Planned Parenthood provides over 330,000 abortions every year and brings in about a billion dollars annually, but is still fighting to protect its government subsidies -- amounting to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to its clinics every year. If today's current crop of the super wealthy can't find anything better to do with their money than support organizations that are being heavily funded by taxpayers, maybe President Obama is right when he says billionaires need to pay more taxes. Or perhaps organizations that receive five-figure and even seven-figure private donations shouldn't be demanding handouts from taxpayers. America's largest abortion provider has been crying "foul" ever since the movement to defund Planned Parenthood began sweeping the country. Voter-approved measures have stripped Planned Parenthood of state taxpayer monies in Kansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas, New Hampshire, and most recently, North Carolina. In Washington, DC, when the House of Representatives voted to slash funding to Planned Parenthood via a measure in the federal budget bill, the initiative did not pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate. An August 8, 2011, Crain's Chicago Business feature titled, "The women keeping threats to Planned Parenthood at bay," profiled the group's support by three big donors. Helen Zell, labeled by Crain's along with her husband Sam as a "billionaire philanthropist," advocates publicly funded abortion, birth control and sex education. The 69-year-old has pledged $600,000 over three years to Planned Parenthood's near north side operation, and she has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Chicago's ACLU to promote abortion. Crain's quotes her as saying, "I want to get the most bang for my buck." Along with Zell, Illinois Planned Parenthood is receiving big money from Democratic fundraiser Laura Tucker and also from one of Planned Parenthood's pro bono lawyers, Fay Clayton, who has given $50,000 to the Aurora abortion site. "With this kind of support from private donors," mused Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, "One must ask why Planned Parenthood insists they deserve taxpayer funding as well. If donors are ready to step up and fill the gap, why are they fighting tooth and claw for every dollar, claiming that their centers will close down without this funding?" Scheidler, who has long been involved in countering Planned Parenthood's promotion of abortion, pointed out, "Even people on the 'pro-choice' side have got to be wondering why an organization that can hit up the likes of Helen Zell for a million bucks needs any taxpayer funding." Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Pro-Life Action League
A new poll suggests that self-described pro-choice Americans support a range of abortion restrictions such as banning second- and third-trimester abortions -- data that puts them at odds with the nation's leading abortion rights groups and that could give support to a handful of new state laws. The Gallup poll compared the views of pro-choice and pro-life Americans to see if there is any common ground in the contentious debate and found agreement in nine specific areas. Six of those are laws promoted by pro-lifers. For instance, 52 percent of pro-choicers and 90 percent of pro-lifers favor making abortion illegal in the second trimester. Eight states have passed laws in the past 18 months prohibiting abortion beginning at 20 weeks. In addition, pro-choicers and pro-lifers favor laws: -- requiring a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion (60 percent of pro-choicers and 79 percent of pro-lifers favor it). -- requiring parental consent for minors (60 percent pro-choicers; 79 percent pro-lifers). -- banning partial-birth abortions (63 percent pro-choicers, 68 percent pro-lifers). -- making abortion illegal in the third trimester (79 percent pro-choicers, 94 percent pro-lifers). -- requiring informed consent for abortion patients (86 percent pro-choicers, 87 percent pro-lifers). Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and all the major abortion groups oppose each of those restrictions. "Planned Parenthood, in other words, doesn't even represent the views of the Americans who are predisposed to support them," Thomas Peters, of the pro-life group Live Action, wrote at LiveAction.org. "The pro-life movement has much to gain by highlighting the fact that 'common ground' solutions to reducing the abortion rate ... have support not only among pro-lifers, but by a majority (and sometimes a large majority) of people who claim to be pro-choice. Planned Parenthood always tries to paint us as the extremists -- turns out the opposite is true!" The poll also found pro-choicers and pro-lifers in agreement on: -- keeping abortion legal when the woman's life is endangered (97 percent pro-choicers, 69 percent pro-lifers). -- keeping abortion legal when the woman's physical health is endangered (96 percent pro-choicers, 68 percent pro-lifers). Pro-life leaders argue that such an exception is far too broad, because all pregnancies, they say, endanger a woman's physical health. -- keeping abortion legal when the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest (91 percent pro-choicers, 59 percent pro-lifers). Gallup also found the two sides in sharp disagreement on some issues. For instance, while 64 percent of pro-choicers believe abortion should be allowed when a woman or family cannot afford a child, only 9 percent of pro-lifers believe so. And while 89 percent of pro-choicers say abortion should remain legal in the first trimester, only 35 percent of pro-lifers agree. The poll was released Aug. 8 and based on surveys conducted June 9-12 and July 15-17. Each time, just over 1,000 adults were interviewed. Contact: Michael Foust source: Baptist Press
The New York Times Magazine has published a heartbreaking article on yet another monument in the culture of death -- pregnancy reduction. In case you have never heard the term, here's what pregnancy reduction is in a nutshell. When a pregnant mother is carrying two or more babies in her womb, she can choose to kill one or more of those babies while allowing others to live. According to pro-choicers, pregnancy reduction is a practice that began years ago to reduce health risks for women carrying multiples. Pro-choicers have also reasoned that pregnancy reduction increases chances for surviving multiples to make it to term. But that was then, and this is now. What began as a misguided attempt to help women and (some!) unborn babies has now slid down the slippery slope. Now, the procedure is increasingly performed on women carrying twins. In fact, the Aug. 10 Times article focuses in particular on the increasing number of women who carry twins but, for whatever reason, only want one of them to live. The reasons for killing one and letting the other live range from finances to time management. The opening paragraphs offer a glimpse into one woman's pregnancy reduction: "As Jenny lay on the obstetrician's examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn't want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment -- and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny's abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt. "'Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn't had children already or if we were more financially secure,' she said later. 'If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn't have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there's a natural order, then you don't want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner -- in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me -- and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.'" The rest of the article goes on to describe the moral quandary that these women find themselves in. The women seem to have a sense that killing a perfectly healthy baby while letting its sibling live is wrong. Their consciences trouble them, and they do it in secret without ever telling any of their friends. They cover their tracks even though they otherwise openly support abortion rights. So why the guilt about killing a twin but no guilt about killing a single? I can imagine at least one answer to that question. The surviving twin will always remind the mother of what might have been. The surviving twin holds a magnifying glass up to the humanity of the child that was killed. The survivor is a living witness to what the human conscience already knows, and no inane euphemism (like "pregnancy reduction") can completely suppress what the heart knows to be true. Every single person -- born and unborn -- is created in the image of God. To kill innocent unborn human life, therefore, is a grave moral evil. And nothing brings that truth home more powerfully than a surviving twin. This article makes one thing clear, even if only by accident. There really is no ethically significant difference between "reduction" and abortion. Both procedures subordinate the baby's right to life to the personal convenience of the mother. The Times article says: "The reasons for reducing to a singleton are not so different from the decision to abort a pregnancy because prenatal tests reveal anomalies. In both cases, the pregnancies are wanted, but not when they entail unwanted complications -- complications for the parents as much as the child. Many studies show the vast majority of patients abort fetuses after prenatal tests reveal genetic conditions like Down syndrome that are not life-threatening. What drives that decision is not just concern over the quality of life for the future child but also the emotional, financial or social difficulty for parents of having a child with extra needs. As with reducing two healthy fetuses to one, the underlying premise is the same: this is not what I want for my life." In other words, some parents have an inviolable plan for their lives that doesn't include the intrusion of an unwanted child. That child's right to live has to give way to the mother's right not to be put-out by the burden of caring for her child. This logic is morally bankrupt, but it is all too common fare today. In this article, the euphemism "pregnancy reduction" is a ruse. It is a term that attempts to cover up a great moral evil. The expression plainly functions to deflect attention from an intolerable contradiction -- that one unborn child might be allowed to live while its perfectly healthy sibling is destroyed. But the covering is a fig leaf, and that is seen most conspicuously in the troubled consciences of the mothers and medical professionals in this article who have participated in this procedure. At the end of the day, it's not just the euphemism that is the problem. It is the heinous evil that the euphemism is trying to hide that should scandalize us. Reducing a pregnancy means killing an innocent human. Just as we don't want to give in to the mores of a decadent culture, neither should we be complicit in covering evil with clever obfuscations. Such talk is a not-too-subtle throwback to an ancient method that humans use to justify sin -- calling evil good and calling good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Make no mistake. God is outraged at that, and we should be too. Contact: Denny Burk Source: Baptist Press
Several revolutionary techniques detailed in the journal Nature show people demanding the use of embryos for scientific research are more outdated than ever. While this new research that involves reprogramming adult cells is promising, the research is not problem-free: Reprogrammed adult cells may have the propensity to form tumors, just like embryonic stem cells. But over the last three months, seven studies have been published in scientific journals showing how skin cells can be directly converted into other types. Three published by Nature in mid-August detail the process by which scientists used them to create new nerve cells and neurons — including the kind lost to Parkinson's disease. A fourth study, done by a Swedish research team and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June, noted that not only does direct conversion eliminate the ethical problems of using embryonic stem cells, but also their tendency to form tumors. "The ongoing research involving progress with reprogrammed adult cells," said Dawn McBane, bioethics analyst for CitizenLink, "continues to demonstrate that unethical and impractical embryonic stem cell research should be a thing of the past." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Texas Governor Rick Perry supports research involving adult stem cells -- and he's demonstrated personally just how strong his support is. Governor Perry had a spinal fusion and decompression procedure at the beginning of July -- a procedure that reportedly delayed his recent announcement to run for the GOP presidential nomination. But Dr. David Prentice of the Family Research Council says in Perry's case, there was a different twist. (See earlier article) "Along with that surgery it turns out he had an injection of some of his own adult stem cells into the spinal area to assist the healing," the doctor says. David Prentice (FRC)While the procedure is experimental, Prentice says there is solid evidence it will be helpful. In fact, a member of the Texas legislature is undergoing adult stem-cell treatment for multiple sclerosis. Prentice points out the treatments are being used for up to 80 different diseases and injuries. "For things like these sorts of back injuries, for multiple sclerosis, for heart damage, spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes and the list just keeps going on and on," he says. Adult stem cells were recently used to construct a whole new windpipe to save the life of a cancer patient. They also are being used to treat stroke injury. Prentice adds that while adult stem cells are working, "We get a lot of promises about the hope and potential of embryonic stem cells, but those are simply unsuccessful." contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
State authorities have inspected an abortion clinic in Rockford, Illinois, that had not been checked for 14 years -- and the results were disturbing. Last June, three investigators spent two days in the clinic. Local pro-life activist Kevin Rilott says what they found "should have had them shut down long ago." "Their autoclave machine, which is the machine that sanitizes their medical instruments, failed two of four inspections. They also found that this clinic is, by state law, supposed to have a registered nurse on staff -- and for over three years they have not had a registered nurse there," the pro-lifer says. Kevin Rilott 2In addition, inspectors found an unidentified brown substance on surgical gloves and on surgical instruments that were inserted in women. Rilott says conditions were not only disgusting, but dangerous. Local media outlets have reported little about the findings -- but the activist says pro-life prayer warriors will make sure women seeking an abortion know. "We're going to print up a little brochure and give it to the women who will stop on their way into the clinic and let them know what they're in for in this place. And [we'll] continue to work with the state of Illinois to make sure that they follow through on their findings," comments Rilott. The report also stated that all three of the clinic's operating rooms inspected failed to insure a sanitary environment. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
A Gallup poll shows mixed results on public attitudes towards pro-life issues, but the results are for the most part positive.
The poll suggests overwhelming support of pro-life issues, such as a woman being informed of the risks of abortions, parental consent laws, a legally required waiting period before obtaining an abortion, and a ban on partial-birth abortions.
In its "bottom line" wrap-up about the poll, Gallup states: "Most Americans favor laws that require abortion providers to inform women of certain risks and consequences of abortion and give parents more control over their daughters' reproductive decisions. They are also broadly receptive to laws that protect the fetus late in pregnancy, including 'partial birth abortions.'"
Penny Nance, who heads Concerned Women for America, concurs with those findings. “Public opinion is trending more and more pro-life. We now know that the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life -- and this survey is just further confirmation on the specifics of the issue [and] how far people have come in support of us on this issue.”
Nance, however, notes some areas of weakness are revealed in the survey. “It may be how the question was asked, but the survey did show some weakness on the area of conscience protections,” the CWA representative says. “I believe if we did a better job of explaining individual conscience rights of pharmacists and doctors that the public really is with us.”
She adds there were also weaknesses shown in the Gallup poll in terms of support for showing a woman seeking an abortion a sonogram of her baby, and laws preventing abortion facilities from receiving federal funds.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Thomas More Society Files "Friend of the Court" Brief for Indiana Legislators
This week, the Thomas More Society filed a "friend of the court" brief available here in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of more than 60 members of the Indiana General Assembly, in opposition to Planned Parenthood's assertion that defunding abortion providers imposes an "unconstitutional condition" on physicians' alleged right to perform abortions.
The brief states that "abortion providers have no constitutionally recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions" and that funding restrictions would not "interfere with the ability of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Accordingly, because the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions have not been violated, neither has the asserted right of their providers."
In the trial court, the Thomas More Society scored a partial victory when U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Planned Parenthood's request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that "human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" (previous media release here).
Society attorneys had also filed a "friend of the court" brief available here in the trial court on behalf of the Indiana legislators, defending both this provision and the provision of the law defunding Planned Parenthood.
"We're proud to represent the members of the Indiana General Assembly in doing the will of the people, both in preventing tax dollars from being used to support abortion providers and in ensuring that women considering abortion are fully informed about the nature of the procedure," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of Chicago's Thomas More Society.
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Thomas More Society
AP reported that "China vows [a] crackdown on sex-selective abortions" to close the gender gap. Don't hold your breath.
A BBC News article, "China acts to protect baby girls," reported the same vow in 2004. Zhao Baige, then Deputy Director (now Vice Minister) of China's National Population and Family Planning Commission, vowed seven years ago: "Illegal sex determination and sex-selective abortion must be strictly banned . . . China has set the goal of lowering the sex ratio to a normal level by 2010."
The result? In 2004, there were 117 boys born for every 100 girls born. In 2011 -- a year after China had vowed to bring sex ratios to a normal level -- there are now 119 boys born for every 100 girls born. The gender gap has not closed, but widened.
Same government. Same vow. Should we expect a different result?
We remember Zhao from the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit. Leading the charge to define human beings as walking carbon footprints, she stated:
"The [Chinese One Child] policy on family planning proves to be a great success. It not only contributes to reduction of global emission, but also provides experiences for other countries -- developing countries in particular -- in their pursuit for a coordinated and sustainable development. The 400 million births prevented as a result of China's policy since it was introduced in the 1970s, and the drop in the child-per-couple average from 5.8 to 1.8, resulted in 1.8 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted each year."
Zhao's statement inspired a spate of articles extolling Chinese-style population control to combat global warming. CNN's Ted Turner injected new energy into this movement during the 2010 climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, when he stated that the whole world should adopt the One Child Policy.
Make no mistake. China's One Child Policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. Women are dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables, and forced to abort babies they want, up to the ninth month of pregnancy. Women sometimes die during these violent procedures. The One Child Policy is China's war on women. Adopting it world wide would hurl women's rights back to the dark ages.
Watch a four-minute video exposing the truth about forced abortion in China:
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=219
Sign a petition against forced abortion in China:
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=sign_our_petition
Contact: Reggie Littlejohn
Source: Women's Rights Without Frontiers
In a new letter to the editor of the Napa Valley Register, Norman Fleishman wrote that, unless the U.S. enacts the Obama administration's health care plan and China's One Child Policy, "the world is doomed to strangle among the coils of pitiless exponential growth."
It is inexcusable that someone in Fleishman's position should make such an appalling recommendation. As a former Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President, he is obligated to get his facts straight.
China's One Child Policy causes more violence to women and girls than any other official policy on earth. It is China's war on women. It is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization and infanticide. It has led to gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of baby girls. Planned Parenthood should agree: whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, no one supports forced abortion, because it's not a choice. To watch a four minute video exposing the truth about forced abortion in China, click here.
In China, a woman's body is not her own. It is the domain of the state. The Chinese Communist Party functions as "womb police," wielding the very power of life and death over women's wombs. This is a terrible violation of both women's rights and human rights. After 30 years of such a legacy, one thing is clear: it is time for the international community to rise up for the women and girls of China. To sign a petition against forced abortion in China, click here.
Fleishman's recommendation that the United States adopt the One Child Policy brings into sharp focus the following issue, which Planned Parenthood must publicly resolve, since it is publicly funded. Does Planned Parenthood truly stand for "choice," or does it stand for population control, even if that means forced abortion? If Planned Parenthood stands for "choice," then why are they working hand in hand with the Chinese Communist Party's coercive population control machine? The IPPF website openly declares, "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning program. It supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation . . ." www.ippf.org/en/Where/cn.htm.
If Planned Parent really stands for "choice," they should oppose forced abortion in China, not seek to expand it to America. Women's Rights Without Frontiers calls upon Planned Parenthood immediately to repudiate Fleishman's remark -- if they indeed disagree with it.
Contact: Reggie Littlejohn
Source: Women's Rights Without Frontiers
People who are dying are often vulnerable and need protection. Assisted suicide exploits the fear, loss of control and vulnerability that can accompany the dying process, and this is especially true among the elderly. Pro-life advocates are increasingly concerned about the risk for “elder abuse” in connection with assisted suicide. Others at risk include those with serious health conditions, the disabled and depressed.
A new web site launched this week provides information on the risk of assisted suicide to these and other groups, as well as help in assessing the threat of legalizing assisted suicide in various states. The web site entitled, Choice is an Illusion, was created by two folks with deep knowledge and experience in this area: Alex Schadenberg and Margaret Dore, along with William Reichel, MD.
Pro-assisted suicide advocates continue their crusade to legalize and sanitize assisted suicide in a number of states – and may be targeting your state in their search for a perfect test case in the courts. As these efforts continue to develop, this web site will be a helpful tool to bookmark and review as you seek to promote a pro-life ethic for end-of-life decisions.
The new website is http://www.choiceillusion.org/
Contact: Carrie Gordon Earll
Source: CitizenLink
A law prohibiting Indiana from distributing Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood has some powerful advocates on its side — namely, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), 25,000 Americans and 41 U.S. Representatives — most of whom are from states also trying to defund Planned Parenthood.
Signed in May by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, the law was immediately put on hold when Planned Parenthood and the ACLU challenged it in federal court, which later granted a motion for preliminary injunction. The case was then appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed on behalf of the congressmen — including all Indiana House Republicans — a “friend of the court” brief on Aug. 8, defending the state’s right to distribute federal funds as it sees fit.
“HEA 1210 (Indiana’s state law) is not rendered unreasonable or inconsistent with federal Medicaid law simply because it bolsters Indiana’s strong interests in encouraging childbirth and ensuring that abortions are not directly or indirectly subsidized by public funds,” the brief states. “Indiana may reasonably conclude that sending large sums of public funds to abortion providers that also provide non-abortion services within the same organization serves to indirectly subsidize abortion activities.”
Planned Parenthood — which receives more than $350 million a year from taxpayers via “government grants and contracts” challenged the law by saying it has a “constitutional right” to perform abortions and receive public funds.
CitizenLink Judicial Analyst Bruce Hausknecht said federal law clearly “gives the states wide latitude in determining who qualifies as a Medicaid provider, and that’s what Indiana is taking advantage of.”
This year, six states moved to defund Planned Parenthood: Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. Planned Parenthood is suing Indiana, Kansas and North Carolina in federal court.
“The state efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are the latest installment of the state versus federal health care battle, and one that will continue in the future,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for CitizenLink. “If (they) are successful in securing their rights in federal court, you will see even more states try to defund Planned Parenthood next year.”
Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitizenLink
A pro-life pharmacist says a bill introduced in both houses of Congress that would force pharmacists to dispense controversial medication, regardless of their conscience, would impact those who object to birth control and emergency contraception. Pharmacists for Life International (PFLI) opposes the bill introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) and Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-New York). Spokesman and pharmacist Bo Kuhar believes pharmacists' constitutional rights would be violated. "The Supreme Court has many times ruled both at the state and the federal level a person does not have to park their sincerely held beliefs ... their faith and their morals at the door when they come to work or go to school, or whatever it is that they're doing in their everyday life," Kuhar says. But the proposed bill would require that. He says making the decision is not just based on the patient's and doctor's views and religious beliefs. "Pharmacists are very intimately involved with patients on a ... day-to-day basis, and they are definitely one of the factors and part of the healthcare team, and not just a robot dispensing drugs blindly and not making judgments and decisions," the PFLI spokesman contends. So Kuhar is encouraging people to contact their elected representatives to bring the legislation to a halt, making sure that pharmacists, like others, can continue to make decisions based on sincerely held religious and ethical beliefs. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Thomas More Society Files "Friend of the Court" Brief for Indiana Legislators This week, the Thomas More Society filed a "friend of the court" brief available here in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of more than 60 members of the Indiana General Assembly, in opposition to Planned Parenthood's assertion that defunding abortion providers imposes an "unconstitutional condition" on physicians' alleged right to perform abortions. The brief states that "abortion providers have no constitutionally recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions" and that funding restrictions would not "interfere with the ability of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Accordingly, because the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions have not been violated, neither has the asserted right of their providers." In the trial court, the Thomas More Society scored a partial victory when U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied Planned Parenthood's request to block a provision of an Indiana law that requires doctors to tell women who are seeking abortions that "human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm" (previous media release here). Society attorneys had also filed a "friend of the court" brief available here in the trial court on behalf of the Indiana legislators, defending both this provision and the provision of the law defunding Planned Parenthood. "We're proud to represent the members of the Indiana General Assembly in doing the will of the people, both in preventing tax dollars from being used to support abortion providers and in ensuring that women considering abortion are fully informed about the nature of the procedure," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of Chicago's Thomas More Society. Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Thomas More Society
Missouri's ban on late-term abortions has gone into effect despite the views of the state's governor. Governor Jay Nixon, who supports abortion, did not veto the measure but let it instead go into law without his signature. Pam Fichter of Missouri Right to Life applauds her state legislators. "We have a very solid, bipartisan pro-life majority in both houses in the Missouri legislature," she explains, "and they were all on board on this vote -- and we have a very comfortable number that we would be able to override any veto...." The pro-life activist has no doubt where Nixon stands on the issue. "...We don't have any delusion that the governor's changed his position," she shares. "He's still pro-abortion, but he was dealing with the political reality that he was just outnumbered." Fichter believes the Missouri legislation would be a good model for other states to consider. "We've seen tremendous successes across the country on protecting human life at a time when we have the most anti-life administration in the history of our country," says the activist. "We're seeing the states become even more motivated and more energized to enact pro-life legislation." The bill limits late-term abortions with exceptions for the life or significant health danger to the mother. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The Obama administration says health insurance plans under the government-organized system must cover birth control as "preventive care" for women, with no copays, beginning in 2013. The rules issued Monday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius include a provision that would allow religious institutions to opt out of offering birth-control coverage. But critics say the conscience exemption will not cover faith-based groups engaged in activities other than worship. Paul Rondeau of the American Life League says it is no surprise that the administration would impose this requirement. "This recommendation by an organization -- which, in fact, is already on record as supporting abortion and considering it 'women's healthcare' -- this was a foregone conclusion back when ObamaCare assigned it to the Institute of Medicine to make recommendations at a later date," he states. With no copay, insurance companies are expected to pass the cost on to their customers through slightly higher premiums -- meaning individuals who object will be forced to cover the cost of birth control for others. Coverage with no copays for the "morning-after" pill is likely to become the most controversial part of the change, because some religious conservatives say Plan B and ellaOne are abortion drugs. Rondeau points out there are no conscience protections for medical professionals. "All pro-life medical health professionals working at an organization which does not qualify or does not apply for a religious exception ... are put at risk and are going to be forced into a situation of having to prescribe birth control and perhaps even commit morning-after abortions because they're not covered under this act," he laments. Under the plan, counseling to prevent sexually transmitted diseases will be free. Historically that has meant prescribing contraception rather than teaching abstinence -- the only true method of preventing STDs. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The abortion drug RU-486 has killed and injured far more women and girls than previously thought, according to a government report that only recently surfaced. Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America says her organization "is deeply disturbed that the [Food and Drug Administration] is now reporting in a very quiet, underhanded way that this drug is very dangerous. The new report shows that about 2,200 have been injured by this drug and 14 women have died." Concerned Women for America has said from the beginning that the drug is designed to at least kill one life, that of the baby. She says now it is known that it also kills women. She has issued a call to action to contact the FDA and also members of Congress to let them know that they need to put pressure on the FDA to reconsider their decision to allow RU-486 to be sold in the U.S. RU-486 is known to cause sepsis, which is potentially lethal, but also significant blood loss requiring hospitalization and a transfusion. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN), a pro-life African-American group, is trying to get the NAACP's attention concerning abortion. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) will not address the fact that 36 percent of abortions in the U.S. kill black babies. So, LEARN volunteers have been following the organization around the country and distributing copies of Life Dynamics' MAAFA 21, a documentary that demonstrates Planned Parenthood's connection with the eugenics movement to reduce or eliminate minority populations. "The difficulties we had [were] with security," reports LEARN spokesman Clenard Childress. "Most people were anxious to be able to view the video, and, of course, you had a few that were very supportive and protective of the NAACP status quo." The pro-life group managed to pass out 3,000 copies of the DVD to members of the convention. "To think that this is in the hands of 3,000 participants of the NAACP is exciting to me, and I'm praying that those seeds that we have sown would manifest and be fruitful soon," Childress notes. "I'm looking for a new wave of social activists and advocates for the unborn through that particular project." In his opening address, NAACP pPresident Benjamin Jealous stated, "The NAACP's task in the 21st Century is to turn racial equality into racial justice." However, the organization refuses to address the fact that abortion has killed at least 20 million black babies to date. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
HB2093 was signed into law by Governor Quinn and is now Public Act 97-0254. This Act extends the list of persons required to report child abuse or neglect to include any physician, physician's assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, medical technician, certified nursing assistant, social worker, or licensed professional counselor of any office, clinic or physical location that provides abortions, abortion referrals or contraceptives. This act was in response to the video exposure of Virginia Planned Parenthood's failure to report abused minors who had been subjected to sexual trafficking and exploitation. Now in Illinois, Planned Parenthood will be a mandated reporter of all such information. Thank you for your help in getting this passed. In the next session we are hoping to advance an Ultra Sound Bill, so we will again need your assistance in getting the bill passed. Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life
HB2093 was signed into law by Governor Quinn and is now Public Act 97-0254. This Act extends the list of persons required to report child abuse or neglect to include any physician, physician's assistant, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, medical technician, certified nursing assistant, social worker, or licensed professional counselor of any office, clinic or physical location that provides abortions, abortion referrals or contraceptives. This act was in response to the video exposure of Virginia Planned Parenthood's failure to report abused minors who had been subjected to sexual trafficking and exploitation. Now in Illinois, Planned Parenthood will be a mandated reporter of all such information. Thank you for your help in getting this passed. In the next session we are hoping to advance an Ultra Sound Bill, so we will again need your assistance in getting the bill passed. Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life
