TIME magazine ran a piece online titled "How China Has Pruned Its Families' Trees." Given how serious the topic is, the headline is more than a little flippant.
Hannah Beech makes several very shrewd observations. Given China's booming economy-- and seeing a "link between the single-child policy and double-digit growth rates"--it would appear that some "experts" are very forgiving of the nation's human rights violations. "Even as foreigners decry the forced abortions, sterilizations and other abuses committed by zealous family-planning officials," Beech writes, "an uneasy thought emerges: maybe China's rulers had it right all along."
She takes the time to list the unanticipated consequences of China's totalitarian social policies. Everything from a fertility rate way below replacement; "one of the planet's worst gender imbalances, largely a result of women aborting female fetuses due to a traditional preference for male offspring"; to " least 24 million 'bare branches' -- men destined to stay single because there are not enough wives to go around. As more of those boys become bachelors, China risks all sorts of social plagues -- from criminal gangs to greater trafficking in women."
On top of all that, "The other danger is that China will grow gray before it is rich enough to cope," Beech says. Factories "are now facing shortages of young, skilled labor. By 2050, one-third of Chinese will be elderly." And that doesn't even address the "habit" urban Chinese have gotten into--having one child or no children at all--due to an increase in affluence and "30 years of official propaganda."
A piece very much reading. It's at www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2002403,00.html#ixzz0tCglXF7L
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Date Published: July 9, 2010
Cora Sherlock, a barrister writing in the "Irish Independent", has challenged the claim by Gabrielle Malone, Irish spokesman for the Marie Stopes abortion business, that women have the universal right "to have the baby or terminate the pregnancy."
She points out that Malone implies that human beings derive their right to life (and the right to be called "a baby") only when they are deemed "wanted" by society. "It is deeply disappointing that someone who deals with women in vulnerable positions on a daily basis should hold such a questionable opinion on the value of human life," she writes.
"My frustration was compounded by her insistence that Irish women must be given the right to abortion and hence "control over their bodies". Ms Malone seems to be under the misapprehension that intelligent, modern women cannot understand the most recent scientific evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the unborn child is a separate human being with organs, brainwaves and individual fingerprints.
By all means, I welcome Ms Malone's participation in this debate, and I encourage her to extend her concern for our unborn "sisters" as well," Miss Sherlock continued.
"Their plight was highlighted in a recent issue of The Economist that found that over 100 million baby girls have disappeared through abortion, infanticide and neglect.
But I would remind her that in order to be constructive, debate must be honest and it must stick to scientific facts." Irish Independent. June 24.
Source: Family & Life
Date Published: July 12, 2010
Pro-Life Action League's "Face the Truth Tour"
Today, attorneys from the Thomas More Society, on the eave of seeking emergency injunctive relief in federal court, secured an agreement from the city of West Chicago to allow a pro-life protest to proceed there tomorrow morning.
West Chicago officials had notified the Thomas More Society early Thursday that the Pro-Life Action League's "Face the Truth Tour" protest, which involves people holding abortion signage at busy intersections in various municipalities, would not be permitted to take place Friday morning in that city, due to a new ordinance for demonstrations and protests. Adopted just this past Tuesday by the city of West Chicago, the ordinance requires would-be demonstrators to apply for a permit at least 90 days prior to a demonstration. The ordinance also allows denial of a permit based on the city administrator's determination whether he believes a demonstration will negatively affect public "comfort, morals, and welfare."
After pointing out the various constitutional deficiencies to the city's attorneys, Thomas More Society attorneys prepared federal court papers to secure an injunction to allow the protest to proceed. Just prior to the initiation of court proceedings, the attorneys for the city agreed to allow the protest and to take a fresh look at the West Chicago demonstration ordinance, with the assistance of the Thomas More Society.
"The West Chicago demonstration ordinance illegally restricts core speech protected by our federal Constitution. By agreeing to allow the peaceful pro-life protest tomorrow and to take a fresh look at that ordinance, the officials of West Chicago have wisely recognized the primacy of our sacred free speech rights," said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. "Due to the increased legal action being taken against pro-life people around the country, we will continue to oppose ordinances like these to ensure that pro-life individuals can continue to exercise their rights to peacefully speak, pray and protest."
Contact: Stephanie Lewis
Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: July 8, 2010
For the last number of years American billionaire Warren Buffett, 79, has gradually been giving away his estimated $47 billion fortune – and much of it is going to support the work of abortion activists worldwide.
The Bloomberg news agency reports that Buffett's annual gift this year to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – which supports population control efforts around the globe – was figured at $1.6 billion in Class B stock of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's Omaha-based company. The amount is a 28% increase from last year, due to the fact that the value of Buffett's Berkshire holdings have improved overall while the rest of the economy has tanked. Berkshire's stock value rose 35% on the New York Stock Exchange over the past 12 months, and Berkshire profits rose 61% in 2009.
In 2006, Buffett endowed the Gates Foundation with 10 million Berkshire Class B shares, valued at approximately $37 billion dollars. Buffett's 2010 donation constitutes part of the annual installment plan of 5% of pledged stocks to the foundation's trust fund. The stock gives the Gates Foundation a steady source of income (the pay-out target over the coming decade is $3 billion a year) from which it can fund various other charities – which have included population control groups such as Planned Parenthood and others.
Just last month, the Gates Foundation announced they would be investing $1.5 billion in the cause of maternal health over the next 5 years – with a special emphasis on spreading "family planning" in the third world.
Bloomberg reports that other abortion advocacy groups also received tens of millions for their work promoting abortion at home and abroad through the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, a charity Buffet set up in honor of his first wife, who died in 2005. That foundation distributed more than $2 million to the Abortion Access Project Inc., over $2 million to Catholics for Choice, a group dedicated to undermining the Catholic Church's teaching on the sanctity of life, and more than $40 million to Ipas, a group that promotes the expansion of legal abortion in Latin and Central America, and in third world countries.
In fact, Ipas was implicated in 2007 as a participant in the alleged cover-up of the rape of a nine-year-old girl named "Rosita," by her step-father. Marta Maria Blandon, then Ipas Director for Central America, was accused of helping Francisco Fletes flee Costa Rica with his wife and "Rosita" in 2003, knowing full well that the Fletes was a suspect in the investigation. However, Blandon's priority and that of her accomplices in the international abortion movement, was using the nine-year old's pregnancy as a "hard case" by which they could undermine the region's pro-life laws.
Ipas also intervened in the battle over legalizing abortion in Mexico City with false statistics, claiming that 1527 women had died from complications due to illegal abortions between the years 1990 and 2005. However, pro-life advocates pointed out that the health department's own statistics, as well as those of other agencies, contradicted that number.
Bloomberg reports that Buffett intends to give away 99% of his personal fortune before his death. He has pledged 85% of his holdings in Berkshire to the Gates Foundation, the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, the Sherwood Foundation and the NoVo Foundation.
Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 8, 2010
A five-year study by the Ovulation Method Research and Reference Centre of Australia Ltd. found that sub-fertile women achieved a known pregnancy rate of 65% using the Billings Ovulation Method.
Developed by Drs John and Evelyn Billings, the Billings Ovulation Method, a completely natural method of fertility regulation, has been validated by eminent international scientists and verified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in a five-nation trial. It is used by millions of women around the world to either achieve or avoid pregnancy and to help safeguard their reproductive health.
The study involved a total of 449 participants, of which 207 women had previously been classified as sub-fertile. Twenty couples in the study had been unsuccessful with In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF)/Artificial Insemination (AI). Seven of these couples achieved pregnancy using the Billings Ovulation Method.
Significantly, 66% of over-38-year-olds in the study also achieved a pregnancy using the Billings Ovulation Method.
On average, couples had tried to conceive for a period of 15 months before participating in the study. The average period from initial instruction in the Billings Ovulation Method to conception was 4.7 months.
Kerry Bourke, President of the Ovulation Method Research and Reference Centre of Australia Ltd, said she hopes that women who have concerns about their fertility will be encouraged by these findings to seek natural fertility counseling by Billings and that more doctors will recommend it as an option for sub-fertile women. The findings of the five-year study are being prepared for publication.
An independent Australian review of Assisted Reproductive Technologies found that the live birth rate for women aged 30 to 34 using IVF is approximately 24.7%, while for women aged 35 to 39 the live birth rate is approximately 24%. The live birth rate for women aged 40 to 44 is approximately 6%. The average cost of ART per live birth is approximately AUS $33,000, and increases with maternal age. By comparison, the average cost of the Billings Ovulation Method per live birth is approximately AUS $1100.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 8, 2010
One of the big stories today in Australia is of a Melbourne woman who has announced that she is traveling to Thailand to have sex selection IVF because it is against the law here. She just has to have a girl, don't you know! From the story:
A MELBOURNE mum is so desperate to have a daughter she is travelling to Thailand so she can choose the sex of her next baby, frustrated at Australian medical authorities as they drag their feet over the issue. Already blessed with three boys – aged 5, 4 and 1 – the 36-year-old and her husband say they have been forced to sidestep Australian laws because they cannot wait for federal medical authorities to decide if they will overturn their ban on the practice. While she says her boys mean the world to her, the mother – who does not want to be identified for fear of reprisals against her family – will spend more than $15,000 to ensure she conceives a girl in a Bangkok clinic in the coming months.
Of course, this means the male embryonic brothers of those treasured boys will be tossed out with the other medical waste. So, in this case, a Y chromosome is a deadly defect. But after all, it is all about entlitlement:
"We have all this technology available now and we don't need to use it open-slather, but I think we do need to use it with parameters, with doctors involved, to enhance our lives."
Proper parameters? She's circumventing legal parameters by leaving Australia for Thailand because she wants what she wants.
Increasingly, IVF is not about treating infertility, but about reducing reproduction to a crass consumer activity akin to choosing a breed of dog or model of flat screen television. This is objectification pure and simple. When we believe we are entitled not just to a child but to the kind of child we want, it strikes a body blow against unconditional love–becuase by definition, it isn't. Of course, the point of telling the media about the "mum's" plans was to promote that very outcome.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: July 9, 2010
A federal district court in Alabama approved a consent order today ensuring that police in Birmingham, Alabama, will not interfere with the expressive activities of the pro-life youth group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust. The city agreed to the order after the Survivors, represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation, sued for injunctive relief and damages.
The suit, filed in early June, arose from an incident in February 2009, when nine members of the Survivors, based in Riverside, California, were arrested and jailed overnight for displaying pro-life signs and handing out literature on a public sidewalk outside a high school in Birmingham. Rather than investigating the incident and admitting that the police had violated the Survivors' rights, the city later filed misdemeanor trespass charges against them. These criminal charges are still pending.
Because the Survivors planned to travel to Birmingham this month to participate in various pro-life activities scheduled for late July, they asked LLDF to obtain a preliminary injunction to ensure that they would not suffer the same treatment from police as they had last year. In the course of seeking that injunction, LLDF lawyers learned that the city had a "demonstration" ordinance that required groups as small as two persons to obtain permits before engaging in various free speech activity.
"What started as a lawsuit to get fair treatment for the Survivors has evolved into a broader challenge to the city's unconstitutional permit scheme," said Katie Short, legal director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "We have learned from local pro-lifers that this law has been a thorn in their side for years. We are hopeful that when this suit is over, we will have not only vindicated the Survivors' rights, but also have relieved the local pro-life community of the burden of this onerous law."
The Survivors are represented by LLDF attorneys Katie Short and Allison Aranda, as well as by local counsel Phillip Jauregui and Caroline Allen of Jauregui & Lindsey in Birmingham. The case is Turn the Hearts v. City of Birmingham, No. 2:10-CV-01477-LSC.
Contact: Allison K. Aranda
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: July 8, 2010
Honoring motherhood as women's unique service to others in the heart of the home is essential to the true empowerment of women, Archbishop Celestino Migliore told a United Nations meeting on gender equality and women's empowerment this week.
Representing the Holy See, Migliore said that the Vatican "notes with concern that ... various forms of discrimination, exploitation and oppression of women and girls persist."
He said that "the empowerment of women presupposes universal human dignity and, thus, the dignity of each and every individual." The archbishop pointed out that recognizing the natural complementarity of men and women in society, where "equality is not sameness, and difference is not inequality," is necessary to safeguard women's unique dignity.
"Empowering women and respecting their dignity mean also honoring their capacity to serve and devote themselves to society and to the family through motherhood which entails a self-giving love and care-giving," he continued. "Altruism, dedication and service to others are healthy and contribute to personal dignity."
"If domesticity can be considered a particular gift of mothers in cultivating a genuine intrapersonal relationship in the family and society, then family-friendly working arrangements, shared family-care leave and redistribution of the burden of unpaid work will be given the attention they rightly deserve."
Migliore also emphasized the legitimate need to provide women with adequate health care to reduce maternal mortality – a goal that is often hijacked by activists to promote contraception and abortion.
"Scientific studies have shown remarkable improvement in the reduction of maternal and infant mortality, revealing the importance of complementary investing in other areas relevant to women and girls including nutrition, general health and education," said Migliore. "The real advancement of women is not achieved by concentrating on a particular health issue to the neglect of others but by promoting their overall health which necessarily includes giving more attention to addressing women-specific diseases."
The massive Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C. last month, heavily funded by the UN, used the goal of improving maternal health to repeatedly push for "safe, legal abortion" worldwide. Unmentioned was the fact that third-world countries with less restrictive abortion laws, such as India, generally suffer higher maternal mortality rates, whereas the opposite is true for pro-life countries, such as Chile.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 8, 2010
National Right to Life Reacts to Appointment of Donald Berwick to Head HHS' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
"Donald Berwick is a one-man death panel."
Donald Berwick
Today, President Obama used the power of the recess appointment to install Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in an attempt to avoid examination, through the pending confirmation process, of Berwick's well-documented support for rationing health care.
"The Obama recess appointment of rationing advocate Donald Berwick to head the key government agency that will apply the new health care law is disastrous news for the vulnerable, especially the elderly and the sickest of American patients," said Burke Balch, J.D., director of National Right to Life's Powell Center for Medical Ethics.
Confirmation of Berwick would have faced strong opposition from pro-life Republican senators appalled by his open advocacy of government-imposed rationing of medical treatment. In a June 2009 interview with the journal Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
In an article in the May/June 2008 issue of Health Affairs, he called for "rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest" so as to "reduce per capita costs." Lamenting that "[t]oday's individual health care processes are designed to respond to the acute needs of individual patients," Berwick wrote that instead government should "approach new technologies and capital investments with skepticism and require that a strong burden of proof of value lie with the proponent."
Berwick's advocacy of the decimation of American health care is long-standing. In a 1994 Journal of the American Medical Association article, he wrote, "Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging."
"Donald Berwick is a one-man death panel," said David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., National Right to Life executive director. "While Americans may not remember the agency he heads, he will quickly become known as Obama's rationing czar."
Berwick is also an enthusiastic supporter of Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the agency charged with determining which medical advances will -- and which will not -- be made available to the British public. Berwick claims NICE has "developed very good and very disciplined . . . models for the evaluation of medical treatment from which we ought to learn." England's five-year cancer survival rate for men is only 45%, compared with 66% in the U.S. That for women is 53%, compared to 63% in the U.S. (See: Arduiono Verdecchia and others, "Recent Cancer Survival: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, no. 8, pages
784-796.)
The difference can in large measure be attributed to the refusal of NICE to authorized British use of pioneering cancer drugs routinely available in the United States. That is to say -- currently routinely available in the United States -- an availability Berwick will soon be using the power of government to curtail.
"President Obama's appointment of this open advocate of rationing to implement his health care law underlines the need for repeal before untold numbers of vulnerable Americans suffer death from denial of life-saving treatment," O'Steen added. "The Obama health care rationing law must be repealed and voters need to remember its deadly provisions in November."
Contact: Derrick Jones
Source: National Right to Life Committee
Date Published: July 7, 2010
Elena "What Memo?" Kagan: Saletan Got One Big Thing Wrong
Elena Kagan
There's a lot of buzz about Will Saletan's incisive analysis of Elena Kagan's role in shaping, from the White House, the "medical" conclusions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the partial-birth abortion method. (See full article, below.) The criticism of Kagan and ACOG is certainly welcome, especially coming from this "pro-choice" writer at this left-leaning magazine.
But Saletan is dead wrong on one central point: Kagan did substantively change the ACOG statement with the sentence she dictated to the organization. Before Kagan's interference, the ACOG statement read:
"a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
Before Kagan, partial-birth abortion was equal to or lesser than other methods in ACOG's view. With the addition of Kagan's wording that it "may be the best" method "in a particular circumstance," partial-birth abortion now became potentially better than other methods in the official view of ACOG. Saletan apparently doesn't understand that making it potentially best in some unnamed hypothetical situation was equivalent to making it definitively best in the view of the reviewing courts. Even a cursory reading of the lower court rulings shows that the Kagan "best" language was absolutely key to the courts' reasoning in overturning the bans.
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court got past this politicized medicine and got the ruling right. But this revelation should be a permanent black eye for ACOG's reputation on any abortion-related issue in the future, and is proof that Kagan is a zealous pro-abortion political animal trying to disguise herself in judge's robes.
When Kagan Played Doctor
http://www.slate.com/id/2259495/pagenum/all/#p2
Elena Kagan's partial-birth abortion scandal.
By William Saletan
Posted Saturday, July 3, 2010, at 2:12 PM ET
Fourteen years ago, to protect President Clinton's position on partial-birth abortions, Elena Kagan doctored a statement by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Conservatives think this should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. They understate the scandal. It isn't Kagan we should worry about. It's the whole judiciary.
Kagan, who was then an associate White House counsel, was doing her job: advancing the president's interests. The real culprit was ACOG, which adopted Kagan's spin without acknowledgment. But the larger problem is the credence subsequently given to ACOG's statement by courts, including the Supreme Court. Judges have put too much faith in statements from scientific organizations. This credulity must stop.
The Kagan story appeared Tuesday in National Review and CNSNews.com. You can read the underlying papers at the Media Research Center. There are three crucial documents. The first is a memo from Kagan on June 22, 1996, describing a meeting with ACOG's chief lobbyist and its former president. The main takeaway from the meeting, Kagan wrote, was that "there are an exceedingly small number of partial birth abortions that could meet the standard the President has articulated," i.e., abortions in which the partial-birth technique was necessary to protect a woman's life or health. She explained:
In the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman's health; another option—whether another abortion procedure or, in the post-viability context, birth through a caesarean section, induced labor, or carrying the pregnancy to term—is equally safe.
The second document is a draft ACOG statement on "intact D&X" (aka partial-birth) abortions, faxed by ACOG to the White House on Dec. 5, 1996. The statement said that
a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Notwithstanding this conclusion, ACOG strongly believes that decisions about medical treatment must be made by the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D & X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women.
The third document is a set of undated notes in Kagan's handwriting, offering "suggested options" for editing the ACOG statement. They included this sentence: "An intact D+X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and a doctor should be allowed to make this determination." This sentence was added verbatim to the final ACOG statement released on Jan. 12, 1997, which read in part:
A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision.
The basic story is pretty clear: Kagan, with ACOG's consent, edited the statement to say that intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure" in some cases. Conservatives have pounced on this, claiming that Kagan "fudged the results of [ACOG's] study," "made up 'scientific facts,' " and "participated in a gigantic scientific deception." These charges are exaggerated. The sentence Kagan added was hypothetical. It didn't assert, alter, or conceal any data. Nor did it "override a scientific finding," as National Review alleges, or "trump" ACOG's conclusions, as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, contends. Even Power Line, a respected conservative blog, acknowledges that ACOG's draft and Kagan's edit "are not technically inconsistent." Kagan didn't override ACOG's scientific judgments. She reframed them.
But Kagan's defense is bogus, too. On Wednesday, at her confirmation hearing, Hatch pressed Kagan about this episode. She replied that she had just been "clarifying the second aspect of what [ACOG] thought." Progressive blogs picked up this spin, claiming that she merely "clarified" ACOG's findings and made its position "more clear" so that its "intent was correctly understood." Come on. Kagan didn't just "clarify" ACOG's position. She changed its emphasis. If a Bush aide had done something like this during the stem-cell debate, progressive blogs would have screamed bloody murder.
At the hearing, Kagan said ACOG had told her that intact D&X "was in some circumstances the medically best procedure." But that doesn't quite match her 1996 memo about her meeting with ACOG. In the memo, she wrote that
we went through every circumstance imaginable—post- and pre-viability, assuming malformed fetuses, assuming other medical conditions, etc., etc.—and there just aren't many where use of the partial-birth abortion is the least risky, let alone the "necessary," approach. No one should worry about being able to drive a truck through the President's proposed exception; the real issue is whether anything at all can get through it.
The language in this memo—"imaginable," "let alone," the quotes around "necessary"—depicts a conversation in which nobody could think of a real case where intact D&X was, as Kagan's revision would later put it, "the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." Indeed, the participants doubted whether "anything at all" could meet Clinton's standard—namely, a case in which intact D&X would be "necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse consequences to her health." So Kagan's statement at her hearing—that ACOG had said intact D&X "was in some circumstances the medically best procedure"—considerably stretches the truth as she recorded it. It implies, contrary to her contemporaneous notes, that ACOG had affirmed a specific need for the procedure.
Kagan's critics see her political meddling as a violation of science. The revised ACOG statement "was a political document, intended to bolster the case for partial-birth abortion, under the false flag of scientific objectivity," says Power Line. National Review agrees: "Language purporting to be the judgment of an independent body of medical experts" was "nothing more than the political scrawling of a White House appointee." These complaints are overboard. Science and politics aren't mutually exclusive. The ACOG statement was largely scientific, and even Kagan's insertion was more than political scrawling: It reframed but obeyed the constraints of ACOG's objective beliefs.
But if conservatives are being naive about the relationship between science and politics, Kagan is being cynical about it. "There was no way in which I would have or could have intervened with ACOG, which is a respected body of physicians, to get it to change its medical views," she told senators on Wednesday. With this clever phrasing, she obscured the truth: By reframing ACOG's judgments, she altered their political effect as surely as if she had changed them.
She also altered their legal effect. And this is the scandal's real lesson: Judges should stop treating the statements of scientific organizations as apolitical. Such statements, like the statements of any other group, can be loaded with spin. This one is a telling example.
National Review, CNSNews, and Power Line make a damning case that courts mistook the ACOG statement for pure fact. In 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortions, it cited ACOG: "The District Court also noted that a select panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that D&X 'may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'" That sentence, we now know, was written by Kagan.
Four years later, when U.S. district judge Richard Kopf ruled against the federal partial-birth ban, he wrote:
I have summarized only the statements of the two leading national medical associations—that is, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—regarding substantive medical questions, but only to the extent the statements reflected the considered medical opinion of such groups after an apparent professional inquiry. I did not summarize the policy views of these or other associations.
Kopf explained why he trusted the ACOG statement:
In forming the task force's proposed ACOG Statement on Intact Dilation and Extraction, the members relied on their own education and expertise, obstetrics and gynecology textbooks, CDC information, published information on the safety of D&E and the D&X subset of D&E, and information about the safety of available alternatives. The textbooks were referenced for information about specific abortion procedures. The task force did not rely on information received from the public, did not interview or receive testimony from doctors, and did not draft and circulate individual position papers or statements for review and comment by other task force members. … Before and during the task force meeting, neither ACOG nor the task force members conversed with other individuals or organizations, including congressmen and doctors who provided congressional testimony, concerning the topics addressed in the ACOG Statement on Intact Dilation and Extraction.
Kopf, like the rest of us, was apparently unaware that after the ACOG task force formulated its proposed statement, the statement was politically vetted and edited. Kagan's memos and testimony confirm that ACOG consulted the White House and altered its statement accordingly. As a result, the statement reframed ACOG's professional findings to support the policy views it shared with the White House.
All of us should be embarrassed that a sentence written by a White House aide now stands enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, erroneously credited with scientific authorship and rigor. Kagan should be most chastened of all. She fooled the nation's highest judges. As one of them, she had better make sure they aren't fooled again.
Contact: Cathy Ruse
Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: July 8, 2010
Notre Dame Honored GE Despite Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Fr. John Jenkins CSC
The University of Notre Dame has ignored a request to rescind the University's May 2010 honoring of General Electric (GE) for "values-based decision making," despite the company's involvement with embryonic stem cell research.
In a letter dated June 1 to Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., Cardinal Newman Society President Patrick J. Reilly wrote, "Given Notre Dame's Catholic identity, especially considering its 'Statement Supporting the Choice for Life' issued a month ago, it is contradictory and potentially scandalous for the University to honor a company which is in clear conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church."
"Although the award has already been given to General Electric," continued Reilly, "I strongly encourage you to publicly revoke the honor so that progress made by Notre Dame as a Catholic, pro-life institution may continue. Most importantly, I suggest that this honor and last year's commencement controversy point to the value of a consistent university policy on honors and platforms to uphold Notre Dame's Catholic mission."
As of this date, The Cardinal Newman Society has not received a response from the University.
On May 28, the University of Notre Dame issued a press release announcing the 2010 recipients of the Mendoza School of Business's Notre Dame Executive Education awards. GE was among the awardees honored for "commitment to values-based decision making."
Last year, GE launched a partnership with Geron Corp., a world leader in embryonic stem cell research and cloning, to sell products derived from embryonic stem cells. Reuters reported that Konstantin Fiedler, general manager of cell technologies at GE Healthcare, said, "This could replace, to a large extent, animal trials. Once you have human cells and you can get them in a standardized way, like you get right now your lab rats in a standardized way, you can actually do those experiments on those cells."
In April, Forbes Magazine identified Geron (citing the partnership with General Electric) as one of four "standard-bearers for stem cell therapies." Forbes noted that "Geron's treatment for spinal cord injury was the first human embryonic stem cell therapy to receive FDA approval for a clinical trial." In 2000, Geron patented the technologies used to create the infamous cloned sheep "Dolly."
There are also indications that GE may itself be engaged in embryonic stem cell research, or at least intends to pursue it. In 2008, GE identified "[r]esearch involving embryonic stem cells" as a company priority in demonstrating "responsible citizenship."
And since 2005, GE company policy has allowed research using embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for use by the federal government. Last year President Barack Obama allowed federal funding for research using new stem cell lines from destroyed human embryos—but even President George W. Bush's limited approval or research on pre-existing stem cell lines was condemned by the U.S. bishops as "morally unacceptable."
The U.S. bishops also mandated in 2004: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
In June The Cardinal Newman Society protested Boston College's decision to honor General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who delivered the university's commencement address and was awarded an honorary degree.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: July 7, 2010
ACLU presents inaccurate image of Catholic hospitals on abortion, say experts
Dr. John Haas and Attorney Thomas Brejcha
A recent letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to investigate and take action against Catholic hospitals who refuse to provide abortions. However, critics have said that the letter misrepresents the Church's teaching in its claim that Catholic hospitals are violating their patients' right to health care.
Analysts of the letter also told CNA, any law or regulation requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions would disregard the rights of conscience that the Obama administration has promised to uphold.
The ACLU letter, dated July 1, claims that refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortions is a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and the Conditions of Participation of Medicare and Medicaid.
The letter states, "Religiously affiliated hospitals across the country inappropriately and unlawfully deny pregnant women emergency medical care." The ACLU also highlights the recent demotion of Sr. Margaret Mary McBride for facilitating an abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix. The letter claims that although the abortion was performed, disciplinary actions taken against Sr. McBride, as well as the statement of opposition by the diocese, discourages hospital employees from fulfilling their legal duties.
In addition, the ACLU lists several other examples of Catholic hospitals not providing "reproductive services" to women. According to the legal organization, the hospitals' "refusal to provide timely reproductive health care to pregnant women seriously threatens their health and lives."
CMS spokeswoman Ellen Griffith confirmed to CNA that the letter was received and is currently being reviewed to decide what action, if any, will be taken.
Experts in bioethics and law have responded to the letter by saying that it both attacks and misrepresents Catholic teaching by depicting it as though it forbids any attempt to save the life of pregnant mothers.
Dr. John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, explained that while direct abortion is always prohibited by Catholic teaching, the Church permits efforts to treat or cure the mother, even if such efforts may result in the indirect and unintentional death of the unborn child. The principle of double effect holds that because the child's loss of life is neither direct nor intentional, it is not morally wrong.
"In fact, some of the conditions cited in the letter would have allowed an 'indirect abortion' in a Catholic hospital which permits a physician to address a current and serious pathology which might indirectly result in the foreseen but unintended death of the child," Dr. Haas told CNA.
He referenced the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" of the U.S. bishops. Directive 47 states that "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel for the Thomas More Society, told CNA that requiring Catholic hospitals to facilitate abortions would violate fundamental rights of conscience.
"Catholics should view the ACLU's letter as heralding nothing less than a new onslaught of attacks against the Church's core teachings that human life is sacred from conception to natural death, that procured or directly intended destruction of a viable fetus by abortion is never morally permissible, and that those who participate or materially aid in such acts per se put themselves out of communion with the Church," Brejcha explained.
"ACLU's advocacy that abortions are sometimes necessary to 'save a life' and its contention that reproductive health care may require the killing of unborn human beings should provoke an enlightened, invigorated and sustained response from Catholics and others who believe that every human life is endowed with an inviolable right to life," he insisted.
"Direct killing of defenseless human beings is evil," Brejcha maintained. "No law now requires that those who abhor such killing must nonetheless engage in it, and advocacy of such a law in utter disregard for rights of conscientious objection must be repulsed and rejected in the strongest possible terms as both inhumane and unconscionable."
"President Obama promised in his notorious Commencement speech at Notre Dame in May, 2009, to protect fundamental rights of conscience," he added. "He and his Administration must be held to honor that pledge. America's distinguished legacy of Catholic health care must not be sacrificed in deference to the abortion lobby."
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Date Published: July 8, 2010
Holy See shows determination in resisting UN pro-abortion plans
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi
UN officials are trying to promote a universal right to abortion. They are doing so while purporting to utilize a human rights approach to Millenium Development Goal 5 - improving maternal health. The Millenium Development Goals are eight international development goals that all 192 United Nations member states and at least 23 international organizations have agreed to achieve by the year 2015.
The pro-abortion lobby claims that legal abortions are needed to reduce the maternal mortality rate. Last month the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva debated a report produced by Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The 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 been shown to be wildly inaccurate.
SPUC's planned intervention shows that the report's claim that "65,000 to 70,000" maternal deaths were due to unsafe abortions is inaccurate because:
- it is based on World Health Organisation statistics, which claim that over half a million maternal deaths occur worldwide each year when more reliable statistics indicate a fall in maternal deaths worldwide from 526,300 in 1980 to 342,900 in 2008.
- The World Health Organisation concedes that "[w]here induced abortion is restricted and largely inaccessible, or legal but difficult to obtain, little information is available…[w]hat information is available is inevitably not completely reliable" and that "…incidence of unsafe abortion and the resulting mortality necessarily have some degree of uncertainty.
Legalised abortion leads to more abortions. In developing countries, where the maternal mortality rate is highest, abortions are even more dangerous because of poor general health care of women - particularly lack of antibiotics, drugs to prevent hemorrhage and lack of clean facilities.
Unfortunately, the UN is being dominated by groups and individuals ideologically promoting abortion, rather than focusing on genuine ways to save women's lives. The debate in Geneva last month was carefully stage-managed with both the Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the only pro-life NGO present at the Session, excluded from making an intervention.
Provision was made for the Holy See, and other delegations who did not get an opportunity to intervene, to publish their interventions on the UN website.
Patrick Buckley, SPUC's lobbyist at the UN, has said:
There is no doubt about it, a statement made in the plenary with everyone present is much more effective particularly when it is challenging some of the basic precepts that are being pushed by the other side. If there is no voice speaking out against it then the impression is that everyone agrees.
There is also less likelihood of people accessing the website afterwards although some do. The best way for the Holy See to get their views out there is to do what they are doing, having submitted the text then publishing it as far and wide as possible.
Despite the fact that they did not get to make the statement on the day they are doing their utmost, not just to put their views on the record, but to make them known as widely as possible.
With the same interest in mind I encourage you to read the Holy See's planned intervention. It was prepared by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Papal Nuncio to the UN in Geneva. The intervention points out various measures to improve global maternal health:
- giving HIV positive mothers access to antiretroviral medications
- increasing the availability of emergency obstetric care, including the provision of universal pre and post-natal care
- adequate transport to medical facilities
- skilled birth attendants
- a clean blood supply and a clean water supply
- appropriate antibiotics
- the introduction of a minimum age of 18 years for marriage
The Holy See is proposing real measures to reduce maternal mortality rates. At present this voice of reason is being sidelined in the UN in favour of a radically pro-abortion ideology with the aim of creating a universal right to abortion in the name of improving maternal health.
The reality is that abortion does nothing to improve maternal health.
It is important to spread the message that the Holy See attempted to make so forcefully.
Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC Blog
Washington state, facing lawsuit, agrees to protect pharmacists' conscience rights
Governor Christine Gregoire
The state of Washington has agreed to adopt conscience-protection policies for pharmacists who find it morally repugnant to fill prescriptions for abortifacient pills.
In a lawsuit filed by pharmacists with the support of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, attorneys representing the state said that the government would alter its rules to protect conscience rights. The move allowed the state to avoid a trial in the case scheduled to begin later this month.
In 2006, the state Board of Pharmacy—under heavy pressure from Governor Christine Gregoire (who is Catholic)—set regulations requiring all pharmacists to provide the "morning after" pill, regardless of the pharmacists' own moral objections. Two individual pharmacists and one family-owned firm joined in a lawsuit against that regulation. The plaintiffs have now agreed to postpone consideration of their case until the state's new policies are unveiled. If the conscience-protection policy is adequate, the case would presumably be dropped.
Source: CatholicCulture.org
Date Published: July 08, 2010
Republican Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey is taking another step to void use of federal tax dollars for abortion.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey)
Smith posted his proposal, which would simply make the Hyde Amendment permanent law, on AmericaSpeakingOut.com, where he encourages citizens to vote on the plan, voice their opinions and submit their own ideas.
Americans United for Life (AUL) Staff Counsel Mary Harned tells OneNewsNow the measure has been attached yearly by an amendment to an appropriations bill or implemented through executive order in the past, but she thinks it is time to decide the matter permanently.
Mary Harned (AUL)"It's time for that to be entrenched in our actual statutes," she contends. "It's time for there to actually be statutory language that says the federal government does not pay for abortions, or for insurance plans that cover abortions, so that every year we do not have to fight the same fight of insuring that appropriations bills include the necessary language."
Although there is a state opt-out provision, the healthcare reform law provides funding for abortions, in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars used for that purpose. Harned points out that the Supreme Court dealt with the Hyde Amendment 30 years ago.
"Prohibiting federal funding for abortion is completely constitutional, and it's time to have that language enshrined into our statute," she suggests.
Given the pro-abortion leaning of Congress, the AUL staff counsel predicts it will take a groundswell of public support to push the law through.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: July 7, 2010
Leaders representing more than 30 national and regional pro-life organizations will be part of an unprecedented 10-hour webcast conference this Saturday, July 10, from 10 am to 8 pm EDT.
David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life, is co-hosting and coordinating the event. "Over the last two years," he said, "we've surveyed more than 28,000 people who participated in 40 Days for Life campaigns, asking them how unified pro-life efforts can expand and have even greater impact."
An overwhelming majority of respondents asked for focused training to educate, equip, and empower pro-lifers in their local communities to help bring an end to abortion.
"As a result," said Bereit, "we are launching the first step in the Ending Abortion initiative -- a massive, day-long, webcast mega-conference uniting the entire pro-life movement."
The event will break the pro-life message up into ten different hour-long focused topics. Confirmed speakers include:
• CHARMAINE YOEST, Americans United for Life
• MARJORIE DANNENFELSER, Susan B. Anthony List
• KRISTAN HAWKINS, Students for Life
• TOM MCCLUSKY, Family Research Council
• WENDY WRIGHT, Concerned Women for America
• LOU ENGLE, The Call
• MARK CRUTCHER, Life Dynamics
• ABBY JOHNSON, former Planned Parenthood abortion center director
• ALVEDA KING, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
• DR. TONY LEVATINO, former abortionist
• PEGGY HARTSHORN, Heartbeat International
• THERESA and KEVIN BURKE, Rachel's Vineyard
"The goal is to educate, equip, and empower pro-lifers to have a greater life-saving impact right where they live," said Bereit, adding that this first-ever event is designed to set the stage for greater involvement in local pro-life efforts this fall, including the next 40 Days for Life campaign, which runs from September 22 to October 31.
"A renewed groundswell of grassroots interest can also help make the pro-life issue of primary importance prior to this fall's elections," Bereit said.
Additional details are available online at www.EndingAbortion.com.
Care Net, a network of more than 1,100 pregnancy centers, calls a summer attack by the abortion industry and its advocates, "just another attempt to shut down the competition." NARAL, an abortion activist group, has launched an effort to harm pregnancy centers' ability to advertise their services online. In addition, abortion rights proponents in Congress, Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Sen. Robert Menendez, have re-introduced a bill that would direct the Federal Trade Commission to set up new rules to regulate pregnancy center advertising.
According to NARAL, pregnancy centers are falsely advertising in online yellow page directories under the headline "abortion services." Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde responded, "Care Net pregnancy centers are consistently and thoroughly trained on proper and effective advertising practices. Deception is simply inconsistent with our Christian principles of honesty and integrity."
In addition, Delahoyde said, Care Net pregnancy centers and all those affiliated with other national affiliation organizations, such as Heartbeat International and NIFLA, must comply with the principles stated in a document called the "Commitment of Care and Competence." It states: "All of our advertising and communications are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer."
When it comes to yellow page advertising, there are several possible headings under which a center may list itself. "Abortion Alternatives" is the most commonly used and appropriate heading for pregnancy centers. This heading has been created by yellow page companies with pregnancy centers in mind and usually includes an accompanying description similar to the following: "Advertisers under this heading provide assistance and information on abortion alternatives. They do not provide abortion services, or abortion referrals."
As groups like NARAL attempt to discredit pregnancy centers, many are recognizing the motivation behind the accusations. "Consider the biased source, and do your own research," Delahoyde said. "Why would pregnancy centers routinely report extremely high approval ratings from actual clients if this were really going on? In many cases, their best form of advertising is from former clients themselves."
"What's happening is that pregnancy centers have become an integral part of a community's support network for women and children," Delahoyde said. "With such holistic support available, women are empowered to choose abortion alternatives and the abortion industry simply doesn't like losing business."
Contact: Joy Crosby
Source: Care Net
Date Published: July 7, 2010
Those who objected to IVF (before my time) on the basis that the technology would not be limited to helping infertile, married couples conceive, were laughed off as scare mongers.
My how times have changed. We now have a story of fertile couples using IVF to make embryos for deep freeze because they don't want to have children–yet–but are worried if they wait, they won't be able to when they are ready. From the a first person account that reads like a fertility clinic sales brochure:
Then we found another option [than not having children]: a way to postpone parenthood without risking the higher miscarriage and genetic disorder rates that occur in babies conceived from parents older than 35. We did this by undergoing in vitro fertilization and freezing our embryos. Most couples resort to in vitro only after years of trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant, a process I think of as Desperation IVF. Instead, we chose to preserve the advantage of our current youth and fertility. I call it Preservation IVF.
They couldn't afford children but could afford to undergo IVF?
The couple made five embryos and leave open the option of having children the usual way. And then what? If there are some that are no longer needed, toss their "baby blastocysts" in the medical waste bag? Donate them for research? Leave them in limbo?
The article said some of these costs could be paid by health insurance. They certainly should not be if the IVF isn't to treat infertility but, as here, to faclilitate lifestyle choices.
And that is the bigger point. A lot of what medicine is about today is not health, but fulfillment of personal lifestyle desires. That's a big deal to which I don't think we have paid sufficient attention, which, I think, threatens to deprofessionalize medicine. And IVF has been leading the way, often today not about treating infertility at all, but rather, turning child bearing into just another consumer product.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: July 6, 2010
Jimmy Kimmel's crew burn pro-lifers
A group of pro-lifers is planning a lawsuit against producers of Jimmy Kimmel's show for refusing to apologize for an assault against some of its demonstrators.
Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust consists of young people who are training to be pro-life prayer warriors. Last week, part of the group was demonstrating at a Jimmy Kimmel Live studio when members of a lighting crew used a high intensity commercial spotlight on the group and burned one advocate's arm.
Spokesperson Timmerie Millington reports that they never received the requested apology.
Abortion survivor"We did not receive an apology from Jimmy Kimmel, but the producers of the show, I know this isn't an apology, but the producers of the show did say that they would never use that lighting crew again for Jimmy Kimmel," she explains.
Millington goes on to say that even though that move was not what they asked for, it was a step in the right direction.
"We asked for a public apology. However, we're looking past it now. We find that saying that he won't use that production crew again is a huge step, and we are planning a lawsuit against the lighting crew that actually assaulted Ryan Bueler," she reports.
Though Bueler was not seriously injured, several members of the pro-life group were handcuffed at the scene by police and were not released until more than an hour after the incident.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: July 7, 2010
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the (ACLJ)
A federal appellate court has reinstated a whistleblower's lawsuit against Planned Parenthood affiliates in California charging that the organizations overbilled the state and federal governments more than $180 million for birth control drugs. Supporters of the suit were "elated" by the unexpected favorable ruling.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the affiliates' state political action organization, is also named in the suit.
In its July 1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court's ruling that the whistleblower did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, the California Catholic Daily reports. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Previously, U.S. District Court Judge A. Howard Matz ruled that the whistleblower Victor Gonzalez, former vice-president for finance and administration of Planned Parenthood-Los Angeles, did not qualify as a whistleblower under federal law because he was not the "original source" of information exposing the alleged fraud.
Gonzalez worked for Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles from December 2002 until March 2004. He said he was fired for bringing "illegal accounting, billing, and donations practices" to the attention of his superiors.
Jack Schuler, Gonzalez's attorney in the district court case, explained to California Catholic Daily last year that the complaint documents "evidence of extensive, organized fraud by Planned Parenthood in California."
He said a "previously buried and ignored" California Department of Health Services 2004 Audit found more than $5 million in "egregious overbilling" in two years by the San Diego/Riverside Planned Parenthood Affiliate.
"Here is the ultimate Hollywood movie set façade of a corporation that poses as charitable while grossly over-billing government programs funded to service the needy, not the greedy," Schuler charged.
The attorney said that Planned Parenthood bought contraceptives and other medicines at deeply discounted rates because of its charitable status, then billed the state Medi-Cal program for 12 or more times the purchase price.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represented Gonzalez in the appeal, said the decision to continue the case was "a huge victory."
"While this case is by no means over, winning this appeal means we have gotten the federal claim over the threshold hurdles and can now get down to the heart of this case: the alleged fraud," Sekulow commented in a statement published on the ACLJ website.
According to Sekulow, the federal False Claims Act forbids government contractors from submitting "false or fraudulent" claims for payment and also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the alleged offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
"State audits in both California and Washington State have found (Planned Parenthood) affiliates guilty of overbilling," he commented.
According to Schuler, both state and federal law explicitly prohibited the kind of overbilling alleged until the California legislature changed state law in 2004 at Planned Parenthood's request.
One observer close to the case told the California Catholic Daily that supporters of the suit thought there was "no chance" of a win in the Ninth Circuit, believing that Judge Mary M. Schroder would "definitely" rule in Planned Parenthood's favor.
"At best we thought we might get maybe one vote. We are just elated by this decision."
Source: CNA
Publish Date: July 6, 2010
