Bush: Pro-Life Views Affected after Seeing Remains of Miscarried Sibling

     

Throughout his presidency George W. Bush was unapologetically pro-life, but a strange anecdote found in his about-to-be-released autobiography, Decision Points, has provided new insight into the genesis of his views on the issue.

In a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer about the forthcoming book, Bush explained that when he was a teenager his mother, Barbara Bush, suffered a difficult miscarriage.

Barbara obtained the miscarried fetus, and put it in a jar in order to bring it in to the hospital. However, first she showed her teenage son his deceased sibling.

"I never expected to see the remains of the foetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital." He added: "There was a human life, a little brother or sister."

"There's no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life."

According to the New York Post, however, Bush told Lauer that "the purpose of the story wasn't to try show the evolution of a pro-life point of view." 

"It was really to show how my mom and I developed a relationship."

Ironically, Barbara herself appears not to have been quite as affected by the incident as her son: her views on abortion have been less clear.

In 1992, during her husband's presidential run, she famously argued that abortion should be left out of the Republican Party's platform: "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions."

Meanwhile, Mrs. Bush was coy about where her personal views fell on the issue. "I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," she said. "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."

Contact: John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Pro-Abortionists Try to Revise History

     

If I were a pro-abortionist, one of many who lost last week in no small measure because of the public's rejection of ObamaCare, I would console myself by knowing that there will be a vigorous effort by my troops to revisit/reinterpret/revise what actually happened November 2. Not just so I would feel better, but to assure my fellow supporters of ObamaCare and the abortion agenda in general that this had nothing to do with the wave that swept a huge number of House and Senate Democrats out of office.

In addition if they are able to absolve ObamaCare of blame, it might also strengthen the spines of all Democrats as Republicans seek to repeal and replace ObamaCare, aptly described by soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner as a "monstrosity."

Most non-partisans would ignore a memo (based on "exit polling") produced by the Democratic National Committee's communications director which concluded (according to the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza) that "health-care reform was--at worst-- a neutral factor for the party. "

Cillizza, in a piece yesterday titled "What effect did health-care reform have on election?" offered two other scenarios. A Democratic strategist argued that health care was important but not because the public rejected the substance of ObamaCare but because people saw the party's huge emphasis on it was at the expense of a focus on the economy and jobs.

"It is not correct to say Tuesday's vote was a referendum on health care, but it did help set the stage for Tuesday," according to Democratic pollster Fred Yang.

The third (and only accurate) explanation was one we talked about last week which came from Republican pollster Bill McInturff. He took two polls a month apart in the 100 most targeted House districts and asked the respondents if they had seen television ads about health care law. Some 70% had and fully understand the ads were critical of ObamaCare.

The most important conclusions based on what respondents said? That "51 percent called their vote a message of opposition to the law, while just one in five said it was a sign of support for it," Cillizza wrote. "A majority of independent voters, a voting bloc that Republicans won by a whopping 18 points, also said in the McInturff survey that their vote was in opposition to the law."

In a memo summarizing the results, McIntruff concluded, "This election was a clear signal that voters do not want President Obama's health care plan."
NRLC did important polling as well.

Twenty-seven percent of voters in a poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc 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 will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment, if allowed to go into effect. The public agrees and clearly showed last Tuesday 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.

Overall 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly)--almost a 3-2 margin.

You will hear a loud insistence that ObamaCare did not cripple pro-abortion Democrats. Don't be fooled.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Young Pro-Life Father Nearly Lost Son to Abortion: Says Fathers Have No Legal Rights

     
Joseph Lee, who serves as the development officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in Scotland, is the father of a four-year-old boy. But he almost lost his son just over four years ago, thanks to the fact that Britain's abortion laws do not allow men to be taken into account in abortion decisions.

Lee told his painful story to LifeSiteNews.com at a conference this weekend in Dublin.

At 22, Lee's girlfriend became pregnant and intended to abort. Despite the fact that he wanted to have the child and believed that abortion was morally wrong, he found himself with no legal recourse whatever to save the life of his unborn child.

Without anywhere to go for help, the only option left for Lee was prayer. 
  
Twice since the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act men have tried and failed in the courts to protect their children from abortion. Lee had studied the law and knew "there was no question of me going to a lawyer."

"I knew that would be completely fruitless. So I knew that all I could do really was, first pray about it, and try to persuade her to keep the baby. It was very frustrating."

Lee's mother had been involved in the pro-life movement, "So I knew I was completely against abortion in all cases," he said. "But I'd never been challenged on it and never done anything about it. So my girlfriend was going to have an abortion and I just couldn't face it, regardless of the fact that I was only 22, and I couldn't even look after myself, let alone another person.

"So I tried to persuade her to not to, but she went ahead and booked an appointment."

Lee says he is convinced that it was only by the power of prayer that the nurse at the abortion facility showed his girlfriend the ultrasound scan. In abortion facilities around the world, an ultrasound is normally required to determine the gestational age of the child to decide which abortion method to use. But women are routinely denied the sight of their unborn children in case it should influence them against abortion.

As has happened to so many other women, once Lee's girlfriend saw the ultrasound, she realized she couldn't go through with the abortion.

"I remember a phone call when she said that she didn't go through with the abortion that day, and that she saw our child on the scan, looking quite happy, swimming about. She said it just looked like a wee person.

"I remember thinking, 'That's because it is a person'."

He relates that the nurse offering the RU-486 "medical" abortion pill said, "I'm not happy giving you this unless you're 100 per cent sure."

"And obviously she wasn't 100 per cent sure because I was doing everything I possibly could to persuade her to keep the child.

"I didn't realize this at the time, but I found out later that she'd sat with a friend who'd used the abortion pill, so maybe that was something that influenced her decision. That can't have been a pleasant evening."

Lee pointed out that "it's very rare" to see anything written about the rights of the father in the abortion debate.

"Even in pro-life circles … abortion lobbyists are focused on women's rights," he said. "Pro-lifers tend to rightly focus on the child. Most counselors focus on the woman, but there's nothing really that focuses on the father."

Asked if there is anyone doing any kind of legal work on behalf of men in this situation, Joseph replied, "Not that I'm aware of, no."

"It shows that the pro-abortion side has been very successful in making it exclusively a women's issue. Which is completely ridiculous, because I've seen from my own experience that women are far more likely to have the abortion if the man's not involved."

He pointed out that abortion laws isolate women. Even if a woman is not being pressured to have an abortion, without the father involved she has no support: "If the guy says, 'You're on your own,' that's what puts pressure on her and gives her the feeling that she has to have the abortion.

"It's a complete lie to suggest that women should depend only on themselves to make the decision. There's no harm in admitting that sometimes she needs the advice and support of other people.

"Abortion is one of the most horrendous decisions anyone is ever going to make, and to have to make it on your own is a very scary thing."

Men get the short end of the legal stick, whether they want to be fathers or not, said Lee, who argues that legal abortion has given men the excuse to "walk away" from the mothers of their children. "It legitimizes men not having a part [in child rearing] and being able to abandon them. They will expect women to have an abortion.

"There's a contradiction when a man is looked down upon if he's not going to be there when his child is born, yet he's told he has no part to play in this whole thing.

"He's vilified for not playing a part in the child's life, for not supporting him, whereas that's positively encouraged from the very start of the child's life. So it isn't a surprise that we see men abandoning children." 

He added, "I know we're not supposed to judge people, but I really think that what a man does in relation to his children is a way in which we can sort of measure if he's a real man or not. Because if a man abandons his own child, then he's not a real man in my eyes." 

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Trying to Hide How Abortion Hurts Women

     

 This post is by way of preliminary heads-up. Researchers far more knowledgeable than I am will deal with the specific errors of a piece that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. ("The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health," by Brenda Major.)

In the first couple of paragraphs Major grants that "The decision to terminate a pregnancy can be difficult, and some women end up regretting it. It's commendable to help women make an informed choice."

So, in the abstract providing information to women contemplating an abortion is okay, but not if state laws talk about informing women of the possibility of abortion having a deleterious impact. Why? Because that's not "accurate" information, according to Major.

For support Major trots out the usual naysayers--the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute and professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, which are wholly committed to legalized abortion. (Major tells us that she chaired the APA task force which did not "substantiate the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems.")

As I say, the experts will rebut Major tomorrow. Today let me make just one point. Her opening sentence reads, "The latest war on abortion is being fought less over women's bodies than over their minds."

And in a real sense this is true, although not in the way Major means it.

For the past 50 years, women have been told without ceasing that abortion is essentially problem-free for all but a tiny subset of women (the baby, of course, is ignored except when the argument is that she if she is "unwanted," she is better off dead!). But does that make any sense, intuitively? No, of course it doesn't.

Just in the past year, we have witnessed a stream of quality research documenting the negative aftershocks of abortion. We have written about almost all of them in National Right to Life News and on this blog. According to Prof. Michael New, these peer-reviewed journals include The Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, Journal of Pregnancy, and The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry."These studies find evidence that women who have had abortions are at greater risk for health problems ranging from PTSD to depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse," he writes.

Major tells us that the "stigma" surrounding abortion colors the way women respond. So, for example, if you were to see (as we ARE seeing) women increasingly coming forth to say they regret their abortion, that is because it is only when women say their abortion was wrong ("repent," is Major's word) that they are not condemned.

The truth is gradually working its way out of the darkness and into the light. No wonder pro-abortionists such as Brenda Major are so nervous.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Why We Should Repeal Health Care, Not Amend It

     

There's a movement afoot again to use your taxpayer money for abortion under the guise of contraception in the health care bill. After all, with Senator Barbara Mikulski as the author of the women's health amendment in the now passed health care bill, the intent was to include family planning. The Senator is a pro-abortion feminist and there is far more than family planning in the health care bill. 

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood is advocating for free contraception under the health care bill. Is birth control preventive medicine? The Food and Drug Administration classifies the morning-after pill as birth control along with Ella One, IUDs and implants, all of which are abortifacients. 

Before everyone jumps on board with the idea that contraception is ok, we need to look at what the government means by covering "contraception." The fact that a pro-abortion senator and Planned Parenthood are pushing for this coverage ought to make most Americans think twice.

No one will argue that the morning-after pill, aka Plan B, is dangerous, especially to young women due to the fact that it has 40 times the hormonal content of one birth control pill. Recent studies show a strong indication that the hormonal content of the birth control pill has contributed to the meteroric rise in breast cancer.

So, if Plan B was bad, now Ella One. Marketed under the guise of contraception, it is really a dangerous abortifacient What you need to know is that the government approved and labelled this dangerous drug as a contraceptive, instead of an abortion pill that acts like the nefarious abortion drug RU486.

So the government's idea of contraception isn't really contraception, it's chemical abortion, and the're mandating taxpayer funding.

Source: Lake County Right to Life
Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Donations to Notre Dame Plummeted in Obama Commencement Year

      

The University of Notre Dame suffered a significant drop in contributions in the year President Obama received an honor at the school and delivered a commencement speech coaching graduating seniors on how to approach the abortion issue.

A CatholicCulture.org report published last month revealed that contributions to the university fell by more than $120 million in fiscal year July 2008 - June 2009, at $226.7 million, down from $347.2 million in FY 2007-2008. A drop in government funds accounted for only about $2 million lost.

News that the university planned to honor Obama at their commencement had broken in March 2009. The announcement sparked an unprecedented shockwave of criticism from Catholics across America, including from 80 active U.S. bishops and over 350,000 signers of a Cardinal Newman Society petition.

Catholic Culture notes that the recession that shook the global economy starting in December 2007, and ending in June 2009, also coincided with the drop in donations. However, according to David Difranco, head of the ReplaceJenkins.com website, the economy alone does not account for the steep losses suffered by Notre Dame. ReplaceJenkins.com spearheaded a campaign last year to withhold donations from the school in protest over the Obama scandal.

DiFranco pointed to data collected by the Center for Aid to Education showing that donations to private research universities fell by just 9.7% in 2009. Contributions to Notre Dame, also a research institution, fell by the much larger 34.7% in that year.  Donations to all colleges and universities over the same period fell just 11.9%. 

"Certainly 2009 was a horrendous year for colleges in terms of deflated contributions," DiFranco told LifeSiteNews.com, "but Notre Dame's loss is staggering, placing the University as an outlier among those who lost." Meanwhile, he noted, Purdue University, another research university in Indiana, saw an increase in contributions by 6.3% in the same period.

LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to obtain comment from the university for this story. A Notre Dame spokesman last month said that the school would no longer speak to LSN, but would not disclose a reason.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Planned Parenthood Wants to Abort Us into Prosperity

     

It will come as no surprise to learn that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards believes that government-funded health care should pay for all birth control, including abortions. After all, since much of this funding would flow to Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion provider would profit mightily from such a policy.

Of course Richards is smart enough not to say that PP wants to devour our money as well as our children. Instead, she trots out the lame argument that eliminating people will somehow save us all money.

Appearing on the "Bill Press Show," the Planned Parenthood honcho claimed that "birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money." She went on to say that "we actually feel that covering birth control is not only the right thing to do for women, it's good for women, it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy. An investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy." (See LifeSiteNews.com for the interview).

We at PRI regard her Richards's views not only as self-serving, but also as short-sighted. Children do indeed cost money to raise—as every parent knows—but they grow up into productive citizens who produce wealth, pay taxes and, on the whole, leave America a better place than they found it.

If you crunch the numbers, as we have, you will find that the average American baby born today will contribute several million dollars to the economy over his or her productive lifetime. Oppose this to the hundred-odd thousand dollars or so that it will cost to raise the child to adulthood, and you see just how valuable an asset these tiny human beings really are.

Planned Parenthood is an offensive organization because it not only advocates the wholesale destruction of defenseless human beings, but also actually carries out hundreds of thousands of such lethal acts each year in its hundreds of abortuaries. Now it wants us to subsidize, through Obamacare, these immoral acts, telling us that they are saving us money by doing so.

No one denies that it costs money to raise children, of course, but those who do so are making a fundamental investment in the future. Children grow into adults, who not only contribute to the GDP by entering the workforce, but also contribute, using their own special gifts, to creating families, communities, and societies. To view babies solely as economic liabilities, as Richards does, is not only dehumanizing; it makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Now Cecile Richards would probably respond that she doesn't want to eliminate all children, only those that are "unplanned." But how does one define "unplanned?" If your parents were not planning on conceiving a child in a particular cycle, does that make you unplanned? Does Richards not know that an element of chance enters into any conception, meaning that it takes up to twelve months for a couple of average fertility to conceive a child? Or is she focused on aborting all single mothers, as they do in China? I don't know about Richards, but I was unplanned and, therefore, by her simplistic calculations, should have been eliminated as an unnecessary expenditure.

Planned Parenthood's position is all the more nonsensical because the very government health care that Richards promotes so fervently can only be paid for by taxpayer funds. And every single taxpayer starts life in a mother's womb.

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi tried to add hundreds of million of dollars in birth control funding to the so-called "stimulus package" using these same arguments. We opposed this move in interviews with FOX and other media. At the end of the day, her amendment proved too much even for many Democrats to stomach, and it was rejected.

People are not just liabilities, they are assets. In fact, they are the ultimate assets. And they all start out as babies.

Contact: Steven W. Mosher and Colin Mason
Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Protection against Organ Harvesting

     

An expert on life and death has come up with a way to protect people from "Presumed Consent" organ harvesting.
 
The card is designed to ensure that doctors respect a person's wish to live their God-ordained lifespan, rather than having their organs harvested against their will.

"I've been studying the issue of brain death for more than 30 years. Brain death is not true death; it was concocted to get beating hearts for transplantation," explains Dr. Paul Byrne, head of the Life Guardian Foundation.

He says transplanted organs are healthy and come from a living person, so presumed consent is an active practice.

"It's already legalized in more than 40 states, that it's presumed that everyone intends to be an organ donor," the doctor laments. "Everything is done to determine if their organs are suitable and to keep them suitable until they can get the organs."

Byrne believes that is euthanasia, which he argues is something people need to protect themselves from, especially 18- to 30-year-olds who are considered to have the healthiest organs. This new card is a way to gain that protection.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 6, 2010

The Poisoned Chalice of In Vitro Fertilization

     

Sometimes things look perfect and beautiful on the outside, but a closer look reveals a starker reality. This is true of in vitro fertilization. While it may look promising at first glance, once we really come to understand this technology and its repercussions, we can't help but be opposed. Today's commentary examines these realities and offers an alternative for couples who desperately want a child.

"Reproductive technology" is fraught with moral problems, including practices that should never arise. They occur because some clinicians have determined that they can treat infertility by manipulation. Rather than diagnosing the cause of infertility and getting to the root of the problem in an ethical way, in vitro fertilization practitioners chose years ago to respond to the emotionally draining problems facing barren couples by using a laboratory to "make" children.

The expectation then, as now, is to create embryonic babies, choose the best ones for implantation, hope the process works the first time and charge exorbitant fees. When there are "leftover" embryonic people, they are often either frozen or given to science to be killed so that human embryonic research can be carried out.

On the other hand, if these children are deemed in some way "defective" after pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used, they are killed in the laboratory. If they are all the wrong sex, then the couple may opt to try again—allowing these children to be killed and putting more money into the pockets of the doctors by attempting the procedure again.

It's a lucrative racket for sure.

But one would think that anyone with a logical mind would discern that there's something wrong with the whole scenario. So why do so few discuss or admit that this documented treachery exists?

In Great Britain, when two children were born after IVF treatment, and were apparently created using the wrong sperm, their parents sued. The children have darker skin than their white parents and, according to their mother, have been subjected to ridicule and name-calling. 

However, a judge ruled that the case had no merit and that "the children had no legitimate expectation other than being born healthy and well." He also stated, "The presence of persons sufficiently misguided and cruel as to issue racist comments directed to these children is no basis for a conclusion that they are somehow damaged." Thus, the parents will not receive remuneration for personal injury even though the wrong sperm was used.
In New York, a woman was recently granted permission to harvest sperm from her dead husband. She claimed she did not want the death of her husband to stand in the way of their desire to start a family.

As if such macabre events were not enough to convince establishment repro-tech experts that there has to be a better way to treat infertility, we now know that children conceived through in-vitro fertilization have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities and suffer a greater number of overall health problems than naturally conceived children.

Such evidence of the pitfalls inherent in such practices has been increasing with the passage of each year. But this has not slowed the multi-million dollar industry.

As one mother admitted in a heart-wrenching exposé on the emotional toll IVF and other such practices can take on the family unit,

Medical technology has made me a mother, and my amazing son is living proof of how mind-blowing science truly is. At the same time, IVF technology and the hope it proffers have driven a stake through the very heart of my life. I have a son but I also have a divorce to my name, a string of lost or radically altered friendships, and the emotional scars of years of medical intervention. Society would call me churlish for saying it, because I got my 'prize,' but the relentless pursuit of fertility has been a poisoned chalice.

Clearly the reproductive technology business is fraught with pain, agony, death and enormous financial cost to families. So why does it continue unabated? It's all about the money, the denial that anything could possibly go wrong and the quest to replace God with the gods who wear white laboratory coats and feel no remorse.
The real barrenness in the quest for domination over man and manipulation of his genes resides in the hearts of those who will not stop, no matter what the human cost.

THE SOLUTION: Such diabolical events need not ever occur. There is an ethical treatment of infertility. It is called NaProTECHNOLOGY. Based on the truth that nature and procreation can work together even in face of infertility, this is the wave of the future—the new face of hope.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Young people's knowledge gap is golden opportunity for pro-life education

     

Last month The Mail on Sunday reported on a survey of childless Britons aged 18 to 25 on the subject of children. According to the report, of those surveyed:

 - one in five think an umbilical cord is a musical note, and that pregnancy lasts for 12 months 

 - around one in ten thinks that a placenta is a vegetable; a caesarean section is a religious cult; drinking tea or coffee will influence the colour of an unborn child's hair; and eating red meat raises the likelihood of giving birth to a boy.

 - more than half would expect a baby to be walking and talking within the first year 

Such lack of  knowledge is a gap which the pro-life movement can fill. SPUC speakers often report positive experiences after being invited to speak in a school, such as genuine interest in the issues from pupils and a warm welcome by teachers. Pupils are particularly intrigued by SPUC's set of anatomically-correct foetal models.

It is also vital for scientifically accurate information about unborn children to be imparted to pupils so that they can spot pro-abortion misinformation. In this country, the pro-abortion lobby - with the active assistance of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales, an agency of the Catholic bishops' conference -  is working to entrench itself in schools through sex and relationships education (SRE). We must hope that the recently-elected coalition government will not force schools to teach SRE and will not resurrect the previous government's plan to impose an anti-life/anti-family curriculum upon our children and grandchildren.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC
Publish Date: November 7, 2010

Report: Health Care for Elderly Better in USA than UK

     

A new study is out that seems to show that medical care for older Americans–of increasing interest to me!–is better than for oldsters in the UK.  From the story in Science Daily:

Researchers found that while Americans aged 55 to 64 have higher rates of chronic diseases than their peers in England, they died at about the same rate. And Americans age 65 and older — while still sicker than their English peers — had a lower death rate than similar people in England, according to findings published in the journal Demography.

Why might that be?

Researchers say there are two possible explanations why death rates are higher for English after age 65 as compared to Americans. One is that the illnesses studied result in higher mortality in England than in the United States. The second is that the English are diagnosed at a later stage in the disease process than Americans. "Both of these explanations imply that there is higher-quality medical care in the United States than in England, at least in the sense that these chronic illnesses are less likely to cause death among people living in the United States," Smith said.

Could it be that a primarily privatized system such as that in the USA–even under Medicare in which only about 50% of expenses are paid by the government, and private options are rife–works better than a primarily publicly financed NHS model?  Could it also be that the NICE style rationing in the UK cuts against the elderly–it sometimes definitely does–and keeps them from receiving the best efficacious treatments that extend lives?  Much of that is informal, but NICE rations osteoporosis drugs even for seniors under the age of 75.

In any event, these are complex matters for which there are no simple explanations.  But it is interesting.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Planned Parenthood Makes Post-Election Appeal to Donors for Help in Saving Its Taxpayer Funding From 'Dangerous Politicians'

     

In a letter sent to supporters by e-mail on the day after Republicans were swept in as the new majority in the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards used the election results to press for an "emergency donation" to help fight against "dangerous politicians who oppose women's health and the right to choose."

"Even before yesterday's election, women's health was under attack," Richards wrote in the e-mail, which was sent on Nov. 3. "Anti-choice Republicans like Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana have introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood."

"That's the frightening reality we face, and it's only going to get worse," Richards wrote.

According to the last annual report made public by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the organization received $349.6 million in government grants and contracts.

Pence (R-Ind.) was one of 31 Republicans who ordered a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) seeking the total amount of federal funding used by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, including the Guttmacher Institute, the Population Council, Advocates for Youth, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

The GAO report, released in May, states that the combined total in federal dollars spent by those organizations from FY 2002-2009 was $967.1 million – $657.1 million of that is listed as expenditures of federal funds for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation, according to the GAO, reported spending $3.9 million in federal funds over those fiscal years (2002-2009); the Guttmacher Institute, $12.7 million; the Population Council, $284.3 million; SIECUS, $300,000; and Advocates for Youth, $8.7 million.

In January 2009, Pence introduced legislation that would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit "providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion."

The proposed law makes exceptions for abortions performed in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The bill, H.R. 614, was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a committee that could soon be chaired by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January. Barton, now the ranking member of that committee, also signed on to the GAO report request.
Richards' e-mail donation pitch included a personal pledge: "I promise you this: Planned Parenthood will never stop caring for women, and we will never stop fighting for their rights. No matter what happened yesterday, I know that today thousands of women, men, and teens will get the care they need at Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers."

The e-mail included two links to make a credit card donation to Planned Parenthood.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010 

Pro-life leaders reflect on gains in Congress, fallout from health care law

     

Pro-life Republican gains in Congress are "substantial" and are likely due to the Catholic vote, according to two pro-life leaders. However, a pro-life Democrat lamented her caucus' losses, noting the need for reconciliation with the Catholic Church after a tough political fight over health care legislation.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), told CNA that the pro-life issue motivated a lot of voters. From the NRLC's perspective, there were "very, very substantial" improvements in about 65 House seats.

"Either a hardcore pro-abortion candidate was defeated by a pro-life challenger, or someone with a mixed record, like on the health care bill, was replaced."

The bulk of the candidates, about 40, were "hardcore pro-abortion people" who voted for pro-life legislation "seldom if ever."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said her organization's "Votes Have Consequences" program was a "huge success" in targeting supporters of the health care legislation.

"When you can successfully defeat 15 out of 20 members of Congress, you know something about the future of the movement," she continued, calling its future "extremely bright."

Expressing her "excitement" about the state of contemporary politics, she discussed a "strong pro-life trend" in America among women as well.

"We are seeing a surge of women candidates who are strongly pro-life."

Such enthusiasm was not shared by all pro-life leaders. Democrats for Life of America head Kristen Day said the election was "disappointing" for pro-life Democrats.

"We lost so many good members of our pro-life caucus," she said, reporting the caucus had been halved from about 40 to about 20.

"We've been there before though," she added. "We're very encouraged, which sounds odd, seeing the massive defeat that we had as Democrats as a whole."

She reported that the new Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchem, is a pro-life Democrat.

Day also noted an "outpouring of support" for and new interest in her organization from people "concerned about the partisanship of the pro-life community, and the targeting of all these good pro-life Democrats."

She thought concern over the health care bill and whether it funded abortion played a role "because the conservative groups really used it, to a bad degree."

She cited a hometown newspaper ad against Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) which said the congresswoman called the Catholic Church "liars" in defending her position that the health care legislation does not fund abortion.

The NRLC's Johnson also he suspected opposition to the health care legislation was a motivating factor for voters, especially the "abortion-related problems" with the bill.

Criticizing "smokescreens" from what he called "phony front-groups like Catholics United and Democrats for Life of America," Douglas said that President Obama's health care law contains "many provisions which will expand abortion if they are allowed to go into effect."

"Fortunately, most of them have not yet gone into effect," Johnson added, advocating the repeal and replacement of the law.

In his view, the broader problem is the "piecemeal, patchwork fashion" of addressing abortion funding restrictions.

"The Hyde Amendment itself expires every year. A lot of people don't realize it has to be reenacted."

The proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would be a "comprehensive fix," according to Johnson. At the National Right to Life Convention this summer, presumptive House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) endorsed the bill. It was also mentioned in the Republican leadership's Pledge to America.

The act would "permanently prohibit federal funding and subsidies for abortion in all programs, and it wouldn't expire every year." Johnson deemed this a "top priority" to avoid a "charade" accompanying new federal programs which under present law constantly require new abortion funding regulations.

This proposal will be "a tough fight" because it will face opposition from Democratic leadership in the Senate and from President Obama, Johnson predicted. He charged that the president has been a proponent of abortion funding "despite his verbal position."

SBA List's Dannenfelser likewise backed uniform restrictions on abortion. She also proposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.

"Planned Parenthood gets $300 million a year from taxpayers. This props up abortion centers across the nation and makes us all culpable in something most Americans disagree with.

Asked about likely pro-life legislation from the new Congress, Kristen Day said it would depend on Republican action in the House.

"I'm not sure that we have a pro-life majority in the Senate," she explained.

Concerning the Catholic vote, Dannenfesler thought it was "a significant factor in restoring a pro-life Congress."

"The more frequent churchgoers, those are the people we need to reach," she told CNA. "The life issue is at the heart of the Church."

For her part, Day said post-election reconciliation is needed.

"The Democratic Party really agreed with the Catholic Church a lot, and a lot of Democrats felt abandoned by the Catholic bishops for not standing up for their positions."

She said she had to remind critics of the health care legislation that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) mainly endorsed the legislation and opposed it because of the abortion issue.

"The truth will come out on this health care bill, particularly with the election case in Ohio. People are going to come to realize what a mistake the pro-life community made in targeting these good pro-life members."

Day charged that conservative pro-lifers have been trying to cut down pro-life Democrats "for some time" because "they feel like the abortion issue is a winning issue for the Republicans and they don't want the Democrats to take that away."

"I'm a Catholic, so I really want these pro-life Democrats and the Catholic Church to reconcile their differences over this health care bill so we can continue to work together on pressing policies that help pregnant women, reduce abortion and make sure that we do have universal health care."

Contact: Kevin J. Jones
Source: CNA
Publish Date: November 5, 2010

SBA List Claims Major Pro-Life Women Election Gains, Emily's List Defeats in 2010 Mid-Term Election

     

Dannenfelser: "[This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women] is a corrective moment for the women's movement which must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced several major victories in its efforts to elect pro-life women candidates and to defeat pro-abortion women candidates to Congress and statewide office. (Click here for a running tally of pro-life woman candidate victories and pro-abortion woman candidate defeats.)

"This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women is historic and no accident," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. "It is a corrective moment for the women's movement which must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

During the 2010 election cycle, the SBA List spent $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to Congressional and statewide office. With several races yet to be called, the SBA List determined the following about its impact in the 2010 elections:

• Overall, the SBA List endorsed 48 candidates in general election races involving women. Among those, 34 SBA List-endorsed candidates won and, among those, 23 are pro-life women victories and 11 are pro-abortion women defeats. 

• In SBA List-versus-EMILY's List head-to-head races, SBA List candidates won 91 percent of the time. Overall, EMILY's List had a 38 percent success rate among its endorsed candidates. 

• The percentage of women in the House of Representatives who are pro-life increased by 60 percent while the percentage of women who are pro-choice decreased by 16 percent. 

• In the U.S. Senate, SBA List-endorsed Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) fills the void of pro-life women Senators, while John Boozman's defeat of Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln replaces one pro-choice woman Senator. Pro-life Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) successfully defended his seat against a pro-abortion woman challenger and pro-life candidate Roy Blunt (R-MO) successfully defeated EMILY's List favorite Robin Carnahan in the Missouri U.S. Senate race. 

• With sweeping victories among its four endorsed pro-life women gubernatorial candidates - Jan Brewer (R-AZ), Susana Martinez (R-NM), Nikki Haley (R-SC) and Mary Fallin (R-OK) - the SBA List increased the number of pro-life women governors from one to four, making four out of six women Governors pro-life. 

• The SBA List added four endorsed pro-life women to statewide offices across the country: Kay Ivey (AL-Lt. Gov), Kim Reynolds (IA-Lt. Gov.), Pam Bondi (FL-Att. Gen.) and Beth Chapman (AL-Sec. of State).

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm elections, including: $3.4 million on its "Votes Have Consequences" project targeting self-described "pro-life" Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care bill; $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Statewide Office; and $1.4 million spent defeating pro-abortion incumbents and protecting pro-life leaders. SBA List members across the country bundled over $600,000 in direct contributions to candidates. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races. 

Contact: Kerry Brown
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

'Stop Abortion Funding' Campaign Calls for End of Federal Funding of Abortion

Dannenfelser: "Now is the time to translate Tuesday's pro-life electoral gains into pro-life legislative victories... Congress must start by ending federal funding of abortion both here and abroad."

     

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced the launch of its "Stop Abortion Funding" campaign aimed at ending all federal funding of abortion in the upcoming 112th Congress. The campaign includes a website for pro-life activists to lobby Congress (www.StopAbortionFunding.com).

"Now is the time to translate Tuesday's pro-life electoral gains into pro-life legislative victories," said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "On Tuesday, large numbers of Representatives learned the consequences of their vote for taxpayer funding of abortion in the health care bill when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed. Those Members have been replaced by authentic pro-life voices supported by a strongly pro-life GOP leadership. The GOP leadership understands the urgency of addressing the tragedy of nearly 4,000 abortions a day and has pledged to defund abortion in its 'Pledge to America.' Now is the time to make good on that Pledge to restore moral and fiscal responsibility in Washington. Congress must start by ending federal funding of abortion both here and abroad."

The SBA List's petition and outreach efforts will include mobilization of its ever-growing 280,000-member grassroots network to encourage Members to pass pro-life legislation and stop pro-abortion legislation in the 112th Congress. 

To accomplish this, the SBA List will urge Members of Congress to pass two priority pieces of pro-life legislation. The first bill is the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), which will create a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, which would repeal abortion funding in Obamacare. The second bill is the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), which would ensure that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood under Title X family planning funds.

"With the majority of Americans labeling themselves pro-life and an even stronger majority agreeing that tax dollars should not fund abortion, the consensus for passage of pro-life legislation could not be stronger," Dannenfelser said. "The Stop Abortion Funding campaign will echo the message sent from the ballot box that Americans are ready to pass life-saving laws."

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm elections, including: $3.4 million on its "Votes Have Consequences" project targeting self-described "pro-life" Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care bill; $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to congressional and statewide office; and $1.4 million on defeating pro-abortion incumbents and protecting pro-life leaders. SBA List members across the country bundled more than $600,000 in direct contributions to candidates. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races including 61 wins, 21 losses, and 8 yet to be called. Successes included: defeating 15 of 20 "Votes Have Consequences" targets; increasing the number of pro-life women in the House by 60 percent; filling the void of pro-life women in the U.S. Senate and increasing the number of pro-life women governors from one to four. In SBA List-versus-EMILY's List head-to-head races, SBA List candidates won 91 percent of the time.

Contact: Kerry Brown
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

Abortionist Brigham's replacements "bottom of the barrel"

     

Operation Rescue has conducted an investigation of the American Women's Services (AWS) abortion chain operated by the notorious Steven Chase Brigham and discovered that abortionists who are working to keep AWS open during Brigham's medical license suspension have shocking backgrounds that include criminal convictions and other problems. This information has led Operation Rescue to believe that the entire ASW chain is fraught with problems and should be shut down to protect the public.

"Brighham's abortion business is a haven for the bottom of the barrel criminals and quacks masquerading as medical doctors, and that's just the unvarnished truth," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We have reviewed hundreds of pages of disciplinary documents. Every medical misfit on the east coast that has run out of options seems to have found a welcome home in Brigham's abortion organization."

Abortionists who continue to work for Brigham include:

- An admitted sex offender and drug abuser

- Two convicted drug violators

- A convicted income tax cheat who once paid out $3.5 million in a malpractice suit

- An abortionist convicted of billing fraud

- Several abortionists that cannot get hospital privileges

Brigham was suspended in New Jersey after a botched abortion led to the discovery of his illegal late-term abortion scheme that spanned 2 states. All of Brigham's clinics in Maryland have closed, at least temporarily, but he continues to operate dangerous clinics in 3 other states.

"We have a message for the authorities in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia: For the love of God, please close these abortion clinics!" said Newman. "As relieved as we were by the suspensions and clinic closures, the authorities really need to do more and close AWS down permanently. What we discovered about Brigham's current abortion staff was worse than we had imagined."

Click here to read OR's full report with documentation links.

Source: ProLifeBlogs
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

Post Election Statement by David O'Steen PH.D. NRLC Executive Director

     


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.

According to a national post-election poll conducted by the Polling Company, 22% said abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates that opposed abortion as opposed to only 8% who said that abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who favored abortion.

The abortion issue was prevalent in the debate over the Obama Health Care Law and National Right to Life sought, but ultimately failed, to obtain language in the law to prevent abortion subsidies in all parts of the law. Numerous Democrats who voted for the law, including many who had previously voted pro-life, were defeated last night. Polling shows that the abortion component of the health care law played a major role in those defeats.

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.

Overall 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly).

The poll also 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.

Contact: David O'Steen PH.D.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Race for the Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation: Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?

  
     

Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth. 

That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.

We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?

For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.

Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.

For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).

This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.

Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college. 

The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer? 

The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.

The difference is the dose

So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?

In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.

Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.

The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009. Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.

This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of  Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer. 

October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.

Contact: Jenn Giroux
Source: Zenit.org via HLI
Publish Date: November 4, 2010 

"Awesome" Election 2010: Reaction from US Pro-Life Leaders

     

"Last night (Tuesday night) was a great night for the pro-life movement," said Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life reacting to Tuesday night's election results. "New pro-life governors, representatives, senators, and state legislators across the nation have won victories."

Brad Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute said: "America sent a loud and clear message at the polls yesterday. Voters said that President Obama's pro-abortion agenda-the most pro-abortion in history-is taking our nation in the wrong direction."

Americans United for Life (AUL) Action which ran over 5,000 radio ads as part of their effort to get out the pro-life vote cheered the results. "During the debate over the health care bill, we urged Members of Congress to reject taxpayer-funded abortion," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, AUL Action. "Yesterday, eleven politicians learned that Life Counts, and voters elected a new Congress committed to defending Life."

"We are grateful to the Lord that so many Americans voted in accordance with their well-formed consciences, choosing candidates who are more likely to protect life and family," said Human Life International President Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula.  "After the disappointing results of the previous election, it is very encouraging to see that American citizens are returning to the foundational values of the nation."

Family Research Council Action was very pleased that many of the candidates they endorsed were elected with a 100% re-election rate for those who scored 100% on FRC Action's scorecard. "Tonight's election results points to the significant impact of the natural alliance between the Tea Party, social conservatives, and other Americans disillusioned by Washington's politics as usual," said FRC Action President Tony Perkins.

Pro-Life women had much to celebrate with four female pro-life Governors elected and the entrance of the first pro-life woman into the current Senate. 

"Kelly Ayotte fills a major void in Congress as the U.S. Senate currently lacks a single woman's pro-life voice," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List which supported Ayotte's campaign. "She represents the flowering of the original pro-life roots of the women's movement which rejected the notion that the rights of unborn children and their mothers could be detached.

Concerned Women for America called last night "a good night for concerned women." Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, stated: "Conservative women spoke loud and clear in the 2010 elections. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee led efforts to mobilize behind principled candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio in the Senate and Vickie Hartzler and Kristi Noem and many others in the House.

The celebratory mood however has not dampened the fighting spirit of the leaders.  FRC Action's Perkins said that "Voters will now look to the newly elected GOP-led House of Representatives to restore the Constitution to its proper role and fulfill its pledge to ' honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.'"

Fr. Pavone urged supporters: "Now let's communicate with and encourage our newly-elected officials, and work with them on the specific initiatives that will need our help.  And let the work begin to make even greater progress in 2012. Sign up at PoliticalResponsibility.com."

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), is urging the new Congress to repeal President Obama's flawed healthcare package. "Most Americans have said they want ObamaCare repealed," said ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow.  "And, now with a sweeping change in Congress, it's time to do just that. The fact is with the outcome of this election - along with growing opposition to ObamaCare - this is the perfect time to act legislatively and repeal the health care law."

Msgr. Barreiro noted that despite the victories "we need to remain vigilant: the newly-elected pro-life members of Congress must act in coherence with the promises they made during their campaigns. Also these results show, particularly with regard to the Senate results, that we have to continue our efforts to preach in season and out of season the Gospel of Life because it is evident that many Americans continue to be closed to the light of the truth."

Mattes pointed out in a conversation with LifeSiteNews that in addition to major victories in Congress and among Governors, many pro-life members of state legislatures were elected. "All of this should give Planned Parenthood heartburn," said Mattes referring to the fact that a growing number of PP affiliates are suspected of financial fraud regarding overbilling Medicaid for abortion and family planning services.

In Wisconsin new pro-life majorities were elected in the state Senate and state Assembly as well as a pro-life governor and lieutenant governor. "We congratulate Governor-elect Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor-elect Rebecca Kleefisch on their outstanding victories, victories for Wisconsin's preborn children and the vulnerable elderly and disabled," said Mary Matuska, president of the Pro-Life Wisconsin (PLW) Victory Fund political action committee (PAC).

Similarly in Ohio pro-life candidates swept each and every statewide office. Furthermore, pro-life Ohioans elected new members of Ohio's congressional delegation committed to defending Life.  ORTL PAC distributed 500,000 ballot cards statewide and made tens of thousands of automated calls in key races among other activities.

Ohio Right to Life PAC's Mike Gonidakis pointed out that five ORTL PAC Congressional candidates defeated incumbents who voted for Obamacare.  ORTL was also proud to announce that their own pro-life Congressman John Boehner, will be the next Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

Contact: John-Henry Westen
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Massive Pro-Life Blowout in US Governor Races

   

Pro-life candidates made a massive sweep of U.S. governor's races on Tuesday's midterm elections, capitalizing on the GOP wave.

Pro-life-endorsed candidates have so far picked up 12 governorships, and retained control of 9 governorships. At least three races involving pro-life candidates are undecided.

The 13 pro-life pick-ups (winner in bold):

Alabama – Robert Bentley (R) 58 percent vs. Ron Sparks (D) 42 percent.

Florida - Rick Scott (R) 49 percent vs. Alex Sink (D) 48 percent.

Iowa: Terry Branstadt (R) 53 percent vs. Chet Culver (D) 43 percent.

Kansas: Sam Brownback (R) 63 percent vs. Tom Holland (D) 32 percent.

Maine: Paul LePage (R) 38 percent vs. Eliot Cutler (I) 37 percent vs. Libby Mitchell (D) 19 percent.

Michigan: Rick Snyder (R)  58 percent vs. Virg Bernero (D) 40 percent.

New Mexico: Susana Martinez (R) 54 percent vs. Diane Denish (D) 46 percent.

Ohio: John Kasich (R) 49 percent vs. Ed Strickland (D) 47 percent.

Oklahoma: Mary Fallin (R) 60 percent vs. Jari Askins (D) 40 percent.

Pennsylvania: Tom Corbett (R) 55 percent vs. Dan Onorato (D) 45 percent.

Tennessee: Bill Haslam (R) 65 percent vs. Mike McWherter (D) 33 percent.

Wisconsin: Scott Walker (R) 52 percent vs. Tom Barrett (D) 47 percent.

Wyoming: Matt Mead (R) 72 percent vs. Leslie Petersen (D) 25 percent.


The nine (9) retained pro-life seats (winner in bold)

Alaska: Sean Parnell (R) 59 percent vs. Ethan Berkowitz (D) 38 percent.

Arizona: Jan Brewer (R) re-elected. Brewer 55 percent vs. Terry Goddard (D) 42 percent.

Georgia: Nathan Deal (R) replaces Sonny Purdue (R). Deal 53 percent vs. Roy Barnes (D) 43 percent.

Idaho: Butch Otter (R) re-elected. Otter 59 percent v. Keith Allred (D) 33 percent.

Nebraska: Dave Heineman (R) re-elected. Heineman 74 percent vs. Mike Meister (D) 26 percent.

South Carolina: Nikki Haley (R) replaces the disgraced Mark Sanford (R). Haley 51 percent vs. Vincent Sheheen (D) 47 percent.

South Dakota: Dennis Daugaard (R) replaces Mike Rounds (R). Daugaard 62 percent vs. Scott Heidepriem (D) 39 percent.

Texas: Rick Perry (R) re-elected. Perry 55 percent vs. Bill White (D) 42 percent.

Utah: Gary Herbert (R) re-elected. Herbert 64 percent v. Peter Corroon (D) 32 percent.


Undecided races for pro-life candidates: Illinois, Minnesota

Only U.S. State where a pro-abortion Republican has won: Nevada.

Pro-abortion Brian Sandoval (R) 53 percent v. Rory Reid (D) 42 percent.

Undecided races for pro-abortion candidates: Oregon.

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