industry (i.e. Pharma), Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the American Medical Association (AMA) and other private interests, cutting deals to attempt to assure passage of your proposed health care legislation.
Klayman said the conduct "falls squarely within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," because "these nontransparent communications and meetings with lobbyists and nongovernmental persons and groups constitute a de facto advisory committee under the letter and intent of the law."
Noting that Obama's plans would involve "one seventh of the nation's GDP," Klayman said he was demanding "on behalf of the American people … that you allow us to participate in any such communications and meetings and that you turn over all documentations, such as minutes and notes of and concerning all meetings and other records, immediately.
"Simply put, the public has the right to know what you promised to private special interests before the proposal legislation becomes law," he said.
The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Contact: Bob Unruh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Senate Abortion Language is No Compromise, Pro-Life Dem Says
Senate Abortion Language is No Compromise, Pro-Life Dem Says
D
Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said that so-called abortion compromise language in the Senate health-care bill is no such thing. Stupak, leader of a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House, called the Senate language "unacceptable" and vowed to oppose it.
"While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health-care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable," Stupak said in a statement released over the weekend.
"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," he said.
The Michigan congressman could not be reached for comment because all federal government offices were closed Monday in the aftermath of a weekend blizzard that shut down the nation's capital and much of the Eastern seaboard.
Stupak, who succeeded in getting a pro-life amendment attached to the House version of the bill which bars federal taxpayer support of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake, held out hope that fellow Democrats would again acquiesce to his demands and produce a health-care bill he can support, saying he hoped their differences on abortion could be resolved in conference.
Republican Party leader Michael Steele cast doubt on that idea, however, declaring that "the fix is in" and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would forgo conference negotiations and instead opt to push the Senate bill through the House.
"The fix is in here – there won't be a legitimate conference (committee), the House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate bill (sic) comes up with, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi is going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want," Steele said Monday in a telephone news conference from Washington.
Pelosi's predicted "capitulation" would presumably involve acceptance of the fact that the Senate bill does not include a "public option" -- government-run health insurance -- which Pelosi supports and the House bill does include. But arguably, the biggest bone of contention is the abortion "compromise" of Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
The controversial abortion compromise involves a Democratic plan to try and segregate federal health insurance subsidies from private insurance premiums, mandating that only the latter can be used to pay for abortions.
This "segregation" works by prohibiting a health insurer from using "any amount attributable" to a federal subsidy to pay for abortion.
"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
"(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)," the bill reads.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called this provision an "accounting gimmick" on Saturday.
"Under Reid's 'manager's amendment,' there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish "allocation accounts" when elective abortion is a covered benefit," Boehner wrote on the "Republican Leader" blog.
These "allocation accounts" would, if passed, segregate public and private funds, permitting only private funds from being used to pay for abortions. Individuals would then be forced to pay an "abortion surcharge" out of their own pocket, regardless of whether will ever have – or be able to have – an abortion.
"In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies [one which covers abortion], the issuer of the plan shall -- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment [for abortion services]," the bill states.
This would mean that federal funds, while not being used to pay for abortions directly, would still be used to subsidize the cost of having an abortion, since without the federal subsidy the health plan would be unaffordable.
"In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions," Boehner said.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., said the provision would "put the federal government in the business of subsidizing elective abortions."
"Even though there are these accounting provisions that require people to take a second step of making another payment to cover abortion, they are still paying with a government subsidy," Perkins told CNSNews.com.
Perkins. meanwhile, said that "nothing short of Stupak (language) is acceptable to pro-life Americans."
Members of the Senate voted early Monday morning 60-40 along party lines to invoke cloture on the Reid health-care bill -- a parliamentary procedure which shut off debate and is expected to bring the legislation to a vote before Christmas.
Contact: Matt Cover
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
DRep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said that so-called abortion compromise language in the Senate health-care bill is no such thing. Stupak, leader of a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House, called the Senate language "unacceptable" and vowed to oppose it.
"While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health-care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable," Stupak said in a statement released over the weekend.
"A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage," he said.
The Michigan congressman could not be reached for comment because all federal government offices were closed Monday in the aftermath of a weekend blizzard that shut down the nation's capital and much of the Eastern seaboard.
Stupak, who succeeded in getting a pro-life amendment attached to the House version of the bill which bars federal taxpayer support of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake, held out hope that fellow Democrats would again acquiesce to his demands and produce a health-care bill he can support, saying he hoped their differences on abortion could be resolved in conference.
Republican Party leader Michael Steele cast doubt on that idea, however, declaring that "the fix is in" and that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would forgo conference negotiations and instead opt to push the Senate bill through the House.
"The fix is in here – there won't be a legitimate conference (committee), the House members are being told to accept whatever the Senate bill (sic) comes up with, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi is going to capitulate on this and the House members are going to have to live with it. They are going to have to eat a whole lot of stuff in the Senate bill that they don't like and they don't want," Steele said Monday in a telephone news conference from Washington.
Pelosi's predicted "capitulation" would presumably involve acceptance of the fact that the Senate bill does not include a "public option" -- government-run health insurance -- which Pelosi supports and the House bill does include. But arguably, the biggest bone of contention is the abortion "compromise" of Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
The controversial abortion compromise involves a Democratic plan to try and segregate federal health insurance subsidies from private insurance premiums, mandating that only the latter can be used to pay for abortions.
This "segregation" works by prohibiting a health insurer from using "any amount attributable" to a federal subsidy to pay for abortion.
"If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:
"(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)," the bill reads.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called this provision an "accounting gimmick" on Saturday.
"Under Reid's 'manager's amendment,' there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish "allocation accounts" when elective abortion is a covered benefit," Boehner wrote on the "Republican Leader" blog.
These "allocation accounts" would, if passed, segregate public and private funds, permitting only private funds from being used to pay for abortions. Individuals would then be forced to pay an "abortion surcharge" out of their own pocket, regardless of whether will ever have – or be able to have – an abortion.
"In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies [one which covers abortion], the issuer of the plan shall -- (i) collect from each enrollee in the plan (without regard to the enrollee's age, sex, or family status) a separate payment [for abortion services]," the bill states.
This would mean that federal funds, while not being used to pay for abortions directly, would still be used to subsidize the cost of having an abortion, since without the federal subsidy the health plan would be unaffordable.
"In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions," Boehner said.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., said the provision would "put the federal government in the business of subsidizing elective abortions."
"Even though there are these accounting provisions that require people to take a second step of making another payment to cover abortion, they are still paying with a government subsidy," Perkins told CNSNews.com.
Perkins. meanwhile, said that "nothing short of Stupak (language) is acceptable to pro-life Americans."
Members of the Senate voted early Monday morning 60-40 along party lines to invoke cloture on the Reid health-care bill -- a parliamentary procedure which shut off debate and is expected to bring the legislation to a vote before Christmas.
Contact: Matt Cover
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Q&A: The Senate's abortion compromise
Q&A: The Senate's abortion compromise
WASHINGTON - The Senate is on the verge of passing a health care bill that includes a compromise on federal funding of abortion. Pro-life groups and pro-choice groups, though, are not happy with the compromise language, promoted by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Following are a few common questions, with answers, about the compromise:
-- What would the compromise language do?
It uses funding segregation language that has been criticized by pro-lifers for months. The compromise: 1) forces enrollees in private insurance plans receiving government subsidies to write two checks -- one for their premium and the other for elective abortion coverage, and 2) allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized plans (the latter of which, pro-lifers say, already was allowed). Insurance companies would be forced to keep the abortion coverage money separate from the federal subsidy money. The Washington Post reported that everyone in the policy -- men included -- would have to write a separate check for abortion coverage.
-- How is it different from the pro-life Stupak amendment that was attached to the House's health care bill?
Very different. The Stupak amendment prohibited elective abortions from being covered in government-subsidized plans. Under the Senate bill, the plans can cover such abortions.
-- Why has there been so much controversy surrounding the issue?
Because current law prohibits the federal government from funding insurance plans covering elective abortions. Medicaid is prohibited from covering elective abortions, as are insurance plans for federal employees. Congress' own insurance plans, for instance, cannot by law cover elective abortions. The Senate health care bill would be a dramatic change in policy, pro-lifers say.
-- How have pro-lifers reacted to the compromise?
By heavily criticizing it. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called it "a pitiful excuse for a compromise that looks far more like surrender." National Right to Life released a statement saying the "so-called 'firewall'" between federal money and private money "is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs." The organization also said "there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee." Nebraska Right to Life -- which endorsed Nelson in 2006 -- said Nelson "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans who saw him as the last man standing" in the way of "expansion of government funding." Americans United for Life said the bill's opt-out option for states "makes abortion coverage normative" and "turn[s] on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion." All the major pro-life groups are urging senators to filibuster and defeat the bill. The Weekly Standard posted an article that said even if a state opts out, it would leave, for instance, "Nebraska's voters entirely vulnerable to paying for California's and New York's abortions."
-- Pro-lifers have said a change in policy could lead to an increase in the abortion rate. How?
If the bill passes, there will be women under the new plans who, for the first time, have abortion coverage. There would be no financial deterrent to an abortion, as there is for them now. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute this summer reported that about 25 percent of the women in Medicaid who would have had an abortion chose instead to give birth because they were barred from using public money.
-- How have pro-choice groups reacted?
They, too, are opposed. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said the Nelson language "is essentially an abortion rider" that shames women and "creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month." Richards added that it is "highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the compromise language "outrageous" and "unacceptable." But both women acknowledge the compromise does not go as far as the Stupak amendment.
-- What has Nelson said?
He released a statement saying, "I have strongly held views on the subject and I have fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. I believe we have accomplished that goal. I have also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered, and to provide health insurance options in every state that do not provide coverage for abortion."
-- What happens now?
If the Senate bill passes, the political battle will move to a joint House-Senate conference committee, which will work out the differences between the two bills. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the pro-life congressmen who sponsored the House amendment, released a statement saying he looks forward "to working with members of the House, Senate and the Obama Administration to find common ground on this issue and draft language that guarantees continuation of current law of no public funding for abortion." He called the compromise language "not acceptable" and added it would be "a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage." He said the "segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."
-- Wouldn't the Hyde amendment apply to the health care bill?
The Hyde amendment, which prevents elective abortions from being covered under Medicaid, would not apply to the new health care bill. The Hyde amendment, as well as the Stupak amendment, allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.
-- Has any polling been done on this issue?
A CNN poll in November found American adults are against "using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it" by a 61-37 percent margin.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
WASHINGTON - The Senate is on the verge of passing a health care bill that includes a compromise on federal funding of abortion. Pro-life groups and pro-choice groups, though, are not happy with the compromise language, promoted by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Following are a few common questions, with answers, about the compromise:
-- What would the compromise language do?
It uses funding segregation language that has been criticized by pro-lifers for months. The compromise: 1) forces enrollees in private insurance plans receiving government subsidies to write two checks -- one for their premium and the other for elective abortion coverage, and 2) allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in government-subsidized plans (the latter of which, pro-lifers say, already was allowed). Insurance companies would be forced to keep the abortion coverage money separate from the federal subsidy money. The Washington Post reported that everyone in the policy -- men included -- would have to write a separate check for abortion coverage.
-- How is it different from the pro-life Stupak amendment that was attached to the House's health care bill?
Very different. The Stupak amendment prohibited elective abortions from being covered in government-subsidized plans. Under the Senate bill, the plans can cover such abortions.
-- Why has there been so much controversy surrounding the issue?
Because current law prohibits the federal government from funding insurance plans covering elective abortions. Medicaid is prohibited from covering elective abortions, as are insurance plans for federal employees. Congress' own insurance plans, for instance, cannot by law cover elective abortions. The Senate health care bill would be a dramatic change in policy, pro-lifers say.
-- How have pro-lifers reacted to the compromise?
By heavily criticizing it. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called it "a pitiful excuse for a compromise that looks far more like surrender." National Right to Life released a statement saying the "so-called 'firewall'" between federal money and private money "is merely a bookkeeping gimmick, inconsistent with the long-established principles that govern existing federal health programs." The organization also said "there is nothing in the language to suggest that payment of the abortion charge is optional for any enrollee." Nebraska Right to Life -- which endorsed Nelson in 2006 -- said Nelson "obliterated the hope of pro-life Americans who saw him as the last man standing" in the way of "expansion of government funding." Americans United for Life said the bill's opt-out option for states "makes abortion coverage normative" and "turn[s] on its head the traditional federal approach to abortion." All the major pro-life groups are urging senators to filibuster and defeat the bill. The Weekly Standard posted an article that said even if a state opts out, it would leave, for instance, "Nebraska's voters entirely vulnerable to paying for California's and New York's abortions."
-- Pro-lifers have said a change in policy could lead to an increase in the abortion rate. How?
If the bill passes, there will be women under the new plans who, for the first time, have abortion coverage. There would be no financial deterrent to an abortion, as there is for them now. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute this summer reported that about 25 percent of the women in Medicaid who would have had an abortion chose instead to give birth because they were barred from using public money.
-- How have pro-choice groups reacted?
They, too, are opposed. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said the Nelson language "is essentially an abortion rider" that shames women and "creates an unworkable system whereby individuals are required to write two separate checks each month." Richards added that it is "highly unlikely that insurance companies will be willing to follow such an administratively cumbersome system, leaving tens of millions of women without abortion coverage." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called the compromise language "outrageous" and "unacceptable." But both women acknowledge the compromise does not go as far as the Stupak amendment.
-- What has Nelson said?
He released a statement saying, "I have strongly held views on the subject and I have fought hard to prevent tax dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. I believe we have accomplished that goal. I have also fought hard to protect the right of states to regulate the kind of insurance that is offered, and to provide health insurance options in every state that do not provide coverage for abortion."
-- What happens now?
If the Senate bill passes, the political battle will move to a joint House-Senate conference committee, which will work out the differences between the two bills. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the pro-life congressmen who sponsored the House amendment, released a statement saying he looks forward "to working with members of the House, Senate and the Obama Administration to find common ground on this issue and draft language that guarantees continuation of current law of no public funding for abortion." He called the compromise language "not acceptable" and added it would be "a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage." He said the "segregation of funds to pay for abortion is another departure from current policy prohibiting federal subsidy of abortion coverage."
-- Wouldn't the Hyde amendment apply to the health care bill?
The Hyde amendment, which prevents elective abortions from being covered under Medicaid, would not apply to the new health care bill. The Hyde amendment, as well as the Stupak amendment, allow for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life.
-- Has any polling been done on this issue?
A CNN poll in November found American adults are against "using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it" by a 61-37 percent margin.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: BP
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
Study Finds Half of Women on "Birth Control Shot" Suffer Bone Problems
GALVESTON, Texas - Nearly half of women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, will experience high bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the hip or lower spine within two years of beginning the contraceptive, according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The study, reported in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was the first to show that women on the birth control shot who smoke, have low levels of calcium intake and never gave birth are at the highest risk for BMD loss. The researchers also found that high risk women continued to experience significant losses in BMD during the third year of the use of the contraceptive injection, especially in the hip - the most common facture site in elderly women.
DMPA is an injected contraceptive administered to patients every three months. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than two million American women use the birth control shot, including approximately 400,000 teens. DMPA is relatively inexpensive compared with some other forms of contraception and doesn't need to be administered daily, which contributes to its popularity.
The study followed 95 DMPA users for two years. In that time, 45 women had at least five percent BMD loss in the lower back or hip. A total of 50 women had less than five percent bone loss at both sites during the same period.
By and large, BMD loss was higher in women who were current smokers, had never given birth and had a daily calcium intake of 600 mg or less - far below the recommended amounts. Moreover, BMD loss substantially increased among the women with all three risk factors.
The researchers followed 27 of the women for an additional year and found that those who experienced significant BMD loss in the first two years continued to lose bone mass.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
GALVESTON, Texas - Nearly half of women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as the birth control shot, will experience high bone mineral density (BMD) loss in the hip or lower spine within two years of beginning the contraceptive, according to researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The study, reported in the January 2010 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, was the first to show that women on the birth control shot who smoke, have low levels of calcium intake and never gave birth are at the highest risk for BMD loss. The researchers also found that high risk women continued to experience significant losses in BMD during the third year of the use of the contraceptive injection, especially in the hip - the most common facture site in elderly women.
DMPA is an injected contraceptive administered to patients every three months. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than two million American women use the birth control shot, including approximately 400,000 teens. DMPA is relatively inexpensive compared with some other forms of contraception and doesn't need to be administered daily, which contributes to its popularity.
The study followed 95 DMPA users for two years. In that time, 45 women had at least five percent BMD loss in the lower back or hip. A total of 50 women had less than five percent bone loss at both sites during the same period.
By and large, BMD loss was higher in women who were current smokers, had never given birth and had a daily calcium intake of 600 mg or less - far below the recommended amounts. Moreover, BMD loss substantially increased among the women with all three risk factors.
The researchers followed 27 of the women for an additional year and found that those who experienced significant BMD loss in the first two years continued to lose bone mass.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: December 21, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)