Students for Life Banquet

Young people are the key to the pro-life movement. Not only are they more pro-life than past generations, they are the most important people to reach on abortion. Here's why:

1.  Young people are the future. If they are pro-life, we will have a pro-life future.

2.  Young people are having the most abortions. 52% of abortions are obtained by women  24 years and younger.

3.  The college campus provides the most anti-life environment for these young people who are so important to the future.

Reaching college students will save lives and end abortion.  But, despite four strong years, the need far outweighs our current reach.  In order to reach more students we really need to take things to the next level. This is why we are having our first ever benefit dinner. Register here.

This May 26th, we are hosting our first Benefit Dinner as a means of expanding the support for our mission and, hence, our capacity to serve students. Not only will this be a memorable event with 250 in attendance, but it also has the potential to have a high impact on the life-saving work we are doing with pro-life college students.

Summary

Speaker: David Bereit – 40 Days for Life Founder

Cost: FREE TO ATTEND, but be prepared for an appeal for our mission

Perks: Live Music, Open Bar (guests must be 21)

Date: Thursday, May 26th: 6:30 reception – 7:30 dinner and program

Location: 1850 N Hermitage, Chicago, IL

Register here.

Hatch and Coburn lead movement to ban abortion funding in U.S. Senate

A large group of Senators, including Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), today introduced legislation, the Protect Life Act (S. 877), that would codify longstanding policy preventing taxpayer funding of abortion and apply it to the partisan health law.

"A strong majority of the American people do not believe that scarce taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions. This common-sense legislation would ensure that doesn't happen with respect to the highly-partisan health law," said Hatch.

"Forcing Americans to pay for abortion services with their own dollars is a grave abuse of government authority. The administration's track record of ambiguity in this area underscores the need for federal legislation clarifying, once and for all, that public funds will not be used to pay for abortion services under the new health law," Dr. Coburn said.

"This bill is a step in the right direction to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to fund abortions. I remain committed to repealing and replacing the President's costly health spending law with commonsense solutions that we can work together and agree upon," said Blunt.

"While we will continue the important work of fighting to repeal ObamaCare, Senator Hatch's bill is a common sense piece of legislation that clearly states that no taxpayer money should be used to fund abortion as part of the new health care law," said Rubio.

"Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to fund a practice that millions of Americans find deeply troubling. While repealing the national health care law remains my ultimate goal, stopping federal money from financing abortions is an urgent priority," said Ayotte. "In addition to safeguarding taxpayer resources, this bill also preserves the Hyde-Weldon conscience protections for physicians who choose to not provide abortion services."

The legislation, which mirrors an amendment Hatch introduced when the Senate Finance Committee considered the health law, has also been cosponsored by Senator Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), David Vitter (R-La.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozeman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), John Thune (R-S.D.), James Risch (R-Idaho), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). Representatives Joe Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) have introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) allows taxpayer-funded abortions through insurance policies, the pre-existing condition insurance plans, federally qualified health centers, and health plans administered by the federal government. PPACA's various loopholes and direct appropriation of funds to new mandatory health programs mean that substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars are not subject to the annual pro-life appropriations rider, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment.

Furthermore, the health law does not fully protect health care professionals and entities who are morally opposed to abortions, and leaves them vulnerable to discrimination for refusing to perform abortions.

The Protect Life Act guarantees that no taxpayer dollars flow to cover elective abortions by applying the longstanding policy of the Hyde Amendment to the new health care law and provides protections for health care providers who are opposed to abortions. Specifically, the Protect Life Act:

 - Eliminates the Capps accounting gimmick to create real separation by requiring abortion plans to be sold separately from health care plans receiving federal dollars. This protects Americans from being forced to pay an "abortion surcharge" in order to obtain a health care plan.

 - Closes a loophole in PPACA to ensure that state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted by federal law.

 - Restricts any federal bureaucrats or political appointees from mandating private abortion plans to cover abortion.

 - Amends PPACA to offer comprehensive and permanent pro-life protections, consistent with longstanding public laws and the bipartisan Stupak Amendment.

 - Prevents the Office of Personnel Management from contracting with or administering health plans that include abortion.

Source: Illinois Review

US indicts man for death threats against pro-life leaders

Fr. Frank Pavone / Robert P. George

A United States attorney has indicted a man who described himself as a "pro-choice terrorist" with six counts of making interstate threats against pro-life advocates such as Priests for Life director Father Frank Pavone and Princeton University law professor Robert P. George.

New York resident Theodore Shulman, 49, has plead not guilty to six counts of communicating interstate threats. The charges each carry a maximum five-year sentence and were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Shulman allegedly left a threatening voice mail message with the Calif.-based Life Legal Defense Foundation's legal director Catherine Short. He is also accused of posting threats to the Priests for Life website, the "Second Hand Smoke" blog at the First Things website and the blog "RealChoice."

The March 22 federal indictment, published by Mother Jones magazine, listed six separate incidents but redacted the names of the alleged victims.

One January 2010 threat referred to Scott Roeder, then on trial for the murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller.

"If Roeder is acquitted, someone will respond by killing [Victim-1] of [the University] and [Victim-2] of PRIESTS FOR LIFE," the threat said.

A threat Shulman allegedly posted at another blog said that if anyone "terrorizes" Nebraska late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart there will be "retaliation, in the form of murderous attacks against right-to-lifist Professor Robert P. George of Princeton, and his family."

The poster said he would not commit the attack himself "but someone will."

A spokesman for Priests for Life told CNA that because Fr. Pavone is involved in the case he does not feel he should talk about it until it is resolved. Prof. George could not be reached for comment.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek has said Shulman has made threats against her. He also allegedly threatened Troy Newman, president of the Kansas-based Operation Rescue, who praised the indictment.

"Finally, this self-called 'pro-choice terrorist,' Ted Shulman, has been indicted for several death threats against pro-life leaders, including myself," Newman said. He predicted that Shulman will likely spend "a very long time behind bars."

"I hope it sends a clear message to those who perpetrate violence against peaceful, non-violent pro-life people," he added.

The accused man is the son of feminist activist and author Alix Kates Shulman. He started a blog called "Operation Counterstrike" whose mission statement said "Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it."

While the blog has been closed to uninvited readers, a Feb. 10 Google cache reveals a "Prayer for Safety" in the blog sidebar asking for the protection of Princeton professor Robert P. George and Priests for Life president Fr. Frank Pavone. It asks that God keep them safe "from terror and from assassination, so long as Dr. Leroy Carhart remains safe and un-terrorized, and not one second longer."

Fr. Pavone became the first full-time director of Priests for Life in 1993. Prof. George is Princeton's McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and co-authored "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life" which argues for the personhood of the human being from the moment of conception onward.

Source: CNA

U.S. Senate to Vote on Pro-Life Policies

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., has introduced the Senate companion to H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. S. 906 is identical to the bill approved by the U.S. House last week.

The bill, which would convert some pro-life policies — also known as riders — into law, has 22 Republican co-sponsors.

S. 906 would prohibit taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion insurance coverage; currently a patchwork of such policies must be approved annually. The bill also would codify conscience protections for health care workers who object to abortion and other actions.

"The passage of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act with a strong, bipartisan majority of House members is a crucial step forward and one we hope to replicate in the Senate," Wicker said. "Our goal is to codify in a single federal act a policy that has been endorsed again and again by the Congress and which has overwhelming public support — that of withholding taxpayer funding of abortion."

TAKE ACTION
Please ask your U.S. senators to support S. 906.
Click here for Senator contact information.

Source: CitizenLink

Majority of IL congressional delegation votes to end taxpayer funding of abortions

Wednesday, the U.S. House voted to eliminate taxpayer funding of abortions, and the Illinois delegation overwhelmingly supported HR 3.

Those Republican members of the Illinois House delegation voting "Yes" to stop federal tax dollars paying for abortions were: Judy Biggert, Bob Dold, Randy Hultgren, Tim Johnson, Adam Kinzinger, Don Manzullo, Peter Roskam, Aaron Schock, John Shimkus, Bobby Schilling and Joe Walsh.

House Democrats voting "Yes" were Jerry Costello and Dan Lipinski.

Those Illinois House member voting to continue taxpayer funding of abortions were Democrats Danny Davis, Luis Gutierrez, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Quigley and Jesse Jackson Jr.

Source: Illinois Review

Johnson & Johnson's Sales of Cancer-Causing Birth Control Pills Comparable to Tobacco Industry's Corporate Greed, Says Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

"Real hatred of women involves their exploitation through sales of cancer-causing hormonal contraceptive steroids," Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer condemns Johnson & Johnson's and its shareholders' decision to continue selling cancer-causing birth control pills to young women instead of protecting their lives and striving to reduce breast cancer rates.

On April 28, 2011, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, a medical adviser for the Coalition, presented a resolution at a shareholder's meeting on behalf of a shareholder, Human Life International. The resolution proposed a change in J&J's policy -- that it would not discriminate in employment against breast cancer survivors, including those voicing opposition to the sale of the pill. Shareholders rejected the proposal after J&J's board sent a message saying they "did not believe the resolution is necessary."

World Health Organization scientists' research and a meta-analysis in Mayo Clinic Proceedings show the pill is associated with cancers. [1,2] Use of the pill has been linked to the deadly triple-negative breast cancer. [3]

Kahlenborn's testimony is available here.

"Over 260,000 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer (in situ and invasive cases) this year," said Mrs. Malec. "J&J's corporate greed is comparable to that of the tobacco industry. How does J&J CEO William Weldon sleep at night?"

Contact: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Watch Some Great Pro-Life Speeches on the House Floor

Yesterday in the debate over H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, several House lawmakers offered great pro-life speeches. You can watch them here.   One major component of this bill is that it would keep federal funding from going toward abortion (except in rare Medicaid cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger).

Those lawmakers who spoke up on the Floor in favor of H.R. 3 should be thanked.

In particular, Rep. Chris Smith from New Jersey spoke on the fact that when public funding for abortion is not available, children have a greater chance at survival. He mentions that in 2009, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute released this statistic:

Approximately one fourth [25%] of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.

Doesn't that encourage you? It does me. The argument's been made that changing laws doesn't make a difference and we should work to change hearts and minds instead. Well, keeping Medicaid funding from paying for abortion apparently changes the minds (even if it's a "forced" change) of  25 percent of women who planned to have abortions on the taxpayer dime. Put another way: no Medicaid funding for abortion means more babies get a chance at life.

Even if it was just one baby, isn't that worth it?

If the senators who are up for reelection in 2012 choose to disregard innocent preborn life by killing pro-life legislation during their time in office, then one way to hold them accountable is to show their pro-abortion votes to their constituents and argue that they shouldn't be re-elected.  Pretty simple.

Contact: Ashley Horne
Source: Citizenlink

Federal indictment for 'pro-choice terrorist'

An abortion advocate jailed in New York on charges of terroristic threats against pro-life leaders has been indicted.
 
The FBI has charged 49-year-old Theodore Shulman with six counts of communicating interstate threats against pro-lifers.

"Finally, this self-called 'pro-choice terrorist,' Ted Shulman, has been indicted for several death threats against pro-life leaders, including myself, and...he will probably spend a very long time behind bars," reports Operation Rescue's Troy Newman. "I hope it sends a clear message to those who perpetrate violence against peaceful, non-violent pro-life people."

And Newman notes numerous violent incidents directed at pro-lifers nationwide, including "the death of Jim Pouillion two years ago, the throwing of rocks [and] Molotov cocktails, the crashing of windows, our office was broken into [and] assaults on pro-lifers around the country."

So the Operation Rescue president is hopeful that the latest incident will encourage federal authorities and others to start taking the issue seriously and understand that those in the movement deserve the same protection awarded to anyone else.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Abortion funding ban appears stymied

Legislation to institute a government-wide ban on federal funds for abortion appears destined to advance no further despite gaining a comfortable victory in the U.S. House of Representatives May 4.

The House voted 251-175 for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, H.R. 3, with the majority consisting of all 235 Republicans who cast votes and 16 Democrats.

The bill would serve to standardize bans on abortion funding that now exist in various federal programs and make certain the prohibition extends to all agencies. It would make those bans permanent, eliminating a system in which many of them have to be reauthorized each year. The prohibition also would apply to last year's health-care reform law, which authorizes federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion. In addition, it would establish conscience clause protections for pro-life, health-care providers.

The legislation, however, faces likely defeat in the Senate, where Democrats and abortion-rights advocates maintain control. Pro-life Sen. Roger Wicker, R.-Miss., introduced his chamber's version of the bill May 5.

Even if it were to survive the Senate, President Obama appears certain to veto it. The White House released a statement May 2 saying it opposes the bill and the president would be advised to use his veto power to thwart it.

In spite of the measure's seemingly doomed future in this congressional session, the House's action marked a significant milestone in the effort to provide taxpayers with permanent protection from underwriting abortions. It marked the first time the House had voted on the proposal, and it came only after the Republicans gained the majority in the 2010 election.

"Elections have consequences," said Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land. "The American people elected the most pro-life House since Roe v. Wade last November, and this is one of the many positive results that will defend our unborn citizens' right to exist."

Land, the president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), said children conceived by mothers in poverty "have a better chance of being born when this legislation is passed than they did before. That's good news for America and certainly good news for those children."

In a May 3 letter, Land told selected House members the ERLC finds it "unconscionable that a single taxpayer dollar be funneled to abortion." The legislation's enactment would mean "concerns on abortion funding would be significantly abated," he said.

Other pro-lifers also applauded the House action. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a written statement, "Compelling American taxpayers to hand over their hard earned dollars to pay for abortions can't be justified, especially at a time when our country is facing an economic meltdown brought on by a failure to stop the out-of-control spending in Washington."

Rep. Chris Smith, R.-N.J., the bill's chief sponsor, asked during debate: "Want to reduce abortions? End public funding.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that ending public funding for abortions saves lives."

Smith cited an estimate that the Hyde Amendment had saved the lives of more than one million unborn children since it was first enacted in 1976. The Hyde Amendment bars Medicaid and other funding through the annual Labor and Health and Human Services spending bill from paying for abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, Smith said, reported about one-fourth of women who would have used Medicaid funds for abortion have given birth instead because of Hyde.

Among its policies, the House-passed legislation would halt the Internal Revenue Service's allowance of "tax favored treatment for abortions" under itemized deductions, health savings accounts and other accounts, Smith said.

Abortion-rights organizations decried the House vote.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the country's leading abortion provider, "is outraged," said Cecile Richards, the organization's president. The measure would increase taxes on individuals and small businesses because it eliminates deductions for medical costs that include abortion, Planned Parenthood charged.

Smith's office said, however, the legislation would not cause taxes to be raised unless a person or business "is so committed to abortion that they would rather pay more in taxes than choose a plan that does not cover abortion."

Richards called it "a dangerous bill that goes far beyond any other proposal ever introduced in Congress to take comprehensive health care coverage away from women." She expressed confidence, however, in the willingness of the Senate and Obama to reject the measure.

The House-passed legislation includes exceptions for abortions in cases of a danger to the mother's life and pregnancy by rape or incest.

In addition to the Hyde Amendment, the bill would cover such bans currently in individual federal programs as the:

-- Helms Amendment, which bars foreign aid funds from being used for abortion as a method of family planning;

-- Smith Amendment, which prohibits federal money from paying for elective abortions as part of the health benefits program for federal employees;

-- Dornan Amendment, which bans federal funds, as well as congressionally approved local ones, from paying for elective abortions in the District of Columbia.

Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois is the lead Democratic cosponsor of the bill.

In addition to Lipinski, the other Democrats who voted for the ban were Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jerry Costello of Illinois, Mark Critz of Pennsylvania, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Dale Kildee of Michigan, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Mike Ross of Arkansas and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

Public opinion surveys during the last two years have shown more than 60 percent of Americans oppose federal funds for abortion or subsidies for abortion coverage.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press

Justice for ND 88 Pro-Live Activists!

Today, May 5th, Michael Dvorak, St. Joseph County, Indiana prosecutor, dismissed the criminal trespass charges that he has pressed over the last two years against almost all of the pro-life protesters, known as the "ND88," the individuals arrested for trespassing when they entered upon Notre Dame's campus in peaceful and prayerful protest against the University's bestowing honors on President Barack Obama at the 2009 Commencement.  Dvorak dropped the charges as part of an agreement between the Thomas More Society and the University.

"This is a big step forward and a victory for the pro-life cause," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society and a 1965 Notre Dame graduate.  "We are appreciative of the steps that Notre Dame has taken, including successive visits by University President John Jenkins, C.S.C., and other campus leaders to the March for Life in Washington, D.C., both in 2010 and 2011, to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the creation of new and significant pro-life initiatives on campus. Those who share pro-life convictions may differ on tactics and approaches, but they best serve their sacred cause when they work together to secure the common good for all human beings, born and unborn alike, rather than carrying on as courtroom antagonists."

Tom Dixon, South Bend, Indiana attorney and Thomas More Society special counsel, had led the defense over the last two years, during which the parties engaged in vigorous litigation, including extensive discovery proceedings.

The parties remain in profound disagreement over the 2009 Commencement, but after prayerful consideration they have decided to put their differences behind them, to cease battling in court, and rather to affirm a commitment to the fundamental proposition that each and every human life is sacred, from conception until natural death, no matter whether rich or poor, humble or exalted, wanted or "unwanted."

Moreover, both parties have pledged not to rehash the events of the past, but on the contrary, to recognize each other's pro-life efforts and to work together to find ways to increase those efforts and maximize their impact on the nation's contentious, ongoing debate over abortion policy.

Source: Thomas More Society

Abortion 'right' a high priority

According to one conservative advocate, abortion is a prominent issue on the agenda for the United Nations Commission on Population and Development (CPD).
 
Samantha Singson of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) says the battle at this year's commission -- the theme of which is "Fertility, Reproductive Health and Development" -- is once again over what is described as a woman's "right" to abortion.

"The agenda of this meeting is more about reducing fertility...than focusing on some of the other demographic problems [that] attributed to low fertility, which a lot of countries, especially in Europe, are experiencing at the moment," she explains.

So rather than dealing with the end result of a population shortage, she argues delegates seem to be more concerned with promoting an agenda worldwide.

"They seem more interested in promoting condom distribution or legalizing abortion...than putting in development policies for countries [that] are not experiencing high fertility," Singson laments.

Low fertility rates in European countries means a graying population and fewer workers, which she says obligates those countries to permit a higher level of immigration. For example, China's one-child policy, which includes forced abortion and sterilization, has led to those problems as well as a shortage of women in that country.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Appeals Court Allows Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Funding to Continue

In a 2-1 decision, a federal Appeals Court has ruled that federal taxpayer funding can continue for human embryonic stem cell research. The decision vacated a preliminary injunction that had been issued by Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in August 2010; that preliminary injunction had been put on hold with a temporary stay last Fall. Today's split decision by the appeals panel to vacate the preliminary injunction was made after considering arguments from both sides, given in December 2010.

The opinion on the appeal as well as the dissenting opinion are available online. (PDF)

Judge Lamberth has yet to issue a decision on the merits of the original lawsuit, so today's decision by the appeals court is only one aspect of the overall case. And according to an updated story from Nature, attorneys for Drs. Sherley & Deisher are "considering asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider the preliminary injunction's merits en banc, meaning that all 13 judges on the court would consider it."

Abortionsafety.com: New website to document safety records of abortion clinics and doctors

You've likely seen a new ad on our home page, as showcased above, with a link to AbortionSafety.com/donors.

The ad is sponsored by Secular ProLife, which plans to launch a new website called AbortionSafety.com in November.  At present the group is seeking donations from the pro-life community to help.

Kelsey Hazzard of SPL explained to me via email:

SecularProLife.org has been around for 2 years, networking and blogging and spreading our message. We feel we're finally in a position where we can directly serve women in crisis pregnancies….

A team of 9 pro-life activists – primarily students, some who've worked with SPL in the past and others who haven't – will be doing research on abortion malpractice cases…. We'll compile information from news reports, court documents, health authority rulings, etc., enlisting the help of local pro-life activists….

The website will be very user-friendly, allowing women to search by the name of the abortionist, the name of the abortion facility, and by state. Each entry will provide a narrative summary of the abortionist's misdeeds, and link to source documents…. The site will also contain a page that goes into more detail about abortion risks and alternatives.

Kelsey adds, "The underlying assumption is that if women actually knew what some of these abortionists had in their pasts, they'd have to be crazy to keep their appointment!"

Contact: Kel
Source: JillStanek.com

State of Health Insurance Abortion Coverage in the States

An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer money to fund abortion.  When asked specifically if they supported or opposed the use of public funds to provide coverage for abortion in health insurance plans created by Obamacare, 72% of Americans were in opposition!  Only 23% percent supported publicly funded abortion coverage in insurance plans, and 5% did not know (Quinnipiac 2009).

In an effort to reflect the will of the people, 9 state governments have passed laws (and at least 16 more have pending legislation) prohibiting the coverage of abortion in any of the state insurance exchange programs instituted by Obamacare.

Several states have gone beyond this and restricted or proposed legislation restricting abortion coverage in all health insurance plans (public and private) except through the optional purchase of a rider.

In addition, several states which have not completely restricted abortion coverage in all insurance plans have restricted it in state-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) insurance plans.

The following map will give you a clear picture of the state of abortion coverage in insurance across the states:

 =  AL (SB183, SB202 and HB 558), AR (SB113), FL (H97 and S1414), GA (SB4 and SB29), IA (HF576, HSB57, and SF38), IN (SB116), KS (HB2292, HB2377), MI (HB4143 and HB4147), (MT SB176), NE (LB22 and LB132), NJ (A3085), OH (HB79), OR (HB3600), PA (SB3), SC (H3406 and S102), TX (HB552, HB636, HB1816, HB3112, HB3419 and SB404)

 = AL (SB201, SB281 and HB557), IN (SB241), KS (HB2292, HB2377), MI (HB4143 and HB4147),  MN (Only state-funded insurance: HF201, SF103), NE (LB22), OR (HB3600), SC (H3406), TX (SB404)

Contact: Brianna Walden
Source: FRC BLog

Futile Care Theory: Baby Joseph’s Father Wants Answers

Baby Joseph is home, and apparently not as unconscious as the London hospital representative stated. From the story:

Baby Joseph napping at home in his crib on Easter Sunday is all the proof his father needs that his Ontario doctors were wrong. Only months ago, the fate of 15-month-old Joseph Maraachli was a question mark. Doctors at London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ont., sought to take the infant off life support as he battled a progressive neurological disease. But on Sunday, the round-cheeked baby was home in Windsor, resting in a cradle packed with plush toys. Now and then he opened his eyes or wriggled a little, or moved his arms beneath father Moe Maraachli's occasional touches and kisses. When Maraachli held out a finger at one point, Joseph's own stubby fingers curled around it.

Love. Comfort. Touch. These are important to every baby.

Joseph's father wants answers:

"I feel victorious," Maraachli said, smiling broadly as he stood by Joseph's crib. "I feel I won and my baby's alive." But he's also been left with questions about why he and wife Sana Nader had to go to the U.S. for help. "That's what makes me mad," he said. "Why I have to travel to St. Louis?"

That's a good and important question. Joseph clearly was not on the verge of death when the hospitals wanted him off life support and refused a tracheotomy.  The tracheotomy obviously provided him great benefit, and in fact, is apparently a normal palliative procedure in cases such as this.  Indeed, he's off of machines and home where he can die peacefully in his own time.

So, why was Joseph and the family treated so badly? Why did the family have to go the USA to obtain proper care for their baby? Will Canada Medicare pay for the procedure that so clearly should have been provided to Joseph in his home hospital?

Don't expect answers to come readily. I have noticed that when a case goes against what the futilitarians predicted, they generally hide behind closed doors–until the next time they boldly assert that wanted, efficacious treatment for a dying or profoundly disabled patient is "inappropriate." That shouldn't be allowed to happen.  The Canadian authorities should investigate.

Perhaps a good place to start to right the wrong would be a sincere apology from Joseph's doctors and the hospital administration to the family.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

U.S. House to Vote on No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act!

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to take up a major pro-life bill -- the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 3) -- on or about Wednesday, May 4, 2011.  National Right to Life urges you to promptly contact the office of your representative in the U.S. House, to urge him or her to support H.R. 3, and to oppose all amendments that may be offered by opponents of the bill.

Currently, there is a patchwork of different federal laws that restrict federal funding of abortion.  However, many of these restrictions (such as the well-known Hyde Amendment, which applies to the federal Medicaid program) expire every year -- which forces the pro-life side to re-fight the same battles in Congress, year after year.  Moreover, in a number of federal programs -- notably, some major new programs created by the massive Obama health care law in 2010 -- federal subsidies for abortion are currently permissible under law.  H.R. 3 would replace this leaky patchwork with a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal funding of abortion and federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is sponsored by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.), the co-chairs of the House Pro-Life Caucus.  To see an always-current list of co-sponsors of the bill, click here.

Please contact your U.S. House member today!  (Preferably, during business hours.)  In this alert, use the link that says "Take Action!"  After you enter your zip code on the next page, you will see a suggested e-mail to your representative that you can modify as you see fit.
    
Take Action, click here

Battle on Abortion in Springfield

As the Illinois House ended this week, the two remaining pro-life house bills -- HB 786 Ultrasound and HB 3156 Abortion Clinic Regulations -- have not yet passed the House.  The third pro-life bill, HB 2093 (Reis) -- amends the Abused an Neglected Child Reporting Act to re-state that medical personnel and licensed counselors at abortion clinics and family planning centers must report any suspected instance of child abuse or neglect -- passed out of the House a few weeks ago and is now in the Illinois Senate.

The Illinois House will NOT be in next week for Easter Week. They come back Tuesday, May 6th. 

HB 786 (Phelps) The Ultrasound Opportunity Act which simply requires that a woman be offered the opportunity to see her ultrasound be obtaining an abortion.  It is her choice whether to see it or not.  HB 786 was not called for a vote this week because the opposition placed "Notes" on the bill that have to be answered before a bill can move from second reading to third reading [final passage stage].  The Sponsor is asking for an extention of the deadline for this bill.

What are "notes"?   When a bill in the Illinois House is on second reading [the amendatory stage of the bill] legislators can request various notes to learn the impact on the State if the bill becomes law.  Generally, this would be a proper and good thing.  A fiscal note would ask what is the cost to the State if the bill  became law.   A Corrections note would ask if the bill would create more prisoners [especially if the bill created a new crime] and so forth.  In order to remove the notes, an appropriate agency of the State must file a letter answering the note.

However, the notes placed on HB 786 were solely filed to slow down our bill.  There were at least a dozen notes filed on HB 786.  Some were being filed every hour on Friday.

Because the notes were not all responded to, HB 786 could not move off second reading and get a final vote this week.

HB 3156 (Senger) amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (ASTCs) and would require that any office or facility that does 50 or more abortions a year must meet the same health and safety standards as all other ASTCs [such as outpatient eye or foot surgery centers].  A number of abortion clinics are not licensed as ASTCs and should be for the health and safety of women.

It was admitted on the floor debate by the opposition that the mega abortion mill in Aurora cannot not meet the ASTC standards.

So much for wanting abortions rare, safe and legal as the pro-aborts like to say.

HB 3156 failed to pass by just 3 votes this week having gotten 57 yes votes of the 60 votes needed, 51 no votes and 7 members voting present.     

The bill is now on "Consideration Postponed" meaning that it has another chance for a vote when they come back.  See the Illinois Family Institute link below on the "unofficial vote".  It is unofficial because when a sponsor sees that the bill has failed to get the 60 votes, she can ask for "consideration postponed" and the roll call is erased since another "final" official vote can be taken later.  However, we obtained the roll call anyway.

HB 2321 (Senger) which is identical to HB 3156 did not move for a vote since a decision was made to go with HB 3156.

Please continue to have your contacts call or email their state representatives to VOTE YES ON HB 786 AND HB 3156!  We have this whole week and continuing week after Easter to keep the pressure on.  If we do this WE CAN WIN in the House!

Follow this link to view your legislator's contact information: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

Abortion recovery's April boost

Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Since this month is Abortion Recovery Awareness Month, pro-lifers throughout the country are making an extra effort to raise awareness about the effects of abortion.

 

In 2005, the event was established to educate people about the fact that many women and men need help with recovering from abortion. But most importantly, it was created to let people know about the healing opportunities in their various communities. Stacy Massey, co-founder of Abortion Recovery International, tells OneNewsNow the problem goes beyond grief and depression.

"Any type of side effects -- eating disorders, drinking and alcohol use, cutting, workaholism -- there [are] statistics and studies that show that there is a root to all of that that can be tied in to an abortion," she explains.

And even though not every person experiences the negative impacts of abortion, Massey points out that about 87 percent do.

"These women and these men lost babies -- sometimes at their own hand, sometimes through coercion of others. But there is a grief associated with that," she says. "It's very, very normal, and our organization's focus is how to heal those families from that grief."

So she encourages people to contact their local recovery providers, which are listed on her organization's website.

Study: Pro-life laws aid abortion decline

Contact: Amanda Kate Winkelman, Baptist Press

Various state-level pro-life measures result in "statistically significant declines" in the country's abortion rate, according to a study in the State Politics & Policy Quarterly.

The report by Michael New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, revealed a correlation between the drop in the number of abortions in the United States and the rise in state regulation of abortion, including laws requiring informed consent, waiting periods and parental involvement.

Abortions in the United States declined by 22.2 percent between 1990 and 2005, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. New said several factors might play a role in the decrease in abortions, but his research focused on the relation of two U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the decline -- Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

The Casey decision allowed states to regulate abortions as long as the regulations do not pose an "undue burden" on women. In 1992, New pointed out, no states had informed consent laws or waiting periods. By 2005, however, 33 states had informed consent laws and 22 states required women to wait a specified period of time before obtaining abortions. In 2005, 34 states also enforced parental involvement laws.

New says his study proves that such anti-abortion legislation at the state level has played a factor in the decline of abortions between 1990 and 2005. 

In his study, New compared states in which judges nullified anti-abortion legislation with states where anti-abortion legislation went into effect. The comparison showed states with enforced laws had larger in-state abortion declines than states where laws were nullified.

The changes brought by Casey and the subsequent decrease in abortions show the pro-life movement is growing stronger, New said, despite its failure to gain the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court opinion legalizing abortion.

"Even though abortion opponents have been unsuccessful in their efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) they have enjoyed incremental policy success in recent years," New wrote. "Surveys indicate that more Americans are willing to describe themselves as 'pro-life' (The Washington Post 2009) and a higher percentage of people are willing to support restrictions on abortion (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2009)."

New's study, "Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era," appears in the current issue of the State Politics & Policy Quarterly, published in March.

IRS against pro-life message?

Contact: Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has asked a Texas pro-life organization some questions that one constitutional attorney says it has no business knowing the answers to.

 

Christian Voices for Life in Sugarland, Texas, conducts prayer vigils at abortion clinics and participates in Life Chain and 40 Days for Life. Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society tells OneNewsNow the IRS has posed a number of questions to the pro-life group, which is seeking a tax-exempt status.

"[They are asking] 'Do you educate on both sides of an issue?' Well, the abortion issue? The answer is emphatically no," Brejcha reports. "In fact, there is no such requirement anywhere near the Internal Revenue Code, and you're surely entitled to a tax exemption if you educate the public about the truth."

So he suggests it should be up to the tax-exempt pro-abortion groups to present the other side of the issues.

Instead, he explains, the pro-life group is presented with questions such as: "During your Life Chain and your 40 Days for Life programs, do you try to block people from entering a building, a medical clinic or any other facility," which the Thomas More Society spokesman says implies a false speculation. "Where did they get that idea? Certainly not in the application for exemption."

In response to the probe, Brechja's organization has sent a strongly worded letter that suggests the IRS has no legitimate exemption concern, but that it may be denying or delaying tax-exempt status because of the organization's pro-life message. Moreover, he says the IRS seems to believe Christian Voices for Life might intend to engage in illegal activity, which he concludes is insulting.