January 14, 2011
Commemorating Anniversary of Reagan's Personhood Proclamation
23 years to the day after President Ronald Reagan released his Personhood Proclamation, Personhood USA is unveiling a pivotal new video echoing Reagan's call for Personhood rights for all human beings.
Reagan's Personhood Proclamation was made on January 14, 1988, and declared that "... protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land."
Personhood USA's new video decries the evil of abortion and uses President Reagan's own words to affirm the personhood rights of unborn children. The video can be viewed atwww.personhoodusa.com. Now in all 50 states, Personhood USA is seeking to recognize the Personhood rights of every innocent human being.
"President Ronald Reagan understood the simple truth that all human beings are persons," explained Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA. "It is basic science that tells us that the child in the womb is a human being, and all human beings are persons with a right to life. Reagan knew in 1988 what we still know now -- that abortion stops the beating heart of a living human being. This new video was produced to bring awareness to the critical need for Personhood Amendments in every state."
Contact: Keith Mason
Source: Personhood USA
Publish Date: January 14, 2011
Commentary: ‘My Preborn Baby is a Living, Breathing Human Being’
Nebraska broke new ground on the pro-life front when its fetal-pain law went into effect in October. The law protects babies after 20 weeks unless the mom's life is in danger. And it has been successful in forcing notorious late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart to leave the state.
Lawmakers in Kansas, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky are drafting bills similar to Nebraska's to keep Carhart from moving in. Most states ban abortions after 24 weeks, with narrow exceptions.
At the center of the debate is the issue of when a preborn baby begins to feel pain.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it has no evidence that preborn babies experience pain at 20 weeks.
Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, disagrees.
"At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood," he says, "ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded."
Baby Schleicher at 19 weeks.
Monica Schleicher, director of media and public relations for CitizenLink, knows firsthand how preborn babies react to stimuli: She is 25 weeks pregnant.
My husband and I have marveled at the miracle of life unfolding before our eyes. No longer do I theoretically talk about a child developing in the womb; I now feel life quicken and move inside of me. This new dimension of reality is one that has had far-reaching implications for me as a Christian, a voter and an advocate of life.
As I fall deeper and deeper in love with our preborn daughter, the tragedy of abortion has also been made more real. To think that, at 25 weeks along, I would still be able to get an abortion breaks my heart — after all, she is not just "a clump of cells" or "pregnancy tissue."
No, my preborn baby is a living, breathing human being who I know and love. She helps her "not-a-morning-person" momma wake up at 6 a.m. by doing a little dance. She naps while I sit at my computer during the work day, but loves to deliver well-placed kicks and punches during management staff meetings.
Monica at 20 weeks.
Baby Schleicher made me laugh over Christmas break when she got the hiccups after experiencing her daddy's spicy gumbo, and she's been entertaining us by making my belly twitch with her increasingly strong movements.
Science and technology bear out what I know to be true: My daughter can react to and interact with the outside world. If I drink a cold beverage, I can expect her to wake up and move about. She's been able to sense light since 15 weeks, moving away from a flashlight shining at mom's tummy. Some research suggests she's been hearing my voice since about 19 weeks. While loud noises have been startling her since about 17 weeks, once she's born she shouldn't be fazed by sounds she hears regularly, like a vacuum cleaner.
I have chronicled some of these developments on Facebook:
Oct. 1 (10 weeks): The baby was super active during the ultrasound, wiggling around and "dancing." Also, during the first part of the ultrasound, the baby had the hiccups so it was cute to see his/her whole little body "jump" up.
Nov. 1: All pants should have elastic waistbands.
Nov. 4 (15 weeks): We had an ultrasound today … and the technician was more than 90 percent sure IT'S A GIRL!!!!!!!
Nov. 22: (18 weeks): OK, so more and more I am believing that what I feel is the baby moving!! Such delicate little "flutters" made me second-guess myself numerous times, but it is happening too much for it not to be her. I'm completely in love! ♥
Nov. 30: Confirmed — it's most definitely a girl! Bill and I praise the Lord for a wonderful, perfect 20-week ultrasound with everything going as it should be.
Dec. 6: Our sweet baby girl is starting to get so active! More and more, I feel her moving around.
Dec. 13: 21 weeks this Wednesday, and (she) is making her presence more and more obvious with stronger kicking movements that are happening more and more often a day.
The iPad application "Hello, Baby"
provides a window to the womb at 21 weeks.
Dec. 15: A 21-week-old preborn baby moves about 50 times an hour, even when s/he is asleep! Awwww…
Dec. 20: Bill felt the baby kick for the first time a few minutes ago!!! She totally bonded with her daddy :-)
Dec. 30: Apparently, leftover gumbo gives the baby hiccups …
Jan. 3: Bill and I SAW the baby move for the first time!!!!!! How awesome to SEE my belly "twitch" and to know it's our little baby girl!!!! Every day I fall more and more in love with her.
Jan. 5: 24 weeks today! Baby Schleicher continues to grow, and all the books say my uterus is now the size of a soccer ball. Niiiiiice.
Jan. 9: Washing Baby's clothes, blankets and bed linens and putting them in storage. I love preparing for her!
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
Captain America Anti Suicide Campaign Undermined by American Culture
I am all for trying to prevent suicide. Apparently the comic book character Captain America is on the case in a story called "A Little Help." From the story:
Captain America's latest foe is deadlier than the Red Skull: suicide. The character armed with his trademark shield faces off against suicide in a new story that publisher Marvel Entertainment has released Wednesday for free through its website and app. The toll-free hotline for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is featured in the work, too. Entitled "Captain America: A Little Help," the 11-page story is written by psychologist Tim Ursiny, and illustrated by Nick Dragotta. In it, a despondent youth is poised to jump off a building when he spies Captain America facing a bevy of villains on a nearby roof. The fracas keeps him from going over the edge, literally and figuratively.
There is no dialogue, save for the end, which ends with the boy both saving the hero and, in the process, himself.
That's good. But we have, shall we say, a societal disconnect–a paradoxical message sent like unremitting tinnitus with much more force than a laudable comic book story. On television, in the movies, and in the news, pro suicide advocacy is ubiquitous–including in some of the publications praising the Captain America campaign. Million Dollar Baby comes to mind. The drive to legalize assisted suicide is all the rage in the media. Giving Jack Kevorkian hero status with a puff bio-pic, starring an A-list movie star as K can't be helpful to turning people away from self destruction. Many crime and medical dramas promoting assisted suicide and euthanasia. And that doesn't include the nihilism that permeates youth culture.
So you go Captain America! Too bad you have so many others putting cultural impediments in your way.
For those interested, here's the actual comic that is accessible to all without charge.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
Study: Contraceptives raise abortion rate
A newly published study in Spain shows increased use of contraceptives did not result in a decrease in abortions.
The report in the January issue of the medical journal Contraception showed contraceptive use in women of childbearing age rose by 30 percent -- 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent -- from 1997 to 2007. The rate of elective abortions, however, more than doubled from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.
The results fly in the face of the conventional wisdom espoused that greater use of contraceptives reduces the abortion rate.
The study authors offered some possible explanations for this apparent incongruity, including improved abortion reporting, but said in conclusion, "The reasons for the increasing rate of elective abortion warrant further investigation."
Pro-lifer Christina Dunigan wrote about the results at her blog RealChoice: "Researchers scratched their heads in bewilderment, likely because they don't understand risk compensation. If you reduce the perceived risks of a behavior, people will compensate by behaving in higher-risk ways.
She added, "The Pill Pushers have chosen to ignore the data, and the reality of how human beings work. The more you create an environment in which people perceive sex as low-risk, the more people will engage in risky sex."
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
The Lessons Learned from Passage of the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"
NRLC Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch (left)
and Julie Schmit-Albin, Nebraska RTL Executive Director
Pro-lifers will remember 2010 for many reasons. Legislatively, at or near the top of the list of accomplishments was passage of Nebraska's "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" (LB 1103). This historic Nebraska law prohibits elective abortion at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy, at which time there is substantial medical evidence that the unborn child can feel pain. Key to its passage was the combined diligence and expertise of Nebraska Right to Life Executive Director Julie Schmit-Albin and NRLC Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch. The following is a Q & A with Julie.
Q: What are the lessons you took away from your experience passing the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act?
A: When you have a concept and you know what the end goal is, don't deviate from the language of the original draft, if at all possible. Fortunately we had the best sponsor--our Speaker, Mike Flood--who is an attorney and knew the case law in and out. Speaker Flood led the way in laying down the best possible legislative record in both committee and in floor debate, which is key in case your legislation is legally challenged. And a legal challenge of innovative abortion law is almost a given. However, the fact that LB 1103 has not yet been challenged speaks to the solid record laid down by Speaker Flood and his fellow pro-life senators--and how seriously worried pro-abortionists are that a legal challenge might boomerang.
Q: You attended NRLC's State Legislative Strategy Conference. We heard that one of the principal state legislative initiatives will be laws modeled on LB 1103. What did you come away from that December 7 conference thinking?
A: It solidified my belief that Mary Spaulding Balch is one of the very top legal minds in the country working on pro-life legislation. You can't go wrong sticking with Mary's guidance and the tremendous assistance provided by NRLC staff. Over the years legislators in Nebraska have come to realize that Mary knows her stuff, and that NRLC will back them up all the way. The fact that our "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" sent abortionist LeRoy Carhart [who specializes in performing abortions late in pregnancy] packing ought to cement in peoples' minds that Mary is a brilliant strategist.
Q: Was there ever a point where you felt that LB 1103 was in mortal danger?
A: There were several attempts to weaken the bill which would have changed the whole essence of what we were trying to accomplish. This is something we always have to guard against. Sometimes the most well-intentioned amendments can effectively neutralize the bill and you don't want to be in the position of not realizing this until after the fact. In many ways legislation passed in the states is driving the public debate. Each legislative debate potentially means the real facts about abortion get clearly laid out. And because the truth is being revealed, public opinion is shifting to the pro-life side.
Q: Planned Parenthood of the Heartland is behind so-called "web-cam" abortions which are currently being performed in Iowa. Based in Iowa, it also operates abortion clinics in Nebraska.
A: We will fight its spread to Nebraska. With web-cam chemical abortions they hope to overcome two of their biggest obstacles: access and lack of abortionists who are willing to do surgical abortions. The abortionist is not in the same room with the woman; he could be hundreds of miles away. He opens a drawer electronically from which the woman takes misoprostol and mifepristone--the two drugs that make up the RU486 chemical abortion technique. PP of the Heartland is polluting a legitimate form of health care delivery--consultations over web cams--to increase access, especially in geographically rural states. This ties into PPFA's new national business model. They want to spread their tentacles reaching into counties which have never seen a Planned Parenthood clinic. They hope that if they increase the numbers of chemical abortions done through a video conferencing system, it will further corrupt the practice of medicine and "mainstream" abortion as just another "service."
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
Guttmacher Reports Abortion Rate Breaks its Downward Trend
The Guttmacher Institute just released its latest analysis of national abortion statistics. They found that the 2008 abortion rate was 19.6 per 1000 women between the ages of 15 – 44, with the annual total of abortions reaching 1,212,400 (an increase of 6,000 abortions from 2005 when the rate was 19.4 abortions per 1000 women).
As usual, this former affiliate of Planned Parenthood immediately concluded that more access to birth control was needed to prevent increasing abortions. That conclusion ignores certain key facts. Even abortion advocates had observed back in 2008 that abortions were increasing because of the downturn in the economy hurting people financially. Might that alone account for the increase that has now been determined two years later?
What was Planned Parenthood doing to increase their abortions? They were opening new mega abortion facilities (e.g. in Aurora IL) and expanding the number of locations that commit RU-486 abortions. With this greater availability of abortions, would not an increase be expected? That certainly happened in Illinois. As I just recently reported, the Illinois counties near the Aurora facility experienced significant increases in abortions, while abortions went down in other areas of Illinois.
It appears reasonable to conclude that abortions are continuing to fall except in regions where Planned Parenthood, and possibly other abortion providers, are increasing the availability of abortions with expanded facilities and greater use of RU-486, sometimes even without the need to see a doctor in person (e.g.telemed abortions in Iowa).
Contact: Bill Beckman
Source: Illinois Review
January 13, 2011
Pence Introduces Bill to De-Fund Planned Parenthood, Walsh Co-Sponsors
Congressman Joe Walsh
Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), has introduced a bill, HB217 that would deny Title X federal family planning funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers:
It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion at home or abroad.Pence boasts over 120 co-sponsors to this bill, including our own Joe Walsh (R-IL), of the 8th District.
Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants and contracts. During that same time, they performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions.
The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X.
The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.
I spoke with Congressman Walsh today, and he told me:
This is one of the first pieces of legislation that I'm a co-sponsor on, and it's an honor.Congressman Bob Dold (R-IL), of the 10th District, ran on a platform that included opposition to public funding of abortion, although Dold identifies himself as being pro-choice. According to Pence's office, Dold is not a co-sponsor of this bill, and a call to Dold's office asking the Congressman's position on this bill has not been returned.
You know as well as I do that Planned Parenthood receives an idiotically high amount of funding from the government, and they continue to perform an unprecedented number of abortions.
If there's anything like a common ground on this issue, it's that public money shouldn't be used to fund abortion. It's a privilege and an honor to co-sponsor this bill.
Mike Pence's remarks on the House floor introducing the bill:
Click here for the video
Source: Lake County Righ to Life
Publish Date: January 11, 2011
Important Scientific Journal Article Published on Drugs like RU-486 and Ella
The January 2011 issue of the Annals of Pharmacotherapy contains an important "commentary" piece – unfortunately not free ($25.00) – discussing the advent, workings, and possible effects of progesterone receptor modulators like mifepristone (RU-486) and ella (ulipristal). The article was written by Donna Harrison, M.D. (President, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists) and James G. Mitroka, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lloyd L Gregory School of Pharmacy, Palm Beach Atlantic University) and is entitled, "Defining Reality: The Potential Role of Pharmacists in Assessing the Impact of Progesterone Receptor Modulators and Misoprostol in Reproductive Health." In part, it is directed toward pharmacists who may see the adverse events associated with these drugs. Here is the abstract:
Medical abortion is increasingly heralded as an ideal method for decreasing maternal mortality in health-care resource-deprived areas and as an answer to the shrinking pool of physicians willing to perform abortions. The advent of progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) and the recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of ella (ulipristal) as an emergency contraceptive put pharmacists in the center of abortion controversy. Pharmacists, worldwide, need to be aware of the controversy surrounding the introduction of PRMs, particularly with regard to the effect on health policy, their mechanism of action, associated adverse events, and common off-label uses. Once understood, genuine opportunity exists for pharmacists to serve a fundamental role in positively shaping public health policy.
A key sentence describes the potential abortifacient of ulipristal in humans:
Based on these data, it can be reasonably expected that the [FDA approved dose] will have an abortive effect on early pregnancy in humans.
And the possibility of embryological effect is noted as well:
Whether ulipristal is used intentionally or unintentionally by pregnant women, any surviving embryo may be exposed to an embryotoxic agent for >6 days, as the half-life of ulipristal acetate is approximately 32 hours.
The authors note that a fetal registry for ulipristal survivors needs to be established to track long term health defects in that there is a predictable 5% pregnancy rate for those who have taken the drug. Hopefully, more writing will be done with regard to these aspects of ulipristal and its abortifacient effects.
Contact: Chris Gacek
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: January 12, 2011
Voila! Vanderbilt drops abortion demand
1 day after complaint filed, nursing students freed from requirement
Only one day after a complaint filed by a team of Christian attorneys over Vanderbilt University's requirement that nursing students pledge to participate in abortions, the requirement has been dropped.
A statement from Alliance Defense Fund today confirmed the school "modified" its nurse residency application "so that it no longer requires applicants to pledge that they will participate in abortion procedures."
The ADF said the school's announcement came in an e-mail to applicants just a day after the ADF filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
"Christians and other pro-life members of the medical community shouldn't be forced to participate in abortions to pursue their profession. That's what federal law says, and that's why Vanderbilt is doing the right thing in changing its policy and application," ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman said in a statement today.
"We will be monitoring the situation to make sure the university continues to comply with the law. It's ironic that Vanderbilt changed its policy one day after denying that it required the pledge," he said.
The school announcement said there had been some publicity about a "misconception" about the school's practice.
"While Vanderbilt expects all health care providers, including nurses who participate in the Nurse Residency Program's Women's Health Track, to provide compassionate care to all patients, no health care provider is required to participate in a procedure terminating a pregnancy if such participation would be contrary to an individual's religious beliefs or moral convictions," the school said.
However, the ADF had complained about a Women's Health Acknowledgment Letter that is one page of a 16-page application that the applicant must sign:
"Often women are faced with many difficult decisions about their lives and health care. Nurses in the Center for Women's Health support women through these decisions and provide professional evidence based care specific to each situation. One difficult decision women face is termination of pregnancy. If you are chosen for the Nurse Residency Program in the Women's Health track, you will be expected to care for women undergoing termination of pregnancy," the application letter originally read.
The application letter added that if the candidate could not sign the letter, they should consider applying elsewhere.
"It is important that you are aware of this aspect of care and give careful consideration to your ability to provide compassionate care to women in these situations. If you feel you cannot provide care to women during this type of event, we encourage you to apply to a different track of the Nurse Residency Program to explore opportunities that may best fit your skills and career goals," the letter added.
The letter that was to have been signed by the candidate concluded with this acknowledgment.
"By signing this letter, I acknowledge that I am aware that I may be providing nursing care for women who are having the procedures listed above that may be performed in the Center for Women's Health," the letter concluded.
Bowman had explained the Vanderbilt policy violated the law providing that any institution receiving federal grants cannot force, coerce or otherwise require an individual to assist in abortions.
"No entity which receives, after September 29, 1979, any grant, contract, loan, loan guarantee, or interest subsidy under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.] may deny admission or otherwise discriminate against any applicant (including applicants for internships and residencies) for training or study because of the applicant's reluctance, or willingness, to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions," the law stated.
In a statement one day earlier, Vanderbilt University Medical Center spokesman John Howser said the ADF was mistaken.
"Allegations by the Alliance Defense Fund that Vanderbilt's nursing students, or other employees of the Medical Center, are somehow required to participate in terminations of pregnancy or in other activities that may be contrary to the employee's religious beliefs or moral convictions appear to have arisen due to a misunderstanding by the Alliance Defense Fund," the statement said.
The statement added that Vanderbilt's Medical Center has a religious freedom policy in place.
"A Vanderbilt University Medical Center policy has been in place for years for employees, including nurse residents, so they may be excused from participating in activities due to religious beliefs, ethical beliefs or other associated reasons," Howser's statement continued.
The ADF said it had filed the complaint with the federal government on behalf of two fourth-year nursing students who wished to move to Vanderbilt but could not because of the prior requirement.
It said since Vanderbilt gets more than $300 million a year in federal tax dollars, and federal law prohibits grant recipients from forcing students or health care workers to participate in abortions contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions, the policy needed to change.
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
Planned Parenthood: affiliates must do abortions
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the country's leading abortion provider, has made a move that will likely increase its share of the market in the lethal procedure by requiring each of its affiliates to offer abortions in at least one clinic.
A Planned Parenthood spokeswoman confirmed abortions will be provided in a clinic of each affiliate in the country, The Daily Caller reported. A waiver may be acquired, however, in the case of "unique local circumstances," said Lisa David, a senior vice president for the organization.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America has 95 affiliates and 865 health centers, according to its latest annual report, which covers the 2008-09 fiscal year. Under the new rules, at least one clinic per affiliate must perform abortions, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman told The Daily Caller.
The 2008-09 report showed Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during the year. Its affiliates performed more than 324,000 abortions in 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available.
News about Planned Parenthood's new requirement broke when its affiliate in Corpus Christi, Texas, withdrew from the organization and changed its name. The affiliate became Family Planning of the Coastal Bend on Jan. 1, according to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
Amanda Stukenberg, chief executive officer of the Corpus Christi chapter, said the affiliate had never provided abortions because local doctors performed them.
Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek, a former nurse whose testimony helped in passage of the Born-alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, wrote, "I imagine that inside the industry, abortion wars are breaking out even as I type, as PP makes a major power play to wipe out independent abortion mills.
"This is huge, devastating for babies. Statistics bear out that the more abortion mills there are, the more abortions there are."
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood continues to lose funding from corporations. Kohl's and Mrs. Fields are the two latest companies to stop their donations to Planned Parenthood, LifeNews.com reported Jan. 3. The announcement came from Life Decisions International (LDI), which tracks corporate giving to Planned Parenthood and publishes a boycott list of corporations that support the organization. The list may be ordered for a fee.
The announcement about the two companies follows the best six-month period in LDI's history.
"[M]ore corporations have been removed from the boycott list between the July 2010 and December 2010 lists than have ever been dropped in the past," LDI President Douglas Scott said, according to a Dec. 10 report by LifeNews.
Ten companies were dropped during the last six months, Scott said. They included Enterprise car rentals, Toys "R" Us, Forbes magazine and Rolex, LifeNews reported.
Normally two or three companies per six-month period announce they have withdrawn their support from Planned Parenthood, Scott said.
More than 270 corporations have halted donations to Planned Parenthood, according to LDI. The pro-life organization had its genesis in Scott's founding in 1989 of a project to inform corporate leaders of Planned Parenthood's abortion business. It incorporated as LDI in 1992.
The affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed more than 324,000 abortions in 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available. Its 2008-09 report showed Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts during the year.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: January 12, 2011
Planned Parenthood Backs Down, Withdraws Suit Against Operation Rescue for Requesting Public Records
Planned Parenthood has filed a motion to dismiss in a law suit against Operation Rescue's Cheryl Sullenger that was an attempt to block the Iowa Board of Medicine from releasing public information about four of their employees. The documents, comprised of medical license applications that are a matter of public record in all states, were released by the Iowa Board of Medicine to Sullenger last week, three months after her initial request. At least two of the "doctors" are involved in Planned Parenthood's webcam abortion pill distribution scheme, known as telemed abortions.
"While all the documents were heavily redacted - more so than we usually see with these kinds of records - we are grateful to our legal team, including Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society and Iowa attorney Mike Holzworth for working so hard to ensure that Planned Parenthood did not wrongfully conceal information that the public has a right to know. This is a victory for everyone because it helps keep the government accountable to the people."
In addition, Iowa attorney Patrick Smith represented the Citizen's Information Center and another requester, both from Massachusetts, which had made similar, independent requests. Both of those suits have been dismissed as well.
"Based on conversations with Kent Nebel of the Iowa Board of Medicine, I believe that he improperly tipped off Planned Parenthood to the requests in order to allow Planned Parenthood time to file the suits," said Sullenger. "Mr. Nebel told me personally that he was instructed by the Attorney General's office to inform Planned Parenthood of the public records requests. There is nothing we can see in Iowa law that would mandate such notification."
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is currently under an ethics investigation for his part in blocking independent investigations into alleged criminal abortions conducted by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland through their webcam abortion scheme.
"It looks to us like Planned Parenthood still has a lot to hide. They were so afraid of the discovery phase in the law suits that they apparently decided it was better to allow the Iowa Board of Medicine to release the public information rather than allow us to ask them questions they did not want to answer," said Sullenger. "We are still very concerned about the cozy relationships that exist between the Iowa Attorney General's office, the Iowa Board of Medicine, and Planned Parenthood."
Attorneys for Operation Rescue are considering further legal action to ensure that politics are not being placed above the public welfare in Iowa.
Contact: Troy Newman
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: January 13, 2011
January 12, 2011
Blame Amendment 2: MO Government Can’t Be Forced to Fund Life Science Research
I won't rehash the Amendment 2 political fight in Missouri, but to recall that the proponents' language led to the state refusing to appropriate money for a life science trust fund because the money could be spent on ESCR or human cloning. Here's the history: A 2 created a state constitutional right to conduct human cloning research. But the authors were greedy and didn't stop with that: They also prohibited the state from discriminating against one area of research in public funding, if an associated area was funded. That meant if the state funded, say adult stem cell research, it would also have to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Precisely because of this clause, subsequent to passage of Amendment 2, the legislature refused to fully fund a life science research trust fund–the very kind of restriction that opponents of Amendment 2 had warned would happen. Indeed, I made that point repeatedly during the campaign, and later, here at SHS, when the funding was actually restricted.
The refusal to fund led to a lawsuit, as these things almost always do. First, a trial court sided with the state. Now a court of appeals has as well. Here's the core of the actual ruling (citations omitted):
…while the provision specifying that money must be transferred into the Fund may appear mandatory and unqualified, the statutory provisions specifying the use or disbursement of monies from the Fund makes clear that such disbursements are subject to the legislature's appropriations power. The statutory provision governing the use of monies contained in the Fund states that "[a]ll moneys that are appropriated by the general assembly from the life sciences research trust fund shall be appropriated to the life sciences research board" for specified purposes. § 196.1109 (emphasis added). Section 196.1109 goes on to specify the maximum percentage "of the moneys appropriated" that may be spent on construction of physical facilities, and the percentages that must be "appropriated" "to build research capacity," "to promote life science technology transfer and technology commercialization," and for "research of tobacco-related illnesses." Other references throughout §§ 196.1100-196.1130 make clear that the General Assembly plainly contemplated that no monies would actually be expended from the Fund without the intervention of the appropriations process…
The authors of Amendment 2 overreached by trying to both create a right to clone and a scheme to garner state money for doing so. They are to blame for the funding restrictions that resulted, not the legislator opponents of cloning and ESCR, many of whom warned against this very outcome.
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 12, 2011
Helping with abortions required by university
Nursing students told to look elsewhere if they can't participate
Agree to do abortions or you can't go to school here.
That's the message from Vanderbilt University's nursing residency program, where the school requires applicants to sign a pledge stating they'll participate in abortions.
The Christian legal group Alliance Defense Fun has filed a complaint with the federal Department of Health and Human Services in response stating the policy violates federal law.
The ADF reports that federal law states that any institution that receivesfederal grantscannot require students to do abortions in violation of their religious beliefs.
ADF spokesman Matt Bowman says it's clear the application misses the mark regarding the regulations.
"Vanderbilt is violating the law by requiring nursing residency applicants to promise to assist in abortions," Bowman explained.
"The fact that Vanderbilt receivesfederal fundingviolates the law by requiring their nursing candidates to assist in abortions," Bowman added.
Bowman says the Vanderbilt policy violates the law providing that any institution receiving federal grants cannot force, coerce or otherwise require an individual to assist in abortions.
"No entity which receives, after September 29, 1979, any grant, contract, loan,loan guarantee, or interest subsidy under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance andBill of RightsAct of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 15001 et seq.] may deny admission or otherwise discriminate against any applicant (including applicants for internships and residencies) for training or study because of the applicant's reluctance, or willingness, to counsel, suggest, recommend, assist, or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with the applicant's religious beliefs or moral convictions," the law stated.
Vanderbilt nursing school spokeswoman Kathy Rivers says the program in question is the nursing residency program at VanderbiltUniversityMedical Center and not a program at the nursing school.
In a statement released to the media, VanderbiltUniversityMedical Center spokesman John Howser says the ADF is mistaken.
"Allegations by the Alliance Defense Fund that Vanderbilt's nursing students, or other employees of the Medical Center, are somehow required to participate in terminations of pregnancy or in other activities that may be contrary to the employee's religious beliefs or moral convictions appear to have arisen due to a misunderstanding by the Alliance Defense Fund," the statement said.
The statement adds that Vanderbilt's Medical Center has a religious freedom policy in place.
"A VanderbiltUniversityMedical Center policy has been in place for years for employees, including nurse residents, so they may be excused from participating in activities due to religious beliefs, ethical beliefs or other associated reasons," Howser's statement continued.
"This policy also applies to applicants to our nursing residency program who may be requested to participate in the care of women who seek medical care associated with the termination of pregnancy," Howser's statement added.
The Vanderbilt University Medical Center's hiring policy states that the center's plan complies with federal standards.
"In compliance with federal law, including the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of theEducationAmendment of 1972, Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Executive Order 11246, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, as amended, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008i, VanderbiltUniversitydoes not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, military service, or genetic information in its administration of educational policies, programs, or activities; admissions policies; scholarship and loan programs; athletic or otheruniversity-administered programs; or employment," the policy stated.
But Bowman said the nursing school's distinction is irrelevant and the law applies to the entire Vanderbilt system, schools and medical center. He adds that the statement from the Medical Center pointing to a non-discrimination policy is misleading.
"Vanderbilt is being duplicitous by talking about the wrong policy. Vanderbilt's application package specifically requires applicants to promise to assist in abortions and says nothing about another Vanderbilt policy which does not require them to assist in abortions," Bowman observed.
The language Bowman cites is found in the Women's Health Acknowledgment Letter that is one page 15 of the 16-page application and that the applicant must sign:
"Often women are faced with many difficult decisions about their lives and health care. Nurses in the Center for Women's Health support women through these decisions and provide professional evidence based care specific to each situation. One difficult decision women face is termination of pregnancy. If you are chosen for the Nurse Residency Program in the Women's Health track, you will be expected to care for women undergoing termination of pregnancy," the application letter reads.
The application letter adds that if the candidate cannot sign the letter, they should consider applying elsewhere.
"It is important that you are aware of this aspect of care and give careful consideration to your ability to provide compassionate care to women in these situations. If you feel you cannot provide care to women during this type of event, we encourage you to apply to a different track of the Nurse Residency Program to explore opportunities that may best fit your skills and career goals," the letter added.
The letter that must be signed by the candidate concludes with this acknowledgment.
"By signing this letter, I acknowledge that I am aware that I may be providing nursing care for women who are having the procedures listed above that may be performed in the Center for Women's Health," the letter concluded.
The discovery of Vanderbilt's policy makes the Nashville, Tenn., school just the latestuniversityto reveal admission or graduation policies that potentially require students to set aside religious beliefs in order to graduate.
WND reported that Augusta StateUniversityin Augusta, Ga., allegedly is forcing counseling student Jen Keeton to undergo a re-educationprogram because Keeton believes homosexuality is learned behavior.
Keeton's request for an injunction against the school forcing her to attend the re-educationprogram was denied.
Contact: Michael CarlSource: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: January 11, 2011
Rising Abortion Rate Prompts Calls for More Restrictions -- and Fewer Restrictions
A liberal abortion-tracking group reports that the near three-decade decline in abortions has reversed course, going up one percent from about 1.2 million abortions in the United States in 2005 to 1.21 million abortions in 2008.
The group says the uptick points to the "need to enact and enforce laws that prohibit the more intrusive forms of harassment" against abortion providers. But a pro-life group said the numbers mask a human tragedy.
In a new report, "Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008," the Guttmacher Institute found that there were 19.4 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2005 and 19.6 abortions for every 1,000 women in 2008.
That increase, however, is still below the peak of 29.3 abortions for every 1,000 women in 1981, when there were 1.57 million abortions performed in America. Since 1973, the number of total abortions in America is estimated at 49,551,703, according to the National Right to Life Committee.
The Guttmacher Institute also found that medication-based abortion had gone up 24 percent, from 161,000 to 199,000 between 2005 and 2008.
"That early medication abortion is becoming more widely available is good news," said Rachel Jones, lead author of the new study. "U.S. government reports have shown that abortions are increasingly occurring earlier in pregnancy, when the procedure is safest. Increased access to medication abortion is helping to accelerate that trend."
The study looked at women ages 15 through 44.
The increased number of abortions between 2005 and 2008 is all the more reason to reduce restrictions on abortion, according to Guttmacher Institute President Sharon Camp.
"In this time of heightened politicization around abortion, our stalled progress should be an urgent message to policymakers that we need to do more to increase access to contraceptive services to prevent unintended pregnancy, while ensuring access to abortion services for the many women who still need them," Camp said in a statement.
A pro-life group complained that in reporting the Guttmacher Institute's findings, reporters focused on numbers rather than conveying the loss: "Instead of reflecting on the 1,212,350 unique members of society that America will never know, the headlines all minimized the tragedy that is 'choice,' the Family Research Council said.
"But in terms of casualties -- real human victims -- this "slight rise" means that our country dug 6,150 new graves in 2008. That's more than the entire student population at Yale, Princeton, Brown, or Dartmouth."
To put it in perspective, the Family Research Council used the example of Saturday's mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona: "Who among us, after reading their stories, would say the gunman 'only' killed six victims? Yet somehow, in a society calloused by convenience, it's acceptable to describe the loss of millions of unborn children as 'just' this or that. However political this debate has become, it's important to remember the moral crisis that got us here. And until we address that fundamental problem, these statistics are bound to yo-yo into the new century."
The FRC said one way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. is to stop paying for them.
Two lawmakers are trying to do just that. In the first days of the new Congress, U.S. Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," which would prohibit federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.
The increased number of abortions shows more work needs to be done in Congress and in state legislatures to protect mothers and unborn children, said Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council's Center of Human Dignity.
"The nation's abortion rate has declined for many years because of the tireless work of and growth of pregnancy resource centers, pro-life educational campaigns, and the enactment of state laws such as parental notification and informed consent," Monahan said.
"Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans now describe themselves as pro-life, and are overwhelmingly opposed to their hard-earned dollars going to pay for abortions," she added.
Monahan noted that Planned Parenthood disclosed in its 2008-2009 annual report that it had received $363.2 million in government grants and contracts, a $13.6 million increase from the prior year. Also, Monahan noted, Planned Parenthood's Web site shows that the group performed 324,008 abortions in 2008, up from 305,310 in 2007.
"Claims made by Guttmacher that a slight increase in abortion somehow warrants fewer restrictions on late-term abortions or an increase in restrictions on peaceful protests is absurd," said Monahan. "How can they say abortion rates aren't high enough?"
The Guttmacher study also reported that there were 1,793 abortion providers in the United States in 2008, up from 1,787 in 2005. Further, the report said that, in 2008, "the overwhelming majority of U.S. counties (87 percent) lacked an abortion provider, and 35 percent of women of reproductive age lived in these counties."
As for harassment, the report said that 88 percent of abortion clinics "experienced at least one form of harassment in 2008," including picketing, patient blocking and vandalism.
In conclusion, the Guttmacher Institute said, "it is important to remove barriers to abortion services, especially for low-income women. Only 17 states use their own funds to cover all or most medically necessary abortions for women with Medicaid coverage. If more states did so, or if federal restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortions were lifted, poor women could more easily access services when confronted with an unintended pregnancy."
Also, "more states need to enact and enforce laws that prohibit the most overt and damaging forms of harassment and allow access to this legal, needed and basic health care service," the report stated.
Contact: Fred Lucas
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date:January 12, 2011
Congress May Take Up Pro-Life Measures
The U.S. House of Representatives soon may consider two measures that could cut the abortion rate in Washington, D.C., and across the nation.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., is looking for more co-sponsors for the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which he introduced last week. The bill would keep family planning funds out of the hands of Planned Parenthood and other organizations that sell abortions. This is the third time Pence has introduced the bill, which has 122 co-sponsors.
"It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion," Pence said. "It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion at home or abroad.
"The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X."
Meanwhile, Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., — who co-chair the Pro-Life Caucus — are working to reinstate the prohibition on taxpayer funding for abortions in the District of Columbia.
Up until 2009, the Dornan Amendment, which is part of the annual Financial Services Appropriations bill, prevented any funding approved by Congress from paying for abortions in the district. In 2010, some of the pro-life language was removed.
Smith and Lipinski are calling on the House Appropriations Committee to resurrect the previous version of the Dornan Amendment.
In a letter to the committee leaders, they say: "Restoration of the Dornan Amendment is urgently needed, and doing so is consistent with the opinion of a majority of Americans. Abortion funding bans such as the Dornan Amendment also reduce the number of abortions by removing taxpayer financial support.
"Again, we urge you to expediently reinstate the Dornan Amendment in any FY11 Appropriations Act providing funds for the District of Columbia, and look forward to working with you on this and other important issues in the 112th Congress."
Contact: Jennifer Mesko
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: January 11, 2011
'Retrenched' abortion industry seeing gains
The latest reported figures for abortions in the U.S. are up slightly, about 100,000 abortions per month, after several years of a downward trend. Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon with the National Right to Life Committee explains what is happening.
"After all of the work that the pro-life movement has done in the last couple of decades to bring the numbers down...the abortion industry [has] retrenched and they have aggressively gone about to shore up their business," he contends.
While traditional abortions are dangerous enough, O'Bannon points out abortion proponents have done a good job of promoting the abortion drug RU-486 as an alternative.
"They've been able to sell that to a lot of women who aren't aware of just how difficult and dangerous these chemical abortions are," he laments, "and that's made, I think, a huge difference."
According to news reports, 11 women have died after taking RU-486, and there have been many reports of dangerous side effects. Plus, Planned Parenthood is now waging war with pregnancy care centers that want to provide women with the truth about abortion and its after-effects.
"[Those are] people who will stand beside them through the whole process," says the pro-life spokesman. "[Many women] don't know about adoption in a way that that child can have a wonderful future -- and the child doesn't have to die."
He believes the new statistics should motivate the pro-life community to work harder to get the truth out about abortion and the alternatives.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
January 11, 2011
Pro Assisted Suicide Activists Keep Shoveling the Manure That It is “Only” About the Dying
Thanks to the spread of suicide tourism, the UK is going through another in a series of pushes to legalize assisted suicide. As with the last time, when a bill was introduced in the House of Lords, a commission is studying the issue. And advocates are pretending that their goal is what it clearly is not.
In the current British Medical Journal, a deputy shovels the manure with the very first paragraph! From "One and a Half Truths About Assisted Dying," by Tony Delamothe (link to Abstract only):
Sixteen months ago I argued that the debate on assisted dying had been hijacked by disabled people who wanted to live and that it should be reclaimed for terminally ill people who wanted to die.
But the activism in the UK about legalizing–and or, not prosecuting–assisted suicide has explicitly not been limited to the terminally ill. MSP MacDonald's just defeated bill in the Scottish Parliament, for example, is referenced by Delamothe. Yet, it specifically would have permitted assisted suicide for people with non terminal disabilities. From a story I first quoted here at SHS on March 26. 2009 (my emphasis):
Ms MacDonald has narrowed her proposals to cover only three specific categories of people who believe their lives have become intolerable. It includes those with a progressive, degenerative conditions; those who have suffered a trauma such as crashes or sports injuries, leaving them entirely dependent on others; and those with terminal illness.
Debby Purdy, who won a ruling in the Law Lords requiring the public prosecutor to say when assisted suicide would be prosecuted–leading to a quasi decriminilization–is not dying. She has MS and wants her husband to be allowed to help kill her when she has decided she has had enough of disability. The most notorious cases of suicide tourism, such as Daniel James, a young man taken to Switzerland by has parents after a sports injury left him totally paralyzed, involved people with disabilities, not the terminally ill.
And even those bills that did so limit the license proposed to the dying, were never intended remain so restricted. Rather, the dying were the foot in the door. Thus Lord Joffe, who unsuccessfully attempted to legalize assisted suicide several years ago, admitted that he wanted a far broader license (as reported here):
I can assure you that I would prefer that the [new] law did apply to patients who were younger and who were not terminally ill but who were suffering unbearably," adding, "I believe that this bill should initially be limited.
I could give–and have given–example, after example, after example, after example, after example! But truth is not the coin of the realm on this issue.
Delamothe is upset because disability rights campaigners are the single most effective organized opponents of assisted suicide–in the UK and in the USA. But they are right and he is wrong. Assisted suicide/euthanasia is not about terminal illnesses. It never has been. As I have written, the philosophy that underlies the movement–radical individualism and that killing is a proper means of ending human suffering–make it impossible to limit euthanasia to the dying and remain consistent to values. The dying are just used as the justification for what is already a far broader and more radical goal of eventually legalizing Kevorkianism that would permit virtual death on demand to any adult with more than a transitory desire to die.
Contact: Wesley J. SmithSource: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: January 11, 2011
Rep. Goodlatte Would Support Defunding Obamacare if Repeal Effort Unsuccessful
Rep. Bob Goodlatter (R-Va.)
A Virginia Republican congressman told CNSNews.com that he would not only vote for full repeal of President Obama's health care legislation passed last March, but that he would also support efforts to defund the legislation if repeal efforts fail.
On Capitol Hill last week, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.): "Rep. Steve King of Iowa is advocating including language in every appropriations bill to prohibit money from that bill funding the implementation of Obamacare. Do you support defunding Obamacare that way if repeal efforts fail?"
"I do support the attempt to stop Obamacare -- not only by repeal, but by cutting off the funding," Goodlatte told CNSNews.com.
When asked if the King proposal was one he could get behind, Goodlatte said he wasn't familiar with it, but clearly stated that he was in favor of getting rid of Obamacare by way of defunding it, if necessary.
"I'm not sure about the particular process that Mr. King is following," Goodlatte said. "But, I believe that the significant majority of the American people were opposed to that legislation at the time it was passed, remain opposed to it and it should be repealed and quite frankly if the Senate or the president are not so disposed then I think the House should exercise its appropriating authorities to cut of funding for it."
Goodlatte is currently serving his 10th term as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Congressional Democrats passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and President Barack Obama signed it into law in March 2010.
In a Jan. 3 interview with CNSNews.com's Editor-in-Chief Terry Jeffrey, King said that House Republicans should include language that prohibits any funding for implementation of Obamacare in every appropriations bill that passes this year to force a showdown on the issue with the Democratic-majority Senate and the president.
"Somebody's going to blink," King said in the interview. "It'll be President Obama or it'll be House Republicans. If House Republicans refuse to blink, we will succeed," he said. "Obamacare will never become the effective law of the land and we'll be able to leave a legacy of liberty for the future generations."
Click here for the video.
Under King's plan, congressional Republicans would first force a straight up-or-down vote on repealing Obamacare in the House and Senate. They would then follow that by inserting language into all appropriations bills that says no money from the bill(s) can be used to implement the federal health care program.
King told CNSNews.com: "So, my proposal is this then: Each appropriations bill that comes through, we need to put language in it that prohibits any of the dollars that are appropriated in those funds – and I would add to that any funds heretofore appropriated – from being used to implement or enforce Obamacare."
Contact: Dan Joseph
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: January 10, 2011
70 “Black Children are an Endangered Species” billboards going up in the City of Angels
Beginning today Los Angelans in predominantly black areas of the metropolis will start seeing a total of 70 billboards pop in in their neighborhoods exposing the abortion industry for targeting African-Americans for abortions.
The "Black Children are an Endangered Species" campaign, first launched in Atlanta, GA, is coming to the Golden State (click to enlarge)…
This is because, according to an upcoming press release:
California is the nation's abortion capital with over 208,000 abortions (in the latest year reported) among its 424 abortion clinics.
This African-American led initiative exposes Planned Parenthood's racist and eugenics-based history and unaltered course. According to the CDC, the black abortion rate is 3 times that of whites and 2 times that of all other races combined – differences, which cannot be explained by "lack of access" or "health care disparities."
The new campaign is being sponsored by 2 nonprofit black-led organizations, the Issues4Life Foundation and the Radiance Foundation, host of TooManyAborted.com.
Spokespersons are Walter Hoye (510-557-7716), Ryan Bomberger (757-535-7926), and Dr. LaVerne Tolbert (32e-216-2551). The group can be emailed at life@issues4life.org.
Hoye is most well-known for violating an Oakland, CA, bubble zone ordinance in 2008. For that he spent 30 days in jail after refusing to tell a judge he would comply with the ordinance. Hoye's criminal conviction was later overturned, but he is pursuing the constitutionality of the ordinance in civil court, currently awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit.
Bomberger, who was transracially adopted as a child, is a strong adoption advocate. "Taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood aborted 324,008 innocent lives and only made 2,405 adoption referrals according to their own 2008 Annual Report," stated Bomberger in the release, "That's 135 children killed for every 1 adoption referral. Choice is a sham."
Tolbert is a former Planned Parenthood board member and knows the abortion chain's tactics from the inside. ""In California, children are targeted for abortions through school-based clinics and school-linked clinics, which are family planning clinics on or near school grounds. Girls are taken off campus to a Planned Parenthood clinic, where abortions are performed without parental consent or notification."
The Issues4Life Foundation works with other pro-life African-American organizations nationwide. Hoye, for instance, will participate tonight in a New York City rally to spotlight the staggering rate of abortions of black children in NYC.
A press conference about the LA "Black Children are an Endangered Species" campaign will be held January 15 at 11a PST on at 6146 W. Pico Blvd. in LA.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: January 11, 2011
US abortions up for first time since 1990
The other side admits abortion is wrong simply by its aversion to publicizing its proliferation. Do we say, "We regret to inform you more and more women are voting"? Or, "We have a dream, that black civil rights will be safe and legal but rare"? No, those freedoms are celebrated.
Likewise, those insisting abortion is a constitutional right should cheer when it increases, right? But you wouldn't know by MSM's headlines that the US abortion rate, after almost 20 years of decline, is on the rise….
Actually abortion hasn't "stalled" or "leveled off." It's up. Here are the numbers, quoting the Wall Street Journal…
After dropping for more than a decade, the US abortion rate has begun to rise slightly, according to an extensive new survey of providers by the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute.
The increase was just 1%, to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women of child-bearing age in 2008, from 19.4 in 2005, the last year captured by the group's previous survey.
The actual number of abortions performed also rose slightly in that period, to 1,212,350 from 1,206,200 – the 1st increase since a steady march downward that began in 1990, the peak year for total abortions in the US since the survey began tracking them in 1973.
Both sides blamed the economy. Their side also insisted that there are not yet enough condoms on every corner or Pill pack in every purse. Increased access to RU486 most certainly also played a part. According to CNN:
Of the 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008, 17% were early medication abortions. Jones found a 24% increase in the number of these procedures being conducted at nonhospital facilities…. Indeed, the number of providers offering this service also increased.
"Heavy promotion of RU-486 and chemical abortions has really had an impact," said Randall O'Bannon, Ph.D., director of Education and Research with the National Right to Life Committee. "[Women] would consider abortion when they might not consider it before, and they would take this pill."
The number of abortion clinics overall continued to decline – slightly – although big box mills are way up. (Pictured right is Planned Parenthood's new Houston mill, at 78,000 sq the largest abortion mill in the Western Hemisphere.) Again quoting WSJ…
The number of abortion providers remained virtually identical, at 1,793 in 2008 compared with 1,787 in 2005 – the first survey since 1982 that showed no decline. The flat result partly reflected a fuller count of certain facilities in CA that weren't captured in the 2005 total. Without them, there would have been a 3% drop-off.…
[T]he data showed the growing role of large abortion providers, with the number providing 5,000 or more procedures per year up by more than 50% since the last survey….
USA Today has a helpful graph showing the rate of abortion from state to state. Wyoming earns pro-life praise for having only 0.9 abortions per every 1,000 women, followed by Mississippi (4.6), Kentucky (5.1), and South Dakota (5.6).
The pro-abort industry is certainly celebrating the bicoastal abortion extravanza, led by Delaware (40), New York (37.6), New Jersey (31.3), District of Columbia (29.9), Maryland (29), California (27.6), and Florida (27.2).
I think one of the messages in all this is the pro-life movement has to place greater emphasis on abstinence education. Abortion is majorily just an outcome of prolific wanton sex.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: January 11, 2011