Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Wednesday indicated that they are open to filibustering any and all legislation in the Senate until a confirmation hearing is held for Dr. Donald Berwick, who was recently recess-appointed by President Obama to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Dr. Berwick is controversial because he supports rationing health care services, has said a "just" health- care funding plan "must redistribute wealth," and has praised Britain's government-run National Health Service.
President Obama nominated Berwick back in April and then recess-appointed him on July 7, while Congress was away on its July 4 vacation. The Senate Finance Committee, headed by Sen. Max Baucus (D- Mont.), never held a hearing for Berwick.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked Sens. DeMint and Brownback, "President Obama recess-appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, and, as mentioned, he publicly supports Britain's health care system and health care rationing. Do you believe that Senate Republicans should filibuster any and all legislation until a hearing is held for Dr. Berwick?"
Senator Brownback said, "I'll take a first shot at that. I think it's wrong what the president did in this situation -- not that he didn't have the ability to do this. But when you have this difficult of a topic, and this personal of an issue to all of the American people, to put somebody in place that has a philosophy that's counter to where the vast majority of the American public is, I think is the wrong thing to do."
"And I think we should look at whatever tools we have, to use them in this particular case," said Brownback.
Senator DeMint said, "It was pretty obvious the president did not want a hearing of Berwick because the facts would come out and Americans would become more aware of it. Republicans did not block a hearing; the Democrats didn't call one."
"What we need to do about it is what we're doing today, is to help people understand the massive complexity and destructive nature of this type of bureaucracy, and the fact that the president has put someone in charge of it who's on record as believing in socialized medicine and rationing of care," said DeMint. "We just need to make Americans aware of what's happened here and they'll take care of the rest in November."
On the issue of filibustering legislation until a hearing is held on Berwick, DeMint said: "I probably would because there's not much they [Democrats] have on the docket that I wouldn't try to stop anyway."
The press conference, sponsored by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee, was held to unveil a visual presentation and summary of the expansion of government into the health care system under the new health care law signed last March.
"We're going to unveil one of the scariest things you're going to see," said Sen. Brownback, ranking member of the committee. "Speaker Pelosi said initially of the health care bill, 'We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it.' We'll we're going to reveal today to you what's in it."
The Republican composite of the new health care system points out 22 new bureaucracies, 17 insurance mandates, 19 special interest provisions, 59 new grant programs, 26 new demonstration and pilot programs, 4 new regulatory programs, and 4 loan repayment and forgiveness programs.
"If you look at these charts for a few minutes, you realize why a lot of us say that Obamacare is the end of the best health care system in the world," DeMint said. "There is no way quality health care can emerge from this type of bureaucracy."
DeMint also expressed concerns that the new bureaucracies and regulations of the health care system would discourage future physicians and health care professionals from practicing medicine due to the burdensome interference of government.
"We're going to have tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats focusing on health care, but I can almost guarantee you we will have fewer doctors to deliver that health care," said DeMint. "For decades in our country, the medical profession has attracted the best and the brightest, and the hardest working Americans, but they go to school for much past what most of us do, hoping to make a good living, but also to serve the people."
Sen DeMint said that the kind of system established by the health care law will not attract "the best and the brightest."
"They will not work for government," he said. "They will not have government bureaucrats telling them how to practice medicine, and what they're going to get paid."
"This is going to have a huge impact on health care," he said. "And not only will it destroy our health care system, but it is going to bankrupt our country."
Two Republican physicians also attended the event to express their concerns over the government's expanded role in the health care system.
"Ask yourself what's wrong with this," said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a cardiovascular surgeon, pointing to the chart. "Where is the doctor-patient relationship?"
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who practiced medicine as an OB/GYN for nearly 30 years, and chairs the Congressional Health Care Caucus, said the Obamacare plan was modeled after a plan for which Dr. Berwick is fond: Britain's National Health Service.
"But isn't it ironic that just this week we learned that the National Health Service over in Britain is now being walked back, and more power is being devolved to the doctors and to the patients," Rep. Burgess said.
As CNSNews.com reported, Britain's National Health System (NHS) is set to undergo major budget cuts and bureaucratic decentralization to give more control over health care decisions to local health care providers, and take clinical decisions out of the hands of government bureaucrats.
"We will make the NHS more accountable to patients," British Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in a July 2010 white paper. "We will free staff from excessive bureaucracy and top-down control. Healthcare will be run from the bottom up, with ownership and decision-making in the hands of professionals and patients."
Rep. Brady said the Joint Economic Committee representation of the new health care system does not represent the entirety of government expansion because the new heath care law is so complex.
"This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill," according to Brady. "It's actually worse than this."
Contact: Adam Cassandra Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 28, 2010
Two papers published online recently in Nature journals indicate that the technology to produce iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells) is still a work in progress, but also highlight the confusion among journalists and even some scientists about stem cells–iPS cells, embryonic stem cells (ES cells), and Adult stem cells..
iPS cells provide a relatively easy and inexpensive method for creation of ES-type cells directly from virtually any tissue source or individual. They were first developed in 2006 in mice by the Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka, and in November 2007 both Yamanaka's lab and the lab of James Thomson in the U.S. showed that this same technique could work for human cells as well. The original technique to reprogram a normal to become an iPS cell involves adding four genes directly to a human cell such as a skin fibroblast cell, with the genes added using a viral vector.
The iPS cells behave like ES cells, but the technique does not use embryos, eggs, or cloning, making it an ethical way to produce "pluripotent" stem cells (cells that potentially might form any body tissue.) In contrast, the usual way to produce ES cells is by taking an embryo (produced by the normal process of fertilization, or by cloning, a.k.a. "somatic cell nuclear transfer") and destroying the embryo to extract the ES cells (that's why they're called "embryonic" stem cells.) [Click here]
One question that has been posed ever since iPS cells were first announced, is whether iPS cells are truly identical to ES cells. Besides looking and growing like ES cells in the lab, iPS cells have passed all the usual tests for ES cells to demonstrate their pluripotent character:
-formation of teratomas containing various cell types when injected into mice -expression of "pluripotency" genes -formation of chimeric mice, and even whole mice, when combined with other cells to form new mouse embryos -differentiation in the lab to form specialized cells
Both of the new papers (Kim et al., rushed into online publication in Nature, and Polo et al. published online in Nature Biotechnology) compare mouse iPS cells against mouse ES cells on a deeper molecular level. Both groups found that iPS cells retain a sort of "memory" of their origins, at least for a while. Methylation of DNA, while not changing the DNA sequence itself, provides markers of which genes are turned on or off. These are "epigenetic" (as opposed to genetic) differences. The newly-created iPS cells retained some of these epigenetic marks from their tissue of origin, e.g., blood, skin, or muscle. When the researchers tried to make blood cells from the iPS cells, the ones whose origin was blood could make blood cells much more easily than the iPS cells from other tissues, actually easier than ES cells, but by the same token those iPS cells made from blood had a more difficult time making other tissues. Their residual "epigenetic memory" helped them return to their tissue of origin, but hindered their formation of different tissues.
Those results indicate that iPS cells do retain some memory of their original tissue. This would make it easier to study a particular disease in the lab if the iPS cells were made from that tissue, but could limit their use for other tissues or diseases (different iPS cells for different tissues or diseases might be preferable.)
Interestingly, the Kim et al. paper also went to the trouble of making cloned mouse embryos from which ES cells were harvested ("cloned" ES cells). In the comparisons, the "cloned" ES cells were more similar to traditional ES cells than were the iPS cells, though still not identical. The use of cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) seemed a contrived add-on to make a political point. Nature's blog picked up on the political message, and in fact, that political message was delivered in some of the interviews. George Daley of Harvard said:
"Stem cells generated by somatic cell nuclear transfer are on average, closer to bona fide embryonic stem cells than are iPS cells. This has an important political message–we still need to study the mechanisms by which nuclear transfer reprograms cells, because the process seems to work more efficiently and faithfully. Learning the secrets of nuclear transfer may help us make better iPS cells."
In point of fact, both papers show that the "memory" differences seen in the iPS cells gradually disappear with further time in culture, and/or with chromatin-modifying chemicals.
This was highlighted by the senior author of the Nature Biotechnology paper, Konrad Hochedlinger, who said:
"Our paper comes to a similar conclusion that a retention of memory reflects the cell of origin and affects the capacity of the iPS cell to differentiate into other cell types. When we let the cells go through a lot of cell divisions, they lose the memory."
Daley himself (a co-author of the Nature paper that added on the cloning aspect), admitted in a less political moment that the "memory" aspect of iPS cells could be overcome for their use: "It's a challenge to be understood and overcome. We already have strategies for overcoming this." "This study in no way challenges the usefulness of IPS cells. They remain enormously valuable."
So the results are an interesting wrinkle in the continuing saga of iPS cells, indicating that freshly-made iPS cells need some maturing in the lab before they truly resemble ES cells.
But the media are still confused on the subject of stem cells. For years there were only ES cells (made by destroying embryos) and Adult stem cells (taken from tissues without harming the donor), then along came iPS cells. While iPS cells are made from adult cells and tissues, they behave like ES cells; they are certainly NOT adult stem cells. But some still can't get the facts right.
For example, Newsweek had this erroneous title:
"Developments in Adult-Stem-Cell Research; Adult stem cells have memories"
Likewise, the Washington Times misleading title:
"Adult stem cells said to 'forget' retooling"
And ABC News got their title right but bungled the interpretation in the text, leaping from adult cells for iPS to adult stem cells that are currently used to treat diseases. They also included a quote from an embryonic stem cell scientist that indicated even he didn't understand the topic of the story (iPS cells from adult tissues, not adult stem cells):
"The take home message is that what stem cell biologist have been arguing for years is true — that we need to continue studying both stem cells, because we don't know which cells can be used for which applications," said Sean Morrison, director of the Center for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Michigan.
See the figure for the differences in stem cell types.
A new exhibit is opening at the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center in Skokie, Illinois. The name of the exhibit is "Deadly Medicine: Creating The Master Race". What comes to mind immediately is the Nazi eugenics program. But on further thought, our own eugenic history comes to mind as well.
The exhibit takes visitors on a chronological journey, from the origins of the eugenic movement, to how that theory was used to foster racism and discrimination and eventually torture and murder.
Long before the Nazi Holocaust, in the United States Margaret Sanger was laying the groundwork for a eugenics movement that ultimately became Planned Parenthood. In fact, the influence of Margaret Sanger's International Planned Parenthood Federation on our world, is so complete, that its' slogans and values are dominating moral standards throughout the world today.
Ms. Sanger's rational for limiting the number of children for the poorer classes of people is pure eugenics. She would have liked to require parents to apply for licenses to have babies, in order to control the number of children they might have. She also advocated sterilization for the poor.
Unlike Adolf Hitler's violent approach through the death camps, Margaret Sanger successfully encouraged, what she would call, peaceful and sanitary methods of racial purification. She advocated payment for the privilege of sterilization. She devoted her entire life to what she called her "cause", the international birth control movement. She fought Christian traditions in her successful effort that struck down laws forbidding the distribution of contraceptive devices and information. As we all know contraception led to abortion.
In 1942 Margaret founded Planned Parenthood of America and established the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau, which financed the development of the Pill. She also financed and engineered the immigration of Germany's Dr. Ernst Graefenberg, one of the pioneers of the IUD (intrauterine device).
Margaret Sanger's theory of racial superiority was that social economic situations in life are determined by one thing; man's inherent ability to survive. This ability has a wide spectrum, ranging from the very fit to the absolutely unfit, to survive. In 1936 Margaret Sanger participated in the round table discussions of the American Eugenics Society.
Now back to our new exhibit. Susan Bachrach is the curator for the exhibit in Skokie. She said, "It was very surprising to me, to see how much widespread support there was for this idea of eugenics. Today we like to say eugenics was some kind of pseudo-science. But we shouldn't say that, when looking at it in the context of time. It's very important to realize that this wasn't just something on the fringes. It was taken seriously". She continues, "When it comes to eugenics there's a huge whitewash that continues to go on. The United States was very strong in the eugenics movement, and that can be seen in state sterilization laws".
Just as Margaret Sanger extolled the principles of eugenics in America, so too in Germany, Karl Vinding and Alfred Hoche wrote, "Authorization of the Destruction of Life not Worthy of Life, a book defending the principles of eugenics".
In 1938 Joseph Goebbels said, "Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked. Our objectives are entirely different. We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world." Germany's involvement with eugenics begins after World War I. Margaret Sanger was born in 1883 and died in 1966. Her influence has left a world-wide footprint, which does not lessen the footprint that Nazi Germany left on the world. Together, they've enshrined the principles of eugenics world-wide.
Proposed federal legislation to regulate advertising by pregnancy centers is "just another attempt to shut down the competition," according to Care Net, a network of more than 1,100 such centers.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D.-N.Y., introduced the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act, H.R. 5652, to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue new rules prohibiting advertising that intends to give the impression a center provides abortions when it does not.
While many pregnancy centers are "forthright and respectful," Maloney asserted that "some take a more underhanded approach to lure in women seeking abortions by using tactics that should be illegal."
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-choice America, applauded the proposed legislation, saying many pregnancy centers "use deceptive and manipulative tactics." NARAL is one of the country's leading abortion rights organizations.
Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde denied the charges, saying affiliates with her organization and other national groups, such as Heartbeat International and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, abide by a document that commits them to advertise and communicate truthfully.
"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."
In the Senate, Sen. Robert Menendez, D.-N.J., offered a companion bill. Both bills were introduced June 30.
Contact: Tom Strode Source: BP Date Published: July 28, 2010
Pro-life human rights advocate and U.S. Congressman Chris Smith testified at a U.N. subcommittee hearing on the Millennium Development Goals, where he argued that strong evidence indicates that encouraging legal abortion would harm the U.N.'s commitment to reducing maternal and child mortality rates all over the world.
The U.N. is deep in negotiations over the Outcome Document for the High-Level Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in which pro-abortion advocates are trying to include "reproductive health services" – language that can serve as a Trojan horse to introduce legal abortion into signatory countries with pro-life laws.
Smith, a member of the U.S. Foreign Affairs committee, and ranking member of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, spoke Tuesday before a hearing conducted by the International Subcommittee on International Organizations, telling committee members that the spread of legal abortion would actually undermine MDGs 4 and 5, goals dedicated respectively to reducing child and maternal mortality.
"The inclusion of legalized abortion or 'reproductive health services' defined as abortion in the Outcome Document would be unjust to the littlest humans, intellectually dishonest, and counterproductive to these successful efforts," said Smith.
The congressman referenced the April 2010 Lancet medical journal, which published a study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation that indicated worldwide maternal mortality had been declining since 1980. As of 2008, the number of maternal deaths per year had dropped to 342,900 – a 40 percent decline from 526,300 in 1980. The report noted that had not the HIV/AIDS pandemic broken out, that drop could have been as much as 50 percent.
But Smith also pointed out that the Lancet study showed no correlation between the expansion of legal abortion and the drop in maternal mortality. He told the committee that the study showed, "Many of these countries with very low maternal mortality rates have laws that restrict abortion."
Real success, he indicated, was due to governments improving basic, life-affirming health care services and conditions that encourage the socio-economic advancement of women.
"While still too high, this landmark report is encouraging to governments who have been seriously addressing maternal mortality in their countries by increasing the number of skilled birth attendants, the availability of c-sections for women with obstructed labor, access to health care including safe blood, education of women, and economic development," he added.
However, Smith also pointed to evidence from studies showing that abortion itself can harm the chances of survival for subsequently born children by sharply increasing the risk of pre-term birth and low birth rate.
"Preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the United States, and causes one-fourth of infant mortality in the world," Smith pointed out.
He said that at least 113 studies "show a significant association between abortion and subsequent premature and low birth weight births."
One such study in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology found that women with one abortion had a 36 percent increased risk for preterm birth; but for women who had two abortions, that statistic leapt to a 93 percent chance . It added that the risks for children being born with low birth weight were also comparable, increasing 35 percent after one abortion, and 72 percent after two abortions or more.
"Abortion is child mortality for the child aborted, and can be mortality or morbidity for future children," continued Smith, adding that for these and other reasons, the term "safe abortion" is a misnomer.
Smith also said at least 102 studies show that women who abort set themselves up for "significant psychological harm, major depression, and elevated suicide risk." He pointed to a comprehensive 2006 New Zealand study which "found that almost 80 percent of the 15-18 year olds who had abortions had major depression as compared to 31 percent of their peers." Additionally, it found that 27 percent of 21-25 year olds who had aborted their children had seriously contemplated suicide, compared to 8 percent of their peers.
The congressman then recommended the international panel to seek to improve medical care for mothers and newborns, especially, in the "golden minute" right after birth, where birth asphyxia is a real danger. The condition he said is a major cause of infant mortality, killing one million newborns each year.
"Skilled attendance at birth, temperature support, stimulation to breathe and assisted ventilation through the use of low cost resuscitators are interventions we can and should be made available to achieve MDG 4," he said.
Smith concluded his remarks by saying the MDG Summit Outcome Document "will be very important for guiding our steps as an international community over the next five years" and he exhorted those present to use their influence "to ensure the Outcome Document keeps us on the path of saving both mother and child."
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 28, 2010
Grad Student Prayed Rosary on Sidewalk Outside Chicago Planned Parenthood
This morning, Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen entered a "not guilty" plea to the charge of disorderly conduct on behalf of Joseph Holland, the first person arrested under the new Chicago "Bubble Zone" ordinance, which prevents certain types of picketing activity outside local abortion clinics. Holland, a Northwestern University graduate student, was praying the rosary on a public sidewalk outside the Planned Parenthood Near North abortion facility on July 3 when staff called the police, claiming that he had violated the new ordinance.
The "Bubble Zone" ordinance prohibits approaching within eight feet of a person, without consent, "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling." According to witnesses and available video, Holland was engaged solely in prayer activity and not in leafleting, picketing or "sidewalk counseling." Video of Holland's alleged disorderly conduct can be found online here.
"This arrest was about one thing: trying to scare pro-life people away from Planned Parenthood," said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. "Joe Holland did nothing wrong -- his only 'crime' was having the temerity to exercise his First Amendment rights on a public sidewalk. We look forward to defending Joe and others like him against the City of Chicago's false charges." During consideration of the new ordinance, Breen presented testimony that the "Bubble Zone" ordinance is unconstitutional, a position with which the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois agreed.
Thomas More Society attorneys today also served subpoenas on Planned Parenthood for security footage of the alleged disorderly conduct and on the City of Chicago for the 911 tapes of the calls placed by Planned Parenthood. The Thomas More Society is also representing David Avignone, the second arrestee under the "Bubble Zone" ordinance. Holland's next appearance is August 3, and Avignone's first appearance will be August 30.
Contact: Stephanie Lewis Source: Thomas More Society Date Published: July 27, 2010
Women, who rejected the choice to abort their babies, bring their children to Washington D.C. as part of Heartbeat's Babies Go to Congress(tm). Heartbeat International provides an opportunity on Capitol Hill for women to speak publicly about their gratitude for the support they received when faced with an unexpected pregnancy. Moms will testify before elected officials that pregnancy help centers are good for America.
Danica Fountain of Arizona felt pressured to abort her baby, but she says, "I was absolutely shocked to see that this so called 'blob of tissue,' the term I so commonly heard people use when referencing a pregnancy this early on, was in fact a fully formed baby! She had a head, arms and legs."
"When I saw my baby's heart beating I knew I would do anything to protect my child," said Fountain, who will meet with members of Congress this week. "The emotional support I received from the pregnancy center helped me realize that I could succeed as a single mom. So I continued in my full time position, knowing they were there if I needed more encouragement or practical help. I can never thank the Women's Center of Tucson enough."
"I am grateful that these busy moms have made it a priority to travel to our Nation's capital to share such positive things about pregnancy help centers," said Heartbeat President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D. "This is a testament to the fact that our elected officials need to support public policy that preserves the bond between mother and child."
"These moms and babies put real faces on the abortion issue as they testify to the fact that pregnancy help centers are serving women," said Heartbeat Public Policy/PR Director Virginia Cline. "Heartbeat affiliates provide options and resources for pregnant women who are not satisfied with the choice to abort a child. Families are strengthened by the life affirming work of pregnancy help ministries."
"Aid for Women assisted me throughout my pregnancy and well after my daughter was born. Ever since, they have been my rock," said Terrie Thompson, a client of Heartbeat's Chicago affiliate. "They have remained steadfast. When I lost my apartment, they helped me find shelter. When I couldn't work, they supported me financially, and when I needed support, they were there for me emotionally. They listen with an open ear and heart, and always help me find solutions. For that, I thank them."
As New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie continues to fulfill a campaign pledge to restore state government to fiscal sanity, he has vetoed a bill that would have dedicated $7.5 million in state to "family planning" clinics, most of which are run by Planned Parenthood.
New Jersey's Star Ledger reported that Christie in his veto message said that "the state simply cannot fund every worthy program" and would not restore $7.5 million for family planning clinics that he had cut from the state's budget for fiscal year 2011.
Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, praised Christie for standing by his decision to cut funds for Planned Parenthood.
"The taxpayers of New Jersey are under no obligation to fund the radical and failed social agenda of Planned Parenthood,'' said Marie Tasy, according to the Star-Ledger. "We commend Governor Christie for his steadfast opposition to restoring these funds."
Christie issued the veto along with vetoes of two bills that would have established a $100 million tax credit program for new homebuyers, and redirected government funds to enroll 39,000 low-income individuals in the state's subsidized health insurance program.
"State spending has been reset to levels the taxpayers can afford," said Christie in a stern message to the legislature. "Supplemental spending that would return to the unchecked spending and out of control budget shortfalls of the past will not make it past the Governor's desk."
Reports indicate that the Democrat-controlled Legislature may seek to mount a veto-override.
Contact: Peter J. Smith Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 26, 2010
A cancer victim known to the Nicaraguan press only as "Amalia" recently gave birth to her child, after frantic efforts by local and international pro-abortion groups to obtain an abortion for the woman failed, according to the local daily El Nuevo Diario.
Although the pro-abortion groups claimed that Amalia could not receive chemotherapy while pregnant, she has been under treatment since February and gave birth somewhat unexpectedly. Her child died soon afterwards.
In spite of the outcry by abortionist organizations in February against the rejection of abortion by Amalia's doctors, her husband says they are happy with the treatment she has received. However, Amalia is reportedly devastated by the loss of her child because "she was so excited about her pregnancy."
In contrast, the Nicaragua abortion lobby was decidedly less excited by Amalia's pregnancy; now that the baby has died, abortionist groups are reportedly demanding that an autopsy be done, paradoxically threatening legal action if the chemotherapy given to Amalia is found to have harmed her child.
When asked about the matter, Amalia's husband responded by saying that, "I don't know that they are going to do an autopsy, but that should be a decision of the family."
Amalia is scheduled to go home soon from the hospital, where she will continue to be treated for her cancer on an outpatient basis.
Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 26, 2010
As the countdown continues to the November elections – and the prospects of a Republican takeover in both chambers of the U.S. Congress running high – Democrats are determined to pass legislation designed to retain their majority status.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., introduced Thursday a new version of the DISCLOSE Act – a campaign finance bill aimed at reinstating speech restrictions recently deemed unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid then caught senators off-guard and secured a 2:45p.m.vote on Tuesday.
Tom McClusky, senior vice-president of Family Research Council Action, said several provisions within the bill are unconstitutional, in light of its excessive restrictions on free speech and burdensome disclosure requirements for advocacy groups, nonprofits and corporations.
He said conservatives do not like the new version for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down portions of the original campaign finance law in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
To gain the support of liberal Republican senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine – and the 60 votes needed to pass the measure – Schumer's bill omits special provisions designed to benefit the National Rifle Association, as well as unions.
Yet, the fate of the bill is uncertain, as 60 votes are required for the bill to pass.
"He's looking for a way not to change campaign finance, but to influence the 2010 elections," said McClusky, "which the current scene does not look all that good for the Democrats."
In an open letter delivered last week, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is urging senators to vote against Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, in light of her role in the alteration of a medical statement about partial-birth abortion from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
"I was deeply disturbed to learn the Elena Kagan, the nominee for Supreme Court scheduled for a Senate committee vote next week, manipulated the medical policy statement on partial-birth abortion of a major medical organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in January 1997," Koop wrote in his letter.
As CNSNews.com has reported, in 1996, when she was associate White House counsel in the Clinton White House, Kagan obtained a preliminary draft of ACOG's "Statement on Intact Dilatation and Extraction." (Intact Dilatation and Extraction, or "Intact D&X," is a form of partial-birth abortion.)
She wrote in a December 14, 1996, memo that "it would be disaster" if the statement were released or leaked because it stated that "[A] select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which [the partial-birth] procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."
As Kagan admitted recently in her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that language she "suggested" -- that was eventually added to ACOG's final statement -- was written in her handwriting and found in her Clinton Library files. The added language stated: "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."
This added language that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure" was later specifically quoted in the Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart Opinion of the Court that struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion.
Americans United for Life (AUL) recently released a report that calls for an investigation of the matter.
"The reason we pulled our report together was so people can see for themselves the difference between her testimony and what the record showed, " AUL President Charmaine Yoest told CNSNews.com.
"And the fact that the two don't match up is why we called for an investigation to ask the question, that, if she says that she was just transcribing what she knew to be ACOG's position – the timeline of her meetings with them and the production of their statements doesn't match up with that description of her role."
According to documents from her files in the Clinton Library, Kagan learned from a June 22, 1996 meeting between ACOG and representatives from the White House the "revelation" that "there are an exceedingly small number of partial-birth abortions that could meet the standard the president has articulated. 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."
Yoest added: "I think the record is very clear that she will be an agenda-driven Justice and that she has already prejudged this issue. She has a very clear track record as an advocate working pretty aggressively to advance an abortion agenda. That's very very troubling for someone who has been nominated for a Judicial appointment."
"I think it is surprising," said Yoest, "that someone has been nominated for a judicial appointment who has such a clear track record and, frankly, this woman through the hearings has been demonstrated to be almost single-handedly responsible for extending the duration of partial-birth abortion legality in this country for over a decade."
Koop, meanwhile, said he found the entire situation very troubling.
"The problem for me, as a physician," the former surgeon general wrote, "is that she was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data. During the partial-birth abortion debate in the 1990s, medical evidence was of paramount importance."
Koop said there "was, and is no reliable medical data" that partial-birth abortion is safe or safer than alternative medical procedures.
"In my many decades of service as a medical doctor," Koop added, "I have never known of a case where partial-birth abortion was necessary in place of a more humane and ethical alternative."
Elena Kagan's actions, therefore, should disqualify her for the Supreme Court, according to Koop
"Ms. Kagan's political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG's Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade," Koop said.
Her misrepresentation of science and of her role in the matter, Koop wrote, "is unethical, and it is disgraceful, especially for one who would be tasked with being a measured and fair-minded judge."
Koop's letter also directs readers to a report on Kagan's actions published last week by American's United for Life (AUL). This report points out that a court case in New York, National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, reveals that the ACOG statement itself was not voted on by the "select panel" that investigated the intact D&X procedure.
The case cites testimony from the chairwoman of the ethics committee at ACOG, Joanna Cain, in a footnote.
The footnote stated: "ACOG has an Executive Board with approximately twenty elected members who oversee ACOG's activities and policies. (Tr. 179:11-180:25 (Cain).) In October 1996, the panel convened and submitted to the Executive Board a proposed policy statement which concluded that the panel could "identify no circumstances under which [D&X] would be the only option to save the life or preserve the life of the woman," but that "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. (Tr.155:3-19,157:22-158:4 (Cain.)
"The ACOG Executive Board edited the proposed policy statement to add, "[a]n 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." (Tr. 155:20-156:7 (Cain).)"
The AUL report also supports Koop's claim that no medical evidence existed to validate the claim that partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure." The report cited a Nebraska case in which an expert, Dr. Leroy Sprang, "'couldn't come up with a single example where it would be . . the best, most appropriate alternative to save the health of the mother.' Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp.2d 805 (D. Neb. 2004) TR 1098-1102."
"The record testimony," states the report "in three federal cases (in Nebraska, New York, and San Francisco) challenging the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 demonstrated that there was no reliable evidence that any maternal or fetal medical condition required the use of D&X, or that D&X was safer than existing procedures."
The authors of the AUL report draw the conclusion that "Kagan's disregard seriously compromised the integrity of the U.S. federal judicial process for more than a decade."
Cathy Ruse, a lawyer and senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, who was embroiled in the issue and pored through the transcripts of the New York trial, told CNSNews.com that the Kagan amendment "was front and center" during the trial.
As the pro-life spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ruse said she and her team read through "every transcript in the partial-birth trials."
"We posted them online, we analyzed them, we sent around excerpts. We were the only group doing that and I was heading that, so I know very well – I read every word of the New York trial, and her (Kagan's) statement was prominent in the trial," Ruse said.
Saying she worked on partial-birth abortion ban legislation as a staff counsel for the Constitution sub-committee in the House at the time the ACOG statement was released, Ruse maintains that Kagan's addition did not just change the emphasis, as others have argued, but indeed "substantively changed [ACOG's] position on this procedure."
By not defining a circumstance where partial-birth abortion could possibly be the "best or most appropriate procedure," Ruse said that Kagan "opened up the possibility by her language that undefined, hypothetical situation where partial-birth abortion would be the best method. And the judges latched on to that, and it was decisive in their ruling striking down the ban of this procedure. The 'best' language was central to those rulings."
Kagan had other options, Ruse said. One can see through the "paper-trail" revealed in the Clinton Library files that Kagan discovered through her correspondence with ACOG that "this procedure is not necessary for any identified circumstance."
"She could have advised President Clinton at this point, that, 'Look, there don't appear to be any circumstances where this is actually necessary. Let's take another path. Let's rethink this.' But no, she's a pro-abortion zealot, so she is going to change ACOG's statement to affect the whole legal proceeding."
Ruse added: "In a sense this is tampering with evidence. The ACOG statement was a key piece of scientific medical evidence that the judges reviewed at every level."
In response to a question about whether Kagan could have foreseen the affect her changes would have on the courts, Ruse said that Kagan could not only foresee it, but she "intended" it to have such an affect.
"She knew that ACOG's view on partial-birth abortion was absolutely key in effort to strike down this law were it ever to be passed and to be signed into law. So I think she did it with a purpose," Ruse told CNSNews.com.
Contact: Jane McGrath Source: CNSNews.com Date Published: July 26, 2010
The author of a recent New York Times article on modern abortion providers may have made a strategic misstep in the abortionist that she chose to feature, if her intent was to paint a sympathetic picture of abortion practitioners. The lengthy article shines the spotlight on abortionist Emily Godfrey, who worked for several years at what may be the United States' most bizarre abortion clinic - the Northern Illinois Women's Center (NIWC) in Rockford, Illinois.
While Godfrey attempted to paint a grim picture of a threatening crowd of pro-lifers who allegedly "surrounded" her as she walked to and from the notorious Rockford abortion facility, one of the leaders in the Rockford pro-life movement has countered that the claim is demonstrably baseless. Kevin Rilott has pointed out that pro-lifers are not even allowed on the property of NIWC, let alone able to approach anywhere near the abortionists.
LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) has frequently reported on NIWC's use of vicious, threatening and blasphemous messages, evidently meant to intimidate the pro-life protesters outside. The abortuary was only recently in the news, after a staff member emerged from the building wielding a running chainsaw, with which he attempted to drown out the voices of pro-life counselors.
On another occasion the owner, Wayne Webster, was caught on camera communicating over the clinic's outdoor PA system with an enraged local pro-abort with a pit-bull in tow, who was confronting the pro-life protesters. After the antagonist, by the name of Keith Sterkeson, had called the pro-lifer who was videotaping the encounter a "ni**er" 19 times, shouted the word "f**k" at him 36 times, and called him a "degenerate" 16 times, Webster warned Sterkeson that he had heard over his police scanner that the police were on their way. He also assured Sterkeson that he was acting no crazier than these "a**holes" (the pro-lifers).
In the recent NYT article, however, abortionist Emily Godfrey complained to the author, Emily Bazelon, about the pressure caused by the presence of the pro-life witnesses when she worked at NIWC.
"I'm a Catholic girl from the suburbs. I'm a yoga student. I like calm and serenity," Godfrey said.
Throughout the time Godfrey was working there, NIWC was undoubtedly anything but "calm and serene." In addition to the two encountes mentioned above, the chilling displays erected in the windows of the building, which continue to grow, include a nun in a coffin, a crucified rubber chicken, and rubber chickens hanging from nooses. Another sign in the window of the facility suggests that the abortionists have conducted "50,000" abortions while Jesus Christ (presumably through the actions of the pro-life counselors) has saved only "50" children; other signs direct personal insults at individual pro-lifers.
Bazelon, describing Godfrey's account of life at NIWC, wrote that, "Protesters surrounded her when she walked into the clinic." "One day, a clinic resident left his lunch in the car and said he'd rather be hungry than go back to get it," wrote Bazelon.
Godfrey left the mill in 2008 to work at the University of Illinois: "By taking jobs on university faculties, the young doctors avoid walking to work through a scrum of screaming demonstrators," Bazelon explained.
However, Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott said that the crowd of pro-life witnesses that have kept vigil outside the bizarre abortuary for years are peaceful and, since they unable even to enter the clinic parking lot, can do nothing but pray and offer help from a distance to women entering the clinic.
"As any of you know who have prayed at Rockford's abortion mill, the Christians who stand on the sidewalks at this mill literally can not get within 200 feet of a person who is walking into the building," wrote Rilott on his blog.
"Abortionist Godfrey parked in the back of the mill lot so pro-lifers could hardly even see her, let alone 'surround her,'" he added.
Rilott also took issue with Godfrey's account of her disappointment at the number of living children she delivered to poor women in Chicago – an experience that she says prompted her to pursue a career killing the unborn.
"Bringing so many unwanted children into the world, or children who wouldn't be readily provided for because their mothers were on drugs or who were taken away at birth — well, that just solidified my feeling that I wanted to provide abortions," Godfrey told Bazelon. She said she had tried, but failed, to stem the problem by giving poor women IUDs just after delivery - and was only thwarted by Medicaid's refusal to cover the second procedure.
"Considering that she was working in Rockford at an abortion mill that hung rubber chickens by nooses that offended African Americans," said Rilott, "this seems like another statement from a eugenics-minded person whose answer to African Americans living in poverty was not to eliminate the poverty, but to eliminate the African Americans."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert and John Jalsevac Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 23, 2010
The Freedom Federation, a federation of faith-based and policy organizations representing more than 30 million people, has written to members of the Senate asking them to vote against or filibuster the FY 2011 Defense Authorization Act because of the negative impact it would have "on the members and culture of the military."
There are two provisions of the act with which the Freedom Federation is concerned. The first is the Burris amendment, which would repeal 10 U.S.C. § 1093(b)1 and thereby permit abortions at overseas and domestic military hospitals.
The second is the Lieberman amendment, which would repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 and thereby permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
"On the first issue, abortion, Americans have been clear," the letter states. "The majority of Americans believe that abortion is morally wrong. They do not support abortion and they do not want their tax dollars to fund the abortions of others, including those of women in the military."
"On the second issue, homosexuals serving openly in the military," the letter continues, "the members of the Freedom Federation join the almost 1,200 retired flag and general officers who have signed onto a letter supporting the current law."
"A military times poll revealed that if those engaged in homosexual conduct are able to serve in the military, ten percent of the current servicemen and women have said they would not re-enlist or extend their service and fourteen percent have said they would consider not re-enlisting or extending their service."
Thus, the letter states that the number of individuals who would leave or consider leaving is far greater than the total number of individuals who have been discharged for homosexual conduct - "a mere 0.37 percent of all discharges."
The House of Representatives has passed a version of the Senate bill with the repeal of the ban on active homosexuals in the military. The House has not, however, passed any version of the Burris Amendment.
The Freedom Federation letter was signed by Mathew D. Staver, Chairman of the Liberty Counsel, Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, Dr. Richard Land, President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Rev. Mr. Keith Fournier, Editor-in-Chief of Catholic Online, and by many others.
The letter reminds senators that "service in the military is not just a day job, it is a way of life."
"Military personnel and their families live on base, shop on base, attend school on base, go to the doctor on base, and go to work on base. That is why approximately twenty-four percent of active duty military personnel have indicated they are unwilling to subject themselves and their families to a culture that challenges their values."
It concludes by asking that senators refuse to vote against and if necessary support a filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Contact: James Tillman Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 23, 2010
Pennsylvania locations 'snubbed the health department and remain open'
A Pennsylvania abortionist who repeatedly has been in trouble with the law continues to operate four abortion clinics even though the state health department ordered them to be closed, according to the pro-life Operation Rescue.
"It's bizarre," Operation Rescue President Troy Newman told WND shortly after his report was posted. "We talk about a double standard: GOP-Democrat, conservative-liberal, Christians-non-Christians, but it's never been more apparent than when you see the double standard in the abortion industry."
The abortionist is Steven Chase Brigham, who has operated abortion businesses in Allentown, Erie, Pittsburgh and State College, as well as in other states.
A document from the state health department dated July 7 stated there was evidence of a "reckless and careless attitude toward those whom they have served and seek to continue to serve."
The determination from Robert Torres, deputy secretary for administration of the state agency, said the abortionist and his corporation, already operating under a settlement agreement for earlier problems, allegedly repeatedly and intentionally hired unlicensed abortionists and workers in violation of state law.
The report said Brigham surrendered his medical license in the state in 1992.
But Operation Rescue reports the businesses "have indeed snubbed the health-department order and remain open and taking patients – a move that could endanger the safety of women."
"Brigham isn't the only abortionist who maintains the practice of hiring unlicensed workers. Based on our research into the shoddy practices of the abortion cartel, few of them actually have the proper staffing with the proper credentials. The practice is epidemic and puts the lives of women in grave danger," Newman said.
"Brigham is just one who has been caught," he said.
A WND telephone call to a listed number for one of the Brigham enterprises today got a message that the line had been disconnected. But Newman said Brigham has made a practice of transferring assets among various shell companies. Local reports document he has held companies called Peaceful Corp., Goodness Inc. and Kindness Corp.
An attendant answered a telephone number for another location, American Women's Services, reportedly one of Brigham's corporate entities, and offered to direct a caller to the company's services. But she disconnected as soon as a reporter identified himself.
The report said Brigham had transferred ownership of the clinics to an elderly woman in Ohio to avoid the closure order. However, Torres ruled any transfer of permission to run the abortion clinics "would be void."
According to a report in the Philadelaphia newspaper, Brigham also is facing the loss of the rest of his chain of 15 abortion businesses because of tax troubles, even as his defense lawyer, Julie Gabis, told the newspaper that the closure order would be appealed.
But the article documented that Brigham's "legal scrapes" go back as far as 1989. While he at one point was licensed in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, California, Florida and Georgia, he lost his documentation in Pennsylvania in 1992, New York in 1994 for "gross negligence" and "inexcusably bad judgment" and Florida shortly later. He let his licenses in Georgia and Florida lapse.
The state's report said Brigham faces an IRS lien of more than $230,000 for failing to submit payroll taxes from 2002 to 2006.
Operation Rescue reported Brigham also served 120 days in jail in 1998 for fraud.
Even the National Abortion Federation issued a statement agreeing with the Pennsylvania order to close Brigham's clinics, the report documented.
"When the (Federation) won't have you, you know it's bad, since the (Federation) runs some of the nastiest, most dangerous abortion clinics in the country," Newman said.
Operation Rescue's national headquarters are housed in a building that once served as a Federation-approved abortion clinic, and the activist organization documented both filth and unsafe conditions when it took over the building.
Contact: Bob Unruh Source: WorldNetDaily Date Published: July 23, 2010
The non-partisan fact-checking site FactCheck.org has vindicated the National Right to Life Committee's (NRLC) claim that federal monies were on the brink of funding abortions in state high-risk insurance pools before the matter was exposed by NRLC, prompting the Obama administration to retroactively enforce Hyde-amendment restrictions.
The controversy erupted a week and a half ago, when NRLC revealed that abortions would be funded under a $160 million Pennsylvania program, a fact that contradicted the repeated assurances of President Obama and pro-life Democrats that abortions would not be funded under the federal health care law. The pro-life organization also unearthed similar funding problems in New Mexico and Maryland.
The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) responded to the concerns raised by NRLC in a statement, suggesting that an abortion funding ban for the high risk pools was already implied in the health reform law. However, Planned Parenthood and NARAL both expressed shock at the HHS's "clarification" that only abortions in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother's life would be federally subsidized under the high-risk plans; both groups condemned such a funding ban as a clear change in the law.
Now Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org has agreed with both NRLC and the pro-abortion groups that nothing in the law would have prevented abortions from being funded under the high-risk pools.
He wrote that the NRLC was correct to point out that the Pennsylvania plan was flawed because, while it appeared to exclude "elective abortions" from federally-subsidized coverage, it failed to define the term "elective abortions," rendering the statement meaningless.
LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) had twice asked Pennsylvania state insurance officials to clarify the meaning of "elective abortion," but a spokesperson would not answer the question, but simply referred LSN to the HHS statement.
"The term 'elective' isn't defined, and so isn't very meaningful," wrote Jackson. "So — when all the verbal smoke is cleared away — the solicitation states that the program 'will' cover 'only' abortions that are legal. That doesn't leave out much."
Shortly after the HHS announced that it would apply Hyde restrictions to the high risk pools after all, NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said that, "It is certainly clear that [HHS officials] were not imposing any abortion restrictions until now, until it became a matter of controversy.
"[HHS officials] were not applying any kind of guidance that would keep states from submitting such a plan [approving abortion coverage], and they weren't denying approval when a state did submit such a plan," he said.
Jackson wrote that the Pennsylvania Insurance Department's spokeswoman Melissa Fox responded to further questions from Factcheck.org by justifying the proposal's vague language, saying that the "aggressive timeframe to submit proposals" required that the writers of the proposal "insert 'placeholder' language absent specific guidance from the federal government on the benefit package."
"So the story now is that in the haste to meet a deadline, 'placeholder' language was inserted, to be adjusted later," Jackson concluded. "But whatever Pennsylvania officials intended, the stated federal policy is now clear: No abortions will be covered by the temporary risk pools except for those in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother."
The FactCheck.org article does not address in depth the New Mexico plan, whose Federal High Risk Pool initially listed "Routine Maternity/Elective Termination of Pregnancy" as a covered benefit under the section "Hospital/Facility Services." When the Associated Press contacted the agency about that plan, a spokesperson initially claimed the coverage would remain unchanged, before calling the AP back to say that officials had begun "correcting the package so it will not have elective abortion coverage."
NRLC also discovered earlier this week that a third high-risk pool proposal in Maryland had not applied Hyde restrictions on abortion funding, and that no guidelines were given by the HHS to do so.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 23, 2010
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) is planning to introduce the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" on July 29. If passed, this bill would establish as permanent many of the pro-life policies that currently rely on regular congressional re-approval, and which are attached as riders to annual appropriations bills.
"This 'as needed' approach," wrote Rep. Smith in a letter to his colleagues, "usually results in a debate over abortion funding anytime Congress considers health-related legislation."
Smith's proposed legislation would make permanent the Hyde amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortions through any program funded by the annual Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Act.
It would also codify the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause within the Hyde amendment, which ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against health care providers because they do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
It would also make permanent the Helms amendment, the Smith FEHBP amendment, and the Doman amendment, which respectively prohibit the funding of abortion overseas, the funding of elective abortion coverage for federal employees, and the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia.
It would also make permanent a few other pro-life policies.
Rep. Chris Smith has also recently called attention to the fact that $23 million of U.S. taxpayer funds have been dedicated to the civic education effort in Kenya in the run-up to a referendum on a new, pro-abortion constitution.
Many of the grantees obtained the money specifically to work for the pro-abortion constitution.
"It is unconscionable that U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing a massive one-sided political campaign thinly disguised as 'civic education' in another sovereign nation," Smith said. "This is a very bad precedent. And it is illegal."
Contact: James Tillman Source: LifeSiteNews.com Date Published: July 22, 2010
Supporters of legalized abortion have declared their intention to protest this week's Pro-Life Freedom Rides, according to Fr. Frank Pavone of the anti-abortion group Priests for Life.
The Freedom Rides campaign, which begins in Birmingham, Alabama on July 23, will bring its caravan of demonstrators to Atlanta, Georgia on Saturday. There, opponents of abortion will gather to pray at the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the city's King Center.
Opponents of the campaign object to the Freedom Rides' evocation of the historic 1960s-era civil rights demonstrations, and have sought to block the pro-life activists from using the King Center.
But Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a leading organizer of this year's Freedom Rides, maintains that the same issues of justice and personal dignity lie at the heart of both causes.
"I have no doubt that if they were alive, my uncle Martin and my father A.D. would be with us on these Freedom Rides for the unborn," Dr. King stated.
In an open letter on the Freedom Rides website, Fr. Frank Pavone said that "the Civil Rights movement and the Pro-Life movement have the same heart and soul." The essence of both, he wrote, is "a longing for equal justice for everyone, based on the inherent dignity of every human life."
On Wednesday, Fr. Pavone emphasized that the pro-life movement, rather than those planning to protest the Freedom Rides, is consistent with Martin Luther King's philosophy of non-violence.
Describing the partial-birth abortion procedure in which "the skull is brought out in fragments rather than a unified piece," Fr. Pavone asked: "Do these pro-abortion fanatics really expect us to believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would want that kind of violence legally protected?"
ACLU and Planned Parenthood attorneys have filed an injunction against the Mississippi Secretary of State, seeking to disallow Mississippi voters from voting on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment. The lawsuit denies the humanity of children in the womb, and disparages their rights as human beings created in God's image.
Upon learning of this lawsuit, Walter Hoye of the California Civil Rights Foundation, stated the following : "In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided: 'A Negro of the African race was regarded ... as an article of property ... a subordinate and inferior class of being.' In 1858, the Virginia Supreme Court declared: 'In the eyes of the law ... the slave is not a person.'
"In 1867, Buckner Payne, Publisher: 'The Negro is not a human being.' In 1900, Professor Charles Carroll: 'The Negro is ... one of the lower animals.' In 1903 Dr. William English: 'The negro race is ... a heritage of organic and psychic debris.' In 1909, Dr. E. T. Brady: 'They [Negroes] are parasites.' In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided: 'The Fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.'"
Continued Hoye, "Today, it appears that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have joined forces to continue using the legal language of oppression against the preborn child and the more than 100,000 Mississippi residents who signed a legal petition, asking for the right to vote on the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, by filing an injunction against Mississippi's secretary of state to block the ballot measure."
"Surely, there is nothing new under the sun. History teaches us, time and time again, that the use of oppressive language to demonize and dehumanize certain segments of the human race is incontestably evil," Hoye concluded with a message to Personhood Mississippi.
"I have family in Mississippi and want Les Riley and Personhood Mississippi, to know that I and all those fighting the incontestable evil of the abortion industry are standing with them."
Walter Hoye, an avid supporter of the personhood efforts of Personhood Mississippi and Personhood USA, is the President and Founder of the California Civil Rights Foundation.
Contact: Walter Hoye Date Published: July 21, 2010
The U.S. government has wrongly taken sides by spending taxpayer money to promote Kenya's proposed constitution, Rep. Chris Smith is charging. He reports an investigation has found that one well-funded group in 2000 urged the U.S. to support efforts to "eventually legalize abortion in Kenya" by supporting civic organizations.
The exposure of some grantees "may only be a tip of the iceberg," the congressman claimed, reiterating the possibility that U.S. funding for an effort which would expand legal abortion could violate U.S. law.
Speaking at a Wednesday press conference, Rep. Smith (R-N.J.), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, said that U.S. involvement in the Aug. 4 constitutional referendum should be limited to ensuring the vote on the proposal is "free, fair and without violence."
"Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides by supporting, facilitating and funding projects designed to identify and motivate votes for either side," he continued. "Yet that is precisely what the Obama Administration has done."
According to Rep. Smith, evidence gathered by Donald Gambatesa, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Inspector General (IG), shows that the group Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) is receiving almost $3 million in U.S. grants.
In 2000, the group advised USAID that its Kenya branch would benefit by supporting organizations advocating for "efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya." Noting that such activity would be "politically sensitive," DAI suggested that USAID support local advocacy groups as part of the agency's democracy objectives.
Rep. Smith said he and his colleagues noted with "alarm, shock and dismay" that the USAID Inspector General's evidence "clearly shows the Obama Administration has funded grantees with the express purpose of identifying and mobilizing tens of thousands of 'yes' votes."
The congressman said that some grantees have "specific quotas" of "yes" votes built in their contract, adding "more than $23 million U.S. taxpayer funds have either been spent or obligated—far exceeding earlier estimates."
He explained that U.S. law bars taxpayer funds from being used to lobby either for or against abortion, but the proposed constitution would allow abortion for "undefined 'health' reasons." He said this often means "just about any reason."
The inclusion of an exception for the life of the mother, in Rep. Smith's view, makes it clear that the drafters intended "health" to mean something different. He also criticized ambiguity in a provision that a trained "health care professional" will determine the "need" for abortion.
According to the Congressman, the Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA-Kenya), which in 2008 began a campaign for more permissive abortion laws, received $85,363 from USAID for advocacy activities related to the draft constitution. The organization is a member of the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance (RHRA), which is supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).
RHRA helped draft "reproductive health provisions for the revised constitution," according to Rep. Smith.
Rep. Smith reported that though the U.S. Embassy in Kenya at first denied concerns about illegal activity, a spokeswoman has since reported that nine grantees had been suspended or their work concluded. The congressman presumed it was because of issues he and his colleagues had raised.
"We are also deeply concerned that the nine grantees may be only a tip of the iceberg," he continued, calling on the USAID IG to investigate further.
Kenya's Catholic bishops have said the proposed constitution is "fundamentally flawed" because of its treatment of abortion.
Over 170 pro-life leaders from 21 countries have signed a petition organized by the World Congress of Families supporting opposition to the proposed constitution. Signatories include former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Boston mayor and Vatican ambassador Ray Flynn as well as pro-life groups and current or former political leaders from Britain, Australia, Poland, the Philippines and the European Union.
A Texas ride-share driver was recently fired from his job after he refused to transport a woman to a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Edwin Graning, employed with Austin's Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), was assigned to pick up the woman early in the morning.
Before picking her up, Graning called the clinic in advance to confirm someone would be there on her arrival. As he was waiting to leave a message, he listened to a list of the clinic's services.
Graning – an ordained Christian minister – could not go against his religious beliefs.
"Dear God, this woman's going to have an abortion," he said. "I went ahead and called my supervisor at home and told her, 'I can't be a part of this.'"
Graning said he was told to park the van immediately. He was fired the next day.
The American Center for Law & Justice has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Graning, stating CARTS violated Title VII – a federal law that prevents religious discrimination.
"Here CARTS had the obligation under federal law to at least attempt to accommodate Mr. Graning," said his attorney Edward White of the American Center for Law and Justice. "They could have just sent another driver to pick the woman up."
