Pro-Life John Boehner is now Speaker of the House

    
     New Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio)

"Rep. John Boehner has launched the biggest day in his political career with a private prayer service, a simple Ohio-themed lunch party and humble speech before the House he now controls."
     -- From Today's POLITICO.

242 Republicans have elected John Boehner Speaker of the House. I do not know this man personally, but people who I know who do praise him effusively for his modesty, kindness, and humility. Not to be overly blunt, those are not characteristics typically associated with the lady who served as Speaker the last two years.

I'm attaching a link to Speaker Boehner's remarks today following his election as Speaker (click here). I would encourage you to read them.

I've also attached a link to the speech he delivered last summer to the National Right to Life Convention, where Speaker Boehner received the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award for outstanding pro-life leadership in Congress. I would strongly encourage you to read them. They tell you a lot about him and the roots of his pro-life convictions (click here).

I'd like to quote two paragraphs from his remarks this afternoon. Speaker Boehner said, "Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it – openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will. I ask all members of this body to join me in recognizing this common truth.

"To my colleagues in the majority, my message is this: we will honor our Pledge to America, built through a process of listening to the people, and we will stand firm on the Constitutional principles that built our party, and built a nation. We will do these things, however, in a manner that restores and respects the time-honored right of the minority to an honest debate and a fair, open process."

Why quote these two paragraphs? For the past two years pro-abortion Democrats controlled both Houses and the presidency. It is simply to state the truth that they gleefully ran rough-shod over Republicans. Nowhere was this hubris more in evidence than in the debate over "health care reform"--the abortion-ridden, rationing-promoting mess known as ObamaCare.

Only there was precious little debate, because the voices of pro-life Republicans (and some pro-life Democrats) were stifled, or, in some ways worse, mocked. For example, while the topic was the stimulus package and not healthcare, Obama's response on January 24, 2009 perfectly illustrated the arrogance of unchecked power. Republicans tried to get their two cents worth in on the specifics which Obama waved them off: "I won."

As we talked about yesterday, the pro-life GOP House Leadership has started the process which will culminate next week in a vote to repeal ObamaCare. Nobody is so foolish as to think Senate Democrats and/or President Obama will suddenly see the light. But this vote is an important first step--a planting of the flag--signifying that Republicans will assiduously attempt to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something better and free of abortion and rationing.

All this was made possible because of the heroic work of pro-lifers across this land. Never, ever forget that twenty-six months ago we were lectured that Democrats--overwhelmingly pro-abortion--had become a permanent majority party and that pro-lifers ought to be smart enough to fold up their tents and go home.

You didn't, and the November 2 results have been documented over and over.

Contact: Dave Andrusko   
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: January 5, 2011

NRLC urges House to pass H.R. 2 to repeal Obama health care law

    
     Speaker of the House, John Boehner

What appears below is the text of a letter sent by the National Right to Life Committee to members of the U.S. House of Representatives on January 6, 2011.  To view or download this letter in PDF format, click here.

 

January 6, 2011

 

RE:  NRLC urges "yes" vote on H.R. 2 to repeal Obama health care law

 

Dear Member of Congress:

 

On behalf of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of state right-to-life organizations, we urge you to vote in favor of the repeal of Public Law 111-148, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," when repeal legislation (H.R. 2) comes before the House of Representatives on January 12.

 

As enacted, the PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion, and additional provisions on which future abortion-expanding regulatory mandates may be based.  Many of the abortion-subsidizing provisions of the legislation are detailed in an NRLC affidavit posted on our website here, and further documented in other materials posted here. 

 

In addition, the PPACA contains multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in
government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.  Among the most dangerous:

•  The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be empowered to impose so-called "quality and efficiency" measures on health care providers, based on recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is directed to force private health care spending below the rate of medical inflation.  In many cases treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient wants to pay for it.

•  The law empowers HHS to prevent older Americans from making up with their own funds for the $555 billion the law cuts from Medicare by refusing to permit senior citizens the choice of private-fee-for-service plans whose premiums are sufficient to provide unrationed care but which HHS, in its unlimited discretion, disallows.  The Obama health care law could thus lead to elimination of the only way that seniors will have to escape rationing -- by limiting their right to spend their own money to save their own lives.

•  The law instructs and authorizes state bureaucrats to limit the value of the insurance policies that Americans may purchase.  Not only will the exchanges exclude policies from competing in an exchange when government authorities do not agree with their premiums, but the exchanges will even exclude insurers whose plans outside the exchange offer consumers the ability to reduce the danger of treatment denial by spending what those government authorities claim to be an "excessive or unjustified" amount.  This will create a "chilling effect," deterring insurers who hope to compete within the exchanges from offering adequately funded plans even outside of them, so that consumers will find it increasingly difficult to obtain health insurance that offers adequate and unrationed health care.

Detailed information on these and other components that will result in rationing is available here.

 

To summarize:  The law is so riddled with provisions that violate right-to-life principles that it cannot simply be patched.   It must be repealed, and any replacement legislation must contain all necessary safeguards for the right to life of the most vulnerable members of the human family. 

 

NRLC intends to include the roll call on passage of H.R. 2 in our scorecard of key right-to-life roll calls of the 112th Congress.

 

If you have questions regarding the abortion-related aspects of the law that are not answered in the material referenced above, please contact the NRLC Federal Legislation Department at 202-626-8820 or at federallegislation@nrlc.org.   If you have questions regarding the rationing issues associated with the law, please contact the NRLC Powell Center for Medical Ethics at 202-378-6683 or at MedEthics@nrlc.org.

 

Respectfully,

 

David N. O'Steen, Ph.D           

NRLC Executive Director

 

Douglas Johnson

NRLC Legislative Director

 

Burke Balch, J.D.

Director

Powell Center for Medical Ethics

Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: January 6, 2011

Governments should not be spending tax-payers' money on aborting the babies of poor people in the developing world

    

SPUC has responded to the recent announcement by the Department for International Development (DFID) in the UK that plans to spend an extra £2.1 billion on programs including abortion and contraception. It is reported that adolescent girls in poor countries will be a target for UK interventions.

Peter Smith, SPUC's specialist in international affairs, told the media today:

    "It is farcical for the government to talk about safe abortions in situations without sterile surgical facilities, safe blood transfusion or emergency back-up. Running abortion clinics in slums, shanty towns and the bush will harm or kill women as well as killing babies.

    "Among the abortion organisations that the UK government currently funds, one runs 30 clinics in South Africa, with 10 so-called mini-clinics in poor townships. The organisations says they are cheap to run, relying on pre-fab buildings, basic equipment and minimal levels of staffing. Since this group started working in South Africa, the maternal death rate, according to the UN, has increased over four-fold. If this kind of intervention is multiplied, the deaths of unborn children and maternal deaths can be expected to increase, not decrease.

    "And what is UK doing bankrolling illegal child sex around the world by promoting contraception for minors? We should learn the lesson of the disastrous government-funded attempts to reduce teenage abortions in the UK, which have focused on providing contraception. There has been a 13% increase in abortions among under 18s in the past 10 years, and a spiralling incidence of sexually-transmitted infections".

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

Death of the Pro-Life Democrat

     
      The 112th U.S. Congress

As the 112th Congress is sworn in, an already endangered species is nearing extinction in the Capitol Building: the pro-life Democrat. This increasingly rare bird is in the process of committing political suicide.

That the Democrats took a thumping in the mid-term election of November 2 is, of course, obvious. The dramatic switch from Democrat to Republican control of the House of Representatives is unprecedented in modern times. Over 60 seats changed from Democrat to Republican, giving the Republicans a huge majority.

Less-remarked upon, however, was the switch from so-called "pro-choice" legislators to pro-life ones, which, not coincidentally, accompanied that move from Democrat to Republican. Marjorie Dannenfelser, director of the excellent group Susan B. Anthony List, which seeks to elect pro-life women (from either party) to Congress, counts 38 switches from "pro-choice" to pro-life from the 111th to 112th Congress, plus another 14 seats where "unreliable" pro-life members were replaced with "reliable" pro-life votes. In all, 52 seats were "strengthened" into a more pro-life position.

Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a longtime pro-life stalwart, celebrates that this January marks "the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever." Smith calls it "another message to President Obama that the American people will not be fooled by the Obama administration's accounting gimmicks and phony executive orders. They expect their elected officials to stand up for life without backing down."

This is a clear reference to the "Bart Stupak Democrats," who voted yes on the "Obamacare" healthcare bill that provides taxpayer funding of abortion; they were duped into thinking that President Obama's corresponding executive order will ban abortion funding. This was quite a leap of faith for these pro-life Democrats. Recall that one of Obama's first acts of president was to overturn the Mexico City policy, thereby providing taxpayer dollars to groups like International Planned Parenthood. Most of those pro-life Democrats now find themselves no longer in Congress. Some, like Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), were defeated in landslides.

Perhaps sweetest justice of all, leadership of the House goes from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), a tectonic shift in the pro-life direction, from one lifelong Roman Catholic to another -- but with only Boehner applying the "social justice" narrative (not to mention the Church's teaching) to the unborn.

Likewise, the U.S. Senate includes notable gains for the pro-life movement. In Florida, Marco Rubio, rising Republican star, registered a remarkable victory in a three-candidate race in November, trouncing a turncoat ex-Republican endorsed by Bill Clinton, the president who vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. In Arkansas, pro-life Republican John Boozman defeated incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln. In a major upset in Wisconsin, pro-life Republican Ron Johnson defeated Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold, a dependable vote for the abortion lobby. Other significant pro-life wins occurred in North Dakota, Indiana, and elsewhere. In a giant relief in Pennsylvania, pro-lifer Pat Toomey edged out Democrat Joe Sestak, who was atrocious on human-life issues. All of these gains help mitigate the pain of Californians handily re-electing Barbara Boxer, returning to the Senate a woman with a ghastly record on the unborn.

In short, the Democratic Party has descended, yet further, down the death path, with preciously few pro-lifers in the House or the Senate. We're approaching the point where you may be able to count them on two hands, potentially even one hand. We're also approaching a point where a serious pro-life Democrat voter will find it increasingly difficult to find a pro-life Democrat politician to vote for.

Alas, I say this with regret. I'm a pro-life Republican, but as one who studies history, I know that the parties, and what they stand for, change over time. I'm far more concerned with the lives of unborn babies than political lives of Republicans. I don't support "pro-choice" Republicans; in fact, I've actively worked for their defeat. I'm an American deeply saddened by the Death Culture thrust upon this great nation through the evil of Roe v. Wade in January 1973.

Ever since Roe, the Democratic Party, in particular, has veered down a tragic path. For a time, in the early years around Roe, it wasn't completely clear where the two major parties, Democrat and Republican, would align on the matter of unborn human life. It has taken some time, but, ultimately, the progression has been steady toward the Republicans becoming the party of life and the Democrats the party of death. Importantly, there are exceptions to this, but, by and large, and certainly in Congress, we can confidently say that the vast majority of Republicans are pro-life while the vast majority of Democrats are not. If it isn't quite 90-10%, it's close.

In fact, a fascinating analysis of Catholic members of Congress, done by the National Catholic Register and National Right to Life, finds that of those with a 0%-5% pro-life ranking, all are Democrats, whereas of those with a 95-100% pro-life ranking, all are Republicans. That's a stunning religious-cultural-political shift.

Along this descent, there were Democrats who tried to stop the train-wreck. One was a governor in my home state of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey (who was also Catholic), who was distraught over the fact that his party, which prided itself as defender of the "little guy," the poor, the downtrodden, the needy, was turning its back on the most innocent among us: the unborn child. When Casey pleaded for a speaking spot at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, to share that message, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the self-proclaimed apostles of "tolerance," diversity," and "open-mindedness" refused him a platform. Looking back, that was a telling moment.

How telling? If you're a new voter looking for a political party, choose the Democrats if you want unrestricted abortion, potentially even taxpayer-funded; choose the Republicans, if you don't. The choice is pretty simple.

It's a sad development for the culture and the country. It further polarizes the abortion issue, and more starkly along party lines than ever before. For pro-life Republicans in Congress, it's a loss, as they will need pro-life Democrats as precious allies. No one -- Republicans included -- should celebrate the Democratic Party becoming the Death Party. No one -- Republicans included -- should welcome such a moral degeneration of a onetime great political party.

Contact: Paul Kengo
Source: The American Spectator
Publish Date: January 5, 2011

Abortion, Adoption, and “Birthmother Amnesia”

    

On Sunday, the New York Times ran a piece called, "Meet the Twiblings." It's an autobiographical account by Melanie Thernstrom about how she and her husband Michael obtained donor eggs from two women and then had them implanted in two different women.  Thus, the article's striking subtitle: "How four women (and one man) conspired to make two babies."

The moral and ethical issues involved in this couple's decisions are genuine.  That two beautiful, God-beloved children resulted from them does not make the path pursued by this couple ethical or wise.

Yet woven into the larger story is one about adoption. Consider just two quotes from the article:

Abortion's Affect on Adoption

    Quote #1: (I)n the 1970s, there was an abundance of babies in the United States in need of homes, but the widespread use of birth control and abortion, among other factors, has caused the supply of infants available for adoption in the subsequent three decades to plummet to a fraction of what it was then.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that about ten percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 wrestle with infertility.  Adoption would be so much more streamlined, less agonizing, less of a desperate quest, if there were more babies to adopt – something that abortion and abortifacient drugs are efficient in preventing.

There are roughly 7.3 million infertile couples in the United States.  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are about 1.7 million adopted children in our country.

While not every infertile couple wants to adopt, many, perhaps the majority, does, and yet strives to find a child to love, from the county foster care center to nations as obscure as Nepal.

"The paradox of America's unborn," as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has called it, is this: "No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

Honoring Birthmothers

    Quote #2: "You won't have anything in common with the carriers," a director of a Los Angeles agency (which we decided not to work with) insisted dismissively. The gestational carriers at their agency were mainly white, working-class women, often evangelical Christians — "the kind of girls you went to high school with," he said, managing to give "high school" an ominous intonation. He waved his hand. "You may think you want to stay in touch now, but trust me, once you have your baby, you're barely going to remember her name. I call it surrogacy amnesia."

Were I to meet this man, I might have difficulty being civil. To catalog the offenses laced like cyanide throughout his comments would be almost too onerous (they include religious bigotry, social snobbery, and elitist pomposity).  Yet one phrase – "surrogacy amnesia" – is especially remarkable.

My wife and I remember the biological mothers of our children. We recall their names, their appearance, their stories, the way they sounded. We are grateful to them beyond words or human memory. Our thankfulness to them will remain eternal. This, not some "amnesia," is the common experience of the adoptive parents we know.

Forgetting about a birthmother might be a form of psychological protection for some adoptive parents who find it too painful to think that their children are not theirs biologically.  I cannot cite statistics about how many such persons there are, but would say pretty confidently it is a small number.

This is not to say adoptive parents are preoccupied with thoughts of their children's birthmothers.  But we do not forget them and, in an era of abortion-on-demand, the sacrificial love they have shown.

Here is how one writer describes the journey of a woman who decides to give her child to another family:

    Why would a woman make this decision? Sometimes it is because of her religious beliefs, sometimes it is because she recognizes that this child is a unique little person who will never exist again in the history of the human race. Although she is not in the position to raise this child herself, she wants him/her to have the best possible life. She is aware that there are many childless couples who would love to give her baby a home and that they are carefully screened before being approved.

About such women there is no amnesia, only gratitude.

Contact: Rob Schwarzwalder
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

Pro-lifer defended for alleged disorderly conduct

 

    

The Chicago-based Thomas More Society is going to the legal rescue of a Milwaukee pro-life prayer warrior who was wrongfully arrested.

The case involves the arrest of James Marcou, a veteran sidewalk counselor who was trying to videotape an Affiliated Women's Health Center worker escorting an abortion prospect into the facility. Tom Brechja of the Thomas More Center tells OneNewsNow Marcou tried to step around one escort who was blocking his view, but he was also encountered by another worker.

Tom Brechja (Thomas More Society)"This fellow, when James was alongside him, with his entire body just crashed into him and knocked him against the brick building. James put up his hand to ward him off [and] protect the camera, and an onlooker, one of the other clinic escorts, came screaming up and told him he had to learn a lesson to stay out of people's faces," Brechja reports. "She, at the time, was so close to his face screaming that she spat in his face."


Police were called and officers interviewed clinic workers inside before arresting Marcou, without asking for his version of the incident and without talking to pro-life counselors who were witnesses, one of whom is a partner at a major law firm. So Brechja plans to defend Marcou and fight the case all the way. But he is also considering filing complaints about the manner in which the case has been handled.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 5, 2011

Teen Birth Rate Falls to Record Low

    

The U.S. teen birth rate in 2009 was down 6 percent and the lowest on record — 39 births per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19. Abortion statistics for 2009 have not been released.

Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association, said the impact of abstinence-until-marriage education can't be ignored.

"These trends show that the risk-avoidance message of abstinence has 'sticking power' for young people," Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, told The Washington Post. "This latest evidence shows that teen behaviors increasingly mirror the skills they are taught in a successful abstinence-education program."

The Obama administration has significantly reduced funding for abstinence-based programs.

"With a change in policy away from abstinence education, we may expect to see a reversal of the teen pregnancy birth rate in the years to come," Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told The Post.

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

U.S. House Set to Vote on Repealing Health Care Law

    

In a largely symbolic move, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote next week on a bill to repeal the entire health care reform law. Debate on the two-page legislation will begin Friday, with a vote set for Jan. 12.

The House, which will return to a Republican majority when Congress is sworn in Wednesday, is expected to pass the bill. The Democrat-led Senate, however, likely will not.

"The majority of the American people continue to say that they dislike this law," incoming Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., told Fox News. "They want it repealed, so whether or not the vote will be symbolic will depend on what the Senate and our president do. It's entirely meaningful within the context of what the House is doing. That's what we were elected to do."

For their part, governors and attorneys general from more than 20 states are challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. A federal judge in Virginia recently ruled key portions of the law unconstitutional.

Congressman-elect Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., said there are several directions Republicans could head.

"We have to look at all options," he told Fox News. "First of all, I think we have to applaud the judicial attacks that have already been made on this. We've got to attack this bill from all angles. It's bad law. It's flawed constitutionally."

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

The "Paradox" of the Unborn

    

Some people came away from MTV's "No Easy Decision" with a different take than I did.

I never argued that somehow the couple which decided to abort their six-week unborn child was in any sense pro-life. Markai Durham and her boyfriend, James, already the unmarried parents of one baby girl, aborted in large measure (I argued) because of calculus that pitted Za'karia against their unborn child.

It would be, they told one another, unfair, or unjust to make their first daughter Za'karia "suffer." By that they meant pinching pennies would mean Za'Karia would have a lesser chance for a better life.

What I did (and do) believe is that however cavalier Markai may have come across on a Facebook account, that was not the woman I saw in the documentary and follow-up in studio interview with MTV host Dr. Drew Pinksy. I saw genuine conflict and an active conscience that was speaking loudly to her. Unfortunately, in the guise of not "telling her what to do," James appealed to Markai's desire to "protect " Za'karia. With that the their second child's fate was effectively sealed.

Ross Douhat writes for a number of publications, including the New York Times.

He is by no means where we are on abortion, but he can and does offer thought-provoking insights.

Yesterday's Times' op-ed was titled "The Unborn Paradox." Douhat understands that "No Easy Decision" was "a heartbreaking spectacle, whatever your perspective." He writes, "Durham and her boyfriend are the kind of young people our culture sets adrift--working-class, and undereducated ,with weak support networks, few authority figures and no script for sexual maturity…"

I don't know about James' real motivations--he is not only nearly impossible to understand, he keeps his opinions (on camera) to himself--but Markai aborts largely because (as Douhat writes) this "promises to keep them outside of poverty, and to let them give their first daughter opportunities they never had." Framed that way, the viewer saw why so much was working against the unborn child.

Douhat catches on to what many reviewers mentioned: how angry Markai became when James refers to the baby (post-abortion) as a "thing."

"A 'thing' could turn out just like that"--Markai says, pointing at their daughter. "A bunch of cells [the description the abortion "counselor" employed] can be her." Later she says quietly, "You hurt my feelings when you called it a thing."

In his final paragraphs, Douhat refers to two magazine articles ("dispatches from the world of mid-life, upper-class infertility") and a powerful poem about parents nervously probing for a fetal heartbeat.

"This is the paradox of America's unborn," he writes. "No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed."

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

China Population Control Leads to Eugenics

    

Radical environmentalists and global warming hysterics have extolled China's tyrannical one-child policy as a model for the West.  In addition to being despotic, a side effect of formal population control–at least in China–has been explicit eugenics.

In a new book, Susan Greenhalgh, author of a new book called Cultivating Global Citizens: Population in the Rise of China, apparently thinks that criticisms of the policy by Western media and human rights activists are overwroght.  From the Wall Street Journal book review (subscription wall):

    Susan Greenhalgh, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine, starts out by attacking the West's "master narrative" about the one-child policy: A cruel communist state suppresses the reproductive desires of the Chinese people…At first, Ms. Greenhalgh blames the West's preoccupation with human rights abuses committed in the name of population control on the mass media, notably the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as some well-known scholars. She cites press reports of the tragic consequences of the one-child policy, such as abandoned and murdered baby girls and millions of missing women. Such reporting, she writes, influenced policy makers in the U.S., especially conservative Republicans and right-to-life advocates. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush worked to ensure that the suffering of the Chinese people would not be deepened by giving American funds to international organizations underwriting Beijing's family planning. Ms. Greenhalgh regards this reaction as wrong-headed.

But then, according to reviewer Jonathan Mirsky, she proves the critics' case:

    In the quest for "superior" children and mothers, Ms. Greenhalgh explains, Beijing put aside social, cultural and political factors, and discriminated against whole classes of low-quality people: "rural residents, rural migrants to the cities, women, minorities, and those with substandard bodies" as well as "deviants" such as homosexuals and unmarried couples. She writes, "Some 'low-quality' citizens (such as women) have been targeted for energetic, state-sponsored improvement campaigns, while others (rural people for example) have been essentially abandoned as useless to the modernization effort."

    Official pressure to curtail and "improve" births resulted in infanticide and selective abortion, which in turn led to a gender gap among newborns of at best 120 boys to 100 girls. Many Chinese men, therefore, will not find brides, and fewer elderly Chinese will have daughters to comfort and support them. Many urban Chinese have internalized the bias against the family and, as described by Ms Greenhalgh, feel little obligation to care for their parents, want no children and think only of getting rich.

The best ways to limit population growth are to increase wealth and promote gender equality.  Top-down policies that seek to force such changes–or as we saw circa 1880-1960 with the Eugenics Movement, to improve the human gene pool–result in tyranny.  When friends of China point out how despotic the country's population control policies have been, it seems to me that the world should really take note.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

Planned Parenthood feeds at 'federal trough'

    
The federal government, says one pro-life activist, is nothing more than a "cash cow" for the abortion-provider Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood received a banner $363.2 million in government funding during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, its most recent annual reporting period -- a $13.6-million increase in grants and contracts over the previous fiscal year. That funding is supposedly funneled into "reproductive health care" services and is not used directly for abortion procedures.
 
But Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics argues U.S. taxpayers should not be financing the organization to begin with. "The idea that we're giving these people approximately $42,000 an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year -- this is a cash cow for these people," he laments. "They're lined up at the federal trough."
 
In addition, says Crutcher, it is obscene from the standpoint that Planned Parenthood targets minorities for abortions, which he believes aligns with the racist, eugenics philosophy of the group's founder, Margaret Sanger. That, he says, is established in a Life Dynamics documentary Maafa 21.
 
According to Crutcher, information also has been surfacing of financial improprieties at Planned Parenthood.
 
"One recent study now is showing that there may be as much as a billion dollars that has been given to Planned Parenthood that's completely unaccounted for," he shares. "First thing they need to do is stop all funding to them...and then there needs to be a criminal investigation and a congressional investigation into them to see what's happened to all this money."
 
Crutcher notes that Planned Parenthood contends that a majority of Americans are pro-abortion. If indeed that is the case, says the activist, the organization ought to be raising its own funds rather than relying on the federal government for millions of taxpayer dollars.
 
Two Republican congressmen -- Chris Smith of New Jersey and Mike Pence of Indiana -- have voiced their intentions to introduce in this session of Congress legislation that would prohibit or cut off federal funding of abortion.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

Unborn Human Life: So Desperately Wanted–So Easily Discarded

    

NYT Magazine published a story extolling a couple buying the services of four women–two for eggs and two "gestating carriers"–so they could have "twiblings." This couple all but moved heaven and earth to have children, just the way they wanted them. Yet, a million pregnancies are terminated each year in the USA, making it far more difficult for would-be parents to adopt–one of the factors the couple cited in their decision to manufacature. Douthat first cites some shocking adoption statistics. From "The Unborn Paradox:"

    In every era, there's been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.

Indeed.  I don't think any woman need abort because her child would not be wanted.  This includes children with disabilities, who pro life couples leap at adopting if they learn of the need.

After discussing an MTV reality show involving abortion, Douthat concludes:

    Last week's New Yorker carried a poem by Kevin Young about expectant parents, early in pregnancy, probing the mother's womb for a heartbeat:

    The doctor trying again to find you, fragile/fern, snowflake. Nothing.

    After, my wife will say, in fear/impatient, she went beyond her body,

    this tiny room, into the ether—… And there

    it is: faint, an echo, faster and further/away than mother's, all beat box and fuzzy feedback. …

    This is the paradox of America's unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.

Alas.  Legality aside, why abort when so many people desperately yearn to be parents?  Birth is the only choice that offers opportunity for great joy.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

Abstinence redefined?

    

A study published this week in the journal Pediatrics says ten percent of teens who said they were abstinent also tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease.  But an advocate for abstinence says the sex-education curricula in most schools could be blamed for those numbers.

Of the 964 teens who tested positive for an STD, 118 claimed they had not had sexual intercourse in the last 12 months, and 60 said they had never had intercourse in their lives.  The study, based on its findings, recommends that all teens receiving clinical services -- regardless if they self-report as being sexually abstinent -- be tested for prevalent STDs such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.
 
Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association tells OneNewsNow that 75 percent of young people in America are receiving explicit contraceptive-centered education that defines "abstinence" subjectively.  She believes that could be one of the reasons why teens who say they are abstinent have an STD.
 
Valerie Huber"Because in these curricula [teens] are given free rein to define abstinence in any way, including whatever doesn't cause a pregnancy or however they want to define it," she explains. "And we know that there are a lot of behaviors that put them at risk for sexually transmitted diseases."
 
Huber says the abstinence programs that her organization promotes are very clear about what constitutes safe and unsafe behavior.
 
"[When we talk about abstinence] we're talking about avoiding all of the activities that put a young person at risk," says the abstinence advocate.  "So if they receive the skills and the motivation to truly remain abstinent [as an abstinence program defines it], they have absolutely zero-percent chance of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease."
 
It is "crazy," she adds, that some would try to redefine abstinence.

Contact: Bill Bumpas
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

Conscience protection a 'great concern'

     

Healthcare professionals are awaiting the outcome of the Obama administration's effort to void conscience protections.

Conscience protections allow medical professionals to refuse to provide abortions, handle abortion-causing drugs, or participate in euthanasia. Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association (CMA), reports that the regulations that back up current law were written during the Bush administration, but that the Obama administration has filed documents admitting its hopes of repealing those protections.

"We just recently received word that [sometime] in February, they're likely going to overturn those regulations. That's a great concern to every person in this country because it could literally drive Christian healthcare professionals out of medicine," Dr. Stevens warns.

Meanwhile, such a decision would also affect consumers as Christian patients might no longer be able to choose doctors of faith. The CMA chief executive officer believes that would be a mistake because many people prefer medical personnel who share their worldviews.

"So we're very concerned. We and 50 other organizations are trying to fight this tooth and nail because this right to practice your religion is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and it would be a tragedy for our country that would not only affect healthcare professionals, but ultimately affect everyone in this country," he suggests.

Without conscience regulations, Stevens concludes there would be discrimination in education and employment. He points out, however, that such bias is already taking place because the Obama administration is not enforcing the current rules.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 4, 2011

Harvard Stem Cell Advisory Board Chair Bemoans Democratic Messiness of Science Funding

    

This article was in the Harvard Business School Alumni Bulletin and by the head of the school's Stem Cell Advisory Board, William Sahlman, who is also a big time professor at the the Harvard Business School. He is reacting to a federal court's ruling that President Obama's embryonic stem cell funding policy is illegal under existing federal law–but his larger target is the democratic process in science funding.

Despite all that education, Sahlman conflates losing funding in ESCR, with the Feds outlawing research altogether.  From his piece "Chaotic Funding Derails Research:"

    Now imagine you are a postdoc in a lab and are working on a project to use human embryonic stem cells to cure diabetes by creating new beta cells in the pancreas. This is difficult work that is high risk but high reward. You have come to grips with the many ethical considerations in working with stem cells derived from embryos that were created during IVF procedures and were destined to be destroyed before the donors agreed they could be used for research. You have begun to get traction in your career, and have been a prominent coauthor on several articles in well-respected journals. When you read the news that your research is now illegal, you are horrified.

But the court didn't make the research illegal–any more than Bush "banned" embryonic stem cell research with his modest funding restrictions. Nor did the court rule that existing research done with illegal funding had to be destroyed.  It just said no more federal funding.  (Funding continues as the case is appealed.)

But here's the thing: Our hypothetical researcher knew that ESCR was ethically contentious when deciding to enter the field.  Who could not know it after all the yelling over the last twelve years?  And the researcher would have known that there are strong forces seeking to limit or eliminate federal funding.  The same is true of human cloning research, which–unlike ESCR–many are trying to legally ban–like Germany has, for example, and the UN General Assembly has urged all member nations to do. (In 2005, the UN adopted a non-binding declaration that prohibits "all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life".) Similarly, animal researchers must also know that the animal rights movement is seeking to prevent their work.  I disagree with that strongly, but a researcher going into the field should enter therein with with eyes wide open.

Sahlman's bigger gripe is with the democratic messiness of government funding, again using our hypothetical ESC researcher as an example:

    You have no viable research projects under way. It will take well over a year to begin a new research stream, and there is a low probability you will get funded in a new area. You may be fired. In short, your career is in danger of total meltdown. That is the real cost of our randomized model of research support in the United States, in which a change in administration or a court ruling can outlaw work that was previously supported by the government. Funding can be canceled with the stroke of a pen…

    Unpredictability inflicts a heavy cost on scientific progress, whether in domains like stem-cell research or in searching for safe alternative fuels. It damages the United States' competitive position because great projects won't be completed here, and more importantly, great people won't do the kind of work that is necessary to make progress on our most intractable challenges. Society pays a high price for randomization of research support — a fact that, sadly, is not recognized by the public, the media, or politicians.

Sorry, this not a scientocracy.  The people's views–and the law–matter in federal scientific funding,  just as they do in other important societal endeavors.  Moreover, just because a scientist wants to do it, doesn't mean the taxpayers have to pick up the bill, or indeed, that it should be allowed legally.  Dictatorships can pour all the resources into favored science projects that the government wants.  But this is how free societies work. No blank checks.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

State “Death Panels” a Consequence of Single Payer Medicaid System

    

I read a piece in the Washington Post by Norm Ornstein last week, in which he thinks he cleverly hoisted conservatives on the death panel petard.  Arizona–as we have discussed–and now Indiana Medicaid, refused treatments (in the latter's case because, the state claimed, it is experimental).  But Ornstein misses the real message of these treatment refusals.  But I didn't.

First, I point out that Oregon has had death panels for years. From my The Corner post:

    In Oregon, Medicaid has a list of over 700 procedures, and will cover only the number permitted by their budget, usually in the low- to mid-600s. All those procedures on the wrong side of the line are not paid for by Medicaid. The point of Oregon's experiment was to expand coverage at the expense of cutting off the sickest people. For example, double organ transplants have been refused. That hasn't worked, but the state has kept its rationing scheme anyway. As a consequence, many poor Oregonians have, over the years, been denied potentially life-extending treatments. In 2008, two late-stage cancer patients were denied chemotherapy that could have extended their lives by Medicaid — but were offered payment for their assisted suicides!

I then tie the knot:

    What is the common thread that connects the death panels in these three states? Medicaid is a single-payer system in which budgets are limited. When the money runs out, people's options shrink. See also, the U.K.'s NHS and, increasingly, Canada's national health-care system, in which life-extending chemotherapy has also been restricted in some places.

    Many Obamacare supporters see the ACA is a necessary step to the ultimate goal, a federal single-payer system. But those who are attracted to this option should learn from Indiana, Arizona, and Oregon: Government can get away with treatment restrictions that would never be countenanced within a market-based system in which regulators would be on the side of the patients, rather than the government funder. In other words, if you like death panels — as Norm Ornstein points out, although he probably missed his own message — single payer is the way to get them.

This all seems pretty undeniable to me.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

Iowa aims to block notorious abortionist

    

Iowa is considering a proposal to keep late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart out of the state.

Carhart has announced plans to open shops in Iowa, Indiana, and Maryland so he can perform late-term abortions in those states. That move came after Nebraska passed a fetal pain bill prohibiting them, forcing him to relocate from Omaha.
 
Iowa State Representative Matt Windschitl (R) says the Nebraska bill put into law the medical fact that babies can feel pain at 20 weeks, perhaps sooner.
 
"Myself and many of my colleagues in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate do not want Dr. Carhart bringing his practice in here to Iowa," he explains, "and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that we keep him out of our state because we believe that our constituents overwhelmingly support a ban on late-term abortions in the state of Iowa."
 
Windschitl plans to sponsor a bill that will incorporate some parts of the Nebraska bill along with "a few other aspects tied into it."
 
"We want to make sure that as we're crafting this legislation that it is the strongest legislation possible to ban late-term abortions, but also that will stand up under judicial scrutiny if it is challenged in court," says Windschitl.
 
The lawmaker adds that considering the makeup of the legislature and a Republican governor who has signed late-term abortion bans in the past, the Iowa bill will be the best approach to take to gain passage.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 2, 2011

Pro-life group recognizes mom's battle with abortionist

    

Operation Rescue has named as its pro-life person of the year for 2010 a mother who lost her daughter in a botched abortion.

The pro-life advocacy group feels the recipient of its 2010 Pro-Life Person of the Year Malachi Award is perfectly described by the award's name -- Malachi, which means "my messenger" or "my angel."

"Mrs. Eileen Smith, who tirelessly pursued an abortionist who killed her daughter, Laura Hope Smith, to the point where he was incarcerated and had to pay over $2 million in a fine back to the family," is who Operation Rescue has chosen, according to President Troy Newman. "So we are proud of her and proud to award her this year's Malachi Award on behalf of the babies."

Newman believes the abortionist might have gone unprosecuted had Smith not persevered and "made sure that justice would be served in this case." Though he admits the sentence was not as stiff as the pro-life group had wanted, he believes "the shockwaves of this sentence on Rapin Osathanondh, the abortionist, have reverberated throughout the abortion industry, and people are going to think twice before they butcher the next woman."

Among previous winners of the award are Jim Pouillon, who was gunned down in a peaceful pro-life demonstration in 2009, and Lila Rose of Live Action Films for her undercover probes of Planned Parenthood.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: January 3, 2011

Pro-lifers make inroads

As in years past, 2010 saw pro-lifers persevere as they waged war against the culture of death.

Brigham not above the law

Steven Chase Brigham had been operating abortion clinics in three states even though he had lost or surrendered his license in several of them. In October, New Jersey was still pondering whether to revoke his license. That state's attorney general suggested Brigham committed multiple actions in the context of alleged acts of dishonesty and deception.
 
Operation Rescue's Cheryl Sullinger told OneNewsNow that Brigham would start late-term abortions in New Jersey where he was licensed, but complete them in Maryland where he had no license.
 
"Mr. Brigham seems to think that he is above the law and that the laws of the state of New Jersey, and any other state for that matter, don't apply to him," the activist shared.
 
Sullinger believes the attorney general and medical board were not buying Brigham's denial of guilt. "They think this guy is basically lying to the board and to everybody else about the legality of his business and what actually goes on there, and so a person like that can't be trusted to practice medicine in any state," she contended.
 
Pro-life groups are hopeful the new state attorney will prosecute Brigham and try to send him to prison. Meanwhile, a total of four abortionists in the state, three of them who worked for Brigham, have lost their medical licenses.
 
Abortion's cancer link reaffirmed

Study after study is showing a definite link between abortion and breast cancer, yet leading cancer organizations refuse to recognize it. Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer told OneNewsNow the latest study again shows a link.
 
"This is a study that came out of Northeast China, and they examined reproductive factors that were associated with different subtypes of breast cancer," Malec explained. "And they found that women who have abortions increase their risk of developing breast cancer later on in life by a statistically significant 17 percent."
 
Yet most women are not aware of it because they are not informed, she added. The pro-lifer indicated China is a good source for research since women there experience three to five abortions because of that country's one-child policy and forced abortions.

Another abortion clinic caught on camera

Student led Live Action continued to conduct eye-opening undercover probes of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in 2010. One of them was in Indianapolis, according to Live Action founder Lila Rose.
 
"What we found here at this clinic in Indianapolis is pretty disturbing," Rose commented. "Our investigative actor [is] asking basic questions about the development of her unborn child, about the risks of abortion, and she is being given fabricated information, false information in an attempt to convince her to choose abortion."
 
Indiana has a woman's right to know law which requires abortion clinics to give women accurate information -- and Rose said the actions violate state law. In addition, Live Action investigations of Planned Parenthood in several states revealed clinics provide abortions to underage girls, reporting it to neither parents nor police to enforce statutory rape charges.
 
FDA approves abortion pill, ignores reality

In late 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved ellaOne, the latest Plan B or "morning-after" pill designed to end a pregnancy within five days of intimacy. Pharmacist Mike Koelzer of Pharmacists for Life International told OneNewsNow the Plan B drug is an abortifacient.
 
"This one is even further down that road of being a drug that prevents the uterus from accepting a new life," he contended. "It makes the uterus inhospitable, which then causes that new life to be sloughed off, causing a very early abortion."
 
There has been no consideration from the FDA for doctors and pharmacists who object to the drug. The Obama administration promised to develop fair conscience protections for the medical field, but so far has not delivered on it.
 
Euthanasia weighs evenly on U.S. morality scale

A Gallup poll released during the year shows an even split among Americans over the issue of doctor-assisted suicide. But Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide says it actually shows a shift of Americans no longer supporting the idea -- which she argued means the public is becoming more educated.
 
"Two years ago, 51 percent found it to be morally acceptable. It's gone down five percentage points," she reported. "The same way in 2008: 44 percent thought it was wrong; now 46 percent think it's wrong. So since 2003, it has not been this much of a drop."
 
Realizing the divide among Americans on pro-life issues, advocates are working to change the hearts and minds by insisting that issues be framed properly.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: December 31, 2010

Contraception use up, abortions double; researchers can’t figure out why

     

The January issue of the journal Contraception contains results of a 10-yr study "to acquire information about the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of elective abortions," reads the abstract.

The results were unsurprising, "yet another example of the counter-intuitive effect of more contraception," wrote Christina at Real Choice. What was laughable was the researchers' conclusion. Read on….

    STUDY DESIGN: Since 1997, representative samples of Spanish women of childbearing potential (15-49 years) have been surveyed by the Daphne Team every 2 years to gather data of contraceptive methods used.

    RESULTS: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women.

    CONCLUSIONS: The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.

As Suzanne at Big Blue Wave noted:

    So in the ten year period that contraception use increased by about 60%, the abortion rate doubled. In other words, even with an increase in contraception use, there weren't fewer unwanted pregnancies, there were more.

Any person with common sense could cue the researchers that the more casual sex one has, the greater likelihood there will be of pregnancy, contraception use notwithstanding.

Contraceptive use only provides a false sense of security. As most recently evidenced on the MTV abortion special, minor girls and young women are too immature or irresponsible to handle contraception properly, for starters. Men aren't so good at it either, since even as the pro-abort group Guttmacher notes, the failure rate of condoms is a whopping 17.4%.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: January 3, 2011