An Idaho law protecting unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion has been challenged in the U.S. District Court for Idaho. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was passed by the Idaho state legislature by overwhelming majorities earlier this spring. In passing the law, the legislature determined that there is substantial medical evidence concluding that unborn children are capable of experiencing pain and that the state has a compelling state interest in protecting these pain-capable children. "Unborn children recoil from painful stimuli, their stress hormones increase when they are subjected to any painful stimuli, and they require anesthesia for fetal surgery," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). "We are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree and will recognize the right of the state to protect these children from the excruciatingly painful death of abortion." A significant number of scientific studies support the state's conclusion that unborn babies are capable of feeling pain by twenty weeks (20) weeks after fertilization. On average, 18,000 abortions are performed every year in the United States on these pain-capable children, including at some Planned Parenthood clinics. An online library of research and further information is available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com. The complaint in the case claims that the law fails to contain a constitutionally acceptable exception allowing for an abortion if necessary to preserve the health of the mother. That contention is rebutted by Dr. Sean Patrick Kenney, M.D., a board certified obstetrician/gynecologist, and assistant clinical professor at Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska. "The language of the law makes fully adequate provision for those rare cases, probably occurring no more than 1-2 times per 5,000 births, when medical complications require premature delivery or abortion of an unborn child after the stage at which the child is capable of feeling pain," noted Dr. Kenney. Source: National Right to Life
The Susan G. Komen Foundation, dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, is everywhere raising millions of dollars worldwide for its cause. Komen has gotten a black eye in recent years when it became public that Komen gives some of its funds to Planned Parenthood. In 2010 gifts to PP totaled $569,000, down from the $731,000 donated in 2009. When asked, Komen states that gifts to Planned Parenthood are justified because PP does mammograms. The black eye got even darker when it was revealed that PP actually does not do mammograms, but routine breast exams that a woman can do on herself. The biggest problem with the PP donation is that a legitimate abortion-breast cancer link has been documented in studies. So, Komen gives funds raised to cure breast cancer to an organization that is increasing breast cancer risk as the nation's largest abortion provider. This fall, Komen will have a "Race for the Cure" in Milwaukee. Every year, I am asked by friends to be on a team. Every year, I decline. There are better ways to fight breast cancer than to feed the abortion trough that is Planned Parenthood. Contact: Barbara Lyons Source: WI Right to Life
Imagine waking up one day to find that every single woman in the U.S. has disappeared. Picture this, writes author and scientific journalist Mara Hvistendahl, and you will come close to understanding the magnitude of over 160 million baby girls being selectively aborted in Asia and East Europe over the last few decades. Already critically acclaimed since its release in June, Hvistendahl's book, "Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men," meticulously documents the phenomenon of "missing" girls and its dire implications for the future. "It's a huge problem," Hvistendahl told CNA on Aug. 24. "What I want readers to take away is that this is a global issue on the level of something like HIV/AIDS or female genital mutilation." Hvistendahl said that aside from the basic issue of baby girls being aborted due to their gender in countries such as China, India, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, other human rights abuses are beginning to arise from the shortage of women in these regions. "Women are being bought and sold – trafficked for sex work and for marriage," she said, noting that the increase in bride-buying and forced prostitution in these countries is staggering. The author, a Colombia University graduate who has worked as a "Science" magazine correspondent in Beijing, said that her interest in the subject of gender imbalances began to increase after living in China for a few years. "I didn't understand why sex selection was happening," she said. "I just felt it wasn't very well explained." Hvistendahl set off to find out more, traveling to nine countries and interviewing doctors, mothers, prostitutes, demographers, mail-order brides and men who would be forced into lifelong bachelorhood. She began to discover a complicated web of explanations but eventually found that some of the ideological roots of the problem could be traced to zealous population control efforts from the 1960s and 70s. Through funding from western organizations such as the World Bank and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, grants were being funneled into population control initiatives in eastern countries, with sex-selective abortion seen as an effective tool. The results of these efforts show that in places such as China today, as many as 120 baby boys or more are being born for every 100 baby girls. In addition to the current problems that women are facing in these countries, "the question in my mind was, How was this going to effect society 30 years from now when this hugely imbalanced generation grows up and there are many more men than women?" Hvistendahl asked. "There is a danger in jumping too far ahead and making predictions about what will happen," she added, "but I think this will be a major issue in China and India for social stability." "The governments in both countries are very worried," she said, noting that men statistically commit more violent crimes in societies. It's a troubling prospect that Hvistendahl is not alone in noticing. Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt – a political economist, demographer and member of the visiting committee at the Harvard School of Public Health – has often referred to the problem as a "war on baby girls." He outlined for CNA the three major factors he believes have led to the current crisis of gender imbalance. The first is what he calls a "ruthless" son preference that is present in numerous cultures and religious systems. That, coupled with the second problem of smaller families due to population control efforts such as China's "coercive" one-child policy, has made couples' quests for sons even more aggressive, he noted. "When parents have five, six children, the gender outcome at birth isn't that critical," Eberstadt said. "But when parents are only going to have one or two children, the sex of that child seems to become something that parents want to have a say about." Eberstadt said that the third factor in the rise of sex-selective abortion in these countries is reliable, accessible and inexpensive prenatal gender determination technology, such as ultrasound machines, in areas with "policy environments of unconditional abortion." Despite the glaring human rights abuses caused by the practice, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has been largely silent on the issue – a fact that's been noted by Hvistendahl and other experts. Dr. Susan Fink Yoshihara, director of the International Organizations Research Group and vice president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNA that the population fund has played "a major role" in the increase of sex-selective abortion. "They do this by refusing to condemn the practice and mainly by promoting its two main causes: fertility control and increasing (the) availability of abortion." If the United Nations fund "says it promotes women's rights," Yoshihara said, "why do its leaders refuse to condemn this egregious practice of killing girls?" Its "leadership has instead issued directives to its employees time and again that show UNFPA is more concerned with promoting abortion than defending women's right to life." Adding to the problem is what many call the ineptitude of U.S. leadership in effectively addressing the issue of forced population control. Vice President Joe Biden sparked controversy during his recent trip to China where he told leaders that he "fully understood" the country's one-child policy and was not "second guessing" it. His comments came during an Aug. 21 appearance at Chengdu's Sichuan University where he was discussing the United States' dilemma of paying for entitlement programs when the number of retirees exceeds the number of workers – a problem he said China shared. The vice president's remarks in Chengdu drew widespread criticism, particularly from pro-life activists and his political opponents. "Instead of using the power the American people gave him to speak up for human rights, he ignored his responsibility," Yoshihara charged. "His scandalous comments are but one example of how easy it is for us to turn away from our responsibility toward the poorest of the poor, in this case, the unborn child." Eberstadt was equally critical of the Biden's remarks, but observed that the "silver lining" in the recent gaffe could be that more media attention is brought to the issue. He said that demographers in China estimate that half of the missing 160 million girls could be attributed to the country's one child policy alone. Eberstadt likened the problem of discrimination against baby girls to the issue of slavery during the 19th century, saying that sex-selective abortion needs to be stigmatized in the same way. "I think that the only sure way of extirpating this – and it's an abomination – is the way we've extirpated other abominations in the past," he said. "Which is through a struggle of conscience and the advent of a new moral understanding of why something like this should be absolutely anathema to a decent, civilized society." But an even deeper problem that needs to be addressed, observed Yoshihara, is the underlying human tendency towards selfishness. "The fundamental problem is that we do not love one another. We do not see that the inconvenient or unwanted person is just as valuable, just as worthy of love, as you and me." "Ideologies like radical feminism that undergird UNFPA's refusal to speak out, ideologies like communism that justify coercing or even forcing mothers to abort their children, and ideologies of utilitarianism that subtly pervade our own society," she said, "make it easy for us to say nothing in the face of unspeakable human suffering." Source: CNA/EWTN News
Several Catholics known for supporting Obama administration policies are opposing the lack of religious conscience protections in rules requiring most new health plans to cover contraception and sterilization. In an open letter issued August 26, the self-described "ad hoc group of Catholic leaders and professors" called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius "to extend conscience protection to religious charities, religious hospitals, and religious schools in regards to mandated health insurance coverage" under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The signatories - many of whom also signed an earlier letter criticizing House Speaker John Boehner in May - cited the First Amendment's protection of religious activity, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act's ban on religious discrimination, to argue for broader religious exceptions. On August 1, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that only certain religious institutions could opt out of providing contraception, under the heading of "women's preventive services," in their new health plans. To be exempt, an organization must have "the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," must primarily employ "persons who share its religious tenets," and must serve primarily "persons who share its religious tenets." The U.S. Catholic bishops, who oppose the mandate altogether, have criticized the proposed rules, while also noting the basic inappropriateness of regarding fertility as a condition in need of "prevention." The St. Gianna Physician's Guild, a Catholic medical organization, has pointed out that the mandate will increase the already substantial demand for abortion due to failed contraception. In their letter to Sebelius, the group of Catholic academics and activists - including Professors Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown, Lisa Sowle Cahill of Boston College, Margaret Steinfels of Fordham, and Nicholas Cafardi of Duquesne- stopped short of criticizing the mandate itself. They focused instead on its need for revision, due to religious guidelines they called "too restrictive." "Catholic charities and Catholic hospitals do not fit the rule's definition of religious organization," they noted. "Catholic schools, colleges, and universities also might not fit the current definition." The letter's leading author, who also organized the Boehner letter, is Catholic University of America Professor Stephen Scheck. In 2009, Schneck lent his support to a "Catholics for Sebelius" initiative, supporting the Obama nominee whose bishop told her not to receive Communion over her abortion record. Professors Schneck, Reese, Cahill, Steinfels, and Cafardi all signed a 2009 letter calling Sebelius "a woman of deep faith" whose "record of building the common good" made her "an excellent candidate for HHS Secretary." Unlike the recent letter to Boehner - in which Scheck, Reese, Cahill, and many others accused the Catholic speaker of proposing "anti-life" budget cuts that contradicted "the Church's most ancient moral teachings" - the letter to Sibelius took a restrained tone. It contains one brief reference to "the Catholic Church's ancient mission to the poor and the sick," and no reference to Catholic teaching on contraception and sterilization. Instead, the authors cited Title 26 of the United States Code, noting that it offered "appropriate guidance for defining religious organizations" that should qualify for an exemption from the birth control mandate. By this definition, a "non-profit religious, educational, or charitable organization" that has "bona fide religious purposes or reasons" and "holds itself out to the public as a religious organization" should qualify. The language of Title 26, they said "more fully reflects the intentions of the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act as they pertain to matters of religious conscience." Sebelius' narrow religious exemptions have also received criticism from Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who publicly supported the Affordable Care Act that led to their drafting. On August 4, Sr. Keehan said she was "very concerned" with exemptions that were "not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers." In terms stronger than those used in the academics' August 26 letter, Sr. Keehan said it was "critical" that Catholic hospitals "be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience."
It will be a little harder to abort a baby in Nebraska 
That's when two new laws kick in: One requires girls 17 or under to get written, notarized consent from a parent before having an abortion, and the other prevents doctors from prescribing and opening containers of abortion-causing drugs at remote locations over the Internet, referred to as "telemedicine." According to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 143 of the 2,464 abortions statewide last year were performed on minors. No abortions were done through telemedicine — but Nebraska Right to Life lobbied for the ban nonetheless after seeing the practice spread in neighboring Iowa. There, women can visit any of 16 Planned Parenthood facilities for a pregnancy test and ultrasound. After being examined by a nurse, the woman then logs onto the Internet on a clinic computer, and chats with a Planned Parenthood abortionist. He can remotely open a container with abortion-causing drugs near the woman's computer console and tell her how to take them. "We stopped something before it started," Nebraska Right to Life Executive Director Julie Schmit-Albin told the Omaha World-Herald. "There was a very real threat." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Another billboard campaign to draw attention to the abortion statistics among African-Americans in the U.S. is under way, and the first billboard has gone up in Atlanta. Catherine Davis of the Restoration Project tells OneNewsNow the "Betrayed" billboard campaign addresses the fact that something is wrong in the black community when it comes to abortion. "No matter what state you look at that reports by numbers, you see a horrific pattern has been established, and black women are aborting their babies at two, three, sometimes five times their presence in the population and/or five times the rate of other ethnic groups," she reports. Davis is convinced the abortion industry is targeting the black population, but she wonders why an uproar from black leaders is lacking. "If this were alcohol or tobacco, we would have African-Americans marching in the street. But because it's abortion, they are not willing to examine this question, and they're turning a blind eye, and we are asking why that is," she explains. The pro-lifer concludes that the difficult questions must be answered by the black leadership. So she has helped develop the strategy to raise billboards in several major cities to inform the black community of the devastation wrought on African-Americans through abortion. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The assisted suicide movement teaches people how to commit suicide by self starvation. To be clear, I am not talking about when people stop eating as a natural part of the natural dying process. That isn't suicide. But rather, refusing food and water, not because one can't eat, but because one wants to be dead. (The story discussed below conflates those two concepts, but I don't want to belabor that issue here.) In New Mexico, an elderly couple obtained the information they needed to kill themselves together in this way. Their family approved (!!!) and the couple began to starve themselves. But when the assisted living facility management got wind of the plan, the couple was told, in effect, "Not here, you won't," and sought their eviction. Administrators also called 911 after the 4th day of self starvation. From the NYT story "Deciding to Die; Then Shown the Door:" The Rudolphs faced increasing pain and debility. Mr. Rudolph, 92, suffered from spinal stenosis; Dorothy, 90, had become largely immobile. Both showed symptoms of early dementia. So in January, they set in motion their plan to stop eating and drinking. And the facility tried to evict the couple. The administrators, apparently on orders from the corporate legal department in Maryland, told the family the Rudolphs had to leave the next day. Current management would not comment beyond an e-mailed statement that when a resident "requires alternate placement, medical attention, or a level of care beyond the facility's capabilities, we have an obligation to notify a medical provider." I support the facility in general. They had no obligation, it seems to me, to permit suicide by slow motion in their facility. After all, other people live there and the impact of such deaths could be enormous. I also don't blame them for calling 911. People were dying who could be saved. Here's the problem: We have two mutually incompatible value systems co-existing in the culture. One embraces suicide as a freedom issue. The other respects the value of all lives, including those of suicidal people. Again and again, the former group insist that their suicides have to be respected and even facilitated–including by those who hold the latter value system. But none of us should be required to be complicit in anyone's self killing–whether a medical professional or a residential care facility. Or to put it another way, the facility's management wouldn't have been expected to stand by idly and allow the couple hang themselves. If that is so, why should they have to passively permit them to self starve to death in their facility? We are getting to the place in which assisted living and similar facilities that do not wish such deaths taking place on their premises may have to publicly declare themselves "suicide free zones," and let all residents know that all such attempts will be grounds for calling 911 and/or eviction. What a sorry world in which we live, and assisted suicide groups like Compassion and Choices–which was involved here–are very much to blame. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
Increasingly the medical intelligentsia are pushing a dual mandate on physicians in the name of cutting costs–one to patients and one to society–and when they conflict, many want the individual's needs to be subsumed to the collective. This attempt to redefine medical professionalism must be resisted at all turns. The latest example of such advocacy appears in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most energetic pushers of the "new medicine." From "The Doctor's Dilemma–What is Appropriate Care?" by Victor R. Fuchs, Ph.D.: Most physicians want to deliver "appropriate" care. Most want to practice "ethically." But the transformation of a small-scale professional service into a technologically complex sector that consumes more than 17% of the nation's gross domestic product makes it increasingly difficult to know what is "appropriate" and what is "ethical."… In an effort to address this issue, physicians' organizations representing more than half of all U.S. physicians have endorsed a "Physician Charter" that commits doctors to "medical professionalism in the new millennium." The charter states three fundamental principles, the first of which is the "primacy of patient welfare." It also sets out 10 "commitments," one of which states that "while meeting the needs of individual patients, physicians are required to provide health care that is based on the wise and cost-effective management of limited clinical resources." How can a commitment to cost-effective care be reconciled with a fundamental principle of primacy of patient welfare? They can't because once a doctor decides that what might be optimal care for the patient would interfere with his or her supposed professional obligation to the whole, he or she has entered conflict of interest territory. Fuchs sees this, but merely seeks to redefine what constitutes "appropriate" care: There is no escaping the fact that many interventions are valuable for some patients even if, for the population as a whole, their cost is greater than their benefit...If the physician is paid on a fee-for-service basis and the patient has open-ended insurance, the scales are tipped in favor of doing as much as possible and against limiting interventions to those that are cost-effective…. In contrast, if the physician is practicing in a setting that has accepted responsibility for the health of a defined population and the organization receives an annual fee per enrollee, the chances of the physician's practicing cost-effective medicine are substantially increased, even though all patients are insured…In short, when physicians are collectively caring for a defined population within a fixed annual budget, it is easier for the individual physician to resolve the dilemma in favor of cost-effective medicine [Me: and against the interest of the individual patient.] That becomes "appropriate" care. And it is an ethical choice, as defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant, because if all physicians act the same way, all patients benefit. What sophistry. The patient deprived of optimal care doesn't benefit, and hence, by definition, "all" patients do not benefit. This is just a call for ad hoc rationing at the bedside. Doctors owe fiduciary duties to individual patients, not "groups," and certainly not general society. That is the very heart of being a "professional." That duty should not depend on how doctors get paid. These intellectuals are devolving medicine into a technocracy. In doing so, they are playing with fire. Once the people's trust is destroyed, like Humpty-Dumpty, it will be almost impossible to put it back together again. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
Great opening line in this MedPage Today article, August 24: There may be fewer obstetrician/gynecologists performing abortions than previously estimated, researchers said. The good news is that only 14% of 1,031 ob/gyns responding to a new survey said they commit abortions, down from 22% in 2008. The results were published in the September issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, although the lead researcher cautioned the apparent decline "may reflect different sampling and survey techniques." But the numbers are certainly trending our way. There may be all the freedom in the world to access abortion, but if no one is willing to do the dirty deed, the result is the same as if there were no access. There were interesting finds, as shown in nice charts made by The Incidental Economist… 
The religious breakdown of physicians committing abortions… 40% of Jewish doctors 26.5% with no religious affiliation 20% of Hindus 13% of Muslims (Interestingly, none of the other online reports included this particular stat.) 10% of Non-Evangelical Protestants 9% of Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox 1.2% of Evangelical Protestants The most important factor determining whether or not a doctor will commit abortions is religion, about which abortion proponent Melissa McEwan at Shakesville wrote, "I'm not surprised. I'm contemptuous." And I'm not surprised Melissa is contemptuous. There is also the stigmatism factor, according to MedPage Today: Stulberg and colleagues wrote that providers living in rural areas, especially in the South and Midwest, may be less likely to provide the service, even if they don't personally object to it, because of opposition in the community. Many try to avoid being a target of antiabortion activists, the researchers said. So God and protests work. Contact: Jill Stanek Source: jillstanek.com
Clobbered by criticism, the Obama Administration has newly declared that it "strongly opposes all aspects of China's coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and forced sterilization." Vice President Biden has called these practices "repugnant." These proclamations were made in an effort to backtrack from Biden's most recent gaffe, stating that he "fully understands" China's One Child Policy and does not "second-guess" it.
By making these statements, the Obama administration has now publicly admitted it knows that forced abortion and forced sterilization are official "policies" of the Chinese Communist Party, not random acts carried out by overzealous officials, as contended by the CCP. This is progress.
Should we believe that this administration "strongly opposes" these practices?
Actions speak louder than words. If the Obama administration "strongly opposes" forced abortion in China, then why did they restore funding to UNFPA (United Nations Family Planning Fund), an "abortion provider" in China? In 2001, the U.S. cut funding to UNFPA because an investigation, headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell, found that UNFPA was complicit in the coercive implementation of China's One Child Policy. In 2008, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed that determination, and yet the Obama administration resumed funding in 2009. President Obama's FY 2012 budget requests $47 million for UNFPA.
The current administration also funds the International Planned Parenthood Federation. The IPPF works hand in hand with the coercive Chinese Communist population control machine. Their website declares, "The China Family Planning Association (CFPA) plays a very important role in China's family planning programme. It supports the present family planning policy of the government . . ."
In China, a woman's body is not her own. It is the domain of the State. To fund organizations that work hand in glove with China's "womb police" does not constitute "strong opposition" to forced abortion and forced sterilization. Rather it constitutes complicity.
If the Obama administration is sincere in saying it "strongly opposes . . . forced abortion and sterilization," then it will either insist that UNFPA and IPPF cease operation in China, or it will defund these organizations.
Click here to watch a four-minute video, "Stop Forced Abortion, China's War on Women!"
contact: Reggie Littlejohn
Source: Women's Rights Without Frontiers
On Monday, a California-based biotechnology firm announced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has accepted four of its stem cell lines for federal research projects—lines all developed from human embryos. This is the first such announcement since late July, when a federal judge upheld the Obama administration's years-old practice of expanding human embryonic stem cell research (hESR). In 2001, President George W. Bush issued an executive order limiting the amount of federally funded ESCR to the lines that already exist at that time — drawing a clear moral line that additional embryo destruction would not be funded with federal taxpayer dollars. Obama ordered the NIH to develop new policies that would permit more taxpayer dollars to fund research involving additional lines of cells developed from embryos destroyed from 2001 onward when he abolished Bush's executive order. In July, U.S. Chief District Judge Roy Lambeth opined that the pro-life Dickey-Wicker amendment is ambiguous, so courts must rely on the NIH's interpretation of what is allowed with life-destroying embryonic research. Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Steven Aden said the research disrespects taxpayers and embryos alike. "In these tough economic times, it makes no sense for the federal government to use taxpayer money for this illegal and unethical purpose," he said. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
A former Planned Parenthood executive's promotion of ObamaCare and China's one-child policy has sparked the criticism of pro-life groups that point out population control is not "choice." Norman Fleishman recently expressed his understanding of the Chinese policy in a published editorial for the Napa Valley Register, suggesting the U.S. will eventually "strangle" its own population "among the coils of pitiless exponential growth." Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a group that fights forced abortion, decides that Fleishman is either ignorant about the one-child policy, or he supports it in spite of the facts. "The one-child policy is enforced through forced abortion, forced sterilization, and infanticide, and it's the greatest women's rights violation in the entire world today because one in every five women comes under it," Littlejohn notes. And she argues that the only way to enforce the policy is through coercion. In China, for instance, her organization says the Communist Party functions as the "womb police." So, since Planned Parenthood is publicly funded, she thinks the abortion-provider needs to clarify whether its former executive speaks for the organization on population control, or if it truly stands for choice. "If at the same time one of their former directors is saying that we should have the one-child policy, that is anti-choice; that is forcing women to abort babies that they want," the pro-lifer reasons. "So Planned Parenthood needs to answer the question: Are they in favor of choice, or are they in favor of population control -- even if that means coercion?" She further argues that governments that enforce the one-child policy treat women as second-class citizens, and Littlejohn warns that that would be the case if it were implemented in the United States. She further notes that Vice President Joe Biden has also voiced his understanding for China's enforcement of the policy. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
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
