$1+ billion federal funding given to abortion advocacy groups over 7 years

    

Yesterday TX pro-life Republican Congressman Pete Olson (pictured at podium, right) held a press conference flanked by pro-life Congress stalwarts [Reps. Chris Smith (NJ), Paul Broun, M.D. (GA), Mary Fallin (OK), John Fleming, M.D. (LA), Trent Franks (AZ), Walter Jones (NC), Jim Jordan (OH), Joe Pitts (PA), Steve Scalise (LA), and Jean Schmidt (OH)], Lila Rose of Live Action; Ken Blackwell of Family Research Council, and Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America to announce the results of a Government Accountability Office audit detailing federal taxpayer dollars given to groups that advocate and/or commit abortions.

The audit was requested by 31 Republican lawmakers.

There is some discrepancy whether the final figure over the course of 7 years was "almost $1 billion in taxpayer dollars," as even Olsen wrote in his press statement, or over $1 billion. It's over. Here is the exact tally...

• Advocates for Youth: $8.7 Million (2002-09)
• Guttmacher Institute: $12.7 Million (2002-08)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation: $93.8 million (2002-09)
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America: $657.1 million (2002-08)
• Population Council of the United States: $284.3 million (2002-08)
• Sexuality Information & Education Council of the U.S.: $1.6 million (2002-09)

That equals $1,058,200,000. And it doesn't include state and local funding, which is massive.

For instance, the GAO report states PP got $657.1 million in direct federal funding over 7 years, which is almost $94 million a year. But PP stated in its most recent annual report, 2007-08, it received $349.6 million that year in "government grants and contracts." So the actual amount in total taxpayer funding is likely more than triple what the GAO found.

(BTW, PP is late making its 2008-09 annual report public. But it knew the GAO report was coming, so there is speculation it was waiting for the GAO results before posting its numbers... to make sure they jibe?)

According to the Houston Chronicle:

"Obviously there is no direct link between the taxpayers' money and women getting abortions because that would violate federal law," a congressional staffer said. "But this report helps track the offsets that we know are taking place at these organizations."...

PP of Houston and SE TX recently debuted a $26 million headquarters to help expand family planning services across the region.

Spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla said... "None of the federal dollars received are used for abortion care."... PP affiliates in TX that provide abortion services "are required to be separately incorporated from the entity that provides family planning services," she said.

This is all a ruse, a shell game, as we saw as recently as yesterday, when I reported that PP of WI got $150k in federal grants 2 years ago through the Title X program to purchase 10 telemed machines, presumably to dispense birth control pills. Will PP have to give the $150k back if it starts using the telemed machines to dispense the RU-486 abortion cocktail? Good question but certainly no. Furthermore, the $150k PP of WI saved in this area freed it to spend $150k on abortion promotion.

Now you can understand more fully Rep. Mike Pence's legislation, which has 93 co-sponsors, "The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act," which would prohibit Title X family planning funding to go to abortion providers.

Again, GAO's $1 billion figure only includes funds given directly to the selected organizations by HHS or USAID. It does not include state and local funding. It does not include funds HHS or USAID gave to another entity that then passed them on to PP, etc.

As the GAO report stated, its $1 billion figure "may understate the actual amount of federal funds the selected organizations and their affiliates spent." It represents the floor, not the ceiling.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Pence: GAO Report Confirms it is Time to Defund Planned Parenthood

"The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act."

    
     U.S. Congressman Mike Pence

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence today issued the following statement regarding the release of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealing that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America received $657.1 million in taxpayer dollars from Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. The largest source of these funds ($342.1 million) was the Title X family planning program.

"It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. But it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use those funds to promote abortion.
"This report confirms that the largest abortion provider in America is being bankrolled by American taxpayers. In these tough economic times, there is simply no reason why taxpayer money should go to fund the activities of abortion providers and equip them with the resources they need to end innocent human life.

"We must stop providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers through Title X. We must put an end to Americans unwillingly providing financial support to the abortion industry. The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act."

Background:

The Title X Family Planning program was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program that provides individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.

Congressman Pence introduced The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 614), a bill prohibiting the distribution of Title X family planning money to entities that use abortion as a method of family planning. The bi-partisan bill has 93 co-sponsors.

Originally, family planning services were not allowed to include abortions and currently federal dollars are not used directly for abortions. However, over the years, the subsidy of abortion providers under the umbrella of family planning has been gradually accepted.

Current law prohibits the use of Title X family planning funds "in programs where abortion is a method of family planning;" and current regulations require some form of separation between federally-funded family planning services and abortions. However, the current regulations do not contain a descriptive standard of what constitutes "separation." They only require the level of separation to be more than "mere bookkeeping."

When Title X money goes to clinics that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it is being used to offset operational costs with federal funds, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions.

Rep. Pence, Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) and 29 other Members requested the GAO study, which can be accessed at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-533R.

Contact: Matt Lahr
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

CWA to Testify at FDA Hearing on Abortion Drug

    
     Wendy Wright

A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee will meet on Thursday, June 17, to discuss if Ella, a drug that is similar to the abortion drug RU-486, should be available in the U.S.  Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, interfering with the lining of the uterus so an embryo cannot implant or, if implanted, will not survive.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), will testify at the hearing, making these points:

Ella operates in the same manner as the abortion drug RU-486 by blocking progesterone receptors.  This interferes with the uterine lining, impacting embryos that have not yet implanted and those that have implanted, aborting a pregnancy.
 
Women will take Ella thinking it's a morning-after pill, when in fact, it is an abortion pill.
 
If Ella is easy to access, women will be victims to it being slipped to them without their consent.  This has already happened numerous times with other abortion-causing drugs.  Drugs that can cause an abortion, while touted as giving women more control over their bodies, are just as easily used by men to exploit women.
 
Advocates for the morning-after pill claimed that it would dramatically reduce pregnancies and abortions.  Now they admit that's not true.  They also admit that morning-after pills are not as effective as previous studies -- which the FDA relied on -- claimed.
 
The same advocates claim that RU-486 is safe, but the families of the women who died from that drug will beg to differ.
 
Proponents excuse the selling of an ineffective drug to women who are not at risk of getting pregnant as a "woman's right."  In reality, what they cloak as a woman's "entitlement" is a facade to promote their own ideological crusade.
 
The FDA should not unleash Ella on unsuspecting women -- a drug promoted by activists with a history of overstating the efficacy of reproductive drugs while understating the overall risks to women.

Contact: Demi Bardsley
Source: Concerned Women for America
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Military abortion clinics "a sign of the times"?

    
     Cecile Richards

A couple weeks ago pro-abort Democrat US Sen. Roland Burris had introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would force all military medical facilities to make privately financed abortions available.

The amendment passed in the Senate Armed Services Committee along party lines (except Ben Nelson) and is now headed toward a showdown on the Senate floor.

The defense authorization bill passed without any such amendment in the House, meaning if the abortion amendment remains intact, a House/Senate conference committee will decide its fate....

Keep an eye on the filibuster AZ Sen. John McCain is attempting to wage on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, also in the defense bill. The other side may attempt to compromise by dropping Burris's amendment as a bargaining chip... or not. Even if that happens, pro-lifers cannot support a defense bill containing DADT. If DADT remains, it would only be a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes a component of the military.

While the mood of the country is definitely swinging pro-life, as evidenced by recent polls and also a plethora of pro-life legislation introduced and passed on the state level, tone deaf pro-abort ideologues controlling the Congress and White House have been and will push abortion until the clock runs out on their possession of power, hopefully in November 2010. But a lot of damage can be done until then, as the military abortion amendment demonstrates.

Meanwhile the abortion industry behind the push puts on a happy false face. as this June 17 Politico article shows:

With a couple of quiet changes to long-standing rules, the military is on track to make 2010 a year in which its reproductive health policies are significantly liberalized.

In February, the military began requiring all of its hospitals to stock emergency contraceptives. And now, a Senate amendment to the defense authorization bill would authorize military hospitals to perform elective abortions.

"I do think it's a sign of the times," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's the recognition that reproductive health care for women is basic health care. The world has changed, and women play a larger role in the military. These are all very positive steps."

These shifts in military policy are particularly notable in light of the numerous anti-abortion provisions flying through state legislatures. Catalyzed by the health reform debate, anti-abortion advocates have just passed some of the most restrictive abortion laws in recent memory....

The federal government usually has little influence on reproductive health policy....

So it's rare to see much movement on abortion policy at the federal level. Anti-abortion advocates frame the shift toward more liberal reproductive rights within the military as driven by a Democratic Congress and a pro-abortion-rights administration.

"They're using the military as a wedge and a way to implement their agenda," Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said of her opponents. "I see them being very craven in looking to use the military to put the stamp of approval of federal government on abortion."...

Current law, passed by congressional Republicans in 1995, bars any elective abortions at military hospitals....

To be sure, legislators have introduced similar amendments before, all of which have failed. But the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL), hits the floor in a markedly different atmosphere: It's the first to be proposed during the Obama administration and may avoid a heated debate, with most social activists focused on the "don't ask, don't tell" provision.

Abortion rights groups are confident that, this time around, the political landscape is amenable to a decision in their favor.

"In the Senate, things are good," said Richards.... "The good thing is, this amendment puts the issue squarely on the table: How can you prohibit women serving overseas from having the same rights as women in the United States?"

Anti-abortion-rights advocates like Americans United for Life have already begun laying groundwork for a campaign to keep the military abortion ban in place and lobbying legislators to vote down the amendment when it comes to the floor....

But privately, anti-abortion advocates admit they're uncertain whether they have the votes to stand in the way. "Our hope would be that the amendment is stripped on the Senate floor, but right now we don't have a majority of pro-life members," one anti-abortion advocate told Politico....

Activists on both sides of the issue expect a vote by the end of this month at the earliest and definitely before the summer recess.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Back Room Deals on DISCLOSE Act Threaten First Amendment Rights

 
The U.S. House is considering the DISCLOSE Act this week.

    
     U.S. House Democrats

H.R. 5175 is an attempt by Democrats to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision that found portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law to be unconstitutional.  The bill would negatively affect grassroots organizations that inform voters on ballot issues.

Many groups had stood in opposition to the bill, including the National Rifle Association NRA, which fears it would be muzzled by the measure. Reports from Capitol Hill reveal the NRA has struck a deal with lawmakers to exclude the organization from compliance along with some corporations.

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst with CitizenLink, said the move may hurt efforts to stop the legislation.

"It's pretty tough when a handful of groups break the line and carve out an exemption for themselves, leaving the rest of us hanging," she said. "The majority of groups like ours will definitely be hurt if this bill is enacted."

A letter from the National Right to Life Committee outlines the potential harm of the legislation.

"(The bill) has been carefully crafted to maximize short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one political party," the statement reads, "while running roughshod over the First Amendment protections for political speech that have been clearly and forcefully articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court."

    
      Click here to view the related action alert.

Contact: Kim Trobee
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Gene-Engineered Adult Stem Cells to Fight HIV and a Promise for Lungs

Adult Stem Cells to Fight HIV

    
     HIV cell

Scientists at City of Hope in Duarte, California have shown that it may be possible to genetically engineer a patient's own adult stem cells to fight HIV. Four patients with AIDS received their own adult stem cells to treat lymphoma, including some of their cells that had been engineered with three genes to fight off HIV infection. One of the gene therapy targets was a protein receptor on immune cells (CCR5) that HIV binds to when infecting a cell, the idea being to prevent infection of the engineered stem cells. The other two engineered genes were designed to attack viral RNA that might make it into the cell, preventing production of viral protein.

While the dose of engineered stem cells was too low to produce an effect on the patients' viral load, the study showed no adverse effects from the procedure and that the cells survived, engrafted, and continued producing the engineered genes for up to two years after the transplant for three of the four patients.

A previous study had treated leukemia in an AIDS patient using donor adult stem cell transplant, in which the donor was selected specifically for lack of the CCR5 receptor on the donor stem cells. The patient recovered from the leukemia and also exhibited no sign of HIV.

The current study was published in Science Translational Medicine.

Promise for Lungs with Adult Stem Cells

    
     Lungs can become inflammed and scarred.

Australian researchers have published a breakthrough that shows promise of adult stem cell treatments for lung diseases. The team isolated human amnion epithelial cells (hAECs) from term placenta that have stem cell and anti-inflammatory properties. The cells were able to differentiate into lung-type cells, and when injected into mice with lung damage, the cells reduced inflammation and scarring in the lungs.

The study's lead researcher, Associate Professor Yuben Moodley, said:

"I would think that it may be pretty useful in patients who are on ventilators and have then developed inflammation from the ventilation and subsequent scarring, so in acute respiratory distress syndrome, as we call, it would be useful.

"It may be useful in patients with emphysema, patients with occupational lung diseases like asbestosis and probably in patients with severe asthma where there's a strong inflammatory component and scarring that may be treated."

Professor Moodley also noted that:

"Given that there are no ethical issues, that the cells are freely available from discarded placenta and that they could be easily grown and injected, it would be a near-term issue rather than a long-term issue."

The study is published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: June 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

Naperville City Council Learns Abortion Clinics Allowed In City

    
     Naperville City Council

The topic came up for discussion at Tuesday night's meeting of the Naperville City Council when the council was asked to approve a minor text amendment in the city's zoning code consolidating the definition of medical clinic and medical office. The change was in semantics only — the terms are interchangeable in city code — but sparked confusion and debate among council members, who then learned that abortion clinics have the right to move in anywhere in Naperville.
Click here for the entire article.


Michigan Republican Wants Abortion Clinics to Have 'Better' Ultrasound Machines to Kill Babies With

    
     Pre-Abortion Ultrasound Test

Michigan lawmakers are set to consider a bill that would tighten the state law on pre-abortion ultrasound tests. A bill scheduled for discussion in a Senate committee would require the use of the most advanced equipment available at a facility when an ultrasound is shown. Doctors who order ultrasound imaging for women considering an abortion are required to give them the option to view the image under a 2006 law. Republican Sen. Wayne Kuipers of Holland says he introduced the new legislation because some facilities have used outdated equipment that intentionally produced grainy images instead of using their newest technology.
Click here for the entire article.


South Carolina legislators approve compromise on abortion bill

    

The South Carolina Legislature has approved a compromise on an abortion bill after House Republicans dropped a provision requiring women to make two trips to the clinic. It expands women's wait period from one hour to a day after receiving information on the procedure. But it no longer ties the clock to an ultrasound at the abortion clinic, as House GOP members insisted. The House and Senate voted late Wednesday to adopt the agreement.
Click here for the entire article.


Food and Depopulation: International Takeover by the UN

    

Most people think that the United Nations is a noble enterprise and they don't understand the history and malignant character of the UN. Christina Aguilera, Drew Barrymore and Sean Penn are probably unaware, even though they are UN Ambassadors to the World Food Program (WFP), that the intent of the UN is to implement one world government. The UN WFP, which spreads GMOs in poor countries, is just one tool used for advancing the goals of UN Agenda 21, the overarching blueprint for depopulation and total control.
Click here for the entire article.


It's not possible to practice IVF and respect human life
 
    
     Bhateri Devi

The mainstream media has noted a recent large scale study that suggests that babies born through IVF are more likely to have congenital disabilities. In particular the study suggests that children conceived thanks to IVF are more likely to experience heart problems and malformations of the uro-genital system.

On Monday, Bhateri Devi (pictured above), a 66 year old woman, become the oldest woman in the world to give birth to triplets. On the same day a 72 year old woman, who gave birth thanks to IVF treatment at 70, revealed she is dying and criticized her IVF center for not explaining the risks to women about having babies later in life.
Click here for the entire article.


Prince Charles' Population Control Speech Backfires with References to Chesterton, C.S. Lewis

    
     Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales has come under fire after using a speech on Islam and environmentalism as an opportunity to call for a reduction in the world's birth rate, especially among Muslims.

But what has drawn the ire of some commentators is that moments after making his controversial remarks, the prince went on to quote famed Christian writers C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton in support of the thesis of his address.
Click here for the entire article.

GOP House Leader Asks Obama: ‘What Happened to that Abortion Executive Order?’

    
     House Republican Leader John Boehner
     with Nancy Pelosi and President Obama

In a meeting with President Obama last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner asked for an update about the implementation of the president's Executive Order (EO), which purports to block abortion funding in the federal health care bill.

That EO, which was offered by Obama during 11th hour negotiations prior to the final vote on ObamaCare, proved to be the carrot that convinced Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak and his cadre of pro-life Democrats to cast their crucial votes in favor of the controversial legislation.

But as Boehner staffer Kevin Boland explained on Boehner's official blog last week: "Abortion opponents widely viewed the EO as a disingenuous maneuver made by the Administration in the final hours of the health care fight to buy off 'pro-life' Democrats instead of passing the anti-abortion Stupak amendment, which would have prevented federal subsidies for abortion under ObamaCare."

In fact, the EO was almost universally condemned by pro-life groups as woefully inadequate. Such sentiments were confirmed when Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards issued a statement saying that the abortion-related executive order was merely a "symbolic gesture," and celebrating the passage of the health bill.

Now, however, there are concerns that whatever meaningful provisions the order does contain may not be implemented in a timely fashion, or at all.

In his meeting with Obama Boehner pointed out that in a recent "progress report" about the implementation of the health care bill, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, made no mention of the order.

According to Michael Steel, spokesman for Boehner's office, "The president indicated that he would provide some kind of an update on the implementation of the executive order."

However, said Steel, according to Citizenlink, "There is no indication that they are moving in any way to implement the executive order in an effective way or a meaningful way."

"What I fear is that the effect is as we suspected at the time, that there is no effect at all of this executive order."

Boehner had once before asked for an update on the EO, in a May 13 letter to Sebelius. In that letter Boehner asked: "Has the Department provided guidance to states to implement the president's Executive Order on abortions?  When does the Administration expect to issue the directive on abortions?  Will the new federal high-risk pools touted by the Administration also ensure that abortions will not be covered?"

Bohner pointed out to Sebelius that, "Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it."

Thus far there has been no response to that letter.

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Congressional battleground over military abortions

A pro-life member of Congress vows to fight tax-paid abortions at military facilities.

    
     Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey)

An amendment to the Senate version of the Annual Department of Defense Authorization bill would permit the abortions, which have been banned since former President Clinton signed it into law in 1996. Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) told Fox News there will be a fight if the bill reaches the House with the amendment intact.
 
Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey)"So we will stand very firm -- and I welcome the fight," says Smith. "If they want to bring it, I do believe that there will be an overwhelming vote to keep our military hospitals as nurturing centers, not abortion mills."
 
And certainly not on the taxpayers' dime, he adds. "When we hire abortionists, when we provide operating rooms and recovery rooms and nurses -- all of whom would participate in the killing of that child and the wounding of that mother by way of abortion -- that is facilitation, that is public funding," he explains.
 
Smith believes the House will not approve the bill if it authorizes abortions on military bases and other facilities. The Senate is to consider the measure this summer.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Radio ad urges Florida to stop Governor Crist

    
     Florida Governor Charlie Crist

Following Governor Charlie Crist's veto of a bill which would require ultrasounds to prior to first trimester abortions, the Political Action Committee (PAC) of the Family Research Council (FRC) has launched a statewide radio campaign urging Floridians to stop Crist.

Last week, Gov. Crist, who recently left his party and removed the pro-life section of his website, vetoed a bill requiring an ultrasound to be performed before all first trimester abortions.

"This bill places an inappropriate burden on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy," Gov. Crist stated in his veto announcement.

"Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I," he continued. "However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."Women would have had the option to opt out of viewing the images of their live child prior to the abortion.

The bill also would have allowed Florida to opt out of using federal funds for abortion under the new health care law.

The FRC Action PAC ad, which will air across Florida on 74 stations beginning next week, describes Crist's recent actions: "Governor Charlie Crist used to claim to be pro-life," it says. "Now he's just pro-Crist. Since leaving his party he's decided he'd rather be pro-abortion, removing the pro-life section from his website and vetoing a bill that would allow women to see an ultrasound of their child before having an abortion."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

UN officials promote "right to abortion" this week at Human Rights Council

    
     Navanethem Pillay the High Commissioner
     on Human Rights

Pat Buckley, SPUC's chief lobbyist at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, is appealing to church leaders and pro-life groups worldwide to oppose an extreme, "ideologically driven" pro-abortion report produced by Navanethem Pillay (pictured), the High Commissioner on Human Rights, and "bounced through" the HRC this week. Pat warns:

    "This report is being bounced through the United Nations forums, blatantly ignoring any evidence which disputes its conclusions and deliberately avoiding debate. The clear intention of the powers-that be is to use this ideologically-driven report's findings to influence the Millennium Development Goals Review later this year at the UN in New York."

In a carefully stage-managed and one-sided debate in Geneva this week, both the Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the only pro-life NGO present at the Session, were excluded from making an intervention. SPUC's planned intervention can be found here. Pat explains:

    "The preparation of the report and the subsequent debate were meticulously stage-managed this week in Geneva, to the exclusion of myself, on behalf of SPUC, and, more significantly, to the exclusion of the Holy See.

    "The debate was carefully handled by limiting the time available for it. This resulted in the Holy See being excluded from making an intervention and it eliminated the only pro-life NGO voice present at the session, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Nevertheless two pro-abortion NGO's, Amnesty International and the Centre for Reproductive Rights, representing a large group of pro abortion organizations such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, were given space to be heard.

    "In the end, the lone opposition to the anti-life agenda, the Egyptian delegate, was very criticical of the inaccurate statistics and the push for the creation of a 'right' to abortion.

    "Events in Geneva this week are the latest in international political manoeuvres to declare a human right to abortion, something which has eluded the pro-abortion lobby since their defeat at the 1994 UN conference on population and development, in Cairo.

    "This week's pro-abortion report arose from a resolution approved in 2009, which called for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare 'a thematic study on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights'. Following approval of the resolution the thematic study was then elevated to be a joint report of both the High Commissioner and the UN Secretary General. The subsequent report and Monday's one-sided debate are a prelude to the review of the Millennium Development Goals due to take place in September in New York - when, I've no doubt, this report will be back on the agenda."

Prior to preparation of her report the High Commissioner invited submissions from interested parties. However, despite the fact that a number of pro-life organizations made detailed submissions setting out the real causes of maternal death (and how high levels of maternal mortality in developing countries can be reduced without recourse to abortion) the High Commissioner's report cites so called "unsafe abortion" as one of the major causes of maternal mortality. It was based on the World Health Organisation statistics, which have have been shown to be wildly inaccurate; and, once prepared, the report was carefully handled to sidestep any possibility of the flawed statistics being exposed or criticized in a resolution, thus undermining the report's credibility.  See the link above to Pat Buckley's planned intervention which exposes the evidential flaws in Navanethem Pillay's report.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC BLog
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Coming soon (already here?): Taxpayer funded telemed abortion systems

   
    The telemedicine system

The New York Times reported on June 8:

    So far only Planned Parenthood clinics in IA use this [RU-486 telemed abortion] method, but around the country, abortion providers have begun asking how they might replicate the concept.

I don't necessarily believe it's true that RU-486 telemed abortions are confined to IA at this point. Adding fuel to my fire is the article below that Pro-Life WI has dug up, posted by The Business Journal of Milwaukee on July 10, 2009....

Takeaways: The telemedicine system has been in place at WI Planned Parenthoods and paid for with tax dollars for 2 years, the same length of time PP of the Heartland has been committing telemed abortions.

Wide scale PP collusion on telemed abortions for quite awhile is not only possible but probable. I expect many more PPs around the country have been girding for them with government grants, funding telemed systems under the guise of needing them to dispense birth control pills.

terri huyck ceo pp wi.jpgFurthermore, Teri Huyck, the new CEO of PP of WI, is definitely one not to be trusted if she says WI PPs haven't started committing telemed abortions. Huyck was instrumental in the Aurora PP cover-up.

Here are key excerpts from that BJM story:

    Since there aren't enough primary care physicians or nurse practitioners to get to all of the patients, Planned Parenthood of WI is bringing the patients to them.

    The organization, which provides health care to about 70k men and women a year at 28 clinics across the state, has begun investing in telemedicine, a high-tech way for the patient and clinician to communicate via video phone....

    PP clinics, particularly those in rural areas, are often staffed by people who do not have a medical license. Those employees are not allowed to do patient assessments so patients are turned away if there isn't a licensed clinician working that particular day.

    Delaying a visit could result in a patient's condition getting worse or a delay in getting birth control, which could result in an unintended pregnancy, Burnett said.

    The video phones, which are the size of a laptop computer, are at 10 PP locations - Racine, Delavan, Waukesha, Fond du Lac, West Bend, Portage, 2 clinics in Madison and clinics in Milwaukee on Mitchell Street and WI Avenue....

    The 10 locations were chosen because they are the organization's Title 10 clinics, which means they receive funding from the federal government. PP's other centers are either state-funded or self-sustaining.

    A federal grant paid for the video phones, which cost $15,000 each, including the infrastructure needed to operate the phone.

    The video phones are used by clinicians to do consultations with patients and to order medication. If a patient needs immediate medical attention and a clinician cannot get to them, they are referred to the emergency room, Burnett said....

    PP of WI piloted the telemedicine program in March 2008 at 3 clinics..... The equipment for the pilot project was paid for with a grant from the Public Service Commission of WI.

    PP is looking for additional grants to pay for phones in the remaining 18 clinics, since the clinician shortage is expected to worsen, Burnett said....

    While there are no specific regulations with telemedicine,...

Pro-Life WI has confirmed there are no WI statutes in place that would prohibit the WI abortion industry from committing telemed abortions. Pro-Life WI is currently working with the Alliance Defense Fund to learn whether WI PPs are and have been committing telemed RU-486 abortions.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 16, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Does IVF Promote Objectification of Unborn Life?

    

One of the things about our current cultural milieu that  has always puzzled me is the drive to create an absolute fundamental right to procreate–and the concomitant push to permit an absolute and fundamental right to destroy unborn life.  (You know how it goes: Today, the child is wanted so it is a baby. Tomorrow, the child isn't wanted so its a fetus, not yet human life.)  And when both IVF and abortion are coupled in the same pregnancy, it really makes my head spin.  A new study in the  UK shows that this happens more than previously thought.  From the story:

    Data released under the Freedom of Information Act has shown that an average of 80 abortions are carried out in England and Wales a year on women who have undergone IVF treatment. Doctors have said they are surprised at the figures considering the expense and difficulty that many couples go through when having fertility treatment.  However critics said women were treating babies like 'designer goods'.

    Some women said they were pressured into IVF by their partners and others said they aborted their pregnancy after their relationship broke down. Around half of the abortions are carried out for women aged between 18 and 34, who are less likely to suffer complications in their pregnancies or conceive babies with abnormalities, raising the question that they may have had abortions for 'social reasons'. Prof Bill Ledger, a member of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which regulates fertility treatment, said: "I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions and each one is a tragedy."

    The figures were released by the HFEA and show that in some of the cases the fertility treatment had been funded by the NHS. Selective reductions, where some of the foetuses in a multiple pregnancy are terminated to reduce the risk to the children and mother, are included in the figures. Ann Furedi, head of the BPAS, formerly known as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said it was likely that every doctor carrying out abortions had treated at least one woman who had IVF treatment only to change her mind when it was successful. She said: "For infertile people, overcoming the problem becomes a goal in itself."

So, we see IVF leading, at least in some cases, to objectification of the life created, as it furthers the contemporary sense of entitlement: I want to be pregnant–make it so!  I don't want to be pregnant, make it not so!

I once heard a Canadian bioethicist give a lecture urging women with multiple IVF-created fetuses to undergo "selective reduction"–boy, talk about a euphemism!–to, he said, "turn triplets into twins."   Such sophistry!  Aborting one sibling triplet doesn't magically transform the surviving babies into twins.  It means they are triplets and one sibling is dead.  How must that feel?  There but for the location of the forceps go I.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

U.S. Hospitals Secretly Promote Black Market Trading of Harvested Organs for Transplants

    
     Black Market of Organs

Many hospitals in the United States are tacitly participating in the illegal organ transplant industry by not scrutinizing potential donors too closely, experts worry. The purchase or sale of organs is illegal in most countries, including the United States, but a chronic shortage of organs for transplant has led to a thriving international black market. Typically, poor donors (usually from Third World countries) are paid several thousand dollars for organs that are then resold for upwards of $100,000 to rich recipients, usually from the First World. The arrests of 44 U.S. residents on organ trafficking charges in July marks the first documented case of the practice in the United States, and has raised concerns that hospitals here might be encouraging it.
Click here for the entire article.


Baby Killers at FDA Want New French Abortion Pill With RU-486 Ingredient Approved

    
     ellaOne (R) the French
     Abortion Pill

The pill called ellaOne is already available overseas in at least 22 other countries. It is now being offered by the French to the US. Now the Food and Drug Administration are considering making it available in the United States. Those who oppose the acceptance of this new form of birth control argue its similarities to abortion. The pill (ellaOne) contains an ingredient, RU-486, that is chemically the same as the abortion pill. The new pill will allow users to take up to five days after intercourse. The current morning after pill, Plan B, is only available for use for up to two days after intercourse.
Click here for the entire article.


Women Who Had Abortions to Be Tested for Hepatitis C

    
     Sandra Sunkel-Lozell

Almost 30 New Zealand women will be tested for Hepatitis C after potentially being exposed to the infection at a Melbourne abortion clinic. Earlier this month 44 women in Australia tested positive to the infection after being treated by James Latham Peters, an anaesthetist at a Croydon abortion clinic, Australia's Department of Human Services revealed. Dr Peters, a widower and father of two teenage children, has a history of drug abuse and received a suspended jail sentence in 1996 for writing around 100 stolen pethidine prescriptions for himself and his late wife Julia.
Click here for the entire article.


Nicaragua again Rejects Foreign Pressure to Legalize Abortion

    
     Republic of Nicaragua Flag

Nicaragua, one of the few countries in the world to maintain a total ban on abortion, has again rejected pressure by foreign powers to liberalize its pro-life legislation.

A report from proceedings at the UN's Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva reveals that 11 countries called for Nicarague to legalize abortion. Delegate Carlos Robelo, however, flatly refused to bow under pressure.

Instead, reports Pat Buckley, the UN consultant for the UK-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Robelo told the HRC that Nicaragua would not reverse its pro-life legislation to allow "therapeutic abortions" and maintained that the law as it stands expresses the will of the country's people.
Click here for the entire article.


UK Eugenicists Want Population Reduction

    
     Mass Population

A growing number of scientists are going where politicians fear to tread by calling for a wider public debate on the sensitive issue of the global human population, which is set to rise from the present 6.8 billion to perhaps 9 billion by 2050. Lord Rees, the president of the Royal Society, brought the subject up in his excellent Reith Lectures; Sir David Attenborough has become a champion of those who believe population has been relegated as an environmental issue; and more recently Professor Aubrey Manning, presenter of the BBC's Earth Story, has stated that the sheer number of humans on the planet is the greatest menace the world faces.
Click here for the entire article.


Planned Parenthood forces us into RU-486 complicity

    
     Planned Parenthood Sign

The FDA has not updated its adverse events for RU-486 abortions or given a congressional report for over four years – and RU-486 has only been legal in the U. S. for nine and a half years.

So we can guess the number of complications has doubled, particularly given RU-486's increased popularity, since the FDA reported in May 2006 that 950 adverse events had been reported:

    Approximately one-quarter of the 950 patients were hospitalized. The most frequently reported event of interest in the case reports was blood loss requiring a transfusion. The next most frequently reported events were infection and ectopic pregnancy. ...
Click here for the entire article.

Urgent: Call Congress To Oppose DISCLOSE Act

The U.S. House of Representatives may vote within days on the so-called "DISCLOSE Act," legislation that would place sweeping new restrictions on the ability of incorporated groups, including pro-life organizations, to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers.
 
According to press reports, the House Democratic leadership has agreed to add a narrow "carve out" that will effectively exempt the National Rifle Association (NRA) from some of the key restrictions in the bill, in return for which the NRA has agreed that it "will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."
 
In a June 15 letter to House members, (click here, click here for the PDF), NRLC reiterated its strong opposition to the bill, which it called "pernicious, unprincipled, and unconstitutional legislation."  Regarding the proposed carve out, "With respect to the National Right to Life Committee, this amendment is not only worthless, but adds insult to injury," the letter said, adding that NRLC's congressional scorecard will describe a vote for the bill as a vote for "a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors."
 
For more details on the danger posed by the "DISCLOSE Act," see the article posted below...

    

 
Press reports indicate that the House Democratic leadership now plans to force a House floor vote on the bill as early as Thursday, June 17.  Please act immediately.  Click the image of the telephone above and enter your zip code into the "Call Now" box.  Then telephone the office of the lawmaker who represents you in the House, using the number you will be shown.  Use the suggested talking points to deliver the message that you are strongly opposed to this bill.  (You don't have to use all of the suggestions -- the important thing is to get the main point across.)

Obama and Top Hill Democrats Push New Bill to Restrict NRLC Communications to the Public

WASHINGTON (June 11, 2010)—President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders are pushing hard for quick enactment of a bill that would place extensive new legal restrictions on the ability of corporations–including incorporated nonprofit citizen groups such as NRLC–to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers.

NRLC is strongly opposed to the bill, viewing it as a blatant political attack on the constitutional rights of the organization and of its members and donors.

The bill, called the "DISCLOSE Act," was crafted in response to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down on January 21, 2010. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated federal laws and regulations that had prevented an incorporated group called Citizens United from buying TV ads to promote a movie critical of Hillary Clinton while she was running for president. By a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money on ads or other communications that criticize or praise those who hold or seek federal office.

In previous arguments before the Court, the Obama Administration, represented by the office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, had argued that the government could prohibit a corporation from disseminating even a book if it contained material that opposed a federal candidate.

The White House and top congressional Democrats have sharply criticized the decision. In his January 27 State of the Union address, which was attended by six Supreme Court justices, President Obama denounced the ruling, saying that it would "open the floodgates for special interests–including foreign corporations–to spend without limit in our elections. ... And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Democratic lawmakers then moved rapidly to craft legislation that is intended to make it as difficult as possible for corporations (including nonprofit, issueoriented corporations such as NRLC) to spend money to communicate with the public about the actions of federal officeholders, while leaving considerably more latitude for labor unions–generally allies of the dominant liberal wing of the Democrats–to take advantage of the Court's ruling. They made clear their determination to try to put the new restrictions into effect as quickly as possible, in order to mute outside organizations as much as possible before the November elections.

The legislation, dubbed the "DISCLOSE Act," was introduced in April by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the arm of the Democratic Party chiefly responsible for helping elect Democrats to the House), and by Senator Charles Schumer (DNY), who is a top contender to become the leader of Senate Democrats if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) loses his re-election campaign in November. The respective bill numbers are H.R. 5175 and S. 3295.

Schumer said that the bill would "make [corporations] think twice" before getting involved in election-related speech. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Ma.), who voted for the bill at a May 20 committee meeting, said, "I hope it chills out all–not one side, all sides. I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would."

But Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, commented in an essay in the June 7 edition of National Review: "That Congress would respond to a Supreme Court decision affirming corporations' freedom of speech by restricting that freedom to an even greater extent than it did before the decision is remarkable. The attempt is unlikely to withstand judicial challenge, but, as Senator Schumer made clear early on, he believes the courts won't have time to rule on the constitutionality of the act before the 2010 election is over."

After quick hearings, a House committee approved the 90-page bill on a party-line vote on May 20. House Democratic leaders had hoped to pass the bill through the House the following week, but they were forced to postpone action due to vigorous lobbying against the bill by an array of organizations, including NRLC, the Family Research Council, the NRA, and the Chamber of Commerce.

At NRL News deadline on June 11, House Democratic leaders remained firm in their determination to push the bill through the House before the end of June, in order to allow time for the Senate to also pass the bill before the start of the traditional congressional recess in August. (See "Take Action Now," at the end of this article.) If the House passes the bill, then "this is going to be a priority" for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) as well, Van Hollen told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

On May 27, NRLC sent House members a strongly worded, fourpage letter opposing the bill, signed by Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, expressing strong objections to the legislation.

"There is very little in this bill, despite the pretenses [that it merely advances "disclosure"], that is actually intended to provide useful or necessary information to the public," the letter said. "The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions."

"Enactment of such a law is not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption–a corruption of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves," the letter charged.

The letter also noted that those pushing the bill "hope to ram this legislation into law—including a specific provision making it effective 30 days after enactment, without any interpretative regulations from the Federal Elections Commission—to set up legal minefields that they hope will, for at least a year or more, deter disfavored organizations from effectively communicating with the public about the public policy agenda of the current Administration and of the dominant faction of the majority party of the current Congress."

NRLC also advised lawmakers that key roll call votes on the legislation will be included in NRLC's congressional scorecard for the current Congress.

Click here to read the entire NRLC letter of May 27th.

On June 10, Roll Call reported that Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a cosponsor of the bill, had proposed that it be amended to exempt certain nonprofit corporations (known as "501c4 corporations"), such as NRLC, from some of the bill's provisions, in an attempt to reduce opposition to the measure. But the article also quoted a prominent backer of the bill, Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, as rejecting such an exemption, saying, "It becomes the loophole that eats the whole purpose and intent of the legislation."

Source: NRLC
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Abortionist at Center of Late-Term Abortion Plan Retreats to Harvard

    
     Abortionist Caryn Dutton

Abortionist Caryn Dutton is leaving the University of Wisconsin and Planned Parenthood Wisconsin to take a job at Harvard University, according to documents uncovered by Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund.  Her departure means that Madison Surgery Center is, for the moment, left without an abortionist to help implement their plans to provide late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center.

"Caryn Dutton was central to plans to provide late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center," Virginia Zignego of Pro-Life Wisconsin told LifeSiteNews (LSN).  "[The University of Wisconsin] is saying her departure will mean a change in who provides the service - but from what we know, they don't have anybody else ... who is willing to perform late-term abortions."

Dutton also performs abortions at the local Planned Parenthood clinic in Madison.

Madison Surgery Center (MSC), a joint partnership between Meriter Hospital, the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, had voted to allow late-term abortions at a February 2009 meeting.

Documents obtained by Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund by the Freedom of Information Act raised serious concerns that the late-term abortions were meant to provide the school's medical researchers with newly-harvested fetal body parts for experimentation.

After a barrage of pro-life outrage from across the country, the Attorney General of Wisconsin said that the University of Wisconsin would abandon the plan.  But shortly afterwards, University of Wisconsin Health reaffirmed its dedication to providing late-term abortions.

According to some the continued dedication of the University of Wisconsin to abortion is of dubious legality.  Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Kevin Potter wrote on May 25 to State Auditor Janice Mueller, telling her that the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority may be violating state law by paying resident physicians while they are being trained as abortionists at the Madison Planned Parenthood.

Wisconsin law states that with only a few exceptions no state funds shall be used for performing abortions.  The University of Wisconsin received approximately $457 million from the state of Wisconsin in the fiscal year 2009-2010.

Nevertheless, amid the heavy opposition of pro-lifers and some staff, the plans for late-term abortions at MSC have never been implemented.

"Its great that a Planned Parenthood abortionist is no longer on UW staff," Zignego told LSN.  Four other UW doctors, however, remain under contract with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin to provide abortion services.

Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund also recently uncovered documents showing that UW intentionally obfuscated their own statements regarding where and when they would try to offer abortions.  Beth Fultz, director of corporate communications for UW health, said of one statement: "Here's the vaguer than vague version 2."

"UW no longer upholds its famous dictum, 'The University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which the truth alone can be found,'" said Zignego, who is a UW graduate. "UW instead aims to obfuscate, slice and dice the truth with the blood of the unborn."

Contact: James Tillman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Young woman chooses baby's life over her own

    
     Martha Motley, Jovan with his son,
     and mother Esmeralda Abreu

The story of Benny Abreu, a young woman from the Dominican Republic, has moved Floridians because of her testimony to motherly love. The Florida woman suffered from serious heart problems and preferred to die rather than abort the baby she was carrying.

Abreu, 25, graduated from Florida Central University at the beginning of May and decided to continue with her pregnancy, knowing that her serious heart condition could lead to complications.

According to Florida's La Prensa newspaper, she never considered the possibility of abortion and saw her pregnancy as a blessing.

"The doctor told her she had to abort if she wanted to survive, but she told him no, that she could not kill her baby and that she was going to continue with her pregnancy," said Martha Motley, the baby's grandmother.

On May 17, Abreu gave birth to her son but her condition worsened. She was transferred to Shands Hospital in Gainesville, which specializes in cardiology, where she died on May 30.

"I knew that she had a medical condition with her heart. I even took her to the doctor on several occasions, but it never entered my mind that she was going to die," said Jovan Toliver, the baby's father. "They (the doctors) said the baby should be delivered early and that she might suffer a little, but I never expected this to happen."

Toliver added, "I have lost a part of me, but the only thing that sustains me is knowing that she never would have wanted me to leave her baby alone and for this reason I have to be strong."

"She was very courageous and never doubted having her baby, even though as a result she had to pay the highest price," Motley, who is Toliver's mother, told reporters. "I know that now she is in God's hands and when she looks down she will see that the best part of her is with us and she'll know that we will always take care of him."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Recovery Group Unveils Billboard Aimed at Interstate Summer Traffic

    
     A new billboard by Silent No More Minnesota

Today Silent No More Minnesota, whose mission is to reach out to those wounded by abortion, unveiled a new billboard, scheduled for launch July 1 for 3 months on I94 in Albertville, MN....

Timing and location were chosen to take advantage of heavy summer Interstate traffic at a site near MN's largest outlet shopping mall, which is in Albertville.

The billboard, which reads, "Abortion Hurts, There is Hope and Healing," will be the 1st of its kind in MN.

SNM MN president Ann Marie Cosgrove stated in a press release that the billboard has multiple purposes: to bring awareness to those hurting from abortion, especially the unchurched, who may not ever hear a message of hope and healing; to educate the public that abortion causes pain, which also gives the abortion vulnerable pause to reconsider; and to soften hearts of those who think poorly of post-abortive mothers.

Ann Marie would love to keep the billboard up an additional 3 months for those who find their summer flings produced more than fond memories and for college students trekking to and from school.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

National Secular Society finds ultrasound image of unborn child "horrifying"

National Secular Society finds ultrasound image of unborn child "horrifying"

    
     Image from the new advertisig campaign

Last week the new advertisig campaign being launched this year by a coalition of Protestant Churches was reported. The adverts will show an ultrasound image of an unborn baby with a halo around his head, with the accompanying words: "He's on His way. Christmas starts with Christ."

I was asked by Ruth Gledhill, religious correspondent for The Times, to provide a comment. I said: "This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus."

Ruth Gledhill's article also included a comment from Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, who criticised the image. Mr Sanderson said: "At first glance it looks like a poster for a horror film — perhaps The Omen VI: He's Coming to Get You."

Mr Sanderson's comments are particularly puzzling because this is an ultrasound image, much like those shown to the majority of expectant parents. These images are now an ordinary part of our lives and I am reliably informed that they are even sometimes posted on social networking sites such as 'facebook'.

I am inclined to ask Mr Sanderson: what is it about the image of an unborn child that you find so horrifying?

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC Blog
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Personhood Nevada Denied Right to Circulate Petition

Personhood Nevada Denied Right to Circulate Petition

    

Personhood Nevada, through many legal battles, has been denied the right to circulate their prolife petition in the state. The ACLU joined forces with Planned Parenthood, tying the petition up in court and disallowing the many ready and willing Nevada volunteers their right to circulate the petition.

"We have several issues at the heart of this matter," explained Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA. "First, we have judicial activists ruling against the petition, despite the fact that nearly similar language has been approved in other states. Second, we have the anti-personhood media reporting that we failed to get the required signatures -- when in fact, Personhood Nevada was not allowed to get even ONE signature. This is clearly a case of big money versus the rights of the citizens -- but we're preparing to try again, even stronger than before."

The people's voice in Nevada has been silenced by those who profit from abortion the most -- Planned Parenthood, with over one billion dollars in profit in recent years. Planned Parenthood, in conjunction with the ACLU, are fighting against the rights of Nevada citizens to circulate a petition for a constitutional amendment.

The one-sentence proposed state constitutional amendment states, "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."

James T. Russell, District Judge of Carson City, ruled on January 8, 2010 that the one-sentence amendment was a myriad of subjects. Personhood Nevada appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, but a ruling has yet to be handed down.

"We have volunteer petition circulators who have been waiting for months," added Olaf Vancura, President of Personhood Nevada. "Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the liberal courts have stifled our ability to engage in free speech, legally maneuvering until me miss our statutory deadline, and keeping us from exercising our constitutional rights as Americans and Nevadans. We are determined that no matter how long it takes, we will not be silenced. The personhood petition will be approved, and we will protect all human life in the state of Nevada."

Contact: Olaf Vancura and Keith Mason
Source: Personhood Nevada
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.