Following Jay Leno's enlightening interviews with John Q. Public, about what the 4th of July was all about and who was the main general involved with that date, as well as, who we fought to gain our independence from; and the dismal and horrifying reality that nobody knew the answers to these questions, Planned Parenthood steps in once again with their own holiday contribution.
On 9/11 they offered free abortions to widows of heroes who may have found themselves pregnant before the disaster. We're not sure if anybody really took up such an offer. Widows were heroines too. They had their babies, a lasting remembrance of the heroes who lost their lives. But, undaunted, here's Planned Parenthood's contribution to the celebration of our country's birthday; the date John Q. Public did not know the reasons for.
Celebrating death as a solution to all of our problems, Planned Parenthood pressed for military abortions at taxpayer-funded military based hospitals, by issuing an action alert. Planned Parenthood president Cecily Richards wrote, "This 4th of July, among the outdoor cookouts and firework displays, countless politicians and members of Congress will give speeches to honor the men and women serving in our nation's military. Right now, women serving abroad in the US military, are denied the basic freedom to make their own medical decisions because abortion is banned at military hospitals and bases. Even if it threatens her health (a buzz word for unlimited abortions) a service woman who becomes pregnant while serving with our forces overseas, is required to venture out to a local facility."
Really Cecile? How absurd! Men and women serving in the armed forces are in Harm's Way overseas. They preserve and protect our country; often with their own blood. Our job at home, is to preserve and protect our country for their return. Not advocate for the killing of their unborn child.
All of this came about because Senator Roland Burris, you know the guy right? He's from Illinois. He has his own mausoleum, even though he's not even dead yet. The walls of his mausoleum are engraved with his left-slanted, scintillating biography, to help John Q. Public remember him. Hope he has better luck than poor George. Wow! His lasting legacy will be his efforts destroy unborn babies and the morale of our women serving in the armed forces. He's joined by his usual gaggle of suspects. Now Planned Parenthood is supporting his efforts. What a surprise.
Burris offered an amendment to the Senate Armed Services Military Funding Bill, that would overturn decades of a ban on abortion at tax-payer funded military bases, both at home and overseas. The fight is on in the Senate. Source: Lake County Right to Life Publish Date: July 6, 2010
$25 million to support pregnant and parenting teens, billions to promote and pay for abortions
The Obama administration has claimed that a new Health and Human Services fund helping pregnant teens delivers on President Obama's promise to seek "common ground" on abortion in his "seminal" speech on the issue at the University of Notre Dame.
CNN reported Friday that, in an email to nonprofit organizations from Obama's announcing the initiative to nonprofit groups on Friday, the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships praised the fund as "another critical step in the President's vision for common ground."
"It was only a year ago that President Obama gave a seminal speech at Notre Dame urging our nation to find common ground on the issue of abortion and unintended pregnancies," said the email. "The Pregnancy Assistance Fund is a competitive grant program established by the Affordable Care Act to assist women who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term and those who are parenting."
President Obama's speech at Notre Dame last year was decried as a major scandal by the pro-life community, particularly Catholics, who objected to the pro-abortion president's being honored with the commencement address and an honorary law degree at the nation's premiere Catholic University. Obama took the opportunity to lecture Notre Dame graduates not to "demonize" proponents of the destruction of unborn life, and instead strive to use "fair-minded words" when discussing the issue.
Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright later revealed that the White House has admitted that its goal is not to "reduce the number of abortions," but only to reduce the "need" for abortion.
The fund, established by the federal health care legislation Obama signed into law in March, makes available $25 million to states to support pregnant and parenting teens. Among other abortion-expanding measures, another section of the legislation unleashed not a few million, but billions in taxpayer funds to abortion providers through the Community Health Centers program. When all programs are accounted for, the administration is also spending billions more to fund abortion in developing nations.
The health department's press release announcing that it would begin accepting applications for the fund did not mention abortion.
CNN reports that the initiative won praise from Democrats for Life executive director Kristen Day, while receiving skepticism from other pro-life groups. Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokeswoman for Citizenlink, told CNN that "It would be inaccurate to characterize it as 'abortion common ground' since it doesn't specifically address abortion."
Planned Parenthood has also reportedly expressed support for the measure.
"Pro-life and pro-choice people have gotten behind it, so it's a good first step at reducing abortion and providing support for healthier babes and mothers," said Day of Democrats for Life.
Day told CNN that the fund promised a political advantage to Democrats, who have "been working on common ground around abortion for a long time because we want to take it away as a wedge issue." Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: July 5, 2010
The Huffington Post's resident bioethicist, Jacob Appel, argued awhile back for cutting off care to patients in PVS in order to save resources for more "valuable" people. I didn't post on it at the time. But an article at the Hastings Center Report rebutted Appel, and I think its conclusion is worth reproducing here. From, "Withholding Care from Vegetative Patients: Financial Savings and Social Costs," by L. Syd Johnson:
While there may be some savings to be reaped from terminating the lives of patients with chronic disorders of consciousness, it will not be the substantial windfall that Appel imagines. Neither can it be assumed that "every dollar" will be diverted, as Appel suggests, to preventive care, or finding a cure for cancer. Public money saved could well be redirected to priorities outside health care.
There are substantial social costs to declaring an entire class of patients "worthless." Allowing health care providers, including institutions like acute care hospitals, to unilaterally decide, against the wishes of patients or their legal guardians, to withhold life-sustaining medical treatment invites abuse and diminishes transparency and due process.
In a society that values patient autonomy and decisional authority, taking decisional power away from vulnerable patients or their surrogates would amount to abandoning them and leaving their fates to others who may or may not be motivated by patient welfare. It would change the culture of medicine – at least for these patients, if not for others – from one that is patient-centered to one that is beholden to the bottom line. In weighing the possible financial savings against the social costs of declaring these patients "worthless," it is not at all obvious that ending treatment for all permanently vegetative patients will result in a net benefit.
We are already well down Worthless Road, I am afraid. The very fact that we dehydrate such patients to death–which would bring prison if you did it to an animal–illustrates the course we are on, it seems to me. That these patients are also being looked increasingly upon as splendid sources of organs or for use in medical experimentation as if they were cadavers instead of profoundly disabled people–a matter often discussed here–is another indication of where the quality of life ethic that permeates bioethics seeks to take us. But good for Dr. Johnson for pushing back against the crass utilitarianism of Jacob Appel. Every little bit helps. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: July 2, 2010
Yesterday the ACLU issued a letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services asking it to investigate religious hospitals that refuse to provide emergency "reproductive health care." CMS is a branch of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, which is directed by pro-abort Kathleen Sebelius....
Named first in the letter, and given as its impetus, is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, AZ, where Sr. Margaret McBride was demoted and excommunicated in May for authorized the abortion of an 11-week-old baby whose mother was deemed to be gravely ill.
In its letter the ACLU cites 3 other instances of (unnamed) Catholic hospitals supposedly refusing to provide abortions in dire emergency situations.
The ACLU states these and other hospitals that refuse to commit emergency abortions on religious grounds are violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid.
These are serious charges. A hospital found in violation could lose its Medicare/Medicaid funding, which is likely its major artery to financial survival.
In its letter the ACLU states hospitals "cannot invoke their religious status to jeopardize the health and lives of pregnant women seeking medical care." As pro-lifers know, abortion for "health" reasons can mean a lot of things, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Doe v. Bolton decision.
Given the radically pro-abortion ideology of Obama and his administration, including Sebelius, it is right to worry this may not end well. Don't forget Obama promised over a year ago to overturn measures President Bush set in place to enforce the legal right of conscience of medical facilities and personnel. Obama hasn't done so yet, and the ACLU may be growing impatient. Or perhaps the Obama administration and the ACLU have decided together the Phoenix incident is a good trigger. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: jillstanek.com Publish Date: July 2, 2010
Elena Kagan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday
The following is Dr. Charmaine Yoest's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 1, 2010:
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the Committee for inviting me to testify on behalf of Americans United for Life (AUL), the oldest national pro-life public-interest law and policy organization. Our vision at AUL is a nation where everyone is welcomed in life and protected by law. We have been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts since 1971, and have been involved in every abortion-related case before the Supreme Court including Roe v. Wade. In fact, thirty years ago this week AUL successfully defended the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment before the Supreme Court in Harris v. McRae, a landmark case in defense of unborn human life.
I am here tonight because of AUL's strong opposition to the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court. Based on our research, we believe that Ms. Kagan will be an agenda-driven justice on the Court, and that she will oppose even the most widely-accepted protections for unborn human life.
These hearings have strengthened our opposition to Ms. Kagan's appointment as the record shows she was willing to manipulate the facts to pursue her own personal political agenda while serving as an advisor to President Clinton. Indeed, she demonstrated a pattern of behavior of letting her passion for a particular policy -- in this case partial-birth abortion -- overwhelm her judgment.
Tonight I'd like to make three points:
First, I urge this Committee to officially investigate the discrepancies that have arisen this week between Ms. Kagan's testimony and the written record about her actions related to lobbying the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists during her tenure in the Clinton White House. The questions surrounding this period are troubling and call into question Ms. Kagan's ability to adopt an impartial judicial temperament.
Second, Ms. Kagan has an extensive record that demonstrates her hostility to regulations of abortion and any protections for unborn human life. We believe that Kagan would undermine any efforts by our elected representatives to pass or defend even the most widely-accepted commonsense regulations of abortion like bans on partial-birth abortion, parental notification and informed consent. Her testimony this week, particularly her response to Senator Feinstein that any regulation of abortion requires the Doe health exception, has added to this concern.
I have not engaged this issue–whether abortion increases the risk of breast cancer–but have noticed the feverish drive to discredit any such link–the emotionality of which makes me think that the objections have more to do with politics than science. Be that as it may, a new study has come out showing the "ABC" link. From the story:
An abortion can triple a woman's risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.
Other larger studies have indicated no connection. But recent studies have convinced a former skeptic:
There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year. Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.
Expect there to be a concerted attack on this research, which puzzles me a lot. Regardless of whether one believes abortion should be legal, certainly women should make an informed decision if they are thinking about terminating. Even if the chance of getting breast cancer is small due to abortion–and again, I am not involved with this at all–surely women should be told that it seems to exist. Right?
Moments after President Obama signed the health-care legislation into law on March 23, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a lawsuit to stop the new mandate.
The federal government argues the mandate to purchase health insurance falls under its purview under the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), and states that the U.S. Congress has power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
"The Commerce Clause has never been invoked to regulate non-activity before," said Ashley Shaw, federal analyst for CitizenLink. "Forcing people to purchase a product or service is not part of the Commerce Clause power, so states are rightfully taking action."
Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Richmond will decide whether the lawsuit can proceed. He has 30 days to make his decision.
If the case proceeds, the court will return on October 18. If the case is dismissed, Virginia will appeal.
The Virginia State Legislature passed a law this year – and that goes into effect today – that prevents mandating health care coverage for every individual.
Thirteen state attorneys general filed a separate lawsuit.
Although the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by the Senate Judiciary Committee has ended, questions remain concerning serious discrepancies in her testimony and her involvement in redefining medical policies on partial-birth abortion.
New evidence surfaced last night, revealing Kagan's lobbying efforts of yet another medical organization.
In addition to possibly rewriting a consequential policy statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Kagan also lobbied the American Medical Association (AMA) –both groups widely considered to be nonpartisan.
According to a news release by Americans United for Life, "When discussing whether the AMA could reverse its policy that there is not an identified situation in which partial-birth abortion is the only appropriate method of abortion, ethical concerns surround it, and that it should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary, Kagan stated: 'We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS) could contribute to that effort (convincing the AMA to reverse their policy). Chuck and I are meeting with the AG on Tuesday; Donna offered to send over some doctors this week (though we don't know who or when) to give a medical briefing.'"
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink said further investigation is needed now that mounting evidence links Kagan to changes to independent medical policy, in order to politically benefit the Clinton administration.
"Her brief testimony at her confirmation hearing on this subject was vague, non-responsive," said Hausknecht, "and failed to answer the basic question on everyone's mind: Did Kagan suggest the additional language to the ACOG policy that was later cited in a Supreme Court opinion as a scientific medical finding? Did she do something similar with the AMA?
"If so, she effectively interfered with the judicial process that relied on the scientific accuracy of those medical groups," said Hausknecht.
"If this urgently needed investigation bears out the truth of these allegations, then Kagan should be disqualified immediately from serving on the court, whose integrity and trustworthiness she helped to undermine."
TMS Special Counsel Authored Unborn Murder Law That Was Challenged by the Defendant
Adrian Estrada
The highest court for criminal appeals in Texas has upheld the capital conviction of Adrian Estrada, found guilty for murdering both 17-year old Stephanie Sanchez and her thirteen-week old unborn child, citing a Thomas More Society "friend of the court" brief in its decision. Representing the Texas Alliance for Life, Paul Linton, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, authored the brief. Mr. Linton also drafted the law being attacked by the defendant -- the Texas Prenatal Protection Act -- which recognizes the crime of murder for killing an unborn child, no matter his or her stage of gestation.
"We are pleased to have helped the Texas Alliance for Life and the people of Texas in this successful defense of the Prenatal Protection Act," said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "Cases like this one are a major step toward getting society to recognize that all unborn children deserve the full protection of law, not just those 'wanted' by their mothers."
Lawyers for Estrada argued that the Texas Prenatal Protection Act is unconstitutional, claiming that the law's protection of "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth" violates Roe v. Wade.
Texas' highest criminal court, the Criminal Court of Appeals, rejected all these claims, holding that the Prenatal Protection Act "exempts the conduct of the mother pursuant to the principles in Roe v. Wade," thereby averting any clash with federal abortion rights. The Court concluded that, "By expressly defining capital murder such that one of the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct is proscribed."
"If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too." -- From "Yes, abortion is killing. But it's the lesser evil," by Antonia Senior, which ran yesterday in the Times of London.
Dr. Albert Mohler
Dr. Albert Mohler offered an impassioned critique of Antonia Senior's op-ed in yesterday's Times of London.
I'm only aware that this disturbing op-ed ran because a thoughtful reader contacted NRLC to refer us to a column by Albert Mohler which shrewdly analyzed Antonia Senior's remarkable-by-any-standard column. Dr. Mohler, a staunch pro-lifer, serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (His column can be read at www.albertmohler.com/2010/07/01/when-feminism-kills-abortion-as-the-lesser-evil.)
Obviously, Senior's conclusion is the attention-grabber. In its full it is part of the concluding paragraph which reads as follows:
"As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
I offer the entire last paragraph because it makes her conclusion even more bizarre. Why is abortion no longer "black and white?" What is that "paints the world an entirely different hue"? Having a baby, as Senior has!
Senior starts dramatically, talking about an interactive display in the Cradle Tower at the Tower of London "that asks visitors to vote on whether they would die for a cause." For Senior that the ability of women to "order her own life as she chooses. And that includes complete control over her own fertility."
You would think with that beginning she'd be off to the races. But in the very next sentence she tells us, "Yet something strange is happening to this belief that has, for so long, shaped my core; my moral certainty about abortion is wavering, my absolutist position is under siege."
After she recalls her days as a young pro-abortion militant and then the supposedly complexity about what we mean by "life," Senior writes, "What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person -- forged in my womb, not by my mothering."
But there's even more.
"Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the action of taking a life.
That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing miracle of life."
Wow, sign her up for a subscription to National Right to Life News. Only then…" In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus -- and thus killable." At that point the unwary reader wonders is she speaking for unrepentant "pro-choicers" or herself, or is there no difference?
Senior does a nice job talking about the significance of Sarah Palin in promoting pro-life feminism. "This attempts to decouple feminism from abortion rights, arguing that you can believe in a woman's right to be empowered without believing in her right to abort," Senior writes. "Its proponents report a groundswell of support among young women."
That's good, but still we don't know where Senior is going to wind up. We do in the next two sentences.
"But you cannot separate women's rights from their right to fertility control. The single biggest factor in women's liberation was our newly found ability to impose our will on our biology."
At that juncture she warps into abortion hyper-drive and what was an interesting and thoughtful piece goes to pieces. By the time she finishes, Senior has talked herself into believing, as noted at the beginning, "If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
After you've read enough of what seem to be pro-abortion mea culpas, you're wise enough to know that they cannot end well. So, too, here. All the lovely talk about her daughter, all the wonderful fascination at the marvelous complexity of our common humanity can never overcome the iron grip of a certain kind of pro-abortion feminism.
For these women, abortion=freedom and freedom=abortion. Doesn't matter if over half of the babies aborted are female. Doesn't matter that the category of the powerless used to include BOTH unborn children and most women--and therefore they ought to have a highly developed sympathy for the voiceless unborn child. Doesn't matter that it is simply bizarre to envision your own child as the "enemy."
Nothing matters except "control" over "fertility," which is synonymous in their minds with the "right" to retroactively "control fertility" by abortion.
For Senior where you find the inability to abort you're pretty much assured of finding misogyny--the hatred of women. More accurately, when you see protective laws, that's where you find a consensus that there has to be a better answer than destroying huge swathes of the next generation.
Elena Kagan was not only to the left of President Bill Clinton on partial-birth abortion, but a fair reading of a memo she wrote in 1996 indicates she believed Clinton was a little squishy on the issue.
The memo, recently released by the Clinton Presidential Library, demonstrates Kagan was intent on preserving an absolute right to kill "pre-viable" babies—even if it had to be done by sucking out a baby's brains.
In a partial-birth abortion, a doctor pulls a baby feet-first from the womb until only the head remains inside. Then the doctor puncture's the baby's skull and suctions out his brains.
The moment of "viability" in pregnancy simply means the point at which a baby's life can be preserved outside the womb. It is no way linked to the God-given rights of the baby. When a machine can sustain an embryo from conception, conception and "viability" will be simultaneous.
Yet, Kagan wanted to maintain this movable moment as an absolute barrier to state restrictions on abortion—even if the restriction simply said: Don't suction the baby's brain.
By early 1996, both the House and Senate had passed versions of the partial-birth abortion ban, and neither version included a "health" exception. The omission was intentional. Federal judges had interpreted "health" to mean virtually anything a doctor says it means. A partial-birth abortion ban with a "health" exception would have been no ban at all.
Inside the Clinton administration, there was a discussion: What kind of partial-birth abortion ban should Clinton be ready to sign? What kind should he be ready to veto?
The White House Counsel's office—where Kagan worked as an associate counsel—and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had a slight difference of opinion.
This difference was explained in a Feb. 2, 1996, memo to Clinton signed by then-White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, then-White House Counsel Jack Quinn, then-senior White House adviser George Stephanopoulos and Nancy-Ann Min (now Nancy-Ann DeParle), who then served as associate director for health in the Office of Management and Budget and who now serves as director of the Office for Health Reform in President Obama's White House.
The memo detailed four possible amendments to the partial-birth abortion ban. The first would ban these abortions both before and after viability with exceptions for the life of the mother and to "avert serious adverse health consequences to the women." The second would treat post-viable partial-birth abortions just like the first, but it would allow the partial-birth abortion of pre-viable babies for non-health reasons if—once the woman elected to have an abortion she did not need to spare her life or her health—it was determined that "the use of the partial-birth abortion procedure (as opposed to other abortion procedures) is necessary to avert a threat to the life or the serious health interests of the mother."
The third and fourth options allowed partial-birth abortions on pre-viable babies for any reason, with the third allowing them on post-viable babies for life and "serious" health reasons and the fourth dropping the adjective "serious" from the health exception.
The memo from Panetta et al. to Clinton noted that the OLC thought only the fourth option was constitutional. The White House Counsel's office believed options two, three and four were constitutional.
Despite this advice, President Clinton decided that he did not want to make any distinction between pre-viable and post-viable babies in a partial-birth abortion ban. Kagan was incredulous.
"As you recall, Leon (Panetta) suggested to you a few days ago that the President does not want to distinguish at all between the pre-viability and post-viability stages of pregnancy in regulating partial-birth abortions," she wrote in a Feb. 15, 1996, memo to White House Counsel Quinn. "I am not sure why the President would resist this distinction; he, the public, and the Court all have accepted the meaningfulness of the distinction in a wide variety of contexts."
Kagan argued that only option one fit Clinton's view—and that was not only unconstitutional but at odds with the views of pro-abortion groups.
"First," said Kagan, "it is unconstitutional, because it prohibits use of the partial-birth abortion procedure in any pre-viability case in which the woman desires the abortion for non-health related reasons, even if the partial birth abortion procedure (as compared to other procedures) is necessary to protect her from serious adverse health consequences. Second, the groups will go crazy, exactly because the approach effects this broadscale pre-viability prohibition."
As Jane McGrath of CNSNews.com has reported, handwritten "suggested" language for a draft American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) statement on partial-birth abortion found in Kagan's 1996 White House files—that claimed it "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman"—somehow ended up verbatim in ACOG's final statement on the issue. The language was then quoted in the Supreme Court decision throwing out Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion.
Kagan has no respect for the God-given right to life. Before Obama nominated her to the court, her greatest impact on American life was in the fight to preserve—thankfully, only temporarily—the "right" of a mother to hire a doctor to suction out her baby's brains.
During the arrangement of Rev. Patrick Mahoney in Washington, D.C., the US Attorney failed to appear and file formal charges against Rev. Mahoney for his June 8 arrest on a public sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood in Washington, D.C.
This action by the Department of Justice indicates that Rev. Mahoney was clearly praying on a public sidewalk and his actions did not violate the law.
These actions also demonstrate that the City of Washington, D.C. erred in arresting Rev. Mahoney for simply expressing his First Amendment rights in the public square and that Planned Parenthood is misleading pro-life activists by saying the sidewalk in front of their clinic is "private."
The Christian Defense Coalition plans a major event at Planned Parenthood, Washington, D.C. August 13-14 in which people will join in prayer on the public sidewalk where Rev. Mahoney was arrested.
Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, comments,
"It was a disgrace and an outrage that the City of Washington, D.C. arrested me for praying on a public sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. It was clear that I did not violate the law for simply celebrating my free speech and First Amendment rights in the public square.
"The US Attorney did not file formal charges because they recognized this also. They knew it would be laughable to try to prosecute a minister for praying on the public sidewalk. We now call upon the City of Washington, D.C. to stop intimidating and harassing peaceful citizens who simply want to publicly pray and counsel.
"On August 13-14, we will be calling people to come join the Christian Defense Coalition and pray with us on the sidewalk at Planned Parenthood. Our prayer and hope is that our nation's capital will choose to celebrate free speech and not crush it."
"Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" to lead demonstration after his production team burned Survivors members with high intensity commercial spotlights for sharing the pro-life message in front of his studio.
Members of Mr. Kimmel's crew hurled insults and taunts at young people who were simply holding signs and sharing the pro-life message on the public sidewalk in Hollywood.
After the Survivors refused to leave, members of the crew turned these powerful spotlights on the teenagers in an attempt to get them to leave the sidewalk.
The demonstration will be held on Wednesday, June 30, at 5:00 p.m.
The location is: 1651 Maramount Los Angeles, CA
A letter was sent to Mr. Kimmel asking for a public apology for this outrageous crushing of the First Amendment and pleading with him to embrace free speech.
"Survivors" want to make it clear that no American should be persecuted or attacked because of their beliefs and views.
Timmerie Millington, Spokesperson for Survivors, states, "One of the most cherished values we hold as Americans is the right to express our views in the public square from persecution and intimidation. Sadly, the production crew of Jimmy Kimmel Live crushed and trampled those values last week.
"It is outrageous and a disgrace that anyone would purposely burn teenagers with high intensity commercial spotlights just because of their belief that abortion is the killing of innocent children.
"We are coming to Mr. Kimmel's home to stand for free speech and civil liberties and ask him to publicly apologize for the hateful actions of his crews.
"Jimmy, we realize you are a comedian but burning young people and crushing the First Amendment is not funny."
"Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" will be holding a demonstration outside of Jimmy Kimmel Live studio on Thursday, July 1.
In 2009 the Chicago City Council passed a bubble-zone ordinance muzzling free speech in front of abortuaries at the behest of Planned Parenthood (PP). Now local pro-lifers are saying that a series of recent incidents show that the abortion giant is willing to lie to officers about the provisions of the ordinance in order to silence pro-life counselors.
According to the Pro-Life Action League, pro-lifers David and Darlene were counseling outside of an abortion mill last Thursday. Since pro-abortion "clinic escorts" only come to mills on Saturday, their efforts were unobstructed, and they were able to stand next to the Planned Parenthood entrance without hindrance.
A Planned Parenthood director, however, threatened to call police if they did not move.
Twenty minutes later, an officer arrived and went inside the building. After he came out he reportedly told the pro-life counselors to move 50 feet away from the door.
The 2009 amendment to the City's Disorderly Conduct Ordinance, however, allows pro-lifers to come within 50 feet of the building's door. In actuality, the law creates a 50-foot "bubble zone" around abortuaries within which pro-life protestors are not permitted to approach within eight feet of any individual going into the clinic without that individual's consent.
The counselors asked the officer if he had read the ordinance, and he said he had not. When his sergeant arrived, the sergeant threatened to arrest them unless they moved eight feet from the door of the Planned Parenthood, which the pro-lifers say was another clear misreading of the ordinance.
According to the Pro-Life Action League, the pro-lifers again pointed out that the text of the ordinance clearly permitted them to counsel as they were doing. Eventually the police permitted them to remain as they were.
"All in all, it was a successful day in challenging the bubble zone," wrote David. "I expect the next set of cops to interpret it another way, but we can always reference today's non-citation to bolster our defense."
The League also reports that officers have previously misinterpreted the law. In January, an officer told pro-life counselors that they could not come within eight feet of the Planned Parenthood doorway.
Again, in February one officer told sidewalk counselors not to come "within ten feet of the doorway ... that's panhandlng."
"Planned Parenthood is building a reputation with the police as a place that lies," wrote the Pro-Life Action League's projects coordinator, Corrina Gura. "They give the officers their version of what they wish the law said, then they ask the police to enforce their imaginary law."
The 40 Days for Life prayer vigil was among the reasons given in support of the "bubble zone" when Planned Parenthood was attempting to get it passed.
When the ordinance was proposed, even the ACLU had opposed it for excessively burdening free speech.
Canadian researchers have found that mesenchymal stem cells, a type of adult stem cell found in bone marrow and some other tissues, may help treat septic infection. Mice that had a septic infection were treated with mouse mesenchymal bone marrow adult stem cells; animals also received standard antibiotic treatment. Mesenchymal stem cells are known to influence the immune system and help repair tissue damage. Five days after treatment, 50 per cent of the animals that received the adult stem cells were alive, compared to just 15 per cent of the control animals that did not receive the cells.
According to Dr. Duncan Stewart, senior author:
"Our results suggest that mesenchymal stem cells may provide a promising new approach for treating organ damage caused by severe infection and we are looking to test this in patients in the near future."
Sepsis is the second leading cause of mortality in Canadian and U.S. intensive care units, resulting in more than 200,000 deaths each year and more than $16 billion in health care costs.
The following was presented at the 2010 workshop, "We Are the Sheep… Where Are the Shepherds?" Pastor Stallsworth, the pastor of St. Peter's United Methodist Church in Morehead City, North Carolina, is a member of the National Pro-Life Religious Council. The workshop addresses the basic question of how we can help our religious leaders speak out more directly on the abortion issue.
Sometimes a pastor wants to say and do more about abortion, but is opposed by influential leaders or factions within the congregation. How can we help in a situation like that?
In response to the above question, a relevant statement to an imagined congregation is attempted below.
"It is good to worship with you here, at First Church, on this Sunday morning. Today marks the end of my first year of being your pastor at First Church. My family and I are thankful to be in service to this congregation and thankful to be a part of this town.
"Last Sunday, as you may know, I mentioned abortion during a sermon for the first time. Since last Sunday's worship service, a few of you have let it be known that you did not like hearing about abortion from the pulpit. I understand that your previous pastors did not speak about abortion in their sermons, and a few of you do not want me to speak about abortion in my sermons. Here is my pastoral response to your sincere concerns.
"First, I am grateful to have brothers and sisters, in this church, who care enough about First Church to question your pastor on a matter. If you disagree with me about abortion, or any other subject, I invite you to bring your disagreement to me. Let's discuss or debate or even argue (in the best sense of the word) the matter on your mind.
"Furthermore, I promise this: whenever addressing abortion from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, I will schedule a congregational meeting that evening at which you can dissent from what I have preached. Your dissent will be invited and welcomed by your pastor, and your dissent will be answered by your pastor.
"God has called me to be a pastor with you, not a bully over you. Following the example of the Good Shepherd, I am ordained to be a servant leader of this flock. Any authority or power that I am granted is to be used for the good of this congregation -- not for my self-gratification, not for my personal agenda, not for my self-aggrandizement. Therefore, your dissent from my preaching and teaching will be taken seriously and seriously engaged.
"Second, I believe that God's love and God's law, the Bible and the Tradition, as well as moral law and natural law, challenge the Church and the society to protect the unborn child and mother. This is the Church's truth about life. My challenge is to propose to you the truth about life -- not impose this truth on you. To propose is to offer the truth about life to you, and then allow God to apply it to your hearts and minds. To impose this truth on you is to crush your conscience and perhaps your spirit. That is not my intent. My aim is to propose the truth about life to you.
"Third, allow me to speak very candidly to you. I believe that abortion is the greatest and gravest problem facing American society today. Since 1973, there have been over 50 million abortions in our country. Each year there are over one million. Each day there are over 3,000. Each abortion ends in the destruction of a tiny, innocent boy or girl and the harm of the mother. Each abortion represents an assault on the human dignity given by God to each unborn child and mother.
"Consider earlier issues. Slavery and racism were serious enough matters to be opposed by the American Church -- but not very well. The Holocaust against the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s was a serious enough matter to be opposed by the German Church -- but not very well. Abortion is a serious enough matter to be opposed by the Church today. Now it is our turn. Now it is my turn. I must try to hold up the truth of the Church's faith. This truth, that I am to hold up, shines hope into First Church, hope into the larger Church, hope into society.
"I cannot remain silent. I must speak. I will lovingly propose the truth about life. I will listen to your dissent, and I will lovingly respond to you. But I am compelled, by the Lord of life, to speak.
"Thank you for listening to my response to your concerns."
With a series of quick quips and nimble sidesteps, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan deflected tough Republican questions on her views and judgment to sail on Wednesday toward likely U.S. Senate confirmation. During three days of hearings, Kagan has coolly turned aside Republican criticism she would be a rubberstamp for President Barack Obama's political agenda, without revealing much of her own opinions about the court or its decisions. Kagan's performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics and appeared to put her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July. Click here for the entire article.
If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don't report it, did it really happen? According to an American Life League review of Planned Parenthood's annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation's major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. Click here for the entire article.
Pro-life leaders are expressing their hopes that the new head of the Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) can re-forge the organization's unity and get back to work promoting the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. Among the important curial appointments made today, Pope Benedict XVI announced that Msgr. Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, formerly chancellor of the PAV, will be taking over as president.
The academy has been wracked with controversy over the last year after its former head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, wrote an article, published by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, that appeared to condone the abortion of twins in Brazil. The scandal of the so-called "Recife Affair" made headlines around the world, with the secular media and abortion advocates welcoming the article, claiming it indicated a "softening" of the Church's stand on abortion. Click here for the entire article.
Sitting on a hotel stage at the national convention of the Right to Life Committee, Rep. John Boehner smiled as Darla St. Martin, the group's co-executive director, introduced him as speaker of the U.S. House. "I'm getting ahead of myself,'' she said Saturday as she caught her mistake. "I'm dreaming of the future.'' The Ohio Republican, still minority leader of the House, joined the abortion regulators who met here over the last three days in predicting political and legislative gains for their movement. Mr. Boehner was the featured speaker on the closing day of the national convention at the Hyatt Regency at the Pittsburgh International Airport. The group reveled in recent gains for their position at the state legislative level. Speaker after speaker Saturday predicted that movement would be a prelude for gains at the federal level in congressional contests in November, when the GOP hopes to reverse the Democrat tide of the last two election cycles. Click here for the entire article.
New York 2New York's pro-life and conservative community is intent on halting passage of the Reproductive Health Act, which they consider to be a radical measure that would be the greatest expansion of abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.
According to Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State (CPNYS), New York already has the most liberal abortion laws in the country. "This bill would just broaden and totally liberalize and allow abortion under any circumstances, at any time, at any time period, to be performed," he explains. Click here for the entire article.
The tribal genocide of 1994 in Rwanda resulted in more than 800,000 Rwandan deaths and countless women suffering rape at the hands of the Hutu militia who were ordered to kill off the country's minority Tutsi tribe.
Now, 16 years later, the children of the raped women are facing the reality of how they were conceived. They and their mothers are looking for acceptance in a society that is still healing from the horrors of the past. Click here for the entire article.
A newly-released report from the London-based Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) purporting to show that unborn children do not feel pain before 24 weeks has made international headlines in the last few days. But according to pro-life leaders, the study ignores key evidence and is little more than an attempt by abortion advocates to deceive the public.
The issue of fetal pain received significant exposure earlier this year in the U.S. after a landmark law was enacted in April by the Nebraska legislature restricting abortion after twenty weeks. The so-called "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" was a response to the growing consensus that the unborn feel pain by that age, if not earlier.
In the U.K. abortion for social reasons is restricted past the 24th week of gestation (eugenic abortions are permitted up until birth), although there have been discussions in the last few years about dropping that limit by 2-4 weeks. Such a move has been endorsed by Prime Minister David Cameron, who said in April that, "I think the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible." However, the new report by RCOG is being latched onto by anti-life forces as evidence that there is no "scientific" reason to reduce the abortion limit.
But Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), says that, "An objective expert in neurobiology would be appalled by the stunning lack of scholarship in the RCOG article."
She noted that one of the authors is actually an abortionist, while the rest are largely abortion advocates.
The authors of the report dismiss the notion of fetal pain prior to 24 weeks based on the fact that the unborn lack a complete nerve connection to the cerebral cortex before 24 weeks. But Spaulding Balch said this ignores the seminal 2007 study from the medical journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences entitled "Consciousness without a cerebral cortex."
According to that study even "children born missing virtually all of the cerebral cortex nonetheless experience pain," she said.
"Ironically, the article concedes the evidence that by 20 weeks pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child's skin," she continued, "that these are linked by nerves to the thalamus and the subcortal plate, and that these children have coordinated aversive reactions to painful stimuli, and experience increased stress hormones from it."
Paul Tully, general secretary for the London-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), observed that the 24-week limit on social abortion is a "red herring" in any case.
"The RCOG's claim about babies not feeling pain before 24 weeks begs the question: Why do abortion doctors keep making this point when they support the abortion of babies up till birth?"
Tully says the suggestion that doctors performing abortions are not causing the child pain by killing him or her is simply "a way of denying that what they are doing is evil and they know it."
"The RCOG is trying to find a comfort zone for its members. It is not concerned about the rights and the lives of the babies killed."
"The RCOG knows better than most people how marvellous, sensitive, complex and beautiful these babies are at every stage of development from conception onwards," he said. "Life does not start halfway through a pregnancy, it starts at conception."
30 Years After Harris v. McRae, Landmark Decision Holds New Significance During Kagan Confirmation Hearings
U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan
On June 30, 1980 - 30 years ago today - Americans United for Life (AUL) successfully defended the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Harris v. McRae, resolving a four-year legal battle to ensure that Congress may prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding abortion.
The Kagan tie-in?
Harris v. McRae has prevented taxpayer-funded abortion under Medicaid for three decades, and established a legislative standard set by the Hyde Amendment. This narrow 5-4 decision has had a major impact on an issue upon which seven out of ten voters agree - public funds should not be used for abortion.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, reminded supporters in a speech last week, "We won Harris v. McRae with one vote."
Among those who opposed the decision were Justice John Paul Stevens, whose seat President Obama proposes to fill with Elena Kagan, and Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom Kagan clerked and has repeatedly singled out as someone she admires. Marshall, an advocate of unrestricted abortion, thought that a judge should "do what [he] thinks is right and let the law catch up."
Elena Kagan's record as a pro-abortion political operative who has pre-judged the abortion issue clearly demonstrates that she would use her position as a judge to impose her extreme views upon the American people, rather than impartially interpreting the law.
Dr. Yoest, who is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee, will raise this critical point.
Today, with a full day of questioning ahead, Senators need to ask Elena Kagan what she thinks of Harris v. McRae. Will she respect this precedent or will she, like her hero Aharon Barak, "adapt the law to life's changing needs"?
Brief Background of Harris v. McRae:
In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of certain federal tax dollars to pay for abortion. Cora McRae challenged the Hyde Amendment, taking action against Patricia Harris, then Secretary of Health and Human Services. On June 30, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment were constitutional.
Harris v. McRae is a landmark decision because it ensures that Congress can prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.
A new test is in the works that will allow Down fetuses to be detected without the risks of current screening. From the story:
A quick inexpensive blood test for Down's syndrome that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year is being developed by scientists. The 'holy grail' of diagnosis, it would pick up signs of the disease from a few drops of the mother's blood. The test could save lives by removing the risk of miscarriage associated with current tests…Dr Frints, of Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, has already created a kit that can work out if the baby is a boy or a girl. She is adapting the kit to test for Down's syndrome and other genetic conditions could follow. Around 25,000 British women a year have invasive tests for Down's syndrome, so the test has the potential to save 250 lives annually.
The statement in the story really meant "save the lives of normal babies." These tests are intended as a search and destroy mission, to find and promote eradication of Down fetuses. The babies miscarried now as a result of invasive testing might be called collateral damage in the larger eugenic drive.
I am certainly in favor of preventing those miscarriages. And, of course, some families will use the information provided to prepare themselves and family for the arrival of a child with a disability, as did the Palins (for which some will never forgive them). But the latter benefit isn't the primary point of the test and certainly not why the medical establishment promotes universal pre-natal testing so enthusiastically. Frankly, they are not satisfied with a 90% termination rate.
But isn't it ironic–that we will save some "good" babies, in order to find a better way to identify others to terminate. If babies of color were being similarly targeted it would be called racism.
