Congressmen Seek to Undermine Embryonic Stem Cell Ruling by Changing Law

Senate aide: codifying Obama order "wouldn't do the trick"

     

Members in both chambers of U.S. Congress are angling to alter federal law in order to undermine a district court judge's temporary injunction that effectively puts a stop to the onset of taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ruled last Monday that Obama's March 2009 Executive Order, which permitted public funds for the research involving the destruction of embryonic human beings, directly conflicted with federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment. The amendment prevents taxpayer monies from funding research in which embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The Obama administration plans to appeal the decision, which followed a decision in June declaring that pro-life researchers and a Christian adoption group had standing to contest the new funding guidelines in a court of law.

But others are looking for a more direct route: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee aides cited by the National Journal Monday indicated that lawmakers were gearing up to alter the pro-life law cited by the judge "to get at the heart of the problem."  "Simply codifying President Obama's Executive Order wouldn't do the trick," said one aide.

In the House, Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado is planning to re-introduce legislation to eliminate the ban on taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research, according to news reports in Colorado. The Democrat had sponsored the same legislation previously, but it was vetoed by President George W. Bush.

"For most members of Congress, it's not really a political calculation as much as a realization that this research has been pretty halted by this court decision and we need to act quickly to reverse that," said DeGette, a leading pro-abortion voice in Congress.

While DeGette and other Democrats argue that experimentation on cells derived from destroyed embryos is permitted under the law, Lamberth's decision on Monday emphasized that attempting to separate the origin of such cells from research later conducted on them was misguided.

"ESC [embryonic stem-cell] research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," wrote Lamberth. "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."

Richard Doerflinger, a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, agreed in a New York Times article last week, saying that attempts to make such a distinction were "implausibly narrow."

Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that public opinion has shifted against taxpayer funding for embryonic stem-cell research since Obama signed the Executive Order last year.

Fifty-seven percent of U.S. voters say that embryonic stem-cell research should not involve taxpayer funds, while only 33 percent believe the research should receive public monies. The numbers are nearly flipped from when Obama signed the Order permitting public funds for embryo-destructive research in March 2009: 52 percent favored the move, and 38 percent were opposed.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Government Study Withheld for Year: 70 Percent of Parents and 54 Percent of Teens Say Sex Before Marriage is Wrong

     

Seventy percent of American parents and 53.5 percent of American adolescents believe sex before marriage is wrong, according to a federally funded study released Monday by the Administration of Children and Families, an agency within the Health and Human Services Department.

The survey asked American parents and adolescents whether they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed wih the statement that "having sexual intercourse is something only married people should."  Among parents, 47.6 percent strongly agreed and 22.2 percent somewhat agreed, while 17.8 percent somewhat disagreed and 12.3 percent strongly disagreed.  Among adolescents, 38.5 percent strongly agreed and 23.0 percent somewhat agreed, while 21.5 percent somewhat disagreed and 17.1 percent strongly disagreed.
 
Although the report on the study was completed by February 2009, HHS did not release it until last week, even when asked to do so--prompting speculation that the Obama administration did not like the report's conclusions.
 
"I think it tells us that abstinence education is the center of cultural norms for parents and teens," Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA), told CNSNews.com. "That doesn't mean that the current teen behavior is exactly in that sweet spot, but it shows that that should be our goal – not just for health reasons but because that is exactly what parents and teens want in terms of sex education."
 
Huber pointed out that the results of the study contradict the Obama administration's stance against abstinence education. "President Obama, in submitting his first budget to Congress in 2010, specifically made note that he wanted to eliminate all funds for abstinence education," Huber said. "That is not in keeping with public health guidelines and not in keeping with research."
 
The study also found that "the majority of parents surveyed favor their adolescents receiving abstinence messages from multiple sources," including places of worship, doctors' offices, schools and the Internet.
 
"I think it's striking that the study found that large majorities – both of parents and adolescents – believe that having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do," Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council Peter Sprigg told CNSNews.com. "Seventy-two percent of the parents and 62 percent of the adolescents either strongly or somewhat agree with that statement. And that's the message that abstinence-until-marriage programs seek to send."
 
The report suggests that parental attitudes do matter to teenagers: "More conservative parent attitudes about sex and abstinence were broadly associated with more conservative attitudes among adolescents, adjusting for other factors."
 
Sprigg pointed to one finding in the study indicating that students involved in abstinence education programs were more likely to communicate with their parents about such topics: "So I think a strong message from parents and a strong abstinence message from a curriculum or program are mutually reinforcing influences," Sprigg told CNSNews.com.
 
In addition to parental attitudes, peers also had a significant impact on adolescent attitudes. "Adolescents with more conservative peers expressed more conservative attitudes about sex and abstinence and more restrictive views about their own sexual behavior," the report said.
 
"What the research is really showing is that, parents -- you need to step up to the plate here," said the NAEA's Huber. "And we know it's a tough decision – but the reality is the teens are listening even if they're pretending they're not, and they want to hear from mom and dad. If mom and dad aren't saying anything, then they're going to get that information elsewhere, and they're going to take their behavioral cues from people who might not have their best interest in mind."
 
Sprigg noted that religious participation has a powerful influence on attitudes toward abstinence and premarital sex: "There were very striking differences between those who never attend worship and those who attend worship weekly – both among the parents and among the adolescents," Sprigg said. "Those who attend worship weekly [had] much more conservative or restrictive attitude towards sex before marriage," he noted.
 
Sprigg believes the study "provides proof that a strong majority of American families support the abstinence until-marriage-message." Maybe that's one reason the Obama administration was not eager to release it, he said.
 
"I think this study is an embarrassment for the Obama administration," said Sprigg, "because it offers significant support for the type of abstinence education that they have stopped funding. But I will add that I think it's shameful that they repressed the report and failed to release it for a year and a half. Oftentimes liberals will say we need to implement policies that are evidence-based. But it's clear that when the evidence goes against their ideological preconceptions, then they don't want the evidence to be the basis for the policy anymore."
 
Dr. Gary Scott, a senior research fellow at Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), told CNSNews.com he believes the study "will exasperate both liberals and conservatives."
 
According to Scott, the report indicates that government abstinence programs are ineffective. "While most parents and children oppose pre-marital sex, government programming to reduce unwanted adolescent pregnancies through abstinence education have mostly failed to steer teens away from the lingering temptation toward premarital sex," Scott said.
 
"Those wading deeper into the statistics will discover that religious institutions are more successful; a teen's peers matter a great deal, especially for boys; parents' brief and substantive talks are better than lots of sex talk; attitudes vary systematically across so-called red and blue states," Scott said.
 
Under the "conclusions" section, the report discusses the importance of abstinence education. It states, "In general, our findings indicate that adolescent attitudes about sex and abstinence are more subject to influence from parents and peers than to messages about sex and abstinence delivered in the context of classes or programs. However, adolescent receipt of information about sex, abstinence, and sexual values in a class or program was associated with increased levels of adolescent communication about sex and abstinence with both parents and peers. Furthermore, adolescent exposure to some specific topics related to sex and abstinence in a class or program appeared to increase the likelihood that adolescents heard and reported similar messages about sex and abstinence delivered by their parents."
 
According to the report, HHS administered a federal grant program to fund abstinence education for states "with the ultimate goal of preventing unwed childbearing, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases." The survey sampled 1,000 pairs of adolescents (ages 12-18) and parents to "learn more about the public's views."
 
The report states that the findings of the survey "can be used in the future to inform public education campaigns and abstinence education programs as well as to assist [the Administration of Children and Families] with grant administration and technical assistance activities."
 
The researchers conducted the survey by telephone, allowing participants to key in their responses on a touch-tone phone to protect their privacy. The survey also asked to speak to the "most knowledgeable parent," who would best know the teen's attitudes toward sex and abstinence.
 
Long delay in releasing the report

The final report on the study, prepared by the research and consulting firm Abt Associates, is dated Feb. 26, 2009, a full year and a half before it was released in its entirety by ACF on Monday, Aug. 23, 2010.
 
In March, Dr. Lisa Rue of the University of Northern Colorado requested the full study for a report she was preparing for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program. She says the ACF denied her request and told her it would not be releasing the report.
 
Dr. Rue told CNSNews.com that she heard about the study in a presentation and requested the full report from Abt Associates. Having been told that the administration had not released the report, she contacted ACF. "ACF said, 'Well, we're not releasing the report,'" reported Rue. "I asked why, and they wouldn't tell me why."
 
After discovering the study's initial findings on the American Public Health Association (APHA) website, Dr. Rue filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the full report. In June, she received a denial for the FOIA request, because the report was under "pre-decisional and deliberative" status.
 
Rue appealed the decision, based on the fact that the ACF study had been presented in public twice and because APHA had published the initial findings. However, by August, "someone had pulled the executive findings off the American Public Health Association Web site and only the abstract was available," Rue informed CNSNews.com.
 
"I've never gotten a response back from my appeal," said Dr. Rue, "so I was pretty upset about that, given that this was a taxpayer-funded study and it's relevant to the research work that I do, and it's relevant to the new policies that they've got."
 
When asked about the 18-month delay in publishing the report, the National Abstinence Education Association's Huber said, "You know, that is very curious to me, because this was a study that was done with taxpayer dollars. It took a while for them to compile the results, that when it was finally finalized, the next natural step would be that it would be shared with the public – that it would be posted on their Web site, and that their public policy decisions would be informed by those results."
 
She continued, "The fact that a university professor came across this research and wanted to access it for her research studies and for some reports she was writing and she was denied -- that was startling to us and of great concern."
 
Huber also noted that both Democratic and Republican presidents have supported abstinence education in the past. "So now he has an opportunity – if he hadn't seen these research results before now – to look at them and see that those policy positions are clearly out of step with where parents, taxpayers, who are by the way also voters, want sex education to go," said Huber.
 
CNSNews.com sent HHS an email asking for an explanation of the delay in publishing the study and inquiring whether the results will encourage the department to support abstinence education. Although there was no response to the latter question, an HHS spokesman responded via email to CNSNews.com about the delay in publication:
 
"In February 2009, Abt Associates delivered the study to ACF for review.  In November 2009, Abt Associates also reported on the study and its findings at a meeting of the American Public Health Association. In March 2010 a FOIA request for the study was submitted to ACF.  It was not made available at that time because the recently confirmed commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) had not yet had an opportunity to review it. The report was posted on the ACYF website on August 23, 2010."

Contact: Jane McGrath

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Later Abortions Linked to Psychological Problems: Study

     
   
Springfield, IL, A study from of women who had abortions has found that women undergoing later abortions face increased psychological risks, are more likely to be ambivalent about having an abortion and are more likely to need counseling and support. The study, "Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms," was published in the August issue of the Journal of Pregnancy.
 
The results came from an online survey of 374 women who answered a detailed questionnaire about the circumstances leading to their abortions, their previous mental health history, or physical or sexual abuse and emotional state following abortion. The small study is the first to compare the experiences of women having early abortions compared to women having later abortions (in the second or third trimester).
 
The study, lead by Prof. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, found that women having abortions after 13 weeks were more likely to report that:

- their partner desired the pregnancy (22.4 percent of women who had later abortions vs. 10.3 percent of women who had early abortions);
- that they were pressured by someone other than their partner to abort (47.8 percent vs. 30.5 percent);
- their partner didn't know about the abortion (23.9 percent vs. 12.5 percent);
- they had left their partner before the abortion (28.3 percent vs. 15.6 percent);
- physical health concerns were a factor in having the abortion (29.8 percent vs. 14.7 percent).
 
Ambivalence about the abortion, unwanted abortion and poor pre-abortion counseling were also commonly reported in the late-term abortion group. Nearly 40 percent said they desired the pregnancy and only 30 percent said both they and their partner supported the abortion, while less than 14 percent said they received adequate pre-abortion counseling or information on alternatives or physical and emotional risks.
 
"In general, these results are indicative of more ambivalence and conflict surrounding the decision and the likelihood of less stable partner relationships among women who obtain later abortions," the authors wrote. "Logically, women who are unsure about how to proceed with an unplanned pregnancy are more likely to put off the decision to abort, perhaps hoping their circumstances will improve and enable them to carry to term."
 
A survey of American and Russian women who had abortions, published in the Medical Science Monitor in 2004, found that 64 percent of the American respondents reported feeling pressured to abort, while more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the decision and more than 80 percent reported receiving inadequate counseling beforehand.
 
Emotional Effects of Abortion
 
The study also found high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for women having both early and late abortions, with 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group meeting the American Psychological Association's criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).
 
One possible cause may be a high number of women having unwanted abortions due to the reactions of those around them, the authors said. "Concern regarding reactions of others to having a child" was the mostly frequently cited reason for abortion for both early (69.1 percent) and late (62 percent) abortions.

The authors wrote, however, that many likely had abortions "despite ambivalence or actually desiring to continue the pregnancy." Feelings of ambivalence or having an unwanted abortion are known risk factors for psychological problems after abortion.
 
Additionally, women having later abortions were more likely to report having disturbing dreams, reliving the abortion, having trouble sleeping and experiencing intrusion, a PTSD symptom that involves having recurring memories, flashbacks or hyperactivity when confronted with reminders of the trauma.
 
The previously mentioned Medical Science Monitor survey found that 65 percent of American women who had abortions reported experiencing symptoms of PTSD, which they attributed to their abortions. Other studies have also linked abortion to increased rates of depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, sleep disorders, anxiety disorders and other mental health problems.
 
The authors said that their study is best viewed as a "pilot" study on which to base future research on the psychological impact of late-term abortion, and called for more counseling and support for women undergoing later abortions.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Man Arrested After Threatening to Gun Down Pro-life Activists at Late-Term Abortion Clinic

Abortion clinic cleared "SWAT style" by police, stopping abortions for nearly two hours

     

A man was arrested Saturday, August 28, outside Southwestern Women's Options, a late-term abortion clinic operated by Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after he threatened to shoot two pro-life women who were offering help to abortion-bound women.
 
The unidentified man and his wife were escorting their daughter into the abortion clinic when the wife and daughter walked over to the pro-life women to discuss alternatives to abortion. The man became angry and ushered his family members toward the clinic.
 
"When we come out, I'm going to put a bullet in your head if you talk to her," the man told the pro-life women, whose identities are being withheld for their security.
 
Witnesses said that the man then lifted his shirt to show the women a dark object that was partially tucked into his trousers. The women recognized the object as a gun and called the police.
 
"The police responded appropriately and took him away in handcuffs," said former Operation Rescue intern Bud Shaver, who arrived on the scene in time to witness the arrest and the clearing of the clinic by police.
 
"They cleared Boyd's clinic to search for the gun SWAT style. Everyone, including staff, had to come out with their hands up."
 
The area was cordoned off and the clinic was closed to patients for nearly two hours while police conducted their investigation.
 
It is currently unknown if a gun was recovered by police or what charges were brought against the man.
 
Death threats against pro-lifers have been viewed with greater concern in the wake of the shooting death of activist Jim Pouillon of Owosso, Michigan, who was gunned down last year as he held a pro-life sign outside a local high school. The killer admitted that he murdered Pouillon because he did not agree with his public abortion protests.
 
Shaver told Operation Rescue that he has been threatened a number of times since he has been in Albuquerque, but the police never responded in the way they did on Saturday.
 
"We are thankful that no one was injured and that the police took appropriate action," said Newman. "Violence against pro-lifers has become something that we have to guard against every day. Those who reach out to women in front of abortion clinics should not be afraid to continue to do so, but should always have security and an awareness of their surroundings in mind."
 
Click here to view the photos.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Planned Parenthood Files to Block Public Records After Tip from Iowa Board of Medicine

     

An open records request for public documents has been denied by the Iowa Medical Board, which tipped off Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that the request for public records had been made. Planned Parenthood then filed a suit against a medical watchdog group to block the release of the documents.
 
Operation Rescue was contacted by the Citizen's Information Center located in Boston, Massachusetts, a group that conducts research on the medical industry through public records. They sent OR a copy of a law suit filed against the CIC by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland on August 9, 2010, in Polk County, Iowa, asking the court to enjoin the release of public records to the CIC. As of this writing, no court hearing date has been set and no injunction has been issued.
 
Along with the petition, the CIC sent Operation Rescue a series of emails that clearly show that their public records request was forwarded to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland by an Iowa Board of Medicine staff member.
 
Operation Rescue has released a copy of the suit filed by Planned Parenthood against the CIC as well as a series of e-mail communications that were provided to the CIC by Amy Van Maanen, Director of Licensure & Administration at the Iowa Board of Medicine. (Links below)
 
On August 9, 2010, attorney for Planned Parenthood Mike Falkstrom sent an e-mail to Kent Nebel, Director of Legal Affairs for the Iowa Medical Board. Falkstrom stated:
 
Kent,
 
We're filing to enjoin the release of records today. I apologize for the delay, there were scheduling issues with taking affidavits and I was unable to get them until last week. I appreciate your patience.
 
Thanks!
Mike Falkstrom
 
"That e-mail implies a working relationship and prior communication between Mr. Nebel and the Planned Parenthood attorney concerning the open records request. Why would the IBM work with Planned Parenthood to obstruct a citizen from accessing public records? What is the IBM helping Planned Parenthood to hide?" asked Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
 
The file in question is the medical license application for Planned Parenthood abortionist Susan Haskell, an osteopath who is involved in the controversial remote-controlled dispensing of abortion drugs known as telemed abortions.
 
Operation Rescue confirmed with the IBM that medical license applications are in fact public records.
 
"We have obtained medical license applications from a number of states on our own and the usual procedure is for the medical boards to redact any personal information, such as home addresses and phone numbers. We have never seen a case where access to a medical license application was denied," said Newman.
 
In a conversation with Operation Rescue on Friday, Kent Nebel indicated that he was required by law to inform Haskell that an open records request had been made for her license application in order to give her the opportunity to obtain an injunction. He cited Iowa Code Section 22.8.
 
OR was told that this code requires the IBM to give notice to the physicians when public records requests are made, however 'notice' requirement in 22.8.1 is clearly a requirement to notify the records requester that the custodian of records has filed for injunctive relief.
 
"It is a misreading of the statute to say that the subject of the records must be notified," said Newman.
 
As for any potential "harm" claim that may come from the release of public records, any private information can be easily redacted, as is the practice in nearly every other state. Medical license applications are public record for reasons of accountability. Under Iowa law, "inconvenience or embarrassment" are not legitimate reasons to deny public records requests or to get an injunction.
 
"If Haskell doesn't want her applications inspected by the public, which has a legal right to do so, maybe she shouldn't working in the medical field where she knows certain information will be considered open record," said Newman.
 
"We believe that Mr. Nebel acted improperly by forwarding the CIC open record request to Planned Parenthood and denying the CIC the records that were legally requested. This incident diminishes our confidence that the Board is capable of acting properly on complaints before them involving Planned Parenthood's dangerous telemed abortion pill distribution scheme."
 
As for the petition itself, Planned Parenthood makes numerous of unfounded assumptions about the CIC that Operation Rescue is told are completely false and border on paranoid hysteria.
 
"Planned Parenthood has no idea who this private watchdog group is, so they jumped to the unfounded assumption that it is an 'anti-abortion' group bent on engaging in illegal activity. They really have no idea why the CIC even wants the records, so they manufactured some fictional conspiracy. They worry the CIC may use the information to 'slander' Haskell, yet they are doing worse to the CIC by attacking their reputation in this outlandish and completely baseless petition. It is the very definition of hypocrisy," said Newman.
 
Operation Rescue plans to release additional documents at a later date that we believe shows a protective and apparently improper relationship between the Iowa Attorney General's office and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
 
"There is evidence that the Iowa Attorney General may be involved in collusion and even corruption to protect Planned Parenthood of the Heartland from accountability to the laws of the State of Iowa," said Newman. "We plan to release that additional documentation soon and allow the public to decide."
 
Click here to view the petition: PPH v. CIC

View the email exchange between PPH and the IBM

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Are Atheist Doctors More Likely To Hasten Death of Patients?

     

A new study is out that claims atheist physicians are more likely than those of a religious persuasion to hasten the deaths of patients.  From the story:

    Terminally-ill patients would be well advised to find out the religious beliefs of their doctor, according to research showing the effect of faith on a doctor's willingness to make decisions that could hasten death. Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry…

    The chances of a doctor making an ethically controversial decision expected or partly intended to end life was largely unrelated to the doctor's ethnicity, but was strongly related to his or her specialisation. Specialised doctors in hospitals were almost 10 times as likely to report this than palliative care specialists.

Well, that takes a little unpacking. Patients or surrogates should always be in the loop on medical treatment or withdrawal decisions: Doctors should not "decide" to end life-sustaining treatment that is biologically efficacious–and of course, they should never kill.  Similarly, they should not decide to force unwanted treatment on patients–either through omission or commission–who would rather let nature take its course.

My take: I have noticed in the assisted suicide debate that many proponents are atheist or Unitarian.  But that certainly isn't a universal.  Religious people also support hastening death and unilaterally terminating treatment based on quality of life judgmentalism, while many atheists (such as Nat Hentoff) and clear secularists, oppose hastening death either through imposition of futile care theory, health care rationing, or participating in direct actions to kill.

I think it would be offensive in the extreme to ask a physician about his or her religious beliefs.  They are quite irrelevant and none of the patient's business.  I don't care if a physician is a Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or secularist.  What matters is that he or she accept human exceptionalism and adheres to the Hippocratic tradition of valuing each individual patient equally, giving each optimal care, and never participating in the intentional taking of human life.  Unfortunately, these days, those are questions that can no longer be taken for granted and hence, they are issues about which wise patients will inquire.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Thank you Fr Euteneuer for your formidable pro-life leadership!

     

My thoughts and prayers are very much with Fr Thomas J Euteneuer (pictured) this evening (August 27th), who stepped down today as president of Human Life International (HLI). Equally, I am praying for the board of directors of this magnificent organization, founded by Fr Paul Marx, which funds and carries out pro-life work in 105 countries worldwide. It is second to none in its international work in so many countries in defence of unborn children and in its vision of what's entailed in building a true culture of life.

My good friend Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, director of HLI's Rome office, is taking the reins as acting president until a new appointment is made. This means that Human Life International will be in completely safe hands during its interregnum - demonstrating the strength and resourcefulness of this outstanding pro-life group.

In a moving message on HLI's website Fr Euteneuer writes:

    " ... after traveling more than 1.1 million miles, authoring two books, visiting 58 countries and making thousands of public appearances, I am ready for a break! I intend to continue to do pro-life work wherever I may be called to serve, and my bishop agrees that this is a vital charism of my priestly life. A true pro-lifer is not oriented to a job so much as to the daily task of fighting the culture of death and building the culture of life! ... "

Thank you Fr Euteneuer for your formidable leadership in our historic struggle against, arguably, the greatest evil which has ever befallen humanity. As you take up your new mission, those you have inspired in so many other parts of the world will be continuing to develop the work you've done so much to establish on firm foundations.

You became universally known as the face of Human Life International. Your humility and courage in explaining the truth about the battle against abortion was, for me, beautifully expressed by 17-year old Catholic Miss Angela Rose after watching you debate with American talk show host, Sean Hannity (see below).

    "This is what a priest should be like…humble, always ready to stand up for the faith and suffering humiliation all the while. We need more advocates like Father Euteneuer in the Church!"

Contact: John Smeaton

Source: SPUC
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Poll: 57% of Likely Voters Oppose Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

     

We often hear that majorities support ESCR.  And there is little doubt in my mind that that is true (for reasons we need not get into here).  But supporting ESCR as a legal matter is not the same thing as wanting taxpayers to fund it.  Indeed, the latest Rasmussen Poll finds that a solid majority oppose the federal government paying for ESCR in the wake of the court ruling enjoining the Obama funding policy.  From the poll:

    Only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty-seven percent (57%) say funding for such research should be left to the private sector. While 55% of voters who identify themselves as pro-choice support government funding of stem cell research, 83% of pro-life voters are opposed.

This is a very American reaction that may accept something as legal, but which respects the deep and honestly held moral differences people in this country hold over a very controversial issue.  Consider: ESCR is not the same issue as abortion–abortion legalization is about the autonomy rights of women, but in ESCR no woman is being forced to do anything with her body.  And yet, until recently most polls showed majorities in support of abortion rights–as most also supported barring federal funding of abortion (the Hyde Amendment).

In any event, I don't think this issue will cut one way or the other in November.  The Dickey Amendment that bans federal funding of embryonic destructive research can't be credibly used in a partisan fashion.  Indeed, it–along with Hyde–is one of our most bipartisan laws. After all, each year since 1996, Democrat and Republican Presidents have signed the Dickey Amendment (including President Obama), relied upon by the court in its ruling (as they also have the older Hyde Amendment regarding abortion).  Dickey (and Hyde) have been passed by both Republican and Democratic Congresses (including those led by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid).

Moreover, the IPSC breakthrough took out whatever political sting the ESCR issue once had–particularly since it was wielded mostly as sword against President Bush, and he's long gone.  The early wild hype of ESCR proponents has proven wildly overstated.  Adult stem cells are chugging along, and people are learning of it despite the mainstream media's under-reporting (to put it mildly and tactfully) the tremendous successes of adult stem cell therapies in early human trials.

I am not saying there won't be political fight over ESCR funding in the wake of the court ruling. I think there will be. I am just saying that however that fight ends up, I don't think it will matter much politically in the November election.  People have other things on their minds.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: August 30, 2010

Do they really want to make abortion 'safe'?

     

State governments regulate pharmacies, veterinary clinics, nursing home facilities, funeral homes and even hair salons. That being true, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a state to have common sense standards for medical facilities?

It would seem reasonable that the government would have regulatory oversight over a medical facility that routinely performs a surgical procedure that carries with it possible serious risks.

When the procedure in question is abortion, however, the proponents of the procedure are anything but reasonable.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli rendered a legal opinion on Aug. 20 that the Old Dominion State has the authority to regulate, for health reasons, facilities that perform first trimester abortions "so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations."

In the opinion, Cuccinelli gave the Virginia Board of Health the power, if it chooses, to require abortion providers to meet hospital-like standards.

"The state has long regulated outpatient surgical facilities and personnel to ensure a certain level of protection for patients," a spokesman for Cuccinelli told the Washington Post. "There is no reason to hold facilities providing abortion services to any lesser standard for their patients."

If the Board of Health chooses to act upon Cuccinelli's opinion it could require doctors who perform abortions at facilities to have hospital privileges at a local hospital. Additionally the board could mandate professional training for counselors and require facilities conform to certain structural criteria.

The A.G.'s opinion only applies to facilities performing first trimester abortions. Second and third term abortions are already required to be performed in a hospital.

I read Cuccinelli's opinion and thought that while not legally binding, it was solid and measured in its reasoning. Even so, abortion proponents went apoplectic.

"This new policy would single out abortion clinics and burden them with onerous and unnecessary restrictions," NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said in a press release.

Because Cuccinelli is well-known to be pro-life, abortion-right activists said they were not surprised by the A.G.'s opinion.

"We've been waiting for the attorney general to take on abortion providers..." Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, told the Washington Post.

Abortion activists predicted the sky would fall if the Board of Health acted upon Cuccinelli's opinion. The Washington Post reported that activists indicated "the regulations could prompt the shutdown of 17 of the state's 21 clinics performing abortions."

When abortion proponents reject health regulations for clinics -- regulations designed to ensure the safety of women -- something is terribly wrong with their thinking.

If the Virginia Board of Health does act upon Cuccinelli's opinion, and I think it should, it will simply require clinics to comply with standards that will facilitate a woman's safety in case there are complications due to an abortion that results in an emergency situation.

"The potential complications of abortion procedures," Cuccinelli wrote in his opinion, "include hemorrhage, cervical laceration, uterine perforation, injury to the bowels or bladder and pulmonary complications.

"Furthermore," Cuccinelli added, "these complications 'must be immediately and adequately treated.'" The A.G. quotes from the "Manual of Clinical Problems in Obstetrics and Gynecology" to stress just how serious these complications can be.

If a woman experiences any complications, time is of the essence. Being able to get out of a clinic quickly and to a nearby hospital are critical to an injured woman's survival.

Cuccinelli's opinion is also based on a precedent established by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000. The court upheld the state of South Carolina's right to regulate abortion clinics for health reasons in "Greenville Women's Clinic v. Bryant."

The A.G. cited a portion of the Fourth Circuit's decision. Cuccinelli wrote, "Recognizing that the state has a valid interest 'from the outset of pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus,' the Court found 'there is no requirement that a state refrain from regulating abortion facilities until a public-health problem manifests itself.'"

If a state is going to regulate pharmacies, veterinary clinics, nursing home facilities, funeral homes and hair salons on the basis of public health and safety, then they must provide common sense oversight to abortion providers for the same reason.

Abortion activists have long maintained that they want abortion to be "legal, safe and rare." There is no doubt they want it legal, but given the activists' apoplectic reaction to the Virginia A.G.'s opinion I wonder how much they care about it being safe and rare.

Contact: Kelly Boggs

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Court: Mental disability not a death sentence

     

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has ruled against family members who wanted to end the life of a man with mental disabilities.

The court ruled that state law requires life-preserving treatment for people who are not near death and have not refused treatment. Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and an allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) tells OneNewsNow the court stood with 53-year-old David Hockenberry, who has had acute mental disabilities since birth.

"His guardians -- his parents -- decided that they wanted to withhold medical treatment for him when he had pneumonia," Wenger explains. "They went to the courts to try to get the medical treatment stopped because basically they thought he'd be better off dying from pneumonia than being treated for pneumonia."

The trial court disagreed, so Hockenberry was treated and recovered from the illness within a few weeks. However, his parents appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court in order to deny medical treatment in the future.

"Having a disability shouldn't be a death sentence when a treatable medical condition arises," the ADF-allied attorney contends.

In this case, Wenger thinks the court did the right thing in ruling in favor of life for the disabled, so his group is "pleased and gratified that there are such good rulings so we don't have to continue walking down that frustrating, slippery slope."

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 28, 2010

Only 33% Believe Taxpayer Money Should Be Spent on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    

Monday's surprise decision by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to grant an injunction stopping federal funding of embryonic stem cell research was based on the likelihood that the those challenging the Administration's policy would succeed in their lawsuit because the policy did violate federal law.  Federal law blocks funding of ESCR if the embryos are destroyed.  He wrote in his ruling that ESCR is "research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed."  The Administration has decided to appeal that ruling, and Senator Tom Harkin (D- Bahamas Iowa) wants a hearing (that seems to be the answer to everything in the Beltway).

Rasmussen just released a poll today showing that the ruling actually reflects the mainstream (for an unexpected change).  57% oppose the President on this, this is major swing since March of 2009 when 52% agreed with President Obama's decision.

Interesting.  Only 24% believe it is morally wrong, and 69% still believe it is somewhat likely that ESCR will result in cures but yet an overwhelming majority is against taxpayer funding of this type of research.  Only 55% of those who self-identify as pro-choice agree with the federal funding of ESCR.  I'm among the 18% that doesn't believe it will yield results.  Why?  Because it hasn't already, but other types of stem cell research have borne fruit.  People complain that there hasn't been results because of the lack of federal funding, but as with anything in the free market – it would receive funding if it was thought to be a good investment.

So this looks like it is mainly a pocketbook decision than a  moral one unfortunately, and largely based, I think, on the recession and the necessity to curb government spending.  Fiscally I'm glad people recognize this, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government tasked with funding this research.  Ethically, I'm disturbed that only 52% of those who are pro-life see the moral problem with ESCR.

They should understand that with any type of medical research there should be boundaries and respect for human life, even at earliest stage of development.

Contact: Shane Vander Hart

Source: Caffeinated Thoughts
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Appellate Court Overturns Elder Walter Hoye's Conviction

    

An appellate court overturned Elder Walter Hoye's criminal conviction for violating Oakland's "Mother May I" law restricting sidewalk counseling. In a jury trial in 2009, Hoye was found guilty of two counts of unlawfully approaching women seeking abortions at an Oakland abortion clinic; the court sentenced him to 30 days in jail and an $1100 fine.

Hoye was represented by LLDF attorneys Katie Short and Allison Aranda and volunteer attorney Michael Millen.

In its published opinion, the Appellate Division of the Alameda Superior Court agreed with Hoye's attorneys that the trial court had erred in two respects. First, the trial court refused to instruct the jury that it had to unanimously agree on the particular incident for which Hoye was to be found guilty. Because the district attorney's office presented evidence of several separate interactions between Hoye and persons entering the clinic, it was unclear whether the jury had all agreed on a single instance where Hoye allegedly violated the ordinance.

Second, the trial court refused defense requests to provide a definition of "knowingly approach," a critical element of the "crime" for which Pastor Hoye was convicted. By failing to provide a definition, the court stated, the trial court left the jury unaware that the ordinance does not apply to stationary speakers who address and proffer literature to persons passing by.

However, this may not be the end of the road for the case. "The District Attorney's office could decide to retry Pastor Hoye," Short explained. "However, it would be well advised to wait until after the Ninth Circuit rules in our federal constitutional challenge to the ordinance, which is scheduled for a hearing in October."

In the meantime, Hoye is heartened by this turn of events "It is my hope that this victory will encourage Pastors to both take a public stand against abortion in the pulpit and to minister the love of Christ to the men, women and children going into an abortion clinic from the public square. It's time for men of God to come together and end the incontestable evil of abortion, anywhere and everywhere it exists."

Contact: Allison Aranda

Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Michigan avoiding abortionist investigation

     

A Christian legal organization wants answers from a Michigan abortionist and state officials on records found behind one of his clinics.

The Thomas More Society wants to know why abortionist Alberto Hodari has not been punished since records were not the only thing found in the trash container. TMS president Tom Brejcha reports that "they also found...fetal remains -- just thrown out as if they were garbage."

The attorney explains that pro-lifers who made the discovery turned the evidence over to the local district attorney and the state health department. After a lengthy period, an inquiry was made as to the status of the investigation, but Brejcha explains that the response indicated that the "complaint was noted and that it was deemed unsubstantiated by the evidence...submitted." So other than discovering that "not enough evidence was presented," the state says it can tell the pro-lifers nothing about the investigation.

Tom Brejcha (TMS)The state claims privacy, says Brejcha, but the legal firm contends that putting the records in the garbage makes the issue a little more public.

"If any other physician had done that kind of thing, they'd be hailed up before the disciplinary board and reprimanded, if not sanctioned [or] worse," the law firm president suggests.

The Christian legal organization has filed suit against the state because "Hodari's actions should not be cloaked in secrecy under law." Personal information can be removed from the files, but Brejcha feels the public needs to know the type of "substandard, haphazard medical practices [that] are being permitted in Michigan."

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Hospital withholds food, water from Christian pastor

Order requires seriously injured patient to ask for drink to live

     

It's been more than a week since pastor Joshua Kulendran Mayandy has been given food or water at a Brampton, Canada, hospital where he is being treated for a brain impairment following a heart attack.

The medical facility's officials are following a determination that he will get his next sustenance only when he can ask the doctor for it.

The Sri Lankan Mayandy, who arrived in Canada 10 years ago to pastor a small church, complained of chest pain and was hospitalized after collapsing with a heart attack May 29.

He was revived successfully, although the apparent brain damage from the attack left him in a coma for a time. He was placed in intensive care where he regained consciousness. An eyewitness has reported he has regained movement in his arms and legs and that he recognizes the family he is living with.

According to Bernard Stephenson, another local pastor and friend who visits Mayandy daily, the injured man can speak some words.

But staff with Brampton Civic Hospital, which is part of the William Osler Health Center, disagree. According to Stephenson, doctors asserted all along that there was no hope of recovery.

Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns.

The disagreement over his condition and capacity triggered in Ontario the involvement of the region's "Consent and Capacity" board, which by law determines the proper medical treatment for patients unable to make decisions themselves.

The system requires a strategic decision-maker for patients. Because that usually is a family member, it posed a problem for Mayandy because of the distance to his family in Sri Lanka.

As a result, Stephenson said, the hospital removed Mayandy's feeding tube, prompting his church supporters to file a complaint and get a court-appointed attorney.

The attorney contacted Mayandy's sister, Malika Arumugan, but the "consent board" determined she did not understand the situation. Instead, the board appointed a friend to represent the pastor.

     

The board's ultimate decision, after hearing from "all parties," ruled that Brampton Hospital could remove Mayandy's feeding tube and other modes of life-support, including intravenous fluids.

"We are satisfied, based on the evidence we heard and the agreements of all parties, that the patient remains treatment incapable with respect to all treatments," said the determination letter, signed by Jill Presser as presiding member of the board.

The board further ruled that Mayandy would need to ask for food and water for it to be given.

"As an example only, if the attending physician hears Pastor Mayandy make a capable request for food or water, he will be fed and hydrated."

The conclusion was that Mayandy would not recover.

However, Alex Schadenberg, director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says the board's decision simply is euthanasia by omission.

He also claims the hospital put pressure on Mayandy's friend, whose name has been redacted from the decision letter, to support its decision.

"Joshua, who is not otherwise dying, is being dehydrated to death. This is not the case when hydration and nutrition need to be withdrawn because he is actually dying and nearing death, but rather the decision appears to have been made to intentionally cause death by withdrawing IV hydration and nutrition because he is unlikely to recover from his disability," Schadenberg said.

He also believes Mayandy's friend and strategic decision-maker, chosen by the board, was pressured into supporting the hospital's position before he appeared before the Consent and Capacity board.

Schadenberg said, "It is deplorable that the Consent and Capacity Board in Ontario, the hospital and the lawyer for the hospital, who are all paid by the government and have nearly unlimited resources to pressure people to consent to their will, appeared to appoint a substitute decision maker to make decisions on behalf of Joshua, based on that person's willingness to a agree to a non-treatment plan, even though there is no proof that the plan of non-treatment represented the values of the person."

Mark Handelman, an attorney for Brampton Civic Hospital, said, "Justice was seen, and justice was done."

He said the decision was unanimous and denied that any pressure was applied to Mayandy's friend.

Schadenberg, however, points out that Ontario is "$20 billion in debt."

"There are unwritten rules. One of them is that long-term care is simply too costly," he said.

Schadenberg said by law he cannot intervene in the case unless Mayandy's board-appointed "friend" grants him permission.

Meanwhile, he said, time is running out for Mayandy, who can breathe, move and speak a little but cannot convince doctors he is worth saving.

Contact: Thom Redmond

Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Operation Rescue Responds to Formation of Telemed Committee

     

Today the Iowa Board of Medicine issued a press release announcing the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the use of telemedicine in Iowa.

The following is a statement from Operation Rescue President Troy Newman in response to that announcement:

      We were aware that the Iowa Board of Medicine formed this ad hoc committee because we attended the Board meeting on Aug. 20 where it was announced.

      We are glad that telemedicine will be studied and hope that the committee will especially focus on the misuse of telemedicine by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, which distributes dangerous abortion pills through a remote controlled push button system that denies the patient access to examination by a licensed physician as well as any meaningful doctor/patient relationship.

      However, due to the way nearly 30 citizens were treated at the last Board meeting, we have concerns that the Board may not give our concerns for the health and safety of women fair consideration.

      At the Aug. 20 meeting in which the Board solicited public comment on telemedicine, the Board, without notice, limited access to the meeting to only six people, then limited the total length of comments on telemedicine to only 10 minutes. The rest of the citizens, some who drove several hours to be heard, were forced by the Board to stand outside in the rain. There were health care professionals, attorneys, clergy, and leaders of a number of different groups that represented the concerns of thousands of Iowans that simply were not heard, or were limited in some cases to mere seconds of comment. Despite whatever the Board may say, that act clearly communicated to us that the Board is completely uninterested in hearing our concerns.

      In addition, we have received documentation regarding the relationship between certain IBM staff members and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that further erodes our confidence that the Board is capable of sound judgment regarding any issue related to Planned Parenthood. We plan to release our documentation on Monday.

Contact: Troy Newman

Source: Operation Rescue
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Attorney: AG Holder trying to intimidate pro-lifers

    

A West Palm Beach abortion counselor and prayer warrior is among six being sued nationwide by Attorney General Eric Holder, but a conservative group believes Holder is abusing his power.

Mary Susan Pine, who has been witnessing outside the clinic in West Palm Beach for 20 years, and her group F.A.C.E. Life face an injunction that would prevent Pine from entering any clinic driveway and would prevent her group from keeping women from entering the abortion facility.

Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver tells OneNewsNow the case is politically motivated and is based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which was passed in 1994. He believes the complaint is baseless.

Matt Staver"In this particular case, I think what the attorney general is doing is trying to placate his radical abortion constituency," Staver suspects. But the National Abortion Federation insists this case is part of a promised crackdown against pro-lifers following the shooting death of late-term abortionist George Tiller last year.

The six pro-lifers have limited resources to fight the allegations, so the Liberty Counsel founder decides that "this attorney general is trying to pick on little people, trying to intimidate pro-lifers," but he assures that his group "will not stand by and allow that to happen."

He notes that the federal office has limited resources and ought to be using those resources to fight important issues like terrorism. But Holder, says the Liberty Counsel attorney, is not doing that. "We will not allow the attorney general to abuse his power," Staver pledges. "It is a misappropriation of the attorney general's power and priorities."

Pine, who is being represented by Liberty Counsel, has been accused of standing in an abortion clinic driveway and blocking a car's entrance -- an allegation she denies. Staver contends the FACE law would not deal with that type of situation anyway.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: August 27, 2010

Congress may move to fund deadly research on human embryos

     

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Obama Administration to stop paying for scientific research that kills human embryos.

But the fight isn't over.

The judge ruled that using federal taxpayer dollars for stem cell research that involves the killing of human embryos violates a law passed by Congress in 1996.

That law, known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment after the two Congressmen who introduced it, says that no federal funds can be used for research in which a human embryo is destroyed or harmed. National Right to Life was deeply involved in the original fight to pass the amendment.

But now the amendment itself is under attack. It's expected anti-life members of Congress will try to overturn the judge's ruling by repealing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, perhaps in September or in a lame-duck session of Congress after the November 2nd elections.

Pro-Lifers will keep fighting with everything we've got to protect the Dickey-Wicker Amendment and all pro-life policies that protect human life.  There are many kinds of promising stem cell research that do not involve the killing of a human embryo. Pro-Lifers should strongly oppose the killing of any human being so their stem cells can be removed and used in scientific experiments.

Source: National Right to Life
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Abortionists face more legal woes in 3 states

     

California

In CA, a lawsuit has been filed against abortionist Andrew Rutland for malpractice and wrongful death in the case of Ying Chen who died in 2009 during a botched abortion at a filthy and ill-equipped acupuncture clinic in San Gabriel. The suit was filed by Chen's boyfriend, Zixiang Hu, on behalf of their 2-year-old daughter after the coroner's office reclassified Chen's death as a homicide.

The CA Medical Board has been after Rutland for months and recently amended their disciplinary petition against him to reflect the fact that Chen's death is now officially a homicide. It is hoped that this will help the Board gain a permanent revocation of Rutland's medical license when it meets to consider his shoddy abortion practices in February, 2010.

Michigan

MI abortionist Alberto Hodari is the subject of a lawsuit filed last week by the Thomas More Society of Chicago for the release of government documents explaining why Hodari was never disciplined for the illegal dumping of the human remains of aborted babies in 2008.

Monica Miller of the Citizens for a Pro-Life Society discovered the remains of aborted children in dumpsters outside several of Hodari's Detroit-area abortion mills along with private patient medical records. Hodari was placed on probation for illegal dumping of medical records, but was never disciplined for the illegal disposal of human remains.

Hodari faces possible disciplinary action after Caitlin Bruce filed a complaint with the MI medical board over an abortion Hodari forced on her in 2008. Bruce has also sued Hodari over her horrific ordeal where she says she changed her mind about the abortion and tried to leave, but was held down by a male assistant while Hodari forced the abortion on her. Additional malpractice suits are also pending against Hodari.

Hodari also recently divorced and has placed all of his 7 abortion clinics up for sale.

Massachusetts

Abortionist Rapin Osathanondh faces trial for manslaughter on September 7, 2010, in Barnstable County, MA, nearly 3 years to the day after he killed Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion. Osathanondh's Hyannis abortion mill was understaffed and ill-equipped for emergencies when Ms. Smith suffered complications to the powerful anesthesia that the abortionist improperly used. She died at the clinic.

Operation Rescue worked with Laura's mother, Eileen Smith, to bring Osathanondh to justice. Since then, Osathanondh has surrendered his medical license and closed his 2 abortion clinics.

Please join Operation Rescue in praying for strength for the Smith family during this trial and that Osathanondh will be properly brought to justice in that court of law.

Source: ProLifeBlogs
Date Published: August 26, 2010

Obama administration hid pro-abstinence study while program funding was slashed

    

In response to public pressure, the Department of Health and Human Services has disclosed a taxpayer-funded study that reflects positively on abstinence education, having first kept the full study under wraps while funding for such programs was slashed.

The National Survey of Adolescents and Their Parents in 2008 found that about 70 percent of parents agreed with the statement, "It is against your values for your adolescent to have sexual intercourse before marriage," as well as "Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do." A majority of adolescents in the survey responded similarly.

Though the survey was presented at two conferences last year, when Lisa Rue, a researcher at the University of Northern Colorado, asked for a copy of the full survey, her request was denied. She tried again, the second time filing under the Freedom of Information Act. That request also was denied.

"The second denial from the Obama administration leaves me to reflect on the role of cultural values with regard to prevention science," Rue wrote in an editorial. "If we are truly interested in learning how to prevent two critical epidemics currently devastating our country (out-of-wedlock child bearing and sexually transmitted infections), then the nationally representative findings provide momentum and support for accessing cultural values of parents and children which promote optimal health choices for adolescents."

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, as well as pro-family news outlets called on concerned citizens to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to view the full study. The response was so vast that the HHS website reportedly was temporarily down Aug. 20. By the evening of Aug. 23, the full study was posted on the HHS website.

The NAEA said the episode calls into question whether the recent sex education policy decisions by the current administration and Congress truly reflect cultural norms or clear evidence-based trends.

"We are greatly concerned that the sex education policy being implemented by this administration does not reflect the values of what most parents and teens clearly want," Huber said Aug. 24.

Congress and the administration cut all abstinence-centered program grants from the 2010 budget, and funding for 176 abstinence programs is set to expire Sept. 30. Nearly 2 million students in those programs will be put at risk, the NAEA said.

"Our state has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation," said Larry McAdoo, executive director of an abstinence program in Mississippi that will lose funding. "I do not understand why our services to needy teens would be cut short. Mississippi's teens need more resources, not less.

"Our abstinence program equips youth with the skills necessary to make healthy choices. Soon, however, Mississippi's youth will be left without any resources to counter the sexual messages with which they are continually bombarded."

Among additional results of the study:

-- General parent views about sex and abstinence were more conservative among blacks, Hispanics, parents from lower-income households and parents attending religious services more frequently.

-- The majority of parents surveyed favored their adolescents receiving abstinence messages from multiple sources. Ordered from most preferred to least preferred, parents favored abstinence messages delivered at a place of worship (85 percent), a doctor's office or health center (85 percent), school (83 percent), a community organization (71 percent) and the Internet (55 percent).

-- Adolescent frequency of attending religious services was strongly associated with more conservative general views about sex and abstinence among adolescents, as well as more restrictive views about their own sexual behavior.

-- Adolescent exposure to some specific topics related to sex and abstinence in a class or program appeared to increase the likelihood that adolescents heard and reported similar messages about sex and abstinence delivered by their parents.

"It is important that the representative government reflects the desires of its constituents," Huber said. "This study's findings call for a reinstatement of funding for abstinence education within the next fiscal budget."

President Obama's budget for 2010 replaced abstinence education programs with so-called comprehensive sex education programs that promote the use of condoms and other contraceptives among the nation's teenagers.

Contact: Erin Roach

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 25, 2010

Black and Unwanted -- Billboards Expose Racial Elements of Abortion and Adoption

     

The Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), in collaboration with The Radiance Foundation, announces the launch of the "Black and Unwanted" public awareness initiative in Bryan/College Station. On the heels of massive national and international media coverage of the "Endangered Species" campaign, this nonpartisan campaign continues to reveal abortion's destruction in the black community while highlighting the need for more adoptions. TooManyAborted.com is the campaign's online resource that provides irrefutable federal and state abortion statistics and the largely unknown history of the racism and eugenics of Planned Parenthood.  It directly challenges the false rhetoric, with actual facts, by groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) and other abortion advocates.

Dr. Haywood Robinson, Board Chairman of L.E.A.R.N., has firsthand knowledge of the impact of abortion.  He is a Texas family physician who used to be an abortionist.  Today, he is an outspoken advocate for the unborn and women facing unplanned pregnancies by exposing the lies and distortions of the abortion industry. Dr. Robinson states: "The Framers of the Constitution knew the rights we enjoy are not just for ourselves but in the Preamble clearly articulated that they are for our posterity, those yet to be born." He is joined by a chorus of African-American civil rights leaders.

The Radiance Foundation's co-founder, Ryan Bomberger, is the Creator/Director of both campaigns and was, as a child, transracially adopted into a multi-racial family of 15. The circumstances surrounding his birth could have easily resulted in an abortion. "We're exposing the lies and distortions of the abortion industry, and many are waking up to the truth," Bomberger says. "Adoption isn't the only solution to unintended pregnancies, but it is a beautiful alternative to abortion's destruction of hope and possibility."  The recently passed healthcare legislation has intensified the public's outcry against abortion and the federal funding (over $300 million annually) of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain.

L.E.A.R.N. is a prominent black pro-family organization founded by black educators, medical professionals and leaders. According to Rev. Dr. Johnny Hunter, the national director of L.E.A.R.N., "We have no problem exposing the racist agenda of elitists and population controllers, regardless of race or feigned religious underpinnings, who have waged a massive, devastating campaign against us and our children." Pastor Hunter also says: "I am especially offended by groups like RCRC, founded by elitist white abortion advocates, whose hidden agenda is documented in the movie Maafa 21 -- Black Genocide in 21st Century America."

The CDC reports that African-Americans have abortions at more than 3 times the rate of white women and 2 times the rate of all other races combined. In Texas, abortions on black women comprise nearly 25% of all state abortions even though they only constitute 12.7% of the female population (ages 15-44). Every other racial demographic shares a smaller percentage of statewide abortions than their respective percentage of total population. All of this is by design. Abortion is being used as birth control and increasingly encouraged by groups like the RCRC and Planned Parenthood who, nationally in 2008, aborted 65 children for every 1 client they referred for adoption. Women deserve much better.

Contact: Joy Brown

Source: L.E.A.R.N. Inc.
Date Published: August 26, 2010