Rotary Club International
The Planned Parenthood watchdog organization Life Decisions International has urged Rotary Club of Walla Walla (RCWW) to cancel a planned event titled, "Serving Our Community With Vital Health Care -- Planned Parenthood," which is scheduled for February 10, 2011. The speaker for the event will be Anna Franks, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho.
"We are not surprised that a Rotary Club is involved with Planned Parenthood," said Kenneth C. Garvey, director of communications for Life Decisions International. "But we continue to be appalled by the increasingly close relationship between the two pro-population-control groups."
In 2007, Life Decisions International published a report showing that Rotary International funds pro-abortion UNICEF, allows its chapters to fund abortion-committing Planned Parenthood, and works closely with the rabidly pro-abortion and pro-population-control UNFPA. Moreover Rotary's intense fascination with and promotion of population control from within its own organization through the Rotarian Fellowship for Population & Development is exposed. Titled, "Rotary's Dance With Death: Population Control Agenda And Ties To Pro-Abortion Groups Eclipse Good Works," the report specifically refutes the disingenuous statements made by Rotary officials in their absurd attempts to make people believe Rotary is not involved in such controversial and highly distressing activities.
The report concludes with these words: "It is impossible for any person with an intact conscience to turn a blind eye to Rotary's ungodly associations and population control works. One may offer up any excuse or justification he or she desires, but there is no way that anyone who truly cares about human life, born and preborn, could be associated with Rotary International. No way whatsoever."
"Rotary has been in bed with Planned Parenthood on many occasions," Garvey said. "We suggest that Rotary protect itself from further denunciation by canceling the event scheduled for February 2011."
RCWW is headed by Pedrito Maynard-Reid, who holds a doctorate in theology. Maynard-Reid once studied at Fuller Theological Seminary. The Seminary's "Purpose and Mission Beyond the Mission" states, "We aim to participate in other concerns that rightly evoke the attention of many Christians [including] the cavalier attitude toward human life which has encouraged the frightening rise in abortions."
Maynard-Reid is currently a professor of biblical studies at Walla Walla University (WWU), which is associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church (SDAC). Its official policy on abortion makes it clear that the SDAC is not pro-life: "The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships. Therefore, any attempts to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom."
Life Decisions International urges pro-life advocates, especially those who are, for now, Rotarians, to contact RCWW and strongly urge that the event be canceled. It is advisable that all pro-life people, particularly those who intend to contact RCWW, read the aforementioned report.
Contact: Dr. Pedrito Maynard-Reid, President, Rotary Club of Walla Walla, P.O. Box 418, Walla Walla, WA 99362; Phone: (509) 529-0135.
Please send a copy to Mr. David W. Hull, President-Elect, at the same address.
Source: Life Decisions International Publish Date: November 18, 2010
Vermont Governor-elect Peter Shumlin (D)
Doctor assisted suicideFollowing the campaign promise of Governor-elect Peter Shumlin (D), Vermont is again a target for passage of legislation that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide.
Mary Hahn Beerworth of the Vermont Right to Life Committee recalls Shumlin's past pro-euthanasia speeches in which he expressed his belief that the government should not come between patients and their doctors. So she expects Shumlin to deliver on his pledge.
"He's been quoted a number of occasions as saying that he will, in fact, get that done, get it into law in the first part of 2011," Beerworth notes. "He has a terrible attitude toward vulnerable people and has kind of got a sneering sort of attitude toward those who are no longer 'productive,' as he calls it."
Mary Hahn Beerworth (Vermont Right to Life Committee)She thinks Vermont residents have every reason to believe the situation in the state is dire as she suspects there are enough votes in the House and Senate to pass Shumlin's legislation and have it on the governor's desk by March. But the pro-lifer assures that will not happen without a fight, even though some members are unconvinced that people will be at risk.
"They're clearly aware that people who do not want to die will die, and they seem to be immune from that kind of compassionate plea for those who are in a weak state, who are susceptible to be bullied by relatives or friends into suicide," Beerworth laments. "It falls on deaf ears for those who are intent on having this option."
The battle against assisted suicide in Vermont will begin when the legislature is gaveled into session in January.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: November 15, 2010
The Appellate Division of the Alameda Superior Court has dismissed all criminal charges against Oakland pro-life witness Pastor Walter Hoye.
Hoye was arrested in May of 2008, charged, found guilty and imprisoned for peacefully counseling and picketing at a local abortion clinic.
He was charged under a 2008 City of Oakland bubble zone ordinance, which prohibits pro-life protesters outside abortion facilities from standing within 8 feet of women seeking abortions. His lawyers claimed the bubble zone ordinance was enacted for the sole purpose of keeping Hoye away from the Oakland abortuary and was an infringement on his constitutional right of free speech.
In January 2009, Hoye was found guilty of two counts of unlawfully approaching women entering an abortion facility, a misdemeanor enshrined in city law the previous spring.
At the sentencing hearing, Judge Stuart Hing of the Alameda Superior Court stated that would not impose any fine or jail time on Rev. Hoye if he would agree to stay away from the abortion facility. Rev. Hoye refused these terms.
Judge Hing then imposed a 30-day jail sentence, a $1130 fine, and also ordered him to stay one hundred yards away from the abortion facility for three years.
In August 2009, an appeal by Hoye to federal court failed when U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Oakland's bubble zone ordinance was constitutional. He said the law protects access to health care, while also allowing protesters to express their opinion.
At the time, one of Hoye's lawyers, Michael Millen of the Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF), announced his intention to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit appellate court, and commented on Judge Breyer's decision.
"It is now illegal to stand still on the sidewalk and extend your arm to hand out a piece of literature," he said. "I don't think the Ninth Circuit is going to buy it."
"Mark this day down," he continued. "On this day, a federal court judge ruled that it is constitutional to put someone in jail for a year for holding out a hand with a leaflet."
Three months ago, the appellate court overturned Pastor Hoye's criminal conviction for violating Oakland's law restricting sidewalk counseling. In its published verdict, the appellate court agreed with Hoye's attorneys that the trial court had erred, and granted Hoye a new trial.
The case was remitted back to the trial court on September 24. However, in the appellate court's decision, Hoye was to have been brought to trial within thirty days of that date. When the time lapsed, attorney Millen asked the court to dismiss the case.
The Alameda County District Attorney's Office agreed with Millen's evaluation of the case and the court promptly ordered all charges against Hoye dismissed.
"We are pleased that Pastor Hoye is no longer under threat of further prosecution on these charges," said Katie Short, Legal Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, in a press release.
Short cautioned, however, that, "This is only one side of the battle. We now await the Ninth Circuit's decision on our constitutional challenge to the ordinance under which he was prosecuted."
A decision in the federal case is expected in the next few months.
Rev. Hoye told reporters that he is overjoyed at the decision and is looking forward to resuming his life-saving sidewalk witness at the Oakland abortuary.
Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 16, 2010
The Ohio Elections Commission announced today that defeated U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, withdrew his election complaint against the Susan B. Anthony (SBA List) – a national, pro-life advocacy organization that seeks to affect public policy.
Driehaus claimed that SBA List falsely accused him of voting for taxpayer funding of abortion when he cast his vote for President Obama's health care law.
The three-member commission panel said it found probable cause to investigate the charges and scheduled a Dec. 2 hearing. With Driehaus' withdrawal, the case likely will be dismissed.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president and CEO of SBA List, said that today's announcement is a bittersweet victory.
"Despite his efforts, Rep. Driehaus could not avoid facing the consequences of his health care vote at the ballot box," she said. "On Election Day, Driehaus' constituents sent a clear message by siding with the SBA List and voting him out of office."
Dannenfelser added that they will continue to pursue a federal lawsuit challenging the state's law.
"We remain gravely concerned," she said, "that the statute allowing Rep. Driehaus to launch his complaint … can be used to silence free speech again."
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 16, 2010
State's Attorney Birch Burdick has announced that he will not file criminal charges against an abortionist Lori Lynn Thorndike, who committed illegal abortions at the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, while her medical license was lapsed.
Brudick used abortion clinic rhetoric word for word by describing Thorndike's licensing issues as "an administrative oversight" and noted that she had active medical licenses in South Dakota and Colorado at the time she was doing abortions on a lapsed license in North Dakota.
"North Dakota laws are very explicit. It is a Class B Felony to commit abortions in that state without a valid North Dakota medical license. Burdick has decided all on his own that the laws of North Dakota that were enacted for the protection of vulnerable women should not be enforced," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger.
Sullenger also received a letter today from the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners Executive Secretary Duane Houdek, dated November 9, 2010, informing her, "At this point we are soliciting additional information regarding the complaint against Dr. Thorndike. All of this information will be forwarded to the members of one of the Board's investigative panels who will decide whether formal proceedings should be brought against this physician."
The letter went on to say that the matter would be discussed at a meeting of the Board scheduled for November 18, 2010. However, the day after the letter was written, the Board unilaterally decided to reinstate Thorndike's license without a hearing of the Board, and has since equivocated on whether or not the matter will be brought up at the referenced meetings.
"There is obviously some kind of monkey business at work in North Dakota. In this case, no one is saying that Thorndike did not break the law. They simply refuse to enforce the laws that were broken," said Sullenger.
"When authorities give abortion abuses a wink and a nod, it only serves to reinforce the dangerous notion that is prevalent among abortionists that they are above the law," said Sullenger. "Allowing abortionists to break the law without consequences creates an atmosphere that opens the door to further abuses that eventually cost women their health and sometimes their lives. Burdick and Houdek will have a lot to answer for when - not if - their lack of good judgment comes back to haunt the women of North Dakota."
Contact: Troy Newman
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: November 17, 2010
Surgical abortion clinics continue to close at a rate of nearly two per month
Two notorious abortion mills have closed or are scheduled to close, contributing to the national trend of clinic closures first documented by Operation Rescue last year in "Project Daniel 5:25."
In Yakima, Washington, the Cedar Women's Clinic, which was the first abortion clinic to open in that city 31 years ago, closed Monday due to a dramatic decrease in the demand for abortions. According to statistics kept by the state, the abortion rate for women ages 15 to 44 dropped from 18 per 1,000 in 2008 to 16.7 per 1,000 in 2009. One abortion clinic remains in Yakima.
In Michigan, Womancare of Downriver in Southgate owned by the troubled owner, abortionist Alberto Hodari, is currently in escrow to a physician whose practice does not include abortions. Once escrow closes, so will the abortion clinic.
One woman, Jennifer McCoy, is particularly relieved that Hodari's Southgate abortion clinic has been tentatively sold. That was where she says Hodari forced an abortion on her when she was 16-years old. "That clinic will never do another abortion again," she said.
All of Hodari's six Detroit area abortion clinics were put up for sale last year. Hodari appeared to be liquidating his assets so he could leave the country after repeated complaints, fines, and lawsuits have recently overwhelmed him.
The closures continue a national trend of decreasing numbers of abortion clinics. Operation Rescue conducted extensive research and documented that over two-thirds of America's abortion clinics have closed since 1991, when there were over 2,100 clinics nationwide.
"When we released our 'Project Daniel 5:25' listing of all remaining surgical abortion clinics in the United States last December, there were 713. Today, counting the Southgate mill, which will soon close, there are only 694," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "That great news for women and their pre-born babies."
Twenty abortion clinics have closed in the past 11 months at a rate of nearly 2 per month.
Operation Rescue maintains the most accurate listing of abortion clinics available on its Project Daniel 5:25 page. The project was named after the Biblical story of Daniel, who was able to read the handwriting on the wall and predict the fall of a wicked kingdom.
As a new feature, Operation Rescue has added names of some abortionists to the clinic list with links to documentation of their legal problems and abortion abuses.
"Government funding continues to artificially prop up a failing abortion industry. Without tax-funding, more of these clinics would fold," said Sullenger. "Until we can encode legal protections for the pre-born, we must work to expose and defund the abortion industry. Closing clinics is a proven way to reduce abortions and save lives."
Contact: Troy Newman
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: November 17, 2010
Addressing the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Preventive Services for Women on November 16, Deirdre McQuade, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, urged that contraception and sterilization be excluded from the list of "preventive services" that insurance companies will be compelled to provide free of charge, without copayments, under the health care legislation passed in March.
While the Obama administration has not included contraception and sterilization in the list of preventive services in its "Interim Final Rules," Planned Parenthood is lobbying for their inclusion.
"The Conference has a particular concern that contraceptives and sterilization not be mandated as 'preventive' services," said McQuade. "To prevent pregnancy is not to prevent a disease—indeed, contraception and sterilization pose their own unique and serious health risks to women and adolescents. In addition, contraceptives and sterilization are morally problematic for many stakeholders, including religiously-affiliated health care providers and insurers."
"Use of prescription contraception actually increases a woman's risk of developing some of the very conditions that the 'preventive services' listed in the Interim Final Rules are designed to prevent, such as stroke, heart attacks and blood clots (especially for women who also smoke), so a policy mandating contraceptive services as 'preventive services' would be in contradiction with itself," she continued, adding:
Currently, such employers and insurance issuers [who object to contraception and sterilization] are completely free under federal law to purchase and offer health coverage that excludes these procedures. They would lose this freedom of conscience under a mandate for all plans to offer contraception and sterilization coverage.
Thus the Administration's promise that Americans who like their current coverage will be able to keep it under health care reform would become a hollow pledge.
Source: CWNews.com
Publish Date: November 17, 2010
If the hotly debated Proposition 8 in California is overturned by the judicial system, the cultural impact of defeating the traditional marriage initiative will be "akin to Roe v. Wade," said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz at the ongoing fall bishops' meeting.
Archbishop Kurtz, who is the Chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage and Family Life, made his comments Nov. 15 at the bishops' three-day fall assembly in Baltimore, Maryland.
During his remarks, the archbishop asserted that if Prop. 8 – which is expected to reach the Supreme Court – is struck down, "the decision will have a moral, legal and cultural impact" similar to the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.
"In our nation we find ourselves at a moment of great opportunity but also great consequence," he said.
"The urgency of our priority to promote, protect and strengthen marriage has not abated," he said, noting that over the last year, attempts to redefine marriage have moved from the state level to the federal level.
"So, in a sense, today is like 1970 for marriage," he said. "If, in 1970, you knew that Roe v. Wade were coming in two or three years, what would you have done differently?"
"And so now, the vital question that stands before all of us in this country is: What will we do for marriage?"
Archbishop Kurtz then recalled the Pope's visit to the U.S. in 2008, where the Pontiff "summoned us to remember our duty as bishops" and to "boldly" proclaim and uphold the institution of marriage – defined as between one man and one woman.
The Ad Hoc committee, he noted, "seeks to assist this proclamation."
Briefly updating the bishops on the recent work of the committee in conjunction with Knights of Columbus, the archbishop discussed the launching of their "Marriage: Unique for a reason" instructional campaign, including video and booklets.
A short video from the next series on the topic of marriage's benefits for children called "Made for Life" was also screened at the conference.
"Brothers," he told his fellow bishops, "our proclamation makes a difference. Even recent polling indicates this difference, as those who go to church every Sunday are more likely to support the true meaning of marriage."
"And this support has remained steady, despite the challenges of our culture," he emphasized.
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Publish Date: November 16, 2010
Are Medicare director Don Berwick and the Obama administration delaying or denying patients access to medical innovations? That's a question the Senate's Finance Committee should ask Berwick, who heads up the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), when he testifies November 17.
The timing couldn't be better. Medicare won't pay for Provenge, the first cancer vaccine, since it was approved in April. It's waiting for the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) -- also meeting on the 17th -- to decide whether the Food and Drug Administration, the National Cancer Institute, and cancer experts are right in supporting Provenge use for prostate cancer patients.
MEDCAC was established in 1998 so CMS could ask leading scientists and doctors to recommend what information should be collected to determine the best use of new technologies. But recently MEDCAC has -- under CMS direction -- begun evaluating whether innovations are cost-effective.
In November 2008 Medicare bureaucrats asked MEDCAC: At current Medicare prices, how confident are you that CTC has a similar ratio of cost per LYS (Life Years Saved) as optical colonoscopy? In 2009 CMS asked MEDCAC: What are the desirable measures of the cost-effectiveness of screening genetic tests for the prevention or early detection of illness or disability? By 2010 CMS was simply asking MEDCAC whether CMS should cover new technologies unless there was evidence of its cost and clinical effectiveness from long and expensive studies. As one speaker at a MEDCAC hearing about genetic tests noted, "if clinical outcomes as defined… become[] a requirement for reimbursement, it will reduce investment in new genetic tests and the market introduction of these tests, and ultimately their use. "
That's the goal. But given Provenge's high profile, asking about its cost-effectiveness would be controversial. Since the one-time treatment runs about $90,000, CMS thought it could ask if Provenge was effective without mentioning cost. Hence, Dr. Louis Jacques, the director of the Coverage and Analysis Group at Medicare, told Forbes: "We've been getting questions from people," says Jacques. "'Well, what's up with Provenge? Is it a drug? Is it a biologic? Is it something else? Does it really work? It has been interesting to look at the evidence around it."
Does it really work?!
Maybe Dr. Jacques didn't get the memo about the FDA approving Provenge. The FDA said Provenge "substantially improved survival to patients with a fatal disease. The risks… are minor relative to the benefit of improved survival." Or perhaps he didn't see the May 6 National Cancer Institute statement asserting: "The field of cancer immunotherapy received an important boost last week with the FDA's approval" of Provenge. On May 29 the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Drugs & Biologics Compendium added Provenge to its list of standard therapies. On June 15 Aetna said it would cover Provenge.
Federal law requires that CMS cover any cancer drug approved by the FDA or NCCN compendium therapy. Instead, on June 30, an anonymous individual requested that CMS hold a MEDCAD hearing on Provenge before it covered the drug. CMS immediately accepted the query from the secretive party. Perhaps the Finance Committee can find out who that was.
MEDCAC will render its decision based on a just released evaluation of the FDA data conducted by the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ). AHRQ tried to pretend it wasn't second-guessing the FDA and the NIH. In October, the report name was changed on AHRQ's website from "The Efficacy and Safety of Sipuleucel T" (Provenge) to "The Outcomes of Sipuleucel T." The reviewers determined the FDA data used to approve Provenge was "adequate" but not entirely convincing. You might wonder: What expertise in prostate cancer did the authors use to draw to that conclusion? The answer is none unless you count nursing, a master's degree in statistics, or a PhD in sociology. Apparently CMS believes AHRQ's collective wisdom towers over the oncology expertise of the FDA, NCI, and NCCN.
The AHRQ report understates the impact of Provenge on survival. First, it begrudges the fact that many patients receiving chemotherapy after taking Provenge live longer. It focuses on the median survival benefit of 4.5 months (which tells you the midpoint of patient survival but not how many patients lived longer and for how long). Then it raises doubts about safety. And finally the study glosses over the finding that terminal prostate cancer patients who received Provenge were 40 percent more likely to be alive in three years than those who did not receive it. The AHRQ report is ideology masquerading as medical facts. The routine and expanding using of AHRQ to guide life or death decisions undermines the legitimacy of real science.
MEDCAC meets this week but CMS can take months to decide. This callous and possibly illegal process reflects Berwick's stated belief that only a centralized entity should decide what's best for us. People with prostate cancer have died and will die waiting. If that's not a death panel, I don't know what is.
Contact: Robert M. GoldbergSource: The American Spectator
Publish Date: November 16, 2010
Well, that's all they have left to do.
The Feminist Majority Foundation released a remarkably indicting statement today.
Entitled, "Unintended pregnancies linked to ineffective contraception use," it admits "many" baby-averse but sexually active females don't use the contraceptives they know they should or are sloppy or lazy about them. Well, that's not quite how FMF put it…
A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of over 7,000 women revealed that many women, despite their desire to avoid pregnancy, fail to use birth control or do so improperly and ineffectively. The CDC reports that approximately 50% of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.
Though oral contraception is 92-99% effective when used correctly, many women who rely on this method fail to take the pill consistently – at the same time everyday. Similarly, condoms are reported to be about have a 95% effectiveness rate, but their actual effectiveness is about 85% due to frequent improper usage.
FMF links to a CDC report that indicates by "many" it actually meant "darn near all":
In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended…. [M]ost women of reproductive age use birth control. In 2002, 98% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one method of birth control. However, 7.4% of women who were currently at risk of unintended pregnancy were not using a contraceptive method.
If half of all pregnancies are accidents, but 98% of sexually active females not only know about but have demonstrated they can use contraceptives, then only 2% of unintended pregnancies are of mothers who are completely ignorant about contraception. These would have to include young girls who are victims of rape and incest.
What, unintended pregnancies are not entirely the fault of abstinence education, or mostly, or even somewhat? Rather, they're predominantly the fault of usually unmarried (83%) young women (18-29) who have been taught how to be sexually active but lack the maturity or wherewithal to protect themselves?
The CDC adds:
Since 2000, several new methods of birth control have become available in the US, including the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, the hormonal contraceptive patch, the hormonal contraceptive ring, the hormonal implant, a 91-day regimen of oral contraceptives, two new barrier methods, and a new form of female sterilization.
So there is a wide array of contraceptive options available, something for everyone.
One other point. Guttmacher states "about half" of abortions are repeats. So its post-abortive comprehensive sex ed is also a pathetic failure – at least 50%, not counting mothers becoming accidentally pregnant again who decide against an abortion redo.
Now Planned Parenthood is spearheading a drive for a government panel to declare contraceptives "preventive" medicine, so they'll be provided free as part of Obamacare?
Due to the dismal failure of the 1960s contraceptive mentality social experiment, part of the cost of this "preventive" care will have to be employing workers to physically dispense the Pill every day in little cups woman to woman or stand by for condom placement.
Contact: Jill StanekSource: JillStanek.comPublish Date: November 16, 2010
On October 5, pro-life Democrat Congressman Steve Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, accusing the Susan B. Anthony List of planning to erect a fraudulent billboard in opposition to his reelection campaign.
Driehaus claimed the healthcare bill he voted for in March, sans the Stupak Amendment, did not allow taxpayer funding of abortion, as SBA List maintained.
Driehaus's complaint had a chilling effect, causing the billboard company to refuse to post SBA List's sign, below:
SBA List did get its message out alternatively, via a $50,000 radio ad buy as well as loads of free media, and Driehaus went on to lose to Republican pro-life champion Steve Chabot 52-45%.
As an aside, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on SBA List's behalf, writing that Ohio election law was unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, even after Driehaus's loss, his complaint remained – until today.
SBA List has just issued the following press statement. Note that this won't be over until the OEC says its over, and even then it won't be over, because SBA List is going to go after this unconstitutional Ohio election law in federal court, which is wonderful:
Today, the Susan B. Anthony List responded to Rep. Steve Driehaus' (OH-01) request for withdrawal of his Ohio Elections Commission complaint against the SBA List. The OEC has been scheduled a hearing for Thursday, December 2 to consider Driehaus' request. SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:
"Rep. Driehaus' decision to withdraw his complaint is a victory for the SBA List and for truth. The SBA List will not object to Rep. Driehaus withdrawing his complaint as we do not want to spend additional time and resources defending what the public already knows to be true – that the health care bill funds abortions with taxpayer dollars. Rep. Driehaus used an Ohio criminal statute to ensure that billboards stating the truth about his vote in favor of the pro-abortion health care bill were never erected. Despite his efforts, Rep. Driehaus could not avoid facing the consequences of his health care vote at the ballot box. On Election Day, Driehaus' constituents sent a clear message by siding with the SBA List and voting him out of office.
"The SBA List remains gravely concerned that the statute allowing Rep. Driehaus to launch his complaint – and which cost the SBA List tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees – remains law and can be used to silence free speech again. The ACLU of Ohio's amicus brief called the law 'vague and overbroad,' and said 'it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.' The ACLU of Ohio went on to argue that 'the people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.' The SBA List will continue to pursue its federal case to declare the law unconstitutional in an effort to protect future speech."
Rep. Steve Driehaus filed a complaint with the OEC on Tuesday, October 6, 2010 alleging that the SBA List falsely accused him of voting for taxpayer funding of abortion as a result of his vote in support of health care legislation. The complaint was spurred by the SBA List's intention to put up four billboards in his congressional district. Rep. Driehaus' attorney convinced Lamar Companies to not to put up the billboards in order to avoid being added to the complaint. The OEC's staff attorney recommended that Driehaus' complaint be dismissed, but a probable cause panel of the Commission voted 2 to 1 to hold a full hearing to decide if SBA List broke Ohio law by putting false statements on its billboards. On October 20, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed an Amicus Brief in support of the SBA List's case. The billboards were never erected.
On October 19, the SBA List announced a $50,000 radio ad buy across Rep. Driehaus' district to spread its message and, on November 2, Steve Driehaus lost his re-election bid. The OEC must now formally accept Driehaus' request in order for the complaint to be officially dismissed. A hearing has been set for Thursday, December 2.
Contact: Jill StanekSource: JillStanek.comPublish Date: November 16, 2010
Today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Pat Buckley, lobbying on behalf of SPUC, was once again in the forefront of the struggle against abortion and in leading efforts to uphold solemn international human rights agreements which defend the right to life from conception until natural death.
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) during its 45th session (1 – 19 November 2010), held a Day of General Discussion (DGD) on the right to sexual and reproductive health in accordance with articles 12 and 10 (2) of the Covenant. The day was to provide an opportunity to exchange views and to garner insights from practitioners and academic experts. The day consisted of four panels on the following themes:
1. Definitions and elements of the right to sexual and reproductive health;
2. Cross-cutting issues and groups in focus;
3. Legal aspects and State obligations; and
4. Conclusions.
Pat Buckley was present at this meeting, having travelled from New York where he has been working flat out on behalf of the unborn for three weeks. Several weeks earlier Pat had submitted a paper to the CESCR outlining SPUC's position:
"The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) asserts that the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has no authority under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to issue a general comment on the right to sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, even if the CESCR did possess such authority pursuant to the ICESCR, a right to sexual and reproductive health does not encompass a right to abortion."
Pat gave a telephone interview to SPUC headquarters in London about the proceedings of this meeting. Far from being a balanced and fair exchange of views, Pat told us that:
"4 panels spoke during the meeting. Three panels had 3 speakers, and one panel had 2 speakers. They were all pro-abortion. The panels were completely unbalanced. This is the sort of thing that brings the UN into disrepute. The vast majority of the NGOs who spoke were pro-life."
Pat told us that, due to time constraints;
"I didn't have time to present the whole statement. I wanted to underline the right to life of the unborn, so I presented these sections (emboldened below) as the most important."
At the time of writing this post, the day of comment is still underway. Pat will be reporting further on this meeting and the final outcomes. We are very grateful to Pat and fellow pro-life NGOs who are speaking up boldly and unequivocally in defence of the unborn and their fundamental and inherent right to life. Below is Pat's statement in full:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick Buckley, I represent the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have already submitted a paper on behalf of my organisation challenging the right of this committee to draw up a general comment on a term not used in the carefully crafted wording of the Convention.
We say in addition that the right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death, is protected in the bill of rights consisting of the UN Charter, the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the subsequently enacted Covenants and other legally binding Conventions.
We also say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognizes human rights during the entire pre-natal period of life.
First the preamble of the CRC expressly says that children need rights while they are in the pre-natal period of their life-cycle and this follows on from the original 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child:
"the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."
* The CRC having used the term child in its preamble in respect of a human life before as well as after birth in Article 1 defines the word child as all "human beings" who are under 18 years of age (unless the State sets a lower age limit).
* The right to health, in Article 24 is for the benefit of the child who is the rights holder under the convention and expressly gives children rights during the entire pre-natal period.
* When Article 1 is read in the light of Article 24, "human being" covers children during the entire pre-natal period, that is to say, from conception onwards. Article 24 reads:
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest atainable standard of health …
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: …
(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal … health care for mothers." (Article 24; italics and underlining added.)
The child is the right-holder of the right to pre-natal care, not the mother, according to the text of Article 24: States Parties recognize the right of the child … to pre-natal … care.
* The fact that the text says "pre-natal …health care for mothers" (emphasis added) does not convert the right into the right of the mother. By definition, pre-natal care is medical care that is delivered to the mother's body. The care to the child is delivered through actions directed at the mother's body.
In other words, the child has the right to have health care given to his or her mother, for the purpose of ensuring the child's well-being.
We also say that it is the duty of this committee to implement this Convention in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which sets out interpretive norms for all treaties.
Article 31 of the VCLT says: "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."
In other words, attention must be paid to the actual text of the treaty and, as an aid to interpretation, to its surrounding context.
We say that there is no such right as a right to abortion, no right to take innocent human life and there never can be such a right. We also call on this Committee to reject pressure from powerful international organizations, which derive huge financial benefit from the taking of human life.
Finally we reiterate that this committee is not empowered to reinterpret the terms of the Convention and we further assert that there is no room for ideological crusades on the part of the Committee in attempting to expand the scope of the convention whilst ignoring the plight of the most vulnerable human beings, babies once conceived and awaiting birth.
The nation's largest abortion provider is begging for funding -- and one pro-life activist sees a silver lining in that.
In the wake of a conservative tide brought on in the midterm elections, Planned Parenthood pressed its supporters to make an emergency donation as CEO Cecile Richards asked constituents to help fight against the "dangerous politicians who oppose women's health and the right to choose." But former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List is encouraged that Planned Parenthood feels threatened.
Marilyn Musgrave (former Colorado congresswoman)"I think they need to be concerned because I think the pro-life people of this country and pro-life leaders are moving forward every day, and I'm very encouraged that we have had a very successful election," she shares.
Republicans ushered in a large number of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage freshman officials on November 2, and Musgrave says the economic crisis is creating a turning point in the battle for the sanctity of life as taxpayers are revolting against the reckless spending of their hard-earned money.
"Americans are really disgusted with overspending in Washington, and I think that shines a bright light...on taxpayer dollars and what they are being used for," she suggests. "Americans do not want their tax dollars going to provide abortion."
The former congresswoman is excited to see that a majority of women and young people are choosing to take a stand for life in the midst of an administration with the most pro-abortion president. So she predicts the next election cycle will bring more pro-life individuals into the House and Senate, and it may even result in a pro-life president.
Contact: Becky YehSource: OneNewsNowPublish Date: November 15, 2010
There have been very bad results in the past using fetal neural cells to treat human maladies–particularly with Parkinson's disease. But scientists still believe that fetal stem cells could hold promise for treating neurological conditions, and so after successful animal studies, researchers in the UK are conducting a human safety trial on using fetal stem cells as a treatment for stroke. From the story:
Doctors have injected stem cells into a man's brain as part of the world's first clinical trial of the cells in stroke patients. The former truck driver, who is in his 60s, was severely disabled by a stroke 18 months ago and requires continuous care from his wife. Doctors injected around two million cells into a healthy region of his brain called the putamen, close to where neurons were damaged by the stroke. They hope the injected cells will release chemicals that stimulate new brain cells and blood vessels to grow, while healing scar tissue and reducing inflammation.
What to make of this ethically? It's difficult, but I don't believe using fetal tissue is inherently wrong.
For me, using human cadaver cells–when the cadaver was not killed for the purpose of obtaining those cells–is not the same morally as ending human life in order to obtain the material. In other words, it is not using human life as an object, a mere natural resource. In this regard, it seems no different than organ transplantation. (We see the same issues presented in fetal cells used in the creation of some vaccines.)
Some will say that the fetal cells came from an abortion, and therefore, should never be used. That charge is probably, but may not be, true. It could have been from a miscarriage. But the (im)morality of one act, it seems to me, should not be conflated with the morality of the other.
Assume you believe abortion is akin to murder and utterly unjustified. Using that analogy, would you say that a murder victim's organs should not be transplanted? If not, how is using the tissue of the aborted fetus different? The two acts–cause of death and use of cadaver tissue–it seems to me, are distinct. Thus, one can support outlawing murder and abortion, and still accept the use of the cadaver body for beneficial purposes so long as the two events were transactionally unconnected.
Down the road though, we could see a different scenario. Fetal farming, e.g., creating cloned fetuses and gestating them for the purpose of instrumental uses, is already being advocated in some circles. That needs to be resisted at all measures.
Contact: Wesley J. SmithSource: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 16, 2010
Pro-life Democrat North Carolina Congressman Heath Shuler announced on CNN yesterday he would challenge renown pro-abort Nancy Pelosi for the position of House Minority Leader:
Well, obviously if she doesn't step aside then I'm fully aware, I'm going to press forward. You know, I can add and subtract pretty well. I don't have the numbers to be able to win, but I think it's a proven point for moderates and the Democrat Party that we have to be a big tent….
Shuler has acquired an 85% positive rating from National Right to Life. He voted against taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research, supports the Hyde Amendment, and voted for the Stupak Amendment in Obamacare but against the final version that omitted the Stupak amendment.
One other reason to support Shuler? Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards is pushing to retain Pelosi. Richards knows Pelosi brings home the bacon.
The Republican in me wouldn't mind if Pelosi remains visible in the top spot. It could only help our party in 2012.
But the dominant pro-lifer in me knows Shuler would 1) control pro-aborts from pushing their agenda, even in the minority; and 2) grease the skids for pro-life measures.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 15, 2010
Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He said, "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
It was not necessary for Paul Krugman to "clarify" what he meant yesterday, but he took the opportunity to do so anyway on his blog. He wrote that "health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for—not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care." Indeed, he is calling for death panels. In fact, he even characterized his comments on "This Week" by saying that "the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on 'death panels and sales taxes.'" (My emphasis.)
Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning "death panels," almost all of them in a mocking tone. He has spoken of the "death panel smear"; the "death panel lie"; and the "death panel people" as being part of "the lunatic fringe." Similarly, there was a New York Times editorial in September that took to task "the cynical demagoguing about 'death panels.'" Two weeks ago Times columnist Maureen Dowd blasted those who engaged in "their loopy rants on death panels," and one week ago Times columnist Frank Rich talked about "fictions like 'death panels.'"
So it turns out that all along Krugman's ridicule was just a smoke screen: he's wanted death panels from the get-go. Whether he speaks for the editorial board, Dowd and Rich is not certain, but it's time for them to stop the antics and tell the public what they really believe. Krugman has. Catholics, especially the bishops, would love to see them all come clean.
Contact: Jeff Field
Source: The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Publish Date: November 15, 2010
Dramatic gains in the mid-term election have given pro-life advocates hope they can advance favorable legislation through the U.S. House of Representatives in the next congressional session, though the Senate and White House likely still would stand as roadblocks to enactment.
At least 77 of the more than 90 new members of the House "are committed to defending the unborn," said the chamber's pro-life leader, Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, after the Nov. 2 balloting.
The result is "a net shift in the pro-life direction in the House of 40 to 55 votes, depending on the issue," said Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land and Smith described the House's makeup in 2011 in similar terms.
"This will undoubtedly be the most pro-life House since the Roe v. Wade decision," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe invalidated all state laws prohibiting abortion and, in combination with a companion decision titled Doe v. Bolton, effectively legalized the procedure for any reason throughout all stages of pregnancy.
Smith said in a written statement, "January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House EVER."
The chamber's huge swing to the pro-life side was "an unprecedented statement that voters reject taxpayer-funded abortion and want a more conservative, pro-life legislature moving forward," said Penny Nance, chief executive officer of Concerned Women for America.
The No. 1 legislative effort by pro-lifers in the next Congress probably will be a government-wide ban on federal funding and subsidies for abortion known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. The measure would expand the Hyde Amendment, which prevents funds from the Department of Health and Human Services from being used for most abortions.
The Republicans, who may gain as many as 65 House seats when winners are determined in the close races, endorsed the funding ban in their "Pledge to America" document introduced in September.
Smith, the chief sponsor of the bill in this Congress, has 183 cosponsors, with Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois the lead Democrat. The legislation also provides conscience protections for pro-life, health-care workers.
Other legislative targets for pro-lifers include defunding Planned Parenthood Federation of America and repealing the health-care reform law enacted in March.
Planned Parenthood is the country's leading abortion provider. Its affiliates performed more than 324,000 abortions in 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available. It received about $350 million in government grants and contracts during the 2007-08 financial year.
The health-care law has provisions that will enable health care plans that cover abortion to be subsidized.
The net gain for pro-lifers in the Senate -- four to seven votes, Johnson estimated in an analysis for the National Catholic Reporter -- is unlikely to produce victories for new pro-life legislation but could help protect existing pro-life policies, such as the ban on abortions in American military facilities. Republicans gained six seats in the Senate, but the Democratic caucus will still hold the advantage, 53-47.
If pro-life measures reach his desk, President Obama is expected to use his veto power.
Exit polls demonstrated the difference evangelical Christian voters made in electing pro-lifers to Congress, Land said.
"The exit polling shows that 29 percent of all the votes cast in this election were cast by born-again, evangelical conservatives, and they voted 78 percent for Republican candidates," Land said. "And 52 percent of the people who say they are sympathetic to the Tea Party identify as conservative evangelicals. Consequently, the vast percentage of these new congressmen is pro-life, and it will make a real difference when it comes to passing legislation to protect our unborn citizens."
Land cited results from polling by Public Opinion Strategies for the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
In a survey conducted by The Polling Co. and referred to by Johnson:
-- 30 percent of voters said abortion influenced them, and nearly 75 percent of these voters cast ballots for pro-life candidates.
-- 31 percent of voters said abortion funding in the new health-care law affected their vote, and 87 percent of these voters cast ballots for candidates who opposed the law.
Johnson wrote in his analysis, "The take-home lesson, for lawmakers in both parties, could hardly be clearer: If you vote against the pro-life position -- as defined by the mainstream pro-life groups -- on a major abortion-related public policy issue, you will be held accountable by a substantial bloc of the electorate."
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: November 12, 2010
The Gerard Health Foundation today made the much-anticipated announcement of the 2009-2010 winners of its Life Prizes award. The award is granted every year to six individuals or organizations that "have achieved significant progress in promoting the sanctity of human life and are working to protect and preserve it."
The first Life Prizes awards were presented at a ceremony in 2009. This year's winners of the $600,000 prize were chosen by a Selection Advisory Committee from 90 nominations submitted to the Foundation. Members of this Committee include Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Peggy Hartshorn of Heartbeat International; Kay Coles James of the Gloucester Institute; and Jack Willke of Life Issues Institute.
"We are pleased to present the second Life Prizes to such deserving recipients," stated Raymond Ruddy, President of the Gerard Health Foundation. "These six winners are doing some of the pro-life movement's most important work, and it is right to celebrate their sacrifice and dedication. Each of them is an example to follow and we look forward to their future accomplishments in the cause of life."
The $600,000 in prize money will be divided among the following six winners. Each name is followed by a description from Life Prizes for why that individual was selected by the committee:
- Jeanne Head – A force to be reckoned with at the United Nations, Jeanne Head left her career as an obstetrics nurse to fight for the protection of the most vulnerable members of the human family on the international stage. As UN Representative for National Right to Life Educational Trust and a Representative of the International Right to Life Federation, she debates the most politically powerful – from the Oval Office to members of the UN Security Council.
- Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network – In 2005, the world watched as a young woman with disabilities was deprived of food and water by order of a judge. Her family has vowed to fight for the right to life of disabled and vulnerable men and women everywhere, and their Foundation has provided assistance to more than 1,000 families through a national network of resources, support, and medical facilities for the medically-dependent, persons with disabilities, and those incapacitated in life-threatening situations.
- Douglas Johnson – The indispensible man behind all of the greatest pro-life victories in Congress since Roe v. Wade is National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Doug Johnson. His keen strategy and consummate research have served the pro-life movement from behind the scenes for three decades.
- Kristan Hawkins – Young people today are overwhelmingly pro-life, and Students for Life of America and its Executive Director Kristan Hawkins have taken a leading role in engaging young people across the country in pro-life efforts through innovative use of the internet and increasing Students for Life chapters by the hundreds.
- Reverend Alveda King – It is altogether fitting that the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. would become one of the most important leaders in the greatest civil rights battle of our day. As founder of King for America, Dr. Alveda King has been the public face of the pro-life movement in the African American community, speaking and advocating for years against abortion and especially the targeting of African Americans.
- Marie Smith – There is a global pro-abortion agenda and Marie Smith has made it her mission to identify, unite, and strategize with pro-life groups, lawmakers, and religious leaders to advance respect for life in law and policy. Ms. Smith is the Director of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, a non-partisan global outreach of Gospel of Life Ministries.
The awards will be presented at a ceremony held in Washington, DC on Saturday, January 22, 2011.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010
I thought I had heard it all in the ESCR debate. That embryonic stem cells are the "only hope." Wrong! That they don't really come from embryos! Junk biology. That the reason they have not brought about the cures is they did not receive good funding because of Bush! Wrong again. In the USA alone, billions were spent on human ESCR between 2001 and 2008.
But I never thought that embryonic stem cell research would be sold as a cure for the national debt! From a column by Don C. Reed at the Huffington Post:
Reducing the national debt is perhaps the one issue everyone agrees on, even in the hyper-political swamp that is Washington today. Stem cell research may have a surprisingly large role to play in that battle…But here comes one more giant number, and it may be the key to everything: $1.65 trillion. This is the cost of caring for the chronically ill, those who suffer from diseases which are (at present) incurable. Three-fourths of every medical expense dollar goes to caring for our loved ones with incurable illness or injury — who are never going to get well. One hundred million Americans suffer disease and disability for which there is no remedy. We can keep them alive, but we cannot make them well. We just maintain them in their misery until they die. Cure is the only way to lessen medical expense. Every time we cure or alleviate a disease, we lessen the national debt, because we don't have to pay for those medical costs. When Jonas Salk ended polio with the Salk vaccine, he did more than save lives and ease suffering — he saved hundreds of billions of dollars for America.
Without that vaccine, we would be paying an estimated one hundred billion dollars a year to care for the wretched sufferers of polio, in institutions or in iron lung. What if we could use embryonic stem cell therapies to cure even a percentage of another gigantic and ongoing expense — cardio-vascular disease?
This is so 2001! ESCR is so far away from doing anything of the sort, and the difficulties in bringing treatments to the clinic–one human trial so far–are proving intractable.
Not so with adult stem cells. They are already being used in treatments in human trials for heart disease. Ditto other expensive conditions–spinal cord injury, MS, diabetes, fracture healing, repairing damaged corneas, etc.–and at lesser cost overall if the therapies work out. They may also be used to prevent the need for hip replacements. Not only that, but cell reprogramming is forging along at a tremendous pace, and are already being used in drug testing. And that doesn't include non stem cell pioneering methods for regenerative treatments.
This is not to say that ESCR has no scientific value–the dispute is about ethics–but it is to say that I doubt that sector is from where most of the efficacious treatments will be coming. And they will not be the cure for the national debt.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 12, 2010
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a massive crowd of pro-life advocates at a Dallas fundraiser that the new health care law passed by Congress in March would lead to an unprecedented expansion of abortion.
"The biggest advance of the abortion industry in America has been the passage of Obamacare," Palin said at Dallas's Majestic Theatre to a crowd of 800 people.
"It is even worse than what we had thought. The ramifications of this legislation are horrendous."
Palin was speaking at a fundraising event for Heroic Media, an organization that is seeking to bring down Dallas's abortion rates by connecting women in crisis with hopeful pro-life messages and resources through the media.
The Dallas Observer reports Heroic Media intends to launch a $632,000 media campaign in the area for Spring 2011.
Heroic Media claims that in previous markets where they have launched their pro-life ad campaigns the abortion rate has dropped as much as 24 percent.
Palin, a GOP political icon admired by many Tea Party conservatives, said President Obama's executive order was insufficient to stop the law's expansion of the abortion industry. She cited the abortion mandates discovered by the National Right to Life Committee in some state plans for high-risk insurance pools as an example.
Palin also encouraged the new Congress to repeal or defund the national health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, which she called the "mother of all unfunded mandates."
The former governor also told the audience about her own personal pro-life convictions, and described herself as "unapologetically pro-life." She also said the experiences of giving birth to a child diagnosed with Down syndrome, and having a 17-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter, actually reinforced those convictions.
Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010
