Obama Administration Rightly Says Genes Should not be Patentable

     

Patents protect human inventions.  Human genes are not human inventions. Hence, they should not be patentable. This simple truth seemed to escape previous administrations.  But the Obamacans get it.  From the story:

Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry. The new position was declared in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice late Friday in a case involving two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. "We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA," the brief said.

It is not clear if the position in the legal brief, which appears to have been the result of discussions among various government agencies, will be put into effect by the Patent Office. If it were, it is likely to draw protests from some biotechnology companies that say such patents are vital to the development of diagnostic tests, drugs and the emerging field of personalized medicine, in which drugs are tailored for individual patients based on their genes.

Well, that's too bad.  For some reason Big Biotech thinks the rules that apply to others shouldn't apply to it.  That sense of entitlement has got to go.

The law should mean what the law says, as a trial judge noted in the ruling being appealed:

In a surprise ruling in March, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court in Manhattan ruled the [two gene] patents invalid. He said that genes were important for the information they convey, and in that sense, an isolated gene was not really different from a gene in the body. The government said that that ruling prompted it to re-evaluate its policy.

If the best policy is to let genes be patented–let's have that discussion and change the law if it is deemed best. But until then, the law is the law and it should apply equally to all.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

UN pressures El Salvador to legalize abortion

     

Two pro-life leaders in El Salvador have condemned the recent pressure from the United Nations, urging the country to legalize abortion.

The president of the foundation Si a la Vida (Yes to Life), Regina Cardenal, told CNA that this kind of pressure is nothing new. She added that it is not uncommon for the U.N. to attempt to change a country's laws to permit abortions.

Last week the U.N. commission circulated a memo demanding El Salvador "take measures to prevent women who seek treatment in public hospitals from being reported by health care workers or administrators for the crime of abortion."

Cardenal noted that "several years ago, the New York Times published a series of lies about the laws" in El Salvador, even alleging that women were being jailed for having abortions. "They said there were women who had been sentenced to 30 years.  However, we looked into it and there was not a single conviction.

"They spread lies because abortion is a business, and therefore the pressure is not going to end," she added.

She also questioned the conduct of the director of the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women, Julia Evelyn Martinez, who pledged "to international organizations that she would review the laws that protect the unborn."

"The country's president, Mauricio Funes, disavowed her because he had no intention of ever changing the laws," Cardenal added, referring to the "Brazilian Consensus" signed by Martinez.

The "Brazilian Consensus" is an international document signed in July 2010 at the 11th Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is organized by the U.N.  The document, which promotes abortion in Latin America and is constantly cited by feminist organizations, lacks any legal authority to impose the practice on countries in the region. Numerous countries, such as Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and Nicaragua have questioned the legal value of the accord.

Cardenal said it would be very difficult to change current law in El Salvador because it would imply "changing the Constitution—something very complicated at this point."  The Salvadoran Constitution recognizes personhood from the moment of conception.

Salvadoran pro-life leader Georgina Rivas also told CNA: "If we don't protect human life with appropriate care, how can we say we are protecting any manifestation of that life? The evidence of this profound error is that a woman's freedom to harm her body, her psyche, her spirit and the most precious of gifts that she has - which is the life she carries in her womb - is being promoted."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

UK Pro-Life Leader: "This is World War III"

  
     

The pro-life movement must promote a true understanding of the transmission of human life to confront the all-out attack against the family being waged by the worldly powers in Europe, North America, and throughout the world, said John Smeaton, national director of the U.K.'s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), at the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, Ontario.

"This is World War Three," he declared Friday morning in a wide-ranging and hard-hitting address.  "It's primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children."

"Sadly, the situation is made even worse by church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age," he added. (Find more coverage of Smeaton's comments on Church leaders.)

Smeaton, who also serves as vice president of the International Right to Life Federation, has worked full-time in the pro-life movement for over 30 years.  He's been national director of SPUC, founded in 1966 as the world's first pro-life organization, since 1996.  The group boasts 130 branches, 30,000 members, and 30 full-time staff.

Countries such as Britain, Spain, and Portugal are promoting abortion and contraception in the classroom without parental consent, he said, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  The UDHR, adopted in 1948 in the wake of the great atrocities of World War II, insisted on the primacy of parents as the educators of their children, he noted, because of the Nazi's use of the education system to indoctrinate children.

He also enlightened the hundreds gathered in Ottawa on how the United Nations and governments in Europe and North America are campaigning against pro-life laws around the world, and attacking the right of doctors to refuse participation or referrals for abortion.

He pointed out, for example, that the Human Rights Council at the UN issued a report this fall calling for the policing of nations worldwide to "address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions".  He also noted that a debate was held last month on conscientious objection at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which fortunately resulted in a pro-life victory.

Smeaton said the pro-life movement must engage in "great campaigns" to promote conscientious objection, and must make it very clear that abortion, euthanasia, IVF and human embryo research "are not examples of medical care."  "When medical professionals kill human beings at the beginning of life or at a vulnerable moment later in life, they are not practising medical care," he said.

Rather than imposing religious beliefs, such campaigns are merely expressing humanity's consensus on the right to life, he emphasized, pointing out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes this right as primary.  He noted also that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recognizes the child's need for legal protection "before as well as after birth."

Smeaton described the awful campaign being waged in Ireland to topple that country's historic and constitutional protection for the unborn.  The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will decide by the end of this year, in the case of A, B, & C v. Ireland, whether Ireland's constitutional protection for the unborn violates a "right" to abortion.

"If the [ECHR] rules against Ireland, then no country in the world would be safe from the international abortion lobby," he said.  "So this case is also a threat to the right of sovereign, democratic nations to govern themselves."

Smeaton called on the pro-life movement to demonstrate "an unequivocal and absolute defence of the right to life," but also "a clear understanding of the relationship of the right to life to the truth about the conjugal act and its essentially procreative nature."

He quoted Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican's highest court, who explains how the attack on life is based on an "erroneous" view of human sexuality that robs the conjugal act of its procreative nature.  "The artificial separation of the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse is not only the basis of contraception, it's also the basis of early abortion and in vitro fertilisation," said Smeaton.  "It underpins today's culture of death."

This linking of the right to life with the truth about the transmission of human life "must become the foundation stone of the pro-life movement worldwide," he emphasized.

Smeaton said that Catholics' widespread use of contraception "is draining the pro-life movement of the support of the community most likely to support the battle against abortion."  "Couples who may be turning a blind eye to the practice of abortifacient birth control in the intimacy of their married lives may well find it difficult to support our unequivocal campaigns against abortion, IVF, human embryo research and euthanasia," he explained.

He praised Cardinal-designate Burke for recognizing the great importance of the pro-life movement in a powerful address last month at Human Life International's World Prayer Congress for Life.  While Archbishop Burke's recognition of the pro-life movement may seem inconsequential, he said, it is "one small significant step towards the pro-life movement's goal of getting church leaders and religious leaders of good will in every country around the world on the side of the pro-life fight."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Abortion, Abortion Funding, Public Opinion, and the Mid-Term Elections

     

If you like being on the prevailing side, last night was just the tonic. If you ever questioned the impact of the abortion issue, what happened in voting for the House of Representatives Tuesday evening should dispel that forever.

There are lots of ways to measure the impact of the abortion issue. One way is to tabulate what people said about how the issue affected their vote. Another is to gauge how NRL PAC did in the tough races--especially head-to-head again EMILY's List, a pro-abortion with tons of money and a commitment to electing only the most hard-core pro-abortion female Democrats.

Let's do the numbers.

Thirty percent of voters said that abortion "affected" their vote, according to a poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc. Of that category, 22% of all voters voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8 percent of all voters voted for pro-abortion candidates. That gave pro-life candidates a net pro-life advantage of 14 percent. This is the kind of advantage that is invaluable in tough races.

National Right to Life PAC supported 285 federal candidates nationwide. Of those, 82% (235) won their races. In the most competitive races, National Right to Life PAC actively worked in 122 federal races nationwide. Of those, 74% (84) won, and nine elections are still undecided. The PAC did this while being vastly outspent.

There were many reasons National Right to Life's political action committee fared so well. The poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc found that 24% of voters recalled hearing or seeing advertising from, or receiving information from National Right to Life.

Speaking of those highly competitive races, 20 were against candidates supported by EMILY's List. The pro-life candidate supported by National Right to Life PAC won in fourteen of those twenty races (70%).

Then there is the issue of ObamaCare and abortion funding.

Twenty-seven percent of voters said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law--as opposed to only 4% who said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who favored the law.

National Right to Life has also repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Health Care Law, if allowed to go into effect, will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment. The public agrees and clearly showed last night that they oppose rationing.

Forty-four percent of voters said rationing in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law while only 10% said rationing in the health care bill affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the Obama Health Care Law.

As we look ahead, it is significant that 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly).

[You can find more details by reading the press statements of NRL Political Director Karen Cross and NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.] Finally, there is the important question of public attitudes. The poll revealed that a majority continues to favor allowing abortion only in very rare circumstances.

Fifty-three percent would allow abortion at most in cases to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest as opposed to 41% who would allow abortion regardless of the reason. However, 25% of those who gave a pro-abortion response would allow abortion only in the first three months while the current policy under Roe vs. Wade allows abortion essentially throughout pregnancy for any reason.

Dr. O'Steen said it all when he told a press conference, "Post-election polling has shown that pro-life issues played a major role in what happened at the polls yesterday and provided a margin sufficient to guarantee victory in many close races."

Contact: Dave Andrusko

2010 Election Night Highlights

    

Illinois Governor's race too close to call

Illinois is still waiting to find out who will be the governor in 2011.

With the State Senator Bill Brady camp's count 8300 behind and 99% of the vote counted, he and his Republican running mate Jason Plummer stated they "remained hopeful and optimistic" but that there would be no further news until Wednesday.

Brady won the majority in all but four Illinois counties, but one of those counties was Cook.  As of midnight, precincts in Lake County and Chicago remained outstanding.

GOP Captures President Obama's Old Senate Seat in Illinois

Republicans have captured President Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat in Illinois as Mark Kirk beat out Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.
Kirk, who is pro-abortion, won with 48 percent of the vote, while Giannoulias, also pro-abortion, carried just 46 percent.

Kirk will be seated immediately in Congress and finish out the remaining months of President Obama's U.S. Senate term before taking his full six-year term in next year's Congress. He replaces acting U.S. Senator Roland Burris (D), who was appointed to fill Obama's term until the special election.

Bart Stupak's Michigan Seat Goes to Pro-Life GOP Physician

Pro-life physician Dan Benishek (R) has seized the seat of retiring U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, beating out his pro-life Democrat challenger.

With 80 percent of precincts reporting, Benishek has taken 51 percent of the vote over Gary McDowell's (D) 47 percent in Michigan's 1st District.

Stupak's deal with the president outraged most pro-life groups, which had been supporting the stand Stupak and a cadre of pro-life Democrats had taken for months that they would only vote for the law with an added statute that prevented all abortion funding.

Pro-Life Pat Toomey Wins Pennsylvania Senate Seat after a 6 Year Wait

Six years after his narrow primary loss to pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican Pat Toomey will now be the next pro-life U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

In a nail biter of an election, Toomey finally beat out pro-abortion Democrat challenger U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, a former U.S. Navy Vice-Admiral late Tuesday evening. Earlier in the evening, Sestak looked poised to win.
Toomey beat Sestak 51 percent to 49 percent, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

Both men were battling to succeed pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter, who jumped ship from the GOP in 2009 after Toomey announced he intended to take on Specter in the primary. However, Specter abandoned the GOP only to face a stiff primary Democrat challenge from Sestak, who pilloried Specter for his record of GOP-allied votes in the Senate. Sestak trounced Specter in the May primary, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Brownback Takes Kansas in Landslide

Pro-lifers in Kansas can breathe a sight of relief now that Sam Brownback has won the governorship that was formerly held by one of the most extreme pro-abortion politicians in the country – Kathleen Sebelius.

Brownback cruised into the governor's seat, with more than a 30% margin over his competitor Tom Holland. He takes over from Mark Parkinson, who assumed the governorship in April 2009 after Kathleen Sebelius was nominated by President Obama to become secretary of Health and Human Services.

"Tomorrow we put on our work gloves and start about the task of getting this state on track to grow," Brownback said in his victory speech.

But while Brownback has long been a hero of the pro-life movement, his victory is not without controversy, even among pro-lifers.

"100% Pro-Life" Rand Paul Wins Kentucky Senate Race

Republicans are one step closer to a possible takeover of the U.S. Senate with the election of Rand Paul in the state of Kentucky, part of what Paul tonight labeled a "Tea Party tidal wave."

The victory for Paul, who has declared himself to be unequivocally, 100% pro-life, also bodes well for pro-life activists, who are hoping that Tuesday's election will put an end to any hopes of President Obama to further a radical pro-abortion agenda.

As of 9:10 pm., with 77% of Kentucky's votes being counted, Paul is comfortably ahead of his Democratic challenger, Jack Conway, 55% to 45%.

On his election website, Paul, who is endorsed by Northern Kentucky Right to Life, has a forthright statement explaining his pro-life values. "I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," he says. "I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life."

Contact: Peter J. Smith and John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

It doesn’t pay to change your (pro-life) stance

    

Here are some of the interesting the races: the allegedly 20 pro-life Democrats who threatened to vote "no" on the health care bill unless it contained sufficient pro-life protection, but who then turned around and accepted President Obama's phony pro-life executive order in exchange for their "yes" vote. There were 20 total turncoats, including 1 who retired (Stupak) and one who lost his primary (Mollahan)

 As of right now, by my bleary-eyed calculations, many of the remaining 18 Democrats had a rough night – half of them lost their seats. And while I can't prove causation, let's just say that the next time a lawmaker gives his word to protect the preborn, I'd recommend he keep his promise; then he might keep his seat.
 Here are those who paid the price:

 •Chris Carney (PA-10)
 •Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
 •Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
 •Brad Ellsworth (lost his bid for IN Senate)
 •Baron Hill (IN-9)
 •Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)
 •Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
 •Tom Perriello (VA-5)
 •Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)

Contact: Ashley Horne
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

Pro-lifer sees upside of defeat

    

Even though the personhood amendment in Colorado has been defeated, a leader of the pro-life initiative says lives have still been saved.
 
Amendment 62 was defeated by a wide margin, but Keith Mason, head of the campaign, regards positive aspects as more people were informed that life starts at its biological beginning.

"Babies have been saved; women have chosen to give their children life because of the outreach of the campaign," he points out. "We've made over a million and a half calls to people, educating them about the personhood of the preborn child."

 So as the public becomes better educated, Mason believes the proposal will eventually win in Colorado. "Our plan is to just to come right back and to do it again," he reports.

 Meanwhile, the pro-life advocate is looking forward to the election in 2011 when Mississippi, the most pro-life state in the union, will vote on a similar measure. Also, 41 other states are considering personhood amendments.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Notre Dame pays price for hosting Obama

     ;

After honoring President Barack Obama during last May's commencement ceremonies, the University of Notre Dame has seen less contributions and is feeling financial heat.
 
In May 2009, debate was heated over the fact that Notre Dame, a Catholic university, invited President Obama to speak at its graduation. It was controversial mainly because some of Obama's policies are contrary to church doctrine. Katie Walker of American Life League (ALL) tells OneNewsNow the school has paid a price.

 "Notre Dame has come out $120 million short for the fiscal year in which President Obama spoke during commencement and received an honorary law degree," she reports.

She believes that staggering number is in direct response of alumni and others around the country who feel scandalized "that Notre Dame would host this man and give one of the most pro-abortion presidents in the nation's history an honorary law degree."

 The pro-lifer points out that Obama "is a man whose philosophy of the law and philosophy of the country fundamentally is one that denies that all human beings deserve human rights," so she wonders, "Is this a man [one] that 'Our Lady's' university should be honoring and upholding and putting on a pedestal for her graduates?"

 Walker feels the drop in funding should send a loud message to Notre Dame, which means "Our Lady."


Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Abortion Survivor Featured in 'Controversial' Pro-Life Victoria Video

    

The truth about the laws in Victoria and how they came about needs to be shared. These changes include no restrictions on the gestational age of a child being aborted, and there being no protection for children who are aborted but born alive. In one year alone, 54 children survived abortion attempts in the state of Victoria, but none are alive today to share their story. That's where Melissa Ohden comes in. As the survivor of a failed abortion attempt in the U.S. in 1977, Melissa now puts a face to abortion around the world, and gives a voice to the unborn children who lose their lives to abortion every day.

As the Herald Sun reports: "Melissa Ohden, from the US, says her mother tried to abort her but doctors and nurses saved her life when the procedure went wrong.

"'Sadly for me in visiting Australia, I've learned that children aren't afforded that same opportunity,' she says.

"The video also features state DLP MP Peter Kavanagh, who says he can't imagine a worse law than the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 passed in Victoria."

To view the video, The Story of a Life, in its entirety, please visit:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3WHP7Q5dp8.

Coming off of a tour of Australia and speaking at pro-life events across the U.S. during the past two months, an interview with Melissa will be airing on The 700 Club on Tuesday, November 9th.

To learn more about Melissa's story or to find out about upcoming events and interviews with her, please visit www.melissaohden.com.  

Mainstream media coverage of pro-life activities is often hard to come by, and coverage not slanted in a negative light is even more difficult to come by, particularly in Australia. However, the Herald Sun has taken notice of the video that Pro-Life Victoria has produced in their hopes to raise awareness of the changes in law in Victoria in 2008.

Contact: Melissa Ohden
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

No, Mr. President, I am not "Thinking about Sitting This One Out…"

    

I turned on my computer and went to my AOL account. There on the homepage was the face of President Obama and a link to a brief video.
 
"His message?" according to AOL. "It's simple. Exercise your right to change history by voting."

In the video President Obama makes the incontrovertible point that "If You're Thinking about Sitting This One Out, consider this": when you or I don't vote, "this leaves the decisions that affect your life up to someone else." Absolutely true.

What is also true is that if we don't vote, we forego the opportunity to help reverse the decisions that have cost the lives of over 54 million unborn children.

You and I would be part of those the President described last week as his "enemies" who need to be "punish[ed]," because we have stood athwart his ambitions. Attempting to stop ObamaCare and now to repeal and replace it is enough to place us outside the pale.

I consider being on that enemies list a badge of honor.

Have you thought about "sitting this one out?" I doubt it seriously, but if you have not already voted, please, please do so. And please be sure that all your pro-life friends, family, and colleagues have done so as well.
One other thought on voting, which I swear is a true story. As I approached the school where we vote, a young girl and her father walked by me.

She said to her father with a combination of impatience and curiosity, "I don't know why you have to vote." Her dad responded, "I don't have to vote," to which she said, "Why do you vote?"
This entire exchange took five seconds, and by the time she finished, dad and daughter had moved out of earshot.
What would you have said?

I would have responded, "if not me, who? If not now, when? If stopping Obama is not important enough, what could possibly qualify?"

Vote, as if the lives of million of unborn babies were on the line. They are!

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

More support for science, pro-life statute

    

Pro-lifers are pleased that a number of states are now considering adopting Nebraska's new law on abortion, and one group is providing information on how to submit model legislation to state legislatures.
 
The statute says that once a child is capable of feeling pain, the state has an interest in protecting that life. That means the unborn child cannot be killed by abortion.

 "It's based on the new scientific understanding of the unborn child that was not known back when Roe v. Wade came down from the United States Supreme Court," explains Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.

Since that court decision almost 40 years ago legalized abortion, scientists have been able to provide sonograms as evidence to show that children feel the pain of abortion very early in pregnancy.

 "It's an issue that we want to bring to the American public and one that we want to bring to the courts as well, because we think that the decision back in 1973 was based on very faulty science -- and the science that we have today is much more improved and more readily available to the average person on the street," Balch adds.

 She notes that interested state lawmakers can contact the National Right to Life Committee, which will provide model legislation that can be submitted to state legislatures.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

Panic: Abortion is in 'Extreme Danger' Says Planned Parenthood as Election Looms

    

As the Obama administration heads toward major losses in Tuesday's mid-term elections, the nation's top abortion lobbies are rallying supporters to mitigate what is expected to be a Republican and pro-life takeover at the polls.

"I've said it before, and it bears repeating: women's health and reproductive rights are in extreme danger in this election," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote in an email to supporters Monday. "The only thing we can do now is get out there and vote — and make sure everyone who supports women's health does the same."

Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women are scrambling to protect their recent political and legislative victories, particularly the abortion funding in the federal health care reform law, which were made possible by the Democratic stronghold on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have pledged to support legislation that would codify the Hyde amendment - making it impossible for any federal program to fund abortion except in cases of rape and incest. Such a law would evaporate the hard-won health reform funding aggressively pursued by the abortion lobby. Top Republican leaders have even expressed dedication to repealing the entire reform law, which was heavily supported by the abortion lobby.

On top of several other initiatives, Planned Parenthood has manned phone banks with volunteers to help get out the pro-abortion vote.

"Everything I've asked you to do, you've done. Now I need you to do just one more thing, and it's the most important of all: go out and vote tomorrow," wrote Richards in her letter to supporters.

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan expressed dismay that a victory for "anti-choice forces" could lead to even more aggressive legal protection for the unborn than pro-life lawmakers have recently attempted.

"If anti-choice forces take back Congress, we're preparing for attacks on choice that are worse than the Stupak abortion-coverage ban to health-care reform," Keenan told supporters. "Don't let that happen."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

1,000 Rabbis Joins Vatican Cardinal in Prohibiting Voting for Anti-Life Candidates

     

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which represents more than 1000 Rabbis, has on behalf of his organization welcomed and endorsed the recent election-themed statements by American Cardinal-designate, Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Catholic Church's highest court.

In a 25-minute video interview with Catholic Action for Faith and Family, which was broadcast last week on EWTN and other networks, Archbishop Burke stated: "You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."
 
He added: "You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone."

"In these crucial times in which we live, where many clerics tread with fear, Cardinal-designate Burke is to be commended and emulated as a voice of leadership," said Rabbi Levin. "This moral teaching of the Catholic Church set forth in Burke's interview with Thomas McKenna, is clearly found in the Torah and serves to give solid guidance to voters whether they are Christian, Jew or any man of faith."

"We must implement this teaching now, in the closing hours of the 2010 election cycle," stressed the spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America. "We hope in the ensuing two years to have many other denominations sign on to this prohibition. This historic alliance announced today is far more important than working together for tuition tax credits for our parochial schools. Today is nothing less than the declaration of a 'spiritual civil war.'"

Rabbi Levin concluded: "Let no person think that this directive is merely an intellectual exercise. This is a call to action to uphold the natural and moral law with pro-active voting according to our religious values. There can be no middle ground when it comes to the Sacred Laws: Marriage is between one man and one woman, and respect for all human life is obligatory. Now go out, spread the word and vote accordingly."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Catholics Cannot Vote for Political Candidates Who Support a Right to Abortion, Says Vatican's Chief Justice

    

Catholics cannot vote for political candidates who support a right to abortion, said Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican and the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri.

 "No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what's called the right to choice of a woman to destroy the human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion," said Burke in a recent interview with the group Catholic Action for Faith and Family.

 He further explained, "You may in some circumstances -- when you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion -- choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country."
 "But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone," said the cardinal.

 The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice, gravely contrary to the moral law." (2322)

 Cardinal-designate Burke also spoke about how Catholics in public life who support abortion are creating scandal.
 "What is scandal?" he said. "Scandal is either doing something or omitting to do something that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good. And here's the perfect example of Catholics who betray their Catholic faith in political life, as legislators or judges, or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is in fact a good thing in some circumstances."

 "It can never be right, no matter what good I am trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the great evil of abortion," said the cardinal. "I can't ever justify that, voting for that candidate."

 "So I just urge people to consider those smallest brothers and sisters of ours, those fellow members of God's family who our society teaches us to disregard or not to think of as fellow human beings, who really and truly are fellow human beings, and to do what's right for them," he said. "Even as we would want when we were such small little beings in our mother's womb in the embryonic stage of development or along the way before birth as we would want voters to vote to protect our lives and to safeguard our lives."

 Burke was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to be Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position comparable to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He also served in the Vatican as a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which interprets the Canon Law, and a member of the Congregation for the Clergy which regulates priests and deacons of the secular clergy.

 On October 20, Pope Benedict XVI named Burke to the College of Cardinals. He will assume this office on Nov. 20.

Contact: Chris Johnson
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

The Government Shouldn’t Order Insurance Companies to Provide Free Contraceptives

    

I don't think the government should force health insurance companies to cover contraception.  But under Obamacare, companies may soon be required to pay for prescribed birth control as a method of preventive health care–which Obamacare (unwisely) forces insurance to provide as a free service for all under the law's central planning protocols.  From the story:

    A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning. But is birth control preventive medicine? Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.

    For many medical and public health experts, there's no debate. "There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health," said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."

    But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care. "We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."

The media always goes to the Catholics to get such a reply. But this has nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with honesty in public policy and fiscal responsibility.

Too often we conflate what we think of as a good policy with proper definitions–and that leads to a form of public policy corruption and indiscipline because necessary parameters liquefy.  Thus, contrary to the pro coverage spokesperson quoted above, contraception is nothing like immunizations–which prevent illnesses. Except in rare circumstances in which a woman's health requires her not to become pregnant–in which case contraception should be covered like any other medical need–birth control prevents a normal, health condition arising out of sexual activity.  In this way it is unlike pap smears, which are preventive medicine because they can detect unhealthy changes at the cellular level.  Mammograms are similarly preventive medicine.  So are colonoscopies and urine testing for diabetes.

This isn't to say that birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance.  But I don't think the think the federal government should require that it be covered.  Indeed, the market can easily–and without the rule of  bureaucrats–determine whether, under what circumstances, and by what terms, contraception will be covered by a particular policy.

This issue casts a Klieg light on another big defect in Obamacare; the centralization of control over health insurance in federal bureaucracies.  Placing such power in the hands of central planners politicizes the system.  This means that that the bureaucrats will be under pressure from politicians seeking votes to provide goodies for the voters back home.

Alas, it's always easy to spend other people's money.  But as a great man once said, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Pro-Life Group Proves that Obamacare Subsidizes Abortion

    

A recent battle over free speech and abortion – involving a pro-life group and a pro-life Ohio Democrat – has prompted the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to release a generic affidavit that outlines how the new health care law subsidizes abortion.

The move came after the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) came under fire recently for its media campaign against Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio.

Facing extremely unfavorable polling numbers and lack of support from the Democrat Party, Driehaus made a desperate move.

After learning about a planned billboard campaign, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, alleging SBA List violated two election laws when it tried to place on billboards the simple message, "Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."

The commission – which was mostly appointed by the Democrat governor – as well as federal judge who handled the emergency restraining order – who also was the former president of the Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati – ruled against SBA List.
The legal tussle continues.

NRLC filed an affidavit on behalf of SBA List, which provided at least 16 substantive examples in the new health care law where taxpayers are on the hook to fund abortions.

The pro-life group made available a generic version of the affidavit for the public. The new affidavit discusses H. Con. Res. 254 in paragraphs 27, 28, and 29.

Click here to watch SBA List's education video, explaining how the health care law funds abortion.

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 29, 2010

Tick, Tock, Lie to a Mother, Kill a Baby … Tick Tock

    

Next week, voters in Colorado will be deciding on Amendment 62. Much debate has taken place and many falsehoods abound. Today's commentary deals with the lies being propagated by those in opposition, including a prominent area physician.

If you ever wondered what makes an abortion doctor's brain tick, we may have come up with an answer that surprised even those of us who thought we knew!

In Colorado there is a knock-down, drag-out struggle going on between the forces for life and the forces for death. Into the center of this struggle stepped well-known Durango, Colorado, abortionist Richard Grossman. Grossman is a staff physician for a Catholic hospital in Durango. Even more egregious than this, he is a deceptive medicine man. In a commentary published in the local newspaper, Grossman wrote,

If Amendment 62 passes, it would make removing a diseased ovary illegal. Worse, a doctor who performs such a lifesaving surgery would be punished for murder.

Here is what the proposed Amendment 62 says: "Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

Anyone who graduated from an eighth grade health class knows that the start of the biological development is the human egg, and girls are born with all the eggs that their ovaries will ever contain. So removing an ovary -- even if diseased --would mean the removal of thousands of  "persons."

After getting over the shock of reading such contrived gobbledygook, Dianne Irving, Ph.D., who knows a thing or two about basic eighth grade biology, responded,

What Dr. Grossman has said about Amendment 62 is pathetic, and in no way should his absurd "view" be tolerated, especially by his professional associations. If Dr. Grossman does not know the difference between an "egg" and a newly reproduced single-cell human being/organism, one wonders how he ever passed his Med. boards. Such quackery should immediately be addressed and corrected publicly by his medical association and peers before such scientific falsehoods cause even more corrosion of the credibility of medical professionals.

Dr. Grossman is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim that Amendment 62 would result in doctors being punished for removing a diseased ovary.Neither the ovary nor the eggs within it are human beings.Further, an egg is an egg;a sperm is a sperm—these are just "cells" that are parts of one whole more mature human being.Neither a sperm nor an egg is a human being.Note that only "23" chromosomes from each are incorporated into a new human embryo, but that new human embryo now contains "46" chromosomes.Seems that Dr. Grossman can't even add.Once a sperm penetrates an egg, then a substantial change takes place resulting in a new human BEING, a single-cell ORGANISM, that produces specifically HUMAN proteins and enzymes (not sperm or egg proteins and enzymes!), and that continuously grows and develops into a more mature human being.If an egg or a sperm were implanted into a woman's womb, there is absolutely no way that either could develop into a human being.

Dr. Grossman should stop playing "egg" politics-as-usual and worry more about his patients' health, well-being, and the scientific accuracy of the information he is providing them. If he provides the same kind of false "information" to his patients who come to him for an abortion, then he has grossly deceived them and precluded them from giving truly legally valid informed consent before they sign those consent forms. Enough "egg" politics, Dr. Grossman.

And there you have it. Looking into the depths of an abortionist's philosophical and scientific psyche, we see error and disregard for human persons born and preborn -- not to mention a demented perspective on what it means to be a physician.

Tick, tock. Let's stop that clock. Abortion must end and, in Colorado, the time is now.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 29, 2010

AZ law takes effect today that will stop Planned Parenthood nurses from commiting abortions

    

An Arizona law passed over a decade ago to protect aborting mothers from unsafe and unskilled practitioners finally takes effect today.

Dubbed "Lou Anne's Law," the legislation was adopted in 1999 following the April 17, 1998, death of Lou Anne Herron at the hand of late-term abortion hack John Biskind, pictured right at his 2001 trial for which he was convicted to 5 years in prison for manslaughter.

Among other guidelines, Lou Anne's Law stipulates that:

    * A doctor is the only one who may commit a surgical abortion.

    * The aborting doctor must have admitting privileges at an accredited hospital in case of an emergency.

    * The aborting doctor must remain on the clinic premises until all patients are stable and ready to be discharged.

The kicker? These regulations were "drawn from the abortion industry's own internal standards," as AUL's Dorinda Bordlee wrote. How could the industry protest? Yet it did.

We now know it is no wonder Planned Parenthood of Arizona took the lead vehemently fighting to kill Lou Anne's Law.

In 2007 it was revealed – only after a complaint was filed – that Tuscon PP nurse practitioner Mary Andrews had been committing abortions through 16 weeks since 2001.

The pro-abortion AZ Board of Nurses ultimately dismissed all charges against Andrews, instead voting in 2008 to allow nurses to commit abortions up to 13 weeks gestation.

Furthermore, a conglomerate of abortion groups began conducting legal research in 2000 of 10 states, including AZ, to pursue allowing not just nurse practitioners but also midwives and physician assistants to commit abortions.

According to the Arizona Daily Star at the time, "Nothing in state law specifically spells out that only doctors can terminate a pregnancy."

Now it does. PP tried to stop enforcement of the law, stating there weren't enough abortionists to keep up with demand.

Maricopa Co. Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton ruled October 27 that was PP's problem, not the state's.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Planned Parenthood bending the truth

    

A pro-life group is accusing Planned Parenthood of misrepresenting a report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on teen pregnancy to make it appear as though the findings weigh in favor of the abortion provider.

Teen mothers are most prevalent in southern states, according to the new CDC study, and they are predominantly Hispanic and black in almost every state. American Life League's (ALL) Rita Diller, national director of Stop Planned Parenthood International (STOPP), reports that Planned Parenthood has issued a misleading press release.

"They have said that the CDC report makes it 'crystal clear' that the way to stop teen pregnancy is through Planned Parenthood-style sex education, when the report makes no such claims whatsoever," she explains.

Rita Diller (STOPP)The study does acknowledge that teenage birth rates have continued to decline since their peak in 1991, which coincides with the time frame of the availability and popularity of abstinence programs. Diller believes Planned Parenthood is all about sexualizing school children so kids will later have to go to them to get abortions and treatments for sexually transmitted diseases.

"It's a money-making scheme that Planned Parenthood has hoisted upon our society, and it's also a very racist scheme where you see them time and time again following the lead of their racist founder Margaret Sanger in going into the minority neighborhoods to target the black and Hispanic population especially," the STOPP national director suggests.


So her group advocates stopping all government funding of Planned Parenthood.

Contact: Bill Bumpas
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Teen's parents agree not to force abortion

    

The parents of a 16-year-old in Texas have agreed to a court order not to force their daughter to have an abortion.

A Travis County District Court judge authorized the order Oct. 28, one day after the parents agreed in writing no longer to coerce their daughter to abort her child, who is at 14 weeks gestation, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) reported.

The girl's mother took her to two different Austin abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region, in an effort to make her undergo the lethal procedure. Neither the girl, who was not identified, nor the baby's father wants an abortion, but her parents had continued to say they would force her to have one, according to ADF.

The judge in the case had issued a temporary restraining order Oct. 18 to block the parents' effort before validating the court order that is in force throughout the remainder of the pregnancy.

The girl became even more convinced she did not want an abortion after she received information from a pro-life advocate who was praying outside one of the clinics, ADF reported.

The court's actions came in response to the efforts of two ADF-affiliated lawyers -- Stephen Casey of Round Rock, Texas, and Gregory Terra of Georgetown, Texas --- and Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation in San Antonio.

"The parents made the right decision, one which they, their daughter, the baby's father, and especially their grandchild, will appreciate," Terra said of their decision to sign the court order.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: October 29, 2010