March 26, 2010
The Left’s Trouble With Abstinence
Abstinence-only education is effective. Abstinence itself is 100% effective every time it is tried. There are many myths surrounding it that are unfounded that are proclaimed in promoting comprehensive sex education. Abstinence-only sex education just drives the left bonkers. When that happens they turn on the snark. Rob Asghar, author of Lessons from the Holy Wars and contributing blogger at The Huffington Post, wrote a post entitled "Bristol Palin and The Trouble With Christian Sex." He, of course, decides to point to Bristol Palin as an example of what is wrong with abstinence-only education. I've blogged on Bristol Palin before and don't intend to say much here. I do want to point out this, to say a teenage mother can't be an advocate for abstinence is akin to saying a former drug addict can't speak out on the dangers of illegal drugs. Who can better do just that than someone who has experience the pitfalls.
Enough said about that. What I really want to take time to address is the three fundamental problems that he feels arises from Biblical sexual instruction framed around his main premise that, "Christians simply have an idealized notion of sex and relationships, one that's increasingly divorced from the reality and the direction of the larger society."
1. Its rules weren't intended for modern society.
Asghar writes:
Whether the human body developed gradually over millions of years or suddenly around six millenia ago, God or Mother Nature installed sexual plumbing that slips noisily into gear around age 13 and keeps churning noisily for decades. Yet human society has developed in ways that increasingly delay marriage till 30-something. The body and mind are hardly silly to rebel.
The focus on abstinence, on "presenting one's body as a holy and living sacrifice to God" (to use Paul's term), is in 2010 a great way to never meet that special someone. Christianity is so fearful of experimentation on the part of singles that it encourages passivity instead. The notion is that "God will deliver the right person in His perfect timing. I shouldn't upset His plans or force His hand and get into inappropriate entanglements." Given that marriage is being delayed more than ever, it's little wonder that many quality people that I knew in church have moved into middle age solo, against their will and better judgment and deepest longings. And it's little wonder that some of those who married did so with people outside the church.
It is true that some people are putting off getting married until later in life. It also true that some view adolescence lasting until age 25. He says that human society has increasingly found ways to delay marriage. I can't deny that. I don't think it's healthy or appropriate to view a 22-year-old as an adolescent however. It's ironic that on one hand as David Elkind, a child psychologist and professor emeritus of Child Development at Tufts University, notes in his book, The Hurried Child, we do push our kids into growing up too fast and they end up mimicking adults – giving a sense of pseudo-maturity. Elkind notes, "We see these adolescents mourning for a lost childhood." On the other hand (perhaps a direct result of the push to end childhood) we extend adolescence to the age where instead getting married and starting a career or family like they did a generation ago, many still refuse to take on real responsibility or make a commitment.
But I digress.
Let me challenge the main premise behind what he is saying with his point. That not engaging in sexual behavior "experimenting" is passive and the Christian Single will never meet that special someone. Can I say this one of the major reasons a lot of marriages end in divorce? Far too many relationships are built on the foundation of sex and physical attraction and they as a result lack depth. Marriages need to be built on love, intimacy and commitment and that is often lacking when the physical aspect of a relationship is the center of attention. It is possible to meet a future spouse without the presumption of a sexual relationship… I've known many people who do get married after college after meeting their future spouse there, and I've know many older Christians who found their spouse later on.
All without acting like a bunch of minks.
2. It promises more than it can deliver.
Asghar writes:
It criticizes all premarital liaisons as dangerous or at least misguided, and it pooh-poohs any possibility of even some redeeming or meaningful engagement with another human being. And it sets the marital bed up as a far greater good. This leads to the common complaint of various married Christian friends, which is that married sex isn't what it was cracked up to be. Distress over the mundaneness of it all, anger at the lack of interest on the part of a spouse, and curiosity about what else may have been out there prior to marriage may not be terribly different from what anyone else feels. But Christians' sense of disappointment is more real and palpable.
At some level, the notion that abstinence in singleness will lead to maximum joy in marriage is a microcosm of the idea that if you show restraint on earth you will have boundless joy in the afterlife. And there are many who, based on how they found the former notion to be untrue, worry about the latter being a bit trumped up, too.
Again Asghar frames relationships as being primarily sexual. Is it possible to have redeeming or meaningful engagement with someone without having sex? Yes. The marital bed is a far greater good, God designed it that way. He created sex and said it was good within the boundaries of marriage. Asghar's citing complaints of various married Christian friends (he seems to rely on anecdotes quite a bit, and I wonder how many people he's actually talking about here) about the mundaneness of married sex. Yeah it can be mundane. But what I find ridiculous is that he thinks the answer is in premarital sex. I don't think that remedies the problem, in fact, I think it makes it worse. Comparisons start. Remembering previous sexual partners while you are supposed to be making love to your spouse doesn't exactly help achieve intimacy.
Then you have our sex saturated society and porn culture that sadly has had a devastating impact on marriages in and outside the Church. When men start comparing their wife to some porn star they've seen – well there's no way that can lead to satisfaction with the marital bed.
It's much better as Scripture says after being married for years to rejoice in the wife of your youth, as we see in Proverbs…
Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated always in her love, (Proverbs 5:15-19, ESV)
Asghar's advice doesn't help build what is sorely lacking in our marriages and society at large, and that is contentment. Having sex before marriage won't do anything to enhance the marital bed, it will only hurt it. If you aren't having the sex life you desired you should ask yourself perhaps we aren't connecting in other ways like you should as a couple or perhaps you have unrealistic expectations.
3. It encourages bad faith, not integrity or maturity.
Asghar writes:
Within a contemporary church, you will discover many committed couples who break traditional bounds of romance while pretending to be chaste. They stay overnight, for example, grinding their way past every boundary short of intercourse. I believe Calvin would have had them flogged in Geneva, and I suspect God would have told them to quit the BS and just go ahead and use a condom instead of attempting to play coy.
Theological and ecclesiastical authorities will say that this isn't what Biblical instruction intends and shouldn't even be cited as an example of Christian conduct. But few will concede that sex is complicated, and that sometimes the unmarried couple that enjoys sex responsibly but which later breaks up may be healthier than the ones who rationalize loopholes.
There is also the issue of premature marriage. Go back to the huge gap between puberty and marriage that arises due to social changes that extend adolescence longer than ever before. Combine this with Paul's admonitions that "it is better to marry than to burn," and far too many devout Christian singles end up getting married before they are emotionally mature. They want the sex now, and marriage is the only way they can get it in a way that they think God can bless. So they marry just after graduation from their Christian college, well before they know what they want in a relationship or can bring to it. This is bad faith, and it is thus small wonder that the divorce rate for Christians is roughly the same as for those who don't live by the Bible's demanding standards.
Asghar says you will discover many committed couples within the different churches (don't exactly know what he means by contemporary) who have sex before marriage or are what I call technical virgins (which really is not being pure at all). I'm sure there are, but there are many who don't. And what God would say about such behavior is what he says about any sinful behavior to repent, turn from your sin and flee to Christ. God is good and in Christ's sacrifice we can hold to the promise that "if we confess our sin, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness," (1 John 1:9, NIV). Others may not realize the deception, but God does. We can with confidence go to God's throne of grace to receive mercy and find His grace in our time of need, (Hebrews 4:16).
Those in Christ still have a sinful nature, and yes they do fail. And the Apostle John tells us that he who says he is without sin not only deceives himself and the truth is not in him, (1 John 1:8) and even goes as far to say that he is a liar if he does such a thing, (1 John 1:10). That doesn't mean we should just give up and live our lives in utter disregard to what Scripture teaches. Rather we need to immerse ourselves in the Gospel of Christ, remembering His love for us and His sacrifice. Because only by the mercies of God can we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, (Romans 12:1). If we approach this as a set of rules we'll fail, but if that among other things is seen as worship and done out of love and reverence from Christ… well our perspective changes.
We need grace, but as Paul asked (and then answered):
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2, ESV).
But yet that is what Asghar advocates. His last argument is to point out premature marriages, and then he links it to the divorce rate among Christians. So Christians divorce because they hold off on sex until marriage and then marry prematurely? I've written on divorce before so I don't want to get into that here. I do recognize the divorce rate among Christians is much better than the rest of the world. I want to challenge a couple things here – first off what evidence does he cite for these premature marriages? None. My wife and I married when I was 21 (she was 20), we were the exception, not the norm. Most of those who were in married student housing at the time were in the Seminary at Trinity International University. I didn't know (and still don't know) that many people who get married why they are still in college. I've been married almost 17 years. Were we immature? Certainly, I'd like to think I'm more mature now. We had our share of problems.
My point is this – marriage is hard. Age doesn't necessarily prepare you for how your life changes. Actually, in some ways, I think it would have been harder if you're used to living by yourself. But he also operates under the assumption that is the only reason people marry that young is so they can have "legal sex." I think that in most cases is a false premise. He also looks at maturity in marriage as "knowing what you want out of a relationship and what you can bring to it."
I would say the "knowing what you want out of a relationship" is the wrong approach. It's immature. It's looking at "what's in it for me." And it is that attitude that leads to divorce more often than not. If you go into a marriage looking to have your needs met… you are sunk. You will be disappointed. It's that attitude rather than if you get married out of college as opposed to in your 30s that's the problem. Marriage means sacrifice. If Asghar is right, then why is it more couples in a second or third marriage get divorced? Why do people who cohabitate prior to marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate. I'm not saying that getting married young doesn't come with some disadvantages, but I believe Asghar is over-generalizing. The fact is most people either outside or inside the church still do get married after college.
You have to hand it to Asghar for setting up a nice straw-man argument though.
Contact: Shane Vander Hart
Source: CafinatedThoughts
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Obama's order no help, pro-lifers say
President Obama's March 24 signing of an executive order related to federal funding of abortion did nothing to placate pro-life opponents of a new health-care law.
One day after he signed the controversial health-care reform measure, the president issued an executive order the White House said would apply longstanding restrictions on government support of abortion to the new law.
The signing of the order contrasted sharply with that of the health-care legislation. Whereas the March 23 signing of the bill into law came before a packed East Room of cheering supporters, Obama endorsed the executive order with 14 congressional Democrats and no reporters gathered in the oval office.
The order, nearly all pro-life organizations say, does little to prevent federal money under the legislation from being used to fund abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions. It addresses only a couple of the provisions of concern for pro-lifers, and it does at least one of those inadequately, according to the legal pro-life organization Americans United for Life.
Federal courts are almost assured of ruling in favor of the language in the law, not in the executive order, pro-lifers say. In addition, Obama, or any other president, could rescind the order at any time.
"The executive order does not carry the force of law," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "This is why the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops made it clear that the executive order did not 'begin to address the problem' of protecting the unborn. And the reason is simple: The courts have made it clear that an executive order does not stand up to laws passed by Congress. We have over four decades of federal courts mandating that abortion is required in federal health-care programs unless Congress clearly forbids such funding."
An amendment sponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., and Joseph Pitts, R.-Pa., extended the current restrictions on federal funding of abortion to the health-care legislation. The House of Representatives approved that amendment as part of the bill it passed in November. The Senate version that returned to the House and gained narrow passage March 21 did not.
"The Stupak-Pitts amendment would have" forbidden federal funding of abortion, Land told Baptist Press March 25. "President Obama's executive order does not."
Land pointed to the failure of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America to offer meaningful criticism of the executive order. Planned Parenthood is the country's leading abortion provider. Its affiliates performed more than 305,000 abortions in the last year for which statistics are available.
Why has Planned Parenthood been relatively quiet?, Land asked, before answering: "Because they know that [the executive order] will be trumped by the federal courts. Planned Parenthood is already looking for a woman who will go to a federally funded clinic and ask for an abortion and, if she is refused, will go into court, and the executive order will be stricken down."
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a written statement after Obama signed the order, "The White House was right to keep the event low-key because the signing doesn't change anything. The order is, as Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards pointed out, 'a symbolic gesture' that has absolutely no bearing on what the legislation does and does not fund."
Stupak, who led a half-dozen other Democrats who agreed to sign the health-care bill after Obama promised the executive order, attended the signing ceremony in the oval office and continued to defend the document.
"This Executive Order protects the sanctity of life," Stupak said in a written release after the signing.
"Today's signing was the culmination of many months of hard work to pass legislation that provided our nation with much-needed health care reform while protecting the sanctity of life," he said.
Land said, "Congressman Stupak and his pro-life Democrat colleagues, who did provide the critical margin of victory for ObamaCare, have traded their pro-life heritage for a mess of pottage, and the pottage will soon be turned over."
The decision by the small group of Democrats who identify themselves as pro-life to support the health-care bill has continued to cost them with organizations who previously had supported them.
The Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee announced March 24 it had rescinded its endorsement of Stupak in his re-election campaign. The West Virginians for Life PAC said March 22 it would oppose the re-election of Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall in November.
The House approved the Senate version of health-care reform in a 219-212 vote. Thirty-four Democrats joined all 178 Republicans in voting against the measure.
Many pro-life advocates say the new law could increase the number of abortions. It permits the funding of insurance plans that cover elective abortions, reversing a long-standing federal policy. Congress' own insurance plans, for example, cannot cover abortions. The bill requires that anyone who has a plan that covers abortion -- even a man or elderly woman -- must pay a separate fee to cover abortion, in addition to his or her premium.
The law also appropriates $7 billion to the country's 1,200-plus community health centers without stipulating the money cannot be used for abortions, pro-life organizations say. Politifact.com -- an independent fact-checking website -- said that while none of the community health centers currently perform abortions, it is theoretically possible they could do so under the bill's language.
"If you focus on the technical possibilities -- which is an entirely legitimate thing to do -- who can say whether a court might rule that without a specific prohibition, abortions could be permitted?" the website asked.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: BP
Publish Date: March 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
States are Eager to Opt-Out of Abortion Provisions
Americans United for Life (AUL) has been taking the abortion-health care fight to the states this week and responses from federal and state legislators have been pouring into AUL's legal team.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, the nation's first pro-life public interest law firm said:
"Americans United for Life is offering the full assistance of our legal team to any state that wishes to respond legislatively to the anti-life provisions in the new health care reform law. The new law explicitly allows states to pass laws prohibiting qualified health plans offered through the Exchanges in their states from offering abortion coverage. We have ready-to-deploy model legislative language and will work with any state to tailor it to meet specific needs. We've already heard from legislators in Delaware, Georgia, and Kansas who want to get this legislation passed in their states. With AUL's history working with state legislatures across this country and in the courts, we are uniquely positioned to respond to this new threat to Life."
Source: Americans United for Life
Publish Date: March 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
IVF clinic 'Raffles' off Human Egg
Lets the Winner Choose what Race She Wants
Treatment to take place in the U.S.
Fertility doctors offering a human egg as first prize in a raffle were last night accused of commercialising the miracle of life. One woman will win the chance to select their ideal donor egg based on its mother's profession, ethnic background, hair colour, qualifications and upbringing. As part of the free IVF cycle and egg prize - worth an estimated £13,000 - the winner of a raffle in London will also be able to view childhood pictures of potential donors before choosing one. The treatment will take place in America to get around British fertility laws.
Click here for the entire article.
Court Settlement Means Fewer Restrictions for Illinois Life Advocates
A federal court settlement in Illinois will ensure life advocates who rally at the nation's second-largest abortion clinic in Aurora may do so without harassment from police.
A major provision in the agreement creates a grievance protocol to clear up minor disputes between pro-lifers and city officials.
Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel for the Thomas More Society in Chicago, said the settlement is a model for other cities to follow.
Click here for the entire article.
Abortion-Related Regulation in Nebraska Get 1st-Round OK Late Thursday
The Legislature gave first-round approval Thursday night to the first of two abortion-related bills it will debate, voting 34-7 on a measure that would enhance informed consent laws for the procedure. A five-hour, mostly one-sided debate ended at 9:30 p.m. Opponents asked for explanations and a long list of clarifications. The bill (LB594) would be a first of its kind regarding preabortion screenings and counseling. It would require a doctor to search medical literature to develop the list of risk factors to the patient.
Click here for the entire article.
Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Attorney General Over Tax Information
Planned Parenthood sued the Texas Attorney General to stop him from turning over its tax returns, check register, list of contributors - and "an ultrasound taken during an abortion" - to a "requestor" who demands the information. Planned Parenthood says it has no such ultrasound, and even if it did, it would be protected by medical privacy law. Planned Parenthood adds that complying with the request could expose its employees, donors and contractors to threats and harassment. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas sued Attorney General Greg Abbott to stop him from delivering the information to the requestor. The requestor demanded unredacted federal income tax returns, a copy of a recent check registry, copies of contracts with government agencies and "an ultrasound taken during an abortion."
Click here for the entire article.
Georgia To Sue Feds over Obamacare
Gov. Sonny Perdue said Thursday he will appoint a "special attorney general" to challenge federal health care legislation signed into law this week by Obama. Perdue made the announcement a day after state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat running for governor, told Perdue, a Republican, he would not pursue a lawsuit. Perdue said several groups of attorneys have volunteered to handle the state's lawsuit for free. He said he expects to make a decision on a team as soon as possible, but did not set a deadline. Perdue has the support of Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and the Senate Republican Caucus, all of whom said late Wednesday the support the governor's efforts.
Click here for the entire article.
Peruvian Executive Defies Supreme Court to Distribute Deadly 'Morning After Pill'
The executive branch of Peru's national government has decided to defy the nation's Constitutional Tribunal and distribute the deadly "morning after pill," which is billed as a contraceptive but which can cause abortions when taken in the first few days following sexual intercourse.
The decision to distribute the drug, which was announced on March 9, has been met by thundering denunciations from the Constitutional Tribunal (TC), as well as Catholic bishops, doctors, and pro-life organizations.
Click here for the entire article.
March 25, 2010
President Obama signs executive order barring federal abortion funding
President Obama signs executive order barring federal abortion funding
This afternoon (March 24th) President Barack Obama signed the executive order created to ensure that federal funds will not be used under the new health care law to pay for most abortions, mirroring the Hyde Amendment.
The executive order was signed by the president as part of a deal with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who voted for the health care bill after securing the assurance of the order. Stupak revealed in the wake of the negotiations that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had the votes to pass the bill without his bloc's support, and that the executive order was the best pro-lifers could do.
The order confirms that the long-standing ban on the federal funding of abortions—except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life—will apply to the Health Insurance Exchange and the funding of Community Health Centers.
The executive order has been criticized by the U.S. Catholic bishops and numerous pro-life groups as lacking teeth since the president could rescind it at any time or it could be struck down in court
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Publish Date: March 24th, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
In Blatant Show of Bigotry, Fox's Family Guy Mocks Terri Schiavo
In Blatant Show of Bigotry, Fox’s Family Guy Mocks Terri Schiavo
In the five years since Terri Schiavo was slowly dehydrated to death, her loving family has been subjected to repeated callousness and intentional cruelties–canards about their motives, personal vituperation, etc.. That’s life in the public eye. But now a new line of despicability has been crossed that cannot be allowed to stand.
Fox’s Family Guy stooped even beneath its usual scatological obsessions to literally mock a dead woman, whose only “crime” was to have been profoundly cognitively disabled. The episode–which I embedded below only after much thought, opens with a fictional school play, Terri Schiavo: The Musical. In it, Terri is depicted as having been hooked up to every conceivable machine, a total lie since all she needed to remain alive was food and water delivered through a tube. But the facts this case have been continually misstated from the beginning, so that is nothing new.
But what is novel–and truly beneath contempt, not only because it mocks and degrades Terri, but also, everyone now living with serious cognitive impairments–are the lyrics. “Michael Schiavo” says, “She’s a vegetable,” and the chorus responds, “We hate vegetables!” to which the audience breaks up in laughter. Later she is depicted as having “mashed potato brains,” which are poured into a bowl, and being “the most expensive plant you’ll ever see.”
This doesn’t just mock a dead woman who can’t defend herself. It is hate speech against people similarly situated. Indeed, the V-word should be rendered just as societally unacceptable as the N-word has thankfully become. Both epithets serve the same purpose, that is, to demean, dehumanize, and exclude–so as to open the door to oppression, exploitation, and killing.
And imagine how those with loved ones with these conditions must feel seeing such cruel mockery. I asked Bobby Schindler, Terri’s brother, to react. He told me: “These people have no regard for disabled people and their families, or the pain such mockery causes. What kind of a human being would think this was funny?”
And what kind of network would countenance such discriminatory hate speech on one of its prime time programs? Fox Entertainment. If you think the Family Guy should be jerked off the air–just as the show would if it mocked, say Michael Vick, over his race–you might want to make your voice known. Here is someone you might want to contact in protest:
Ms. Gail Berman, President,
FOX Broadcasting Company,
P.O. Box 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90213
(310) 369-1000
E-Mail: askfox@foxinc.com
One final point: Don’t think the dehumanizing of the cognitively disabled in entertainment isn’t relevant to the current struggle over health care. I am not alleging a conspiracy, but Hollywood consistently pushes themes that are consistent with accepting the direction in which we are being taken politically. Shows like Family Guy soften the ground for the coming campaign, the effect of which will be to do away with the expensive for which to care, whether through rationing, futile care theory, perhaps even assisted suicide/euthanasia. Indeed, Hollywood has long pushed culture of death issues–such as the upcoming puff biopic of Jack Kevorkian, starring Al Pacino.
Click here to view the Family Guy episode. (WARNING: It is offensive)
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
Thomas More Society Settles Federal Lawsuit Against City of Aurora
Thomas More Society Settles Federal Lawsuit Against City of Aurora
Lawsuit Had Alleged First Amendment Violations by City Against Protesters at Midwest's Largest Abortion Facility, Located in Aurora, Illinois
Tomorrow morning, attorneys for the Thomas More Society will ask Judge Virginia Kendall for leave to spread of record an agreed stipulation and settlement in federal court in Chicago, voluntarily dismissing their First Amendment lawsuit (Fox Valley Families, etc. v. Aurora), filed two years ago to protect the rights of citizens who pray and protest at the Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora. The settlement requires the City of Aurora to amend two ordinances claimed to be unconstitutional, mandates First Amendment training for Aurora police, and establishes a grievance process to handle disputes between the protesters and Aurora officials. While the case will be dismissed, the federal court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
"This settlement signals a successful end to our lawsuit, brought to protect the rights of those who pray and protest at abortion facilities in the City of Aurora," said Peter Breen, Executive Director of the Thomas More Society. "Early on, Judge Virginia Kendall expressed her hope that the parties would reach an agreement that could serve as a model for the rest of the country. We believe this settlement agreement will become such a model."
Some of the more detailed provisions of the settlement include:
•Illegal City Signage: City street signs prohibiting any "picketing or protesting" will be removed.
•Police Training: First Amendment rights and non-discriminatory law enforcement training will be required for all full-time officers of the Aurora Police Department.
•Grievances Protocol: A new procedure for airing grievances that may arise is established, with designated liaisons for the parties meeting quarterly, and more frequently as necessary, to resolve disputes in a way to avoid court involvement.
•Public Property: Protects right of pro-life individuals to use public sidewalks and parkways for prayer and protest.
•Signs with Graphic Content: Graphic signs may be used in demonstrations, with appropriate warning signs displayed to alert passers-by.
•Camera Installation: The City will install a high-resolution video camera to continuously record all activities near the facility, if it installs any such other cameras for law enforcement in the city.
•Access Road Usage: Protesters who use the private access road near the facility will not be arrested, absent a property owner's direction, and unless there is any serious criminal history, such incidents will be deemed ordinance violations subject to the grievance procedure.
•Sidewalk Construction: To assure public safety, Aurora will take necessary steps to ensure a public sidewalk is constructed along the access road.
Case No. 07 C 4803
Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Action League, and Eric Scheidler v. The City of Aurora
Contact: Stephanie Lewis
Source: Thomas More Society
Publish Date: March 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
U.S. Pushes Pro-Abortion Language at U.N.
U.S. Pushes Pro-Abortion Language at U.N.
The United States Mission to the United Nations is being accused of pressuring pro-life countries to sign onto a document on maternal mortality that stresses abortion and birth control.
Peter Smith with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Jeanne Head of the National Right to Life Committee say the U.S. delegation, at the direction of the Obama administration, is pressuring other countries to drop their objections to pro-abortion language in the document.
“We were told by different people that the U.S. was applying pressure to these countries who were pro-life,” Smith said.
Head agreed: “Some were not allowed to put things in; they were pressured not to put things in. I would say it was pressure by stealth.”
Measures to reduce maternal mortality have been known and practiced in the West for decades. They include blood transfusions, antibiotics for infection and treatment for high blood pressure. Life advocates are quick to add they do not include abortion.
Contact: Steve Jordahl
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me
School Sent My Daughter for Secret Abortion without Telling Me
A Seattle mother is furious after learning that her 15-year-old daughter was sent by her school's health center for a secret abortion, reports ABC-affiliate KOMO.
The mother, identified only as “Jill,” says her daughter was given a pregnancy test at Ballard High School's Teen Health Center, which came back positive. Rather than informing the parents, she said, the center gave the girl a pass and put her in a taxi for the abortuary, all during school hours.
"They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility," Jill said.
She added that she had signed a consent form allowing her daughter to be treated at the health center, thinking it covered issues like earaches, sports physicals, or even contraception, but wasn't aware they would be arranging abortions.
"Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion." she said. "Signing this paper makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which oversees the center, explained that Washington state does not recognize parents' opinions on such issues. "At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said.
Contact Information:
Principal Phil Brockman
Ballard High School
1418 NW 65th Street
Seattle, WA 98117
Phone: 206-252-1000
Fax: 206-252-1001
E-mail: pbrockman@seattleschools.org
Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
Executive order just 'cover' for pro-life Dems
Executive order just 'cover' for pro-life Dems
With little fanfare -- and few witnesses -- President Obama has signed an executive order barring use of federal tax dollars for abortion under the recently signed healthcare reform bill.
Obama made the commitment to the executive order prior to the final vote on the healthcare reform bill over the weekend, a move designed to lure the backing of enough pro-life Democrats to pass the measure. Signing of that bill on Tuesday was very public, done during a nationally televised ceremony that was interrupted repeatedly by the applause of a throng of cheering Democratic lawmakers and other supporters.
In contrast, when he signed the executive order Wednesday, "it was very private because of its lack of popularity," notes Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List. Who was in attendance? A small group of Democratic lawmakers who traded their healthcare vote for Obama's promise of the executive order -- and no media.
"Without question, if it had been an effective hedge against abortion funding, they would've had enough people there to fill the entire White House lawn and the Capitol lawn and beyond," Dannenfelser states.
Obama is an ardent supporter of abortion rights, and has been described by many pro-life groups as the "most pro-abortion" president in the nation's history. Consequently they questioned the president's sincerity behind the executive order. The Associated Press notes the contrast between the two signings, reporting that the president was "anything but jubilant" on Wednesday as he "awkwardly kept [his] promise."
Contact: Charlie Butts and Jody Brown
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 25, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY
Obamacare: Inexplicable Failure to Relieve Doctor Shortage
President Obama is spending this country into a state of financial collapse akin to Greece–or worse, California. And yet, when a little more money could have helped ease our growing doctor shortage, Obamacare failed to provide the fix.
Here’s the story: Back in 1996, in a truly boneheaded move, the Clinton Administration capped the money Medicare spent on subsidizing the training of medical residents–on the pretext that it wanted to prevent a doctor glut! (We should be so lucky.) That cap, which hasn’t changed in more than ten years, prevents us from increasing the number of doctors–which is really dumb given that even without Obamacare, there will be more patients clamoring for medical care, which can only have the effect of raising costs.
Click here for the entire article.
Antibiotics Linked to Increased Risk of Birth Defects
Taking antibiotics during pregnancy can increase the risk of birth defects, according to a study conducted by researchers from the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities and published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Although approximately 30 percent of women take at least one antibiotic between three months before conception and the date of delivery, many of the drugs have not been extensively tested for their safety on developing infants.
Click here for the entire article.
Another Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic Built Next To A Black Neighborhood
A new Planned Parenthood clinic is under construction in Virginia Beach, right next to the Lake Edward neighborhood, a predominantly black community. Of course, this is business as usual for the group which many black leaders say is responsible for carrying out a genocide against black babies. According to the Center for Disease Control, there were 11,156,700 black babies aborted between 1973-2001. Today, that number is estimated to be at least 13,000,000. We hear so much how violence is taking a tremendous toll on the black community and of course it is, but it cannot begin to compare to disaster of abortion.
Click here for the entire article.
Neb. Private Donors Offer Funds To Restore Prenatal Services To Undocumented Low-Income Women
Unidentified donors have offered private funds to restore prenatal services that were discontinued on March 1 for about 1,600 low-income Nebraska women, including about 870 undocumented immigrants, the Omaha World-Herald reports.
For nearly 30 years, Nebraska provided prenatal care to women through Medicaid, regardless of immigration status, because their children would be natural-born U.S. citizens and therefore eligible for Medicaid. Late last year, the federal government informed Nebraska that it must cease providing such care to undocumented immigrants through Medicaid because doing so violates federal rules.
Click here for the entire article.
Sebelius Out of Touch if She Thinks Americans Happy About Abortion Funding
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has again shown how out-of-touch she is with the American people when she made statements today that indicated she believes that people "will be happy" about the new law once they learn more about it.
"It makes me wonder what cave Sebelius has been hiding in if she isn't aware that people have been discussing Obama's health care proposals for over a year. They have been discussed on news and talk shows ad nausea," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "The people are acutely aware of what the bill means in terms of abortion coverage and government takeover. That is why an overwhelming majority oppose it."
Click here for the entire article.
President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid Show Anti-Woman Bias with Abortion Mandate
Ignore National Cancer Institute Branch Chief's Admission of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
A spokesperson for the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer said today that President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid are damaging the health of women and their future children with a healthcare bill that promises to increase the rates of abortion, breast cancer and premature birth. The Coalition's president, Karen Malec, said:
"The Triumvirate - Obama, Reid and Pelosi - and all members of Congress were put on notice of an explicit admission from National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton that 'induced abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased breast cancer risk' in a study led by Jessica Dolle last year. [1] Despite more than a half-century of research supporting an abortion-breast cancer link and statements in medical texts that childbearing sharply reduces breast cancer risk, the Triumvirate rammed a healthcare bill through Congress that requires federal funding of abortions.
"Evidently, they do not care if women suffer and die of breast cancer. Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary with the Pensions and Population Research Institute in London reported in his study of Click here for the entire article.
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-466-4122
Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org
March 24, 2010
Obama to sign pseudo pro-life exec order behind closed doors; no press allowed
A day after a lavish bill signing White House ceremony on health care reform, President Obama will sign an executive order barring the law from allowing federally funded abortion, but he'll do so behind closed doors and with no media allowed....
The executive order, which the WH said Tuesday "reaffirms the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion," was crucial to securing the votes of at least 10 pro-life Democrats.
Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, the group threatened to vote against the bill - which passed by a 7-vote margin, 219-212. In furious last-minute negotiations, the WH offered the executive order as a compromise, and with just hours to go before the vote, the group abandoned its opposition.
The order bans the federal government from using taxpayer money for abortions offered through insurance exchanges created under the new law. Critics feared that community health centers would be allowed accept federal money for abortions.
On Wednesday, Mr. Stupak and 12 House Democrats will attend the subdued ceremony, along with Sen. Bob Casey, who helped draft compromise language.
At least according to the WH: Not even a photographer will be allowed into the Oval Office to capture the moment.
My guess is neither side wants the attention. BTW, you can't "compromise" on abortion. Either you allow it or you don't. And interesting that Casey had his hand in this. Another turncoat. But we knew that.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Pro-life American Majority Locked Out
Susan B. Anthony List President: 'If the Executive Order was real, the signing would be on the White House lawn.'
In response to the announcement that President Obama will sign the Executive Order addressing abortion funding in private, with Rep. Stupak and the other self-labeled "pro-life" Democrats looking on, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"Today's decision to sign the Executive Order behind closed doors reveals much about the seriousness of this President and Democrats' commitment to keep abortion funding out of the healthcare legislation. If the Executive Order solution were real, then the signing ceremony would have to be on the White House lawn--somewhere big enough to fit the massive, bipartisan consensus.
"The abortion issue was the pivot point for the passage or failure of the entire bill. These Democrats chose a last minute fig leaf rather than standing up for the pro-life American majority. This pro-abortion president and his enablers who call themselves 'pro-life' want this issue to go away fast. But they will not keep the newly enlivened, vastly larger pro-life movement at bay, despite the President's promises that all will be forgotten by November. The Susan B. Anthony List is hard at work with daily reminders. Votes have consequences and for the pro-life betrayers, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.
"Just four days ago, the Susan B. Anthony List was preparing to defend 'pro-life' Democrats, like Rep. Bart Stupak, in primary and general elections. In the coming weeks, instead, we will be examining the districts where we can elect a strong pro-life representative who will not crack under pressure."
Politico reported this morning that President Obama will sign the Executive Order in a ceremony closed to press. The guest list includes: Sen. Bob Casey (Penn.) and Representatives Bart Stupak (MI-01), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Nick Rahall (WV-03), Jerry Costello (IL-12), Chris Carney (PA-10), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Jim Oberstar (MN-08), Alan Mollohan (WV-01), Brad Ellsworth (IN-08), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), and Mike Doyle (PA-14).
The Susan B. Anthony List has spent two million dollars in a year-long grassroots campaign trumpeting support and courage for Rep. Stupak and the other pro-life Democrats through targeted support television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 60,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions, and two media tours in pro-life Democratic districts this January, where our message was one of gratitude and support for continued pro-life Democratic leadership. The Susan B. Anthony List ran 'Thank you' radio ads in Rep. Stupak's district and had been planning to present him with a "Defender of Life" award at the organization's annual dinner tonight. The award has been rescinded.
Contact: Mallory Quigley
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Right to Life of Michigan PAC rescinds Stupak endorsement
Bravo. From a press release:
On Wednesday, March 24, the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee notified U.S. Representative Bart Stupak that his endorsement was rescinded. In a letter sent to Rep. Stupak, the RLM-PAC qualified how the endorsement criteria was no longer met.
The letter noted the endorsement had been based on Rep. Stupak's voting record, previous interview and completion of a questionnaire in which Rep. Stupak indicated he would oppose any efforts to include federally funded abortion in national health care plans; support efforts to specifically exclude federally funded abortion in national health care plans; and be willing to vote against federal funding of abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother.
On March 21, Rep. Stupak failed to meet those requirements by voting for President Barack Obama's health care bill, H.R. 3590.
In accordance with the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee bylaws and by the March 23 unanimous vote of the RLM-PAC Board, the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee rescinded Rep. Stupak's endorsement, effective immediately.
Another member of the U.S. House from Michigan who calls himself prolife, yet voted in support of H.R. 3590, is Representative Dale Kildee. While Rep. Kildee was endorsed by the Right to Life of Michigan PAC in the past, he did not meet the RLM-PAC criteria in 2008 and was not endorsed by the RLM-PAC in that election. Representative Kildee does not meet RLM-PAC's definition of prolife.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion Now More Important Than Parental Rights
I never cease to be amazed at how absolute the abortion right has become. Women not only have a right to abortion, through the ninth month in many cases, but so do children–and they can obtain an abortion in some states without their parents even knowing they underwent a serious surgical procedure.
Children can't take an aspirin without parental consent. They can't legally enter into contracts. They can't get their ears pierced without a parental signature. They can't get tattoos. They can't get a driver's license or join the military. But Seattle school officials conspired to obtain a 15 year old's abortion behind her parents' backs–during school hours!–and it is all legal. From the story:
The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter's abortion during school hours. The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as "Jill," says the clinic kept the information "confidential." When she signed a consent form, Jill figured it meant her 15 year old could go to the Ballard Teen Health Center located inside the high school for an earache, a sports physical, even birth control, but not for help terminating a pregnancy. "She took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center," she said. "Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion."
Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing. "We had no idea this was being facilitated on campus," said Jill. "They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility."…
T.J. Cosgrove of the King County Health Department, which administers the school-based programs for the health department, says it's always best if parents are involved in their children's health care, but don't always have a say. "At any age in the state of Washington, an individual can consent to a termination of pregnancy," he said. But Jill says she not only didn't have a say in her daughter's abortion, but also didn't know about it. "Makes me feel like my rights were completely stripped away."
That's because parents don't matter. Abortion matters, and for some reason, seems to matter more than anything else.
And here's an irony: If the girl had a complication and her parents took her to the hospital, they would have to sign a consent form before doctors could treat her or even, save her life. I don't care if one is pro life or pro choice, such blatant usurpation of parental responsibilities is just plain wrong.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: March 24, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Citizens sue feds to block Obamacare
Contend they can't be forced to buy insurance, pay for abortions
Four Michigan residents who object to the government forcing them to purchase health-care insurance and pay for abortions have joined in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health-care reform bill President Obama signed into law yesterday.
The Michigan-based non-profit Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi filed the suit in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to permanently stop enforcement of the new legislation.
"This act is a product of political corruption and the exercise of unconstitutional power. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a limited form of government," said Richard Thompson, Thomas More's president and chief counsel. "The purpose of our Constitution and this lawsuit is to insure it stays that way."
None of the four Michigan plaintiffs have private health care insurance, and they assert supporting abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Thompson argued that if Congress has the power to "force individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or pay a federal penalty merely because they live in America, then it has the unconstrained power to mandate that every American family buy a General Motors vehicle to help the economy or pay a federal penalty."
Robert Muise, Thomas More's senior trial counsel, and Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit.
The complaint asserts the health-care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample on the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights.
It also alleges Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.
The lawsuit also contends that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.
Thompson acknowledged Americans agree the health care system needs reform, but "they don't want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don't want reform by trampling on our Constitution."
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Congressman Who Shouted 'It's a Baby Killer' on House Floor Says He Won't Apologize or Back Down
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) said Tuesday he will not apologize to the House of Representatives for yelling out "it's a baby killer" on the House floor Sunday night during remarks by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) just before the House finished its action on the health-care bill.
In a telephone conference call with bloggres on Tuesday afternoon, Neugebauer rejected a demand by Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House Democratic whip, that he apologize to the full House.
"For what?" Neugebauer asked. "I was out just speaking the truth, and my constituents know that I was out speaking the truth and people all across the country know that I was speaking the truth because their outpouring has been overwhelming."
He added: "I won't apologize for doing the right thing. Not gonna do it. I will apologize when they repeal this bill."
Click here for the video.
The West Texas Republican pro-life congressman told CNSNews.com he wasn't calling Stupak a name Sunday night but was referring to the bill itself.
"You know what I said (was) -- 'It's a baby killer' -- and I was talking about this bill," Neugebauer said. "When you look at the Senate bill it definitely does not offer the protections for the unborn that the House bill does."
Neugebauer specifically confirmed for CNSNews.com that his comment was not directed at Stupak—who, in a stunning reversal, decided to support the bill after months of opposition to it because the bill allows taxpayer funding for abortion. Stupak had successfully secured an amendment to the original House bill that barred taxpayer money from going to abortion.
"In fact, what we were considering at that particular time was our motion to recommit, which actually had the Stupak language in it, which was in the House version," Neugebauer said. "But my remarks, as I said to Bart, were not aimed at him, but just at the whole process."
He added: "We had been playing 'Let's Make a Deal' to get this bill passed. We had the Cornhusker Kickback, we had the Louisiana Purchase, we had the Florida Gator Aid –and now the final thing to push the bill across the floor, we' were going to use the rights of the unborn as a bargaining chip. I just found that outrageous. I can't even understand how we would get to that level of our government that we would have to do something as egregious as that."
Neugebauer, meanwhile, said he will not back down--even if the House takes some sort of action to censure him.
"If I don't apologize, they may bring some kind of an action against me on the floor, but you know what, they'll just have to do that because I am not backing down because what I did was speak the truth and I'll tell you, it's not going to stop the left from attacking me, but let me tell you, Americans all across the country are speaking out in favor of what I said, and they are so appreciative that a member of Congress actually stood up and said, and 'called a spade, a spade.' That's a quote from an e-mail I just got awhile ago."
Neugebauer said he is stunned by the outpouring of support he has received since Sunday evening.
Contact: Pete Winn
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
Planned Parenthood Also Knows Obama's Executive Order on Abortion is a Ruse
Planned Parenthood is generally happy with the new health care reform law. They see having no Stupak language in the bill as being a victory. They also know that President Obama's executive order that was promised to give Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) an out was a complete ruse.
From the Planned Parenthood Action website:
Thanks to supporters like you, we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order
This makes Stupak's betrayal seem even worse as the pro-abortion groups aren't even upset by the executive order, not that it has the force of law anyway.
Click here for the entire article.
30 MILLION Children Received Rotarix Vaccine Tainted with Pig Virus
Federal health authorities recommended Monday that doctors suspend using Rotarix, one of two vaccines licensed in the United States against rotavirus, saying the vaccine is contaminated with material from a pig virus. "There is no evidence at this time that this material poses a safety risk," Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told reporters in a conference call. Rotarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline, was approved by the FDA in 2008. The contaminant material is DNA from porcine circovirus 1, a virus from pigs that is not known to cause disease in humans or animals, Hamburg said. About 1 million children in the United States and about 30 million worldwide have gotten Rotarix vaccine, she said.
Click here for the entire article.
Corruption Alleged as Tainted Vaccines Kill Chinese Children
For Wang Mingliang, the birth of a son should have been the start of a season of joy in his village at the rural heart of northern China. But his little boy, Xiao'er, lived just seven months before he suffered convulsions and a fever, then died. Wang said Xiao'er fell ill after vaccinations against tuberculosis and hepatitis. "My whole family i s plunged in sorrow," he said. "Our son was vaccinated by the hospital and they sterilised my wife to conform to the birth control policy. Now my son is dead and my wife can have no more children."
Click here for the entire article.
Fourteen States Sue over Obamacare
In a sign of political battles to come, 14 states filed lawsuits on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of health care reform just moments after Obama signed it into law. Other states are expected to join the fight against the far-reaching reforms which could place huge burdens on state budgets. Many are also considering legislation to block a provision which requires most people to buy insurance or pay a fine. "This lawsuit should put the federal government on notice that Florida will not permit the constitutional rights of our citizens and the sovereignty of our state to be ignored or disregarded," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.
Click here for the entire article.
Poll Shows 'Millennials' Most Pro-Life Group
Twenty-three percent of Americans age 18-29 agree that abortion should be illegal in all cases, according to a Gallup poll.
Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, said the results show why so many millennials are opposed to the health care law President Obama signed today that includes federally funded abortions – something that's never happened since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on demand.
Click here for the entire article.
Pro-Lifers Lose 'Buffer-Zone' Battle
Life advocates in Massachusetts will have to remain 35 feet away from abortion clinics after the Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a Massachusetts law that prevents people from discussing the harms of abortion near the entrances of clinics.
Pro-life experts say the law violates free speech rights and potentially puts them in harms way by forcing them into the street.
The 'buffer-zone" law went into effect in 2007.
Click here for the entire article.
March 23, 2010
President Signs Health Care Bill into Law, 12 States Immediately Sue
President Obama signed into law the hard-won Senate health care bill at a ceremony in the East Room Tuesday morning. Moments later, as promised, twelve state attorneys general had filed federal lawsuits challenging the bill's constitutionality.
The bill, which pro-life leaders call the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade and abortion leaders have praised as a "huge victory," passed in the House of Representatives Sunday night after Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) gave up resisting against the bill's abortion funding.
Stupak, the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats whose vote was crucial to pass the bill, agreed at the last minute to support the bill if President Obama agreed to issue an executive order upholding the Hyde amendment. Stupak ignored warnings from top pro-life organizations that the executive order would not suffice to fix the problems in the bill.
Twelve state attorneys general, from Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington, had vowed to immediately challenge the new health care law in court after it was passed.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Idaho Gov. C.L. Otter have already signed legislation declaring the Senate bill's provision to fine citizens who do not buy health insurance null and void.
"At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a statement this week.
"We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce," he added.
In addition, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures over 36 states are considering some form of legislative action that would shield citizens from various elements in President Obama's health care reform legislation.
The Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center also filed a federal lawsuit against the bill, on behalf of Michigan citizens who object to being forced to purchase health care coverage, and object to being forced to pay for abortions contrary to their religious beliefs. The group seeks to permanently enjoin enforcement of the new health care legislation.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 23, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.