Pro-Abortion Blacks Attack Heir to King Legacy: Alveda King Calls for Boycott

     

In an appeal to America to boycott the abortion industry, Dr. Alveda King, daughter of Reverend A. D. King and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. responds to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights press conference.

"It is absolutely ludicrous that abortion supporters would accuse a blood relative of Dr. King of hijacking the King legacy. Uncle Martin and my father, Rev. A. D. King were blood brothers. How can I hijack something that belongs to me? I am an heir to the King Family legacy," she said.  "I have a right to stand at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th Anniversary of my Uncle's 'I Have A Dream' speech. The Dream has yet to be realized. That Dream is in my genes and I carry forward in the fight for equality and justice for all blacks, including those in the womb.  My dad and my uncle gave their lives to ensure that the day would come when blacks would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. If they were here, I know they would stand with me in this fight for the lives of those most vulnerable among us," said King.

Other African American leaders are joining Alveda in calling for a boycott of the abortion industry.

"It's interesting to me to hear so called religious people call us the religious right -- but that's okay because they are obviously the complete opposite... they are the religious wrong!  Which begs the question... what God -- if any do they serve?" asked Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-Life Union.  "As for me, I serve the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac -- the great I AM... Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and all things created.  Those of us who serve the one true God acknowledge we are all made in his image. We bow to God's Word when He says: 'Blessed is the fruit of the womb.' If God says children are a reward, a gift and our heritage, then we must uphold that all children are greatly valuable and desirable to God.  So, I ask again... what God do they serve?" 

"More and more of Black Americans understand the eugenic agenda of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to control the black birth rate through abortion. And because we understand, we are standing with Alveda King in solidarity, continuing the fight for black life from its earliest beginnings," said Catherine Davis, founding member of the black prolife movement. "I grew up understanding that the King family fought for my right to equality, even as they fought, bled and died for my right to life, free of government sanctioned lynching, restraints, and KKK threats. To believe that they would now stand for the destruction of life in the womb, screams against the legacy these great men left for us all."

"I will stand with Alveda King because she is courageous enough to follow in her uncle's and father's footsteps," said Gardner.  "The travesty of abortion -- especially in the black community is the greatest civil rights battle of our time and we must overcome it -- in Christ, we shall overcome it."

"I have a dream, it is in my genes and I ask all America to stand with me on 8/28 at the Lincoln Memorial and thereafter by boycotting America's abortion industry," said Dr. King.

Contact: Alveda King, Catherine Davis, Day Gardner

Date Published: August 26, 2010

Some of the Fall-Out from Judge Lambeth's Decision

     

There's been a flurry of developments directly and indirectly related to a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Royce C. Lamberth to prevent the Obama Administration from continuing to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. As we reported yesterday, Lamberth, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote in his August 23 order that it appeared that the Administration's decision to fund embryonic stem cell (ESC) research was inconsistent with a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The ruling was preliminary, but the judge ordered the funding to cease while the case progresses.

First, with no additional detail, the Obama Justice Department said it would appeal Judge Lamberth's 15-page opinion. White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton "said the administration is exploring all possible avenues 'to make sure that we can continue to do this critical lifesaving research,' but he did not specify exactly how it will respond," the Washington Post reported.

Second, "The National Institutes of Health said yesterday it will not award new grants or renew existing ones for research on human embryonic stem cells after a federal judge temporarily halted the Obama administration's expansion of federal funding for this research," according to the Boston Globe. "But scientists who have already received federal money, including Harvard Stem Cell Institute researchers, can continue their work on these cells, said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the NIH. The agency has awarded $131 million this year for human embryonic stem cell research."

Third, many of the usual pro-embryonic stem cell research boosters uncritically stated that ESC offers unparalleled opportunities (as a USA Today editorial put it) to "people suffering from diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other afflictions that resist traditional therapies." Of course, it's all "promise," and "potential"--as opposed to over 70 published studies that show promising results utilizing morally unobjectionable adult stem cell research.

But, to its credit, the editorial says of the decision "Disappointing but most likely legally correct. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth cited an amendment Congress passed in 1996 that bars any research using cells that come from the destruction of human embryos. That law, Lamberth ruled, trumps an executive order President Obama issued last year aimed at jump-starting research."

It then suggests what no doubt many pro-abortion Democrats are already considering: going after the Dickey-Wicker Amendment.

Collaterally, the New York Times' Gina Kolata began her story yesterday with "The renewed debate over embryonic stem cells highlights the advances and complications that have arisen in the field since its controversial beginnings." Significantly, early on she acknowledges, "Yet despite the high hopes for embryonic stem cells, progress has been slow -- so far there are no treatments with the cells."

Kolata uses much of her article to argue that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) have problems of their own, meaning that embryonic stem cell research must go forward, if for that reason alone. (iPS cells result when human skin cells are genetically reprogrammed--sent "back in time"-- becoming essentially indistinguishablefrom human embryonic stem cells.) Unfortunately there is only one passing reference to adult stem cells.

Even more intriguing is a very thoughtful piece at Slate.com. Written by Emily Yoffe, it's headlined, "Where are the cures promised by stem cells, gene therapy, and the human genome?"). It is very much worth reading (www.slate.com/id/2264401/pagenum/all/#p2).

Yoffee's summary is helpful for many reasons, not the least of which is her counsel against over-hyping "breakthroughs."

Her report reminds us that the "wonder cure" of the 1980s for diseases like Parkinson's was supposedly scooping out the brains of aborted babies and depositing it in the skulls of Parkinson's patients. It never worked and had horrific side effects.

In addition, "getting stem cells to work in the human body is neither an easy nor necessarily benign process," she writes. "Researchers are concerned that stem cells, once let loose, might take a wrong turn; heart cells, for instance, could end up in the brain. They could also proliferate excessively, causing damage to nearby tissues. They could generate tumors."

There will be additional developments from Judge Lamberth's decision, which we will keep you up to speed on.

Contact: Dave Andrusko

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 25, 2010

AG Madigan and ACLU resist legal moves to implement parental notification

     

On Wednesday of last week, Thomas More Society attorneys filed a motion to immediately transfer the legal case pending against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act from the Illinois Appellate Court to the Illinois Supreme Court. Arguing that pregnant minors at risk for abortion suffer harm every day that the Act is not enforced, the Society invoked the Supreme Court rule allowing transfer of an appeal when the "public interest requires prompt adjudication." The pending appeal, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is currently in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where a decision may not come for a year or more.

Just Tuesday afternoon, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is constitutionally obligated to defend the Parental Notice Act, joined the ACLU in opposing speedy resolution of the case by the Supreme Court. Earlier, after the trial judge threw out the ACLU's case, the Attorney General agreed to an indefinite stay of the Parental Notice Act during the ACLU's current appeal.

Thomas More Society wants to thank John-Paul Deddens, President of Students for Life of Illinois, who built the website www.letparentsknow.com, in order to support the Parental Notice Act. A coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups across Illinois have joined the website and the effort, and in response, thousands of Illinoisans called and petitioned the Attorney General over the past week to urge her to support the immediate resolution of the case by the Supreme Court.

The fate of the motion now rests in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court, where "the Supreme Court or a justice thereof may order that the appeal be taken directly to it."

Click here to more about the motion forimmediate transfer.

Source: Illinois Review
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Strategic Voting

     
 
• Are you planning to stay home on Nov. 2 because you don't think there's anyone you can vote for?

• Would you not vote for a particular candidate who does not have a "pure enough" pro-life position or pro-life vote?

• Would you ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion in order to advance the pro-life cause?  Is this like saying the ends justify the means?
 
Have you ever asked yourself any of these questions?  Have you ever thought it was sinful to vote for any candidate who was not 100% pro-life?  While this conviction is understandable, it merits more thought.
 
For instance, imagine two pro-abortion candidates are facing one another in the election.  You must first study their platforms and voting records.  What if one supported, say, parental notification and the other did not?  A strategic vote to advance the cause of life would limit evil.  Not voting in this race might allow the candidate who did not support parental notice to be elected.
 
There are many pro-lifers who, because they thought a less than 100% pro-life candidate was not good enough, have not voted and will not vote.  This tactic has enabled pro-abortion legislators to be elected and to have a stranglehold on Illinois government. 
 
The Roe v. Wade decision overturned all laws that banned or limited abortion in all 50 states.  This decision then has forced us to take an incremental approach—the only way to eliminate it is by eroding it.  Some candidates, while not 100% pro-life, may be very helpful in legislatively promoting this erosion process.  There could be huge benefits for Life in voting this way.
 
Conversely, not voting because the candidate isn't "pure enough" has allowed abortion to continue unabated in Illinois.  Winning this battle requires an incremental strategy. 
 
Please take a moment to reflect on these things and then vote for Life.

Source: Lake County Right to Life Blog
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Grassroots Activists Respond to Abortion Crisis with Record-Setting 40 Days for Life Campaign

     

"This fall, an unprecedented number of people of faith will be turning to a higher power to bring an end to the tragedy of abortion through a 40-day program of prayer and fasting, peaceful vigil and community outreach," said Shawn Carney, campaign director of 40 Days for Life.

40 Days for Life is preparing for its largest campaign to date with 238 sites in six countries participating in simultaneous campaigns from September 22 - October 31. The list of locations is posted at: http://40daysforlife.com/location.cfm. 

The list includes 223 locations in 46 American states and the District of Columbia. With nine locations in six provinces, this campaign will also mark the largest Canadian participation as well. There are also communities taking part in 40 Days for Life in Australia, Denmark, Northern Ireland, and -- for the first time -- England.

"Many of the people who volunteer to pray at 40 Days for Life's public vigils have never done anything like this before, and perhaps had never even considered it," said Carney. "But there's a sense of urgency -- more lives are being lost to abortion every day with no apparent end in sight -- that requires an active, prayerful response. People are responding to that call, and it is showing amazing results."

Six abortion centers where 40 Days for Life prayer vigils have taken place have closed following these campaigns of prayer and fasting. In addition, 35 abortion industry employees have left their jobs at facilities where people prayed for an end to abortion during 40 Days for Life campaigns.

Carney added that peaceful prayer outside the abortion center "provides a simple reminder -- to patients, to staff, to the community -- of what all people know in their hearts: abortion is wrong and can never be justified. Despite the fact that governments continue to aggressively pursue a pro-abortion agenda, I am confident that the abortion culture will be overcome by the power of prayer."

Just three years ago, 40 Days for Life burst onto the scene as a groundbreaking pro-life initiative. Since then, it has mobilized more than 350,000 people in 307 cities across all 50 states -- as well as locations in other nations -- during six coordinated campaigns, saving 2,811 lives from abortion. The community-based 40 Days for Life campaign involves people of faith in 40 days of prayer and fasting for an end to abortion, round-the-clock peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities, and grassroots educational outreach.

Contact: Amber Dolle

Source: 40 Days for Life
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Thomas More Society Files Lawsuit in Michigan to Uncover Truth About Notorious Abortionist Dr. Alberto Hodari

     

Yesterday (Monday), Thomas More Society attorneys filed a lawsuit to compel disclosure of public records that indicate why a doctor in Michigan was not punished for tossing aborted fetuses and patient records in the trash. Robert Fleming, local counsel for the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society (CPLS) in Ingram County Circuit Court.

Dr. Miller, president and director of CPLS, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to learn the results of an investigation of Dr. Alberto Hodari and his abortion clinic, the Women Care Clinic in Lathrup Village, Mich. The investigation was brought on after CPLS found patient medical and financial records as well as the remains of aborted fetuses in trash containers outside the Women Care Clinic in 2008. Dr. Miller and CPLS then filed the complaint as well as evidence of their discovery with the Bureau of Health Professionals and the local police department. Dr. Miller's and CPLS' FOIA request was denied earlier this year when they were told only that there was insufficient evidence to "substantiate" their charges, without any explanation as to why or how their evidence was deemed deficient.

"The Freedom of Information Act is meant to foster transparency and openness in government, and this pro-life group and its leader, who uncovered Dr. Hodari's despicable actions, have been left completely in the dark," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The public has a right to know the details as to Dr. Hodari's grievous and gruesome aberration from professional medical norms and simple human decencies."

The Thomas More Society contends that the cited reason for Dr. Miller's FOIA denial, "an unwarranted invasion of the individual's privacy," is moot, as the medical and financial records found behind the Women Care Clinic were already publicly disclosed and a gross violation of the patients' rights and expectations of privacy. The Society also asks the court to review the withheld records in chambers to redact or edit out any personal identification or embarrassing details.

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Virginia AG: State Can Force Abortion Clinics to Follow Same Standards as Hospitals

     

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli may be about to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare" - simply by making abortion clinics offer women the same standard of care required by other outpatient surgical facilities.

Statistically speaking abortion is the number one surgical procedure that women undergo in the United States, and most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

However in Virginia, as in many other places around the country, abortion facilities have often escaped the health and safety standards that are mandated for other medical facilities, such as hospitals, that engage in out-patient surgery.

Just recently, Louisiana corrected that problem by giving its Health Department the regulatory authority to shut down facilities that failed to live up to hospital health and safety standards.

But many abortion clinics in Virginia have operated under the law as "physician's offices" rather than medical facilities. If the state follows Cuccinelli's legal advice, that could soon change.

"It is my opinion that the Commonwealth has the authority to promulgate regulations for facilities in which first trimester abortions are performed as well as providers of first trimester abortions, so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations," Cuccinelli wrote in a legal opinion released Friday.

The opinion was written in response to an inquiry from Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) and Senator Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke), who asked whether the state had the authority to regulate facilities that perform 1st trimester abortions.

Cuccinelli pointed out that under Virginia statute, the definition of "hospital" can include abortion facilities because they fall within the Code's broad definition of a "hospital." In Virginia, a hospital is "any facility … in which the primary function is the provision of diagnosis, treatment, and of medical and nursing services, surgical or non-surgical, for two or more nonrelated individuals including … outpatient surgical [hospitals]."

He also pointed out that the Board of Health has already classified "abortion outpatient clinics" as outpatient hospitals, under its authority to classify hospitals.

"The attorney general's comments on this issue points out to a real problem involving abortion practice in the United States, and that simply is that abortion across the United States is the single most commonly performed procedure on American women. And yet it does remain the most unregulated, underreported, and under-investigated of any form of medical care provided to American women," Olivia Gans, President of the Virginia Society for Human Life, told LifeSiteNews.com. "So it is quite scandalous that women's lives are literally hanging in the balance along with their children at these abortion provider's hands."

Cuccinelli also pointed out that abortion clinics may not be able to hide from the Board of Health's regulations as "physicians' offices," since the Board has the authority to investigate that claim. He said that the Board of Medicine has broad authority to regulate all health practitioners in the state, and can therefore regulate standards of care in first trimester abortion facilities.

Cuccinelli also said that these positions had been upheld previously in federal court.

However, abortion advocates are protesting the attorney general's opinion, arguing that if most abortion clinics carried out the same standards of care for women that are mandated at hospitals they soon would be out of business.

According to the Washington Post, abortion advocates predict that only four out of 21 abortion clinics would be able to fulfill that standard of care if mandated by the state Board of Health. The rest would be shut down.

Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, cast Cuccinelli's opinion as "his first pitch" to make abortion inaccessible.

"These so-called regulations are only an attempt to shut down abortion clinics in the Commonwealth of Virginia," Keene told the Post.

Gans told LSN that while NARAL was often prone to "hyperbole," "it is at time to time the case that serious and quite startling infractions of what would be normal medical practice and care are seriously violated in the practice of abortion."

Gans added that the biggest reason that abortion facilities operate with "a cloak of invincibility" under the law is due to the confusion surrounding what states can and cannot do under current interpretations of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

"It does strike one as astonishing that NARAL would reject every effort to protect the lives and well-being of the women who are actually seeking abortions, as often as they reject any measure that would ultimately also protect the unborn child," said Gans. "One has to ask who is NARAL or NOW or Planned Parenthood or any of these pro-abortion groups supportive of? And it appears too often that they are protecting the interests of the abortionists and not the children and their mothers." 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Pro-Life Leaders Vow to Fight Iowa 'Telemed' Abortions

     

A coalition of pro-life leaders on Friday delivered a letter to the Iowa Board of Medicine asking that it investigate a scheme allowing doctors to distribute the risky RU-486 abortion drug without being present to the patient, known as "telemed" abortions.

The scheme, which Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has implemented since June 2008, allows doctors to prescribe the abortion pills via a remote-control system to women in remote areas who visit an office with an unlicensed assistant.

In their letter to the Board, 57 local and national pro-life leaders point out that the scheme conflicts with Iowa law requiring a physician to perform abortions, and with Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protocol recommending that the drug be distributed. "The absence of a licensed physician performing a physical examination poses a significant health threat to the mother of the unborn child," they write. "An examination could reveal potential risk factors that may prevent a physician from prescribing RU-486 to the patient. These risk factors, if unidentified, could lead to excessive bleeding, infection, and death.

"Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is ignoring this basic tenet of care by passing responsibility and directing patients to the emergency room if complications do occur."

Several groups in the coalition, led by Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for L.I.F.E. (Life Is For Everyone), denounced the scheme in a press conference Friday, the same day the Board invited comment on the topic.

DeWitte told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) she was hopeful that the board would research the scheme and "come to the conclusion that this is not what Iowa needs, this is not safe for women or for our families, and decide to put a stop to it."

"We're going to continue to put the pressure on [and] go forward with what we know is happening, and make sure they are aware of it," she added.

Rep. Steve King, a U.S. Congressman from Iowa, also submitted a letter to the Board expressing concern over the "unlawful and dangerous practice" of telemed abortions. King released his letter on Friday, the same day the Iowa Board of Medicine took public comment on the telemed abortion practice.

The Thomas More Society also submitted a letter pointing out that "the regimen established by the FDA and the manufacturer of RU-486 (Danco Laboratories) make it crystal clear that [the abortion drugs] are to be ingested in the presence of the physician who has administered them."

Approximately 30 people came to speak at the Board hearing on the topic; however, the Board only allowed seven people to comment. They gave the seven speakers a total of ten minutes for their combined remarks. All speakers expressed opposition to telemed abortions.

Speakers included former Iowa Health Commissioner Norm Pawlewski, who now heads Iowa Christian Alliance, Attorney Tom Brecha of the Thomas More Society in Chicago, IL, Maggie Dewitte of Iowans for Life, Jennifer Bowden of Iowa Right to Life, Monsignor Frank Bognanno of Christ the King Parish in Des Moines, Registered Nurse Michelle Locher, and Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, who filed the original complaint with the IBM.

During the press conference, Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue announced that her group had filed complaints demanding criminal investigations of allegedly illegal telemed abortions in ten Iowa counties and has re-filed a request for a state audit with the State Auditor and the Iowa Insurance Commission.

"We received a letter from the Iowa Attorney General 's office that sounded more like a letter from a Planned Parenthood attorney than from someone who is sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Iowa," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "Because is it now clear that Mr. Miller is acting as an apologist for Planned Parenthood and an obstructionist in the process of enforcing Iowa law, we will bypass his office and go to the local authorities."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 24, 2010

U.S. Court Halts Obama Admin Stem-Cell Research Regulations

     

A U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia has intervened to block regulations issued by the Obama administration expanding embryo-destructive research.

Pro-life researchers and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a group that encourages adoption of frozen embryonic children, filed the suit last year. Judge Royce Lamberth had ruled in June that the group has standing to sue over the guidelines that the National Institutes of Health developed for taxpayer-funded research that would involve the destruction of living human embryos.

The newly-expanded research was made possible by an executive order signed by President Obama in March 2009.

The plaintiffs argue that the new guidelines clearly violate a provision in U.S. law (known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment) that prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

In the opinion issued Monday, Lamberth ruled that the Dickey-Wicker language was unambiguous, contrary to the arguments of lawyers with the Department of Health and Human Services, and that the NIH guidelines violated the "plain language of the statute."

"ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "To conduct ESC research, ESC must be derived from an embryo. The process of deriving ESCs from an embryo results in the destruction of the embryo. Thus, ESC research necessarily depends upon the destruction of a human embryo.

"Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on ESCs, the two cannot be separated."

Critics have pointed out that, aside from destroying tiny human lives, ESC research has resulted in virtually no therapeutic benefit and has been outstripped by breakthroughs in adult stem-cell research, which has yielded dozens of cures and benefits for previously untreatable illnesses.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 23, 2010

Permanent Abortion Funding Ban; "Protect Life Act" Introduced in Congress

    

On July 30, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.) introduced a new bill that would permanently bar subsidies for abortion in all federal programs.

The measure, titled the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 5939), is strongly backed by NRLC.

"For decades, a patchwork of short-term policies have prevented abortion funding in many programs authorized by Congress, but it is time for a single, government-wide permanent protection against taxpayer funding for elective abortion," Smith said.

Long-established federal programs, such as Medicaid, currently do not pay for elective abortion, thanks to a patchwork of pro-life policies put in place over a period of decades. Many of these policies are imposed by provisions of annual appropriations bills that require annual renewal, the best known of these being the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding of abortion with money from the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

If the Smith-Lipinski bill were enacted, it would no longer be necessary to win annual renewal of the Hyde Amendment or other such temporary bans.

In addition, the bill would prevent federal funds from subsidizing abortion, or insurance plans that cover abortion, in any of the new programs created by the new health care law.

The bill would also make permanent an important pro-life law that has been enacted on a year-to-year basis since 2004, known as the Hyde-Weldon Amendment. This provision prohibits state, local, or federal government agencies that receive federal DHHS funds from discriminating against health care providers for refusing to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

"Recent events have demonstrated, more graphically than ever before, the importance of achieving a permanent, government-wide prohibition on subsidies for abortion, and NRLC will work hard for enactment of this legislation," said NRLC's Johnson.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (Oh.), who is an original cosponsor of the bill, said, "There is simply no good reason for Congress not to codify the Hyde Amendment, which reflects the clearly-expressed will of the American people. The need for Rep. Smith's bill has become more clear than ever as a result of the disingenuous way in which the White House and the Democratic congressional leadership thwarted enactment of the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment during the debate over health care earlier this year. Rather than allowing the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment to become law, President Obama issued an Executive Order purporting to eliminate the need for such an amendment. Americans now know, based on recent developments and the administration's subsequent scrambling to patch holes exposed in its claim by pro-life Americans, that the president's executive order is inadequate."

As of August 23, H.R. 5939 had 167 cosponsors. To view an always-current list of cosponsors, visit the NRLC Legislative Action Center at http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/

NRLC also supports legislation known informally as the "Protect Life Act," introduced in the House by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) as H.R. 5111 (123 cosponsors) and in the Senate by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) as S. 3723 (26 cosponsors). This legislation would revise the recently enacted health care law to prevent any pro-abortion subsidies or administrative regulations. Its language is similar to the pro-life amendments that NRLC and other pro-life groups tried to attach to the health care legislation when it was under consideration in Congress.

The Pitts-Coburn bill is intended to correct only the abortion-related problems created by the Obama-backed health care law – a narrower focus than the Smith bill, which would apply a uniform pro-life policy to all federal health programs, both newly created and longstanding.

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 23, 2010

U.S. Catholic Bishops Endorse Permanent Hyde Amendment

     

The U.S. Catholic Bishops are endorsing a bill proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives that would apply permanent Hyde amendment restrictions to abortion funding in federal programs.

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chair of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, urged Congress to support the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 5939), introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Rep. Dan Linkinski (D-Ill.) on July 30.

"H.R. 5939 will write into permanent law a policy on which there has been strong popular and congressional agreement for over 35 years: The federal government should not use taxpayers' money to support and promote elective abortion," Cardinal DiNardo stated in an August 20 letter. "Even public officials who take a 'pro-choice' stand on abortion, and courts that have insisted on the validity of a constitutional 'right' to abortion, have agreed that the government can validly use its funding power to encourage childbirth over abortion."

The proposed legislation would make permanent the Hyde amendment, and many other pro-life policies that depend on congressional re-approval every year.

The Hyde amendment prohibits the funding of elective abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother, through any program funded by the annual Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Act.

The amendment is currently attached to the annual appropriations bill as a rider each year, rendering its continued survival uncertain.

The bill would also make permanent the Helms amendment, the Smith FEHBP amendment, and the Dornan 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.

In addition to banning abortion funding, the bill would also codify the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause within the Hyde amendment.  This ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against health care providers because they do not provide or facilitate abortions.

The bill already has 166 co-sponsors, including 20 Democrat House members.

DiNardo said it was imperative that Congress pass Hyde-like restrictions across the whole gamut of federal programs, since Congress has needed to pass individual legislation in order to address newly discovered gaps or loopholes where federal dollars could go to finance elective abortions.

"While Congress's policy has been remarkably consistent for decades, implementation of that policy in practice has been piecemeal and sometimes sadly inadequate," Cardinal DiNardo said.

He pointed to three aspects in the new national health care reform that contradict the spirit, if not the letter of Hyde, including provisions "directly forcing conscientiously opposed citizens in many plans to fund other people's abortions through their health premiums."

DiNardo said that should Congress pass H.R. 5939, then "federal health legislation could be debated and supported in terms of its ability to promote the goal of universal health care, instead of being mired in debates about one lethal procedure that most Americans know is not about 'health care' at all."

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 23, 2010

Obama Administration Reveals All in Major Abstinence Study

     

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has now released the full results of a government study that will give behavioral scientists insight into how parental attitudes and social norms are key to promoting abstinence before marriage, rather than sex ed programs.

Recently the HHS had been criticized for its delayed release of the full results of the study, as only an executive summary of the study's final conclusions were available.

Lisa Rue, Ph.D., a specialist in adolescent behavior, had complained that without the full data of the study, experts such as herself had less material to help teach adolescents to abstain from sexual activity, which would in turn reduce the epidemic spread of venereal disease and the incidence of teenage pregnancy.

"We have to know cultural norms and values before we ever do any kind of research, or develop initiatives," Rue said in a newspaper editorial. "If you ignore that, you're ignoring a premise, a key premise in evaluation science and research."

The 196-page report entitled "National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents: Attitudes and Opinions About Sex and Abstinence" was funded by the HHS's Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and conducted by researchers with the Cambridge, Mass.-based Abt Associates. The survey examined 1,000 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 and their "most knowledgeable parent," and examined the impact of parent attitudes, parent communication with adolescents, and peer attitudes on adolescents' choosing to have pre-marital sex or to abstain. 

The report had several findings that appeared to controvert conventional wisdom on teen attitudes and sex education. For example, the report found that "adolescents and parents generally oppose pre-marital sex," adding that adolescents have slightly more permissive views than their parents.

The report found that approximately 70 percent of parents were morally opposed to their teens having premarital sex, while just over 60 percent of teens agreed that only married persons should have sex.

The report also indicated that parental and social attitudes toward sex and abstinence were far more influential than classroom education, even when abstinence-based. Conservative attitudes of parents and peers toward sexual intercourse, reported the researchers, were broadly associated with an adolescent's choice to abstain from sexual intercourse.

While sex education, including abstinence-based, increased levels of communication about sex between adolescents and their parents, the study found that such communication made no measurable difference on adolescent's sexual attitudes. Such communication between teens and their peers were broadly associated with "less conservative adolescent attitudes."

Minority, religious, and low-income households exhibited more conservative views in general about sex and abstinence, according to the report. While black adolescents were more liberal than their parents on sex, Hispanic teens tended to agree with their conservative parents, as did those who attended religious services frequently.

Click here to read the full study. 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 23, 2010

Citizen Action Prompts HHS to Release Abstinence Survey

     

Thanks to a flurry of citizen action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was prompted to release the National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents: Attitudes and Opinions about Sex and Abstinence – Final Report to the public late yesterday (8-23-2010).

HHS had previously withheld the survey data, even after a doctor and researcher submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request that the survey be released. It took hundreds of citizens, submitting hundreds of FOIAs before HHS finally relented. This further emphasizes the impact that you, as a citizen, can make! Thank you!

What did this survey find?

Among other important discoveries, about 70 percent of parents agreed that it is "against [their] values for [their] adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage" and that "having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do." Adolescents had similar responses.

How interesting, as this is the fundamental message in most abstinence-centered programs. Are you becoming as concerned as I am?

Important Questions

    * Why the lack of transparency from our Administration regarding this survey?
    * Why were the results of this publicly funded national survey being withheld from the public, researchers and policymakers?
    * Would this information have impacted the Obama Administration's – and Members of Congress' – decision to remove federal funding of abstinence education programs?
    * Is our elected, "representative" form of government truly reflecting the desires of its constituents in this instance?
    * Should funding for abstinence education be re-introduced into the next fiscal budget?

You, the citizens of this nation, deserve answers to these questions. But it's likely you'll have to demand answers from this Administration.

Contact: Chad Hills

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Life Legal Defense Foundation Gets Loitering Charges Against Sidewalk Counselor Dismissed

     

The San Marcos City Attorney's office confirmed yesterday that it has dismissed all criminal charges against Elena Di Ventra that arose out of a loitering citation she received in May 2010. The sidewalk counselor was represented by Life Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney Allison K. Aranda.

Ms. Di Ventra was issued a citation for loitering after she walked into a parking lot adjacent to an abortion clinic to speak with a pregnant girl and offer her life saving information about her baby.  The parking lot is open to the public and Ms. Di Ventra immediately returned to the sidewalk after her brief conversation with the girl.  Despite all this, the police accused her of wandering idle about the property without an apparent reason to be present.

When the matter was brought to LLDF's attention, Ms. Aranda contacted the San Marcos City Attorney's Office and demanded that the meritless criminal charge be dropped at once.  The City Attorney's Office quickly reviewed the matter and agreed to dismiss the case.  "We are grateful for a city attorney who respects the right to freely speak," says Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of LLDF, "particularly since Ms. Di Ventra was facing a $3,870.00 fine in this case."

Contact: Allison K. Aranda

Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: August 24, 2010

Thomas More Society Testifies Against 'Telemed Abortions' in Iowa

     

On Friday, Thomas More Society attorney Tom Brejcha, along with representatives from several pro-life organizations, testified at the Iowa Medical Board hearing to argue against the performance of "telemed" abortions in the state. The Thomas More Society submitted a letter from special counsel Paul Benjamin Linton that outlined the case against this type of abortion, in which a patient is administered an abortion-inducing drug, RU-486, after meeting with a physician remotely via video conference.

"Telemedicine abortions are a clear violation of Iowa law, as an abortion can only be performed by a physician, and the drugs used to induce abortion can only be administered in a physician's office," said Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, who appeared at the hearing at the request of several Iowa pro-life organizations and leaders. "We hope the Iowa Medical Board will properly honor the law of the state and public health will not be put at risk by allowing remote control abortions."

Under current Iowa law, the performance of an abortion by anyone other than a physician is a Class "C" felony. Brejcha adds that "telemed abortions" flout the protocol for administration of the drugs approved by the FDA, Mifeprex and misoprostol.

The chairman of the Board, Dr. Siroos Shirazi, announced after hearing the arguments that the Board will take all comments into consideration and render a ruling, which could come at the Board's October meeting.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: August 20, 2010

Treating Unborn as Non-Persons Key to Planned Parenthood Agenda

     

What do serial killers, slave-owners, eugenicists, and abortionists have in common? According to Michael Hitchborn of American Life League, all these groups can only carry out crimes against human beings by first de-personalizing or trivializing the humanity of their victims.

In a new ALL report released on YouTube, Hitchborn makes his case beginning with the famous 1991 film "Silence of the Lambs," where a crazed transsexual killer pursued by an FBI agent (Jodie Foster) continually refers to his latest female victim as "it."

In doing so, says Hitchborn, the killer "depersonalizes his victim, reducing her to the status of an object or animal."

"The thing is, if his victim isn't a person, then in his own mind, there is nothing wrong with what he is about to do," continued Hitchborn.

The pro-life leader explained that a similar process of depersonalization and dehumanization is evident in the way that abortion advocates speak of a child developing in its mother's womb as a "fetus", "fertilized egg", or a "clump of cells."

"The use of terms like these is the first step in reducing humans to the status of non-persons," he added, saying history was replete with such examples.

Hitchborn referred to a clause within the U.S. Constitution prior to the enacting of the 13th amendment, where slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. The agreement he said was a compromise with a culture that "viewed human slaves as property." Proponents of slavery would claim that slaves were not people, and eugenicists of the 19th and 20th century would do the same thing, referring to those with disabilities or of certain ethnicities as "undesirables."

Taken to its logical conclusion, these ideas led to the forming of the Nazi racial purity movement, which defined certain people as "subhuman" in popular propaganda.

"The excuses, and they are excuses, for denying the humanity or personhood of individual human beings is done for one reason and one reason only: it is the only way to create a class of humans without any rights."

Hitchborn said that Planned Parenthood, just like slave-owners, has to offer similar arguments dehumanizing or depersonalizing the unborn in order to justify their actions, with a motive for profit at the end of the line. Hitchborn told LifeSiteNews.com that "Planned Parenthood's sole agenda is to gain money through the murder of children."

Hitchborn pointed to a Planned Parenthood White Paper written in 1985 and republished in 2002 in response to the pro-life film "Silent Scream." The paper argues that a "fetus" of 12 weeks gestation "cannot be compared in any way to a fully formed functioning person" – arguing that the unborn child's dependency on his mother for survival, its undeveloped organs, and lack of conscious thought, means he does not merit the status of person.

"It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child."

Planned Parenthood said they were responding to Silent Scream, because they feared it could jeopardize the "constitutional right to abortion" as well as "the lives and careers of abortion providers."

"It really is a simple concept," Hitchborn told LSN. "The only people making the argument that a human is not a person are those who want to create a class of subhumans that have no rights."

Hitchborn praised the personhood initiative in Colorado, which is a ballot initiative to amend the State Constitution to recognize the personhood rights of all humans, from their biological beginning to their natural death. The amendment states: "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"The personhood initiative out in Colorado ties in perfectly with what [pro-life groups] are doing, because they are working on establishing an amendment that would recognize there is no do distinction between that which is a person and that which is a human," said Hitchborn.

"They are establishing that we are all human, and that we are persons: that we all have a beginning and that beginning takes place in the womb, and not outside the womb, or some random spot on the spectrum by people who have an agenda to fulfill.

 "There is no distinction between a person and a human, and the only people that make that distinction are those that have an agenda."

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 20, 2010

Motion Filed Demanding Illinois Supreme Court Rule on Parental Notice Law

     

Exasperated with Illinois' parental notice law going unenforced for 15 years since its initial passage, pro-life attorneys are demanding the state Supreme Court intervene once and for all, so that the law can go into effect.

Attorneys for the Thomas More Society filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court Thursday morning requesting an immediate transfer of the legal case, which has embroiled the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995, from the Appellate Court to their jurisdiction.

"More than fifteen years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, parental notice was supposedly made the law in Illinois, but as we sit here today, secret abortions on pregnant minors continue unabated," said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel.

Breen and TMS's pro-life attorneys are appealing to a Supreme Court rule that allows transfer of cases to them directly when the "public interest requires prompt adjudication." Without the Supreme Court's intervention, the case will continue to be litigated in the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court, where they do not expect a decision for at least a year.

"With this motion to transfer, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to immediately and definitively decide the constitutionality of parental notice in Illinois," said Breen.

Judge Daniel Riley of the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit brought against the Act by the American Civil Liberties Union this past March, ruling the Act constitutionally valid. While he viewed the 1970 Illinois State Constitution as including a right to abortion, he said the Act should stand since the Illinois right to abortion is not broader than the federal right, thereby allowing for certain restrictions.
 
However, Riley issued an indefinite stay on his order for the duration of the ACLU's legal appeal.

Breen earlier told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the state Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of the law. Five years ago, the Supreme Court created a court bypass procedure designed to make the law constitutional in Illinois. However, he said the ACLU has often adopted a strategy of litigating to delay a law as long as possible before dropping an appeal they are in danger of losing.

In November 2009, the ACLU intervened in court to strike down the parental notice law on the very day it was finally supposed to go into full effect. Both the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation had decided to enforce the pro-life law without further delay when the ACLU intervened.

Since the passage of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois girls below the age of majority have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

However, Illinois is also an abortion oasis in the Midwest for those looking to transport minors across state lines for abortion without their parent's knowledge or consent. In the Midwest, only Illinois lacks a parental notification or consent law for a minor seeking abortion. 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 20, 2010

UNC pro-lifers call for healthcare investigation

     

Recent revelations have led Students for Life of America (SFLA) to request an investigation into the University of North Carolina (UNC) system, but the pro-life group is now requesting intervention from higher authorities.

The situation arose over mandatory student health insurance, which includes paying for abortion. The pro-life group convinced the school system to give students the choice to opt out of the coverage, but it has recently been discovered that student premiums will not decrease as a result. SFLA executive director Kristan Hawkins tells OneNewsNow her group has taken a further step after not getting straight answers about their concerns. (See earlier story)

A letter has been sent to the state's governor, to North Carolina's U.S. congressional delegation, and also to UNC system president Erskine Bowles. "We've asked them all to investigate this matter and to come back with us with answers," Hawkins explains.

Since student insurance that includes abortion coverage is considered part of the cost of education, the concern is that the inflated amount is being used to qualify students for federal grants -- and that, says Hawkins, has caught the attention of some members of Congress.

"I have staffers on the Hill looking into this," the SFLA executive director reports. "They are concerned this could be abortion funding from the federal government."

While Hawkins is waiting for a clear explanation, she tells OneNewsNow her group's investigation reveals the problem extends far beyond just the University of North Carolina system.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 23, 2010

Pro-Abort Law Group Rails against USCCB for Opposing the Pill

     

The National Women's Law Center has taken aim at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for saying that a Medicaid waiver offering free birth control to low-income women embodies "a very dismissive view of women."

In a Wall Street Journal article discussing Wisconsin's implementation of the plan, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) said that the notion of extending only birth control to a wider swath of women otherwise ineligible for Medicaid is guided by "a very dismissive view of women."

The message sent my such an initiative is that "The reproductive system is the only part of you we're interested in, and our interest is only to make sure it doesn't produce," he said.

But one pro-abortion group retaliated by hailing the "happier, healthier, fuller lives" women lead thanks to birth control.

"Thanks for you concern, Richard. But here's the truth: contraception helps women," retorted Steph Sterling of the National Women's Law Center.

Sterling went on to point out testimonials of how the Pill helped one woman overcome severe menstrual cramps, and helped others make lifestyle choices: one said the Pill helped her "not be kept barefoot and pregnant" and escape an abusive husband, while another rejoiced that the drug allowed her to pursue a career and "have children on my terms." "You know what? It's one thing to oppose birth control. But it's especially galling to oppose birth control and claim that it's for my own good," Sterling concluded. "Enough is enough."

For his part Matt Sande, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, took issue with the claim that contraceptives, when used as birth control, are essentially health care - and questioned the dismissal of their adverse side effects. "How is that health care? How is that improving the health of your reproductive system?" he asked LifeSiteNews.com.

Pointing out the abortifacient effect of the morning-after pill, he added, "What about the health of the preborn child, that embryonic baby? Are they part of the equation?"

Among Sande's top concerns with the program was the fact that teenagers as young as 15 are able to access contraceptives without parental knowledge: not only are clinics not required to inform parents, but they are disallowed from doing so by federal privacy laws. He said his office had been called by parents bewildered to learn that their children had been accessing contraception without their knowledge.

"Parents are naturally concerned about the sexual health of their kids, not only to protect them physically, but to guide them morally," said Sande. "These programs totally undermine the parent-child relationship. They ought to be reinforcing it, not sabotaging it." Sande's group is continuing a years-long struggle to pass legislation increasing the eligibility limit for the state program to 18 years.

While it already covers the abortifacient morning-after pill, the plan may also soon become the venue for even later-stage abortions thanks to the introduction of the new "ella" drug. The drug, which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a contraceptive, operates similarly to the RU-486 abortion drug, and can kill an embryo even after he or she has implanted in the womb.

In addition to the many adverse side effects of contraceptives - Sande pointed to the 22 deaths linked to the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch since its approval by the FDA - Sande affirmed that the programs amounted to a misuse of Medicaid funds.

"This is a lifestyle choice, and as such, the taxpayers certainly shouldn't be funding it," he said. "Medicaid is a health care program to improve health outcomes."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 20, 2010

Let Parents Know - Protect Illinois Daughters!

    

We have a huge opportunity to advance Parental Notice in Illinois. This pro-life law was passed in 1995 but contrary to the overwhelming public support, it never went into effect. Minors have been taken across state-lines to evade telling their parents that they were going to abort. This is a dangerous practice and you can help put an end to it.

Parents have a right to know when their daughters are going to undergo a potentially life threatening medical procedure. For the past 15 years, parents have been kept in the dark about underage abortions in Illinois.

We have a great opportunity right now because The Thomas More Society has filed a motion to transfer the parental notice case to the Illinois Supreme Court so that it can finally be decided and this limbo can be put to rest. (Download the Motion here).  Illinois Federation for Right to Life is working with the "Let Parents Know Coalition" to urge Attorney General Lisa Madigan to support this motion and get the case moved to the Illinois Supreme Court! If we can get this law to go into effect, we WILL save lives, protect young girls from coerced abortion, and end secret underage abortions in Illinois.

Join us in calling Attorney General Madigan to ask her to support the Thomas More Society's motion to transfer the parental notice case to the Illinois Supreme Court. Here are the numbers:

Chicago Main Office: (312) 814-3000 

Springfield Main Office: (217) 782-1090 

Carbondale Main Office: (618) 529-6400

"More than fifteen years ago, with overwhelming bipartisan support, parental notice was supposedly made the law in Illinois, but as we sit here today, secret abortions on pregnant minors continue unabated," said Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive director and legal counsel. "With this motion to transfer, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to immediately and definitively decide the constitutionality of parental notice in Illinois."

Please help us move this life saving law forward! After you call, sign the petition here.

Source: IFRL
Date Published: August 20, 2010