Congressional Panel Says ObamaCare Violates Conscience Rights

     

The U.S. House of Representatives heard from a panel of experts about how the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — aka ObamaCare — violates health care workers' rights not to participate in acts they find morally objectionable.

Under ObamaCare regulations, insurance policies  would be required to cover all contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and reproductive counseling methods the Food and Drug Administration has approved — provided free to women. Though there is a religious exemption, it's written in a narrow fashion: The only groups exempted from mandated coverage are primarily those who hire or serve members of their own faith.

"Jesus and the apostles would not be 'religious enough' under such a test, as they served and healed people of different religions," Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, wrote in a letter submitted by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. "Catholic organizations committed to their moral and religious teaching will have no choice but to stop providing health care and other services to the needy who are not Catholic, or stop providing health coverage to their own employees. This is an intolerable dilemma, and either choice will mean reduced access to health care."

Pitts agreed. Regardless of where people stand on the health care law, he said, "we should universally support the notion that the federal government should be prohibited from taking coercive actions to force people to abandon their religious principles."

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, testified that rather than increasing access to health insurance coverage, ObamaCare will reduce it, if the conscience protections for health care professionals in it are not expanded and strengthened.

"A national survey of over 2,100 faith-based physicians revealed that over nine of 10 are prepared to leave medicine if pressured to compromise their ethical and moral commitments," he said. "The recent survey of our members revealed that 85 percent of medical professionals and students said that 'policies that restrict the exercise of conscience in health care' make it less likely that they will 'practice health care in the future.' "

In addition, Stevens called on Congress to support another bill — H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. Sponsored by Reps. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., and Dan Boren, R-Okla., in the House and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., with a companion bill (S. 1467) in the Senate, the legislation would ensure that employers, insurers and private citizens keep the right to provide and purchase health insurance that's consistent with their beliefs and convictions

Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitzenLink

World Population Reaches 7 Billion

     

Several babies born late Sunday night around the world are being hailed as the planet's seven billionth person.

Some activists—including media mogul Ted Turner — are using the occasion to say abortion should now be readily available worldwide.

"By 2100, we could have nearly 50 percent more people on this planet than we did at the beginning of the century, competing for the same food, water, space and attention," Turner, the founder and chairman of the United Nations Foundation, wrote on cnn.com.

But the Population Research Institute, led by President Steven Mosher, said called overpopulation fears a fallacy — and an offensive one, at that.

"The most pressing problem in country after country today is not overpopulation, but underpopulation," Mosher said. "The attitude of the anti-people types is arrogant and elitist. They say, in effect, to Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, 'There are just enough of us, but there are way too many of you.'

"Baby Seven Billion is not a liability, but an asset; not a curse, but a blessing for us all."

Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitizenLink

400-plus unborn lives saved during '40 Days'

     
With just a few days left in its fall campaign, the 40 Days for Life campaign says more than 400 unborn babies have been saved.

The campaign -- which focuses on peaceful, pro-life prayer vigils outside abortion clinics -- will conclude Nov. 6. This fall's 40-day campaign includes outreaches at 301 sites, the most in the effort's history.

As of Oct. 31, 417 unborn babies had been saved, including one at a Southfield, Mich., abortion clinic. A young couple was walking out of the clinic with a handful of paperwork when they were approached by 40 Days volunteers.

"They had just found out she was farther than they thought -- 17 weeks," said an unnamed 40 Days for Life volunteer. "And after paying $150 for the ultrasound, they didn't have the $775 to complete the abortion."

The volunteers mentioned a pro-life center that would do another ultrasound for free, and the couple accepted the offer.

"There's no way we're having the abortion now," the father said, after seeing the ultrasound. "I thought the baby was the size of a quarter from the picture [the abortion clinic] gave us."

The semi-annual, 40 Days campaigns consist of 40 days of prayer and fasting to end abortion, as well as community outreach and the prayer vigils outside clinics. The effort, which began in Texas in 2004 and went national in 2007, has received reports of more than 4,700 unborn lives saved from abortion as a result of its campaigns.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press

Holocaust/Abortion Movie, Coming to a School Near You

Photo: From "180": Steve -- an angry
 Jew-hating, America-hating, Black-
hating, Hitler-loving neo-Nazi atheist
 who does a complete 180.

A free DVD of the award-winning viral movie "180" may be coming to a high school near you. The creator of www.180movie.com, Ray Comfort, said "180 received over a million views in 22 days, because it's 'shocking.' It opens with 14 people (mainly college students) who have no idea of the identity of Adolf Hitler. One reviewer said, 'So, what's a pretty good documentary could have been even stronger without the fools early on.'[1] Perhaps those who are quick to call these students fools lack perception themselves. These young people are rather ignorant as to perhaps the darkest period of human history, because the American education system has failed them."

Late last month, between 180,000 and 200,000 copies of the 33-minute DVD were given out at 100 of America's top universities, and now the Jewish author and TV co-host is turning his attention to high schools. "No doubt some will say that Holocaust education isn't appropriate for high school kids. However, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum says that the appropriate age is '11 years of age and older.'[2] Nelly Silagy Benedek, Director of Education, The Jewish Museum (New York) agrees: 'From my experience, the best age to introduce students to the topic of the Holocaust is in high school.'"

In 2004, approximately 125,000 students visited the Washington D.C.'s United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Sixty-four percent were middle school students (ages 11-14), 35% were high school students (ages 15-18), and less than 1% were elementary students.[3]

The public school guideline for education says: "Given the repetitive nature of the teaching of history in the United States (i.e., U.S. history is taught at ages 10, 13, and 16), it can be assumed that students will encounter the Holocaust in both middle and high school."[4]

Education about the Holocaust isn't mandatory in the U.S. "In the United States, the 50 individual states, not the federal government, are primarily responsible for education policy. Therefore, there is no national curriculum or course of study on the Holocaust that has been created by the government of the United States. Five states have enacted laws requiring the teaching of the Holocaust."[5]

Comfort added, "It's evident that many of the States aren't bothering to teach kids about one of the darkest periods of human history. I am concerned that we may become like the U.K. where some schools dropped teaching about the Holocaust for fear of offending Moslems, some of whom deny that the Holocaust even happened.[6] This is more than a travesty, so we are giving hundreds of thousands of kids a free documentary that received more than a million views on YouTube in 22 days. We have already started locally, and they are going like hot cakes on a cold winter's day."

The "180" movie has been criticized by some because it compares the Holocaust to American abortion. Comfort said, "The amazing thing is that people who watch it, change from pro-abortion to pro-life. We have received thousands of emails from people, many of whom have changed while watching the movie." Here are some of many:

"We both voted for a pro-choice president the last election. After watching this documentary he said to me in tears that he was wrong. We have had our minds changed about who we vote for."

"THANK YOU! ... I'll be spreading the word about 180!! And I NEVER will vote for a candidate that is pro-choice or anything close to it."

"I have showed this to almost all my friends, and even the very atheist or very liberal ones have changed their views!"

"I have always been pro-life, but have voted for presidents that are not. When the part came up about standing up for the innocent, it opened my eyes. I will never vote like that again. Thank you so much."

"THANK YOU for changing my mind on how I view abortion and how I plan on voting in the future."

"I was always pro-choice and now I am pro-life after watching such a powerful video."

"It changed my mind and made me aware that I've got to make a stand on this issue."

"From someone that has been Pro-choice this video changed my view on life completely."

"This movie has changed my heart! I stopped after the movie and just repented [to] God for my forgiveness."

"I used to vote pro-choice. I will not ever do so again. EVER."

"Hey, my name is Aubrey and I'm a senior at a public high school in West Virginia. This past week in our civics class we were writing essays about laws that we wish would change in America. After seeing this video I choose to do mine on abortion, and how I wished it would be illegal. After I had finished reading my essay, a discussion arose in class (obviously) about how they thought abortion should be a choice, especially if the child is unhealthy or was caused because of rape. But once we started to compare it to Hitler and the Jews every ones minds started to change. I just wanted to let you know, and say thank you for doing what you do! Because of 180 I was able to turn around the entire class opinion about abortion and by the end of the class 25 of the 25 students and my teacher as well had all raised their hand agreeing that abortion should be illegal."

[1] ht.ly/7csRe

[2] http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/exhibit

[3] http:/www.holocausttaskforce.org/education/holocaust-education-reports/unitedstates-holocaust-education-report.html  

[4] http:/www.holocausttaskforce.org/education/holocaust-education-reports/unitedstates-holocaust-education-report.html

[5] Ibid

[6] http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445979/Teachers-drop-Holocaust-avoid-offending-Muslims.html

Contact: Trisha Ramos

Guttmacher Institute's distortions exposed in new video by National Black Prolife Coalition

     

Over the weekend, presidential candidate Herman Cain referred to Planned Parenthood as "Planned Genocide." The National Black Prolife Coalition illuminates this horrific truth through their "Numbers Don't Lie" video series. The third installment in this series, created by The Radiance Foundation, has been released today, entitled: "We've Been Guttmacher'd." It exposes the pro-abortion distortions of the Guttmacher Institute.

"Planned Parenthood's Negro Project 2.0 Director lashed out at Cain for using 'inflammatory and divisive language.' In the real world, we call this language 'truth.' Guttmacher began as a pseudo-scientific arm of Planned Parenthood and, today, gives legs to the abortion giant's propaganda," said Ryan Bomberger of The Radiance Foundation.

The Guttmacher Institute was founded by Alan F. Guttmacher, vice president of the American Eugenics Society and the first president of Planned Parenthood (1962-1974). Its current president, Sharon Camp, was caught lying about its present relationship to Planned Parenthood claiming it was "completely unaffiliated" with PPFA since 2004-2005. IRS records show, however, that Guttmacher has received over $2.1 million from the nation's largest abortion chain since 2004.

"Black America is waking up to the truth. Sharpton, Veazey, Jesse Jackson, Veronica Byrd and other pro-abortion voices are pretending to support civil rights while standing for civil wrong," said Stephen Broden, pastor of Fair Park Bible Fellowship.

The National Black Prolife Coalition wants to end the epidemic levels of abortion in the black community and abolish the human injustice society-wide. There are life-affirming alternatives as seen in pregnancy care centers, maternity homes and adoption agencies which provide care to thousands of women and babies, every day, in the US.

"Cain has dared to defy the abortion establishment and speak about the atrocities they commit every day. Our communities deserve physicians who heal, not abortionists who butcher our very future," said Day Gardner of the National Black Prolife Union.

The video addresses numerous contradictions by Guttmacher. A recent national study confirms that most abortion clinics are located in disproportionately black areas. Guttmacher, itself, declared in January 2011 that "abortion services are concentrated in cities" then issued another advisory contradicting their own claim.

"I have a dream that America will soon wake up from the nightmare of abortion and all the blood, pain and death associated with the decimation of precious human life in our nation," said Dr. Alveda King, Director of African American Outreach for King for America. "We truly have been Guttmacher'd!"

Click here to view the video.

Source: The National Black Prolife Coalition

Illinois Governor's Role in Abortion Award Ceremony

     

Illinois' six Catholic bishops have deplored Catholic governor Pat Quinn's role as the presenter of a "Pro-Choice Leadership Award" at an abortion advocacy group's upcoming ceremony.

"We deeply regret the governor's decision to present this award, which so closely associates him with a political action group whose purpose is contrary to the common good," the six bishops said in a Nov. 2 statement released by the Catholic Conference of Illinois.

"With this action, Governor Quinn has gone beyond a political alignment with those supporting the legal right to kill children in their mother's wombs, to rewarding those deemed most successful in this terrible work."

An Oct. 27 e-mail from the abortion advocacy group Personal PAC announced that the Catholic governor "will present Jennie Goodman, Pro-Choice Leadership Award recipient, with the 2011 Award at its Annual Luncheon" on Nov. 17.

The announcement asks supporters to "join Personal PAC and over 1,000 other people in thanking Jennie for her courage and leadership on behalf of the women of Illinois!"

Personal PAC describes itself as a "political action committee dedicated to electing pro-choice candidates to state and local office in Illinois."

Tickets prices for its 18th annual awards luncheon range from $150 to $5,000. Table service at the event is available at $2,500, $5,000, and $10,000 levels.

The Illinois bishops, including Chicago's Cardinal Archbishop Francis E. George and Springfield's Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki, quoted a 1994 statement of Blessed John Paul II  in their reaction to Governor Quinn's involvement.

The late Pope, they recalled, "asked in his 'Letter to Families,' 'How can one morally accept laws that permit the killing of a human being not yet born, but already alive in the mother's womb?'"

"Governor Quinn not only accepts these laws," the bishops stated, "he promotes them and publicly presents awards to their advocates."

"This approach is irreconcilable with any honest profession of the Catholic faith."

The bishops said they would "continue to pray for (Quinn's) conversion, and the protection of unborn human life."

Meanwhile, they declared that "those acting in the manner of the governor" should not be honored "on Church property or at functions held in support of Church ministry."

Previously, Governor Quinn drew a sharp response from Bishop Paprocki, for saying in November 2010 that his "religious faith" moved him to support a same-sex civil unions law.

On that occasion, Bishop Paprocki – whose diocese includes the state capitol – said the governor's motivation was "certainly not the Catholic faith," which "does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law."

Contact: Benjamin Mann
Source: CNA

Preventable life-ending decisions made 'all the time'

     

An organization purposed to save the lives of people in nursing homes or hospitals where doctors or families want to pull the plug says some people are condemned to die when they really just need a chance to live.
 
Terri's Life and Hope Network was formed after the death of Terri Schindler Schiavo, a Florida woman who suffered brain damage after a heart attack. After a lengthy court battle, food and hydration tubes were removed by court order, and she died in March 2005. (See earlier story)

Last week in Frederick, Maryland, 55-year-old Daniel Sanger's wife and doctors agreed to remove his feeding tubes. He has been in Frederick Memorial Hospital since suffering a heart attack and seizure in July. But six days later, Sanger's mother and brother obtained a court order to restore food and hydration. Now he is responsive.

"What people don't realize is that this happens all the time," laments Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo. "Doctors and healthcare professionals are now empowered to take away food and hydration from individuals because food and water via feeding tubes has been defined as medical treatment -- and therefore it makes it rather easy, so to speak, to take this away from people, as we saw here in this case."

But he stresses that food and water do not classify as a medical treatment; instead they are necessary to sustain life. In Sanger's case, the patient's brother is hoping to be granted temporary custody to ensure the protection of his brother's life. But Schindler understands that most people are often confused about how to handle such situations, so he directs them to the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Moral responsibilities are linked to fiscal responsibility

     

Last week the House passed with bipartisan support the Protect Life Act, which amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") to assure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It also assures that healthcare providers who do not wish to provide abortions are not forced to by government.
 
The bill's Republican sponsor, Joe Pitts, R-Penn., had co-sponsored essentially the same amendment along with then-congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., when ObamaCare was in the making in 2009.
 
Because a similar provision was not in the Senate version of the bill, and had no prospect of making it through the Senate, Stupak stood as a major obstacle to the passage of ObamaCare.
 
In the end, the ways of Washington prevailed, and Stupak caved to pressure from the White House. He agreed to support the healthcare bill without his anti-abortion provision, in exchange for President Barack Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions in healthcare provided in the framework of ObamaCare.
 
An executive order is a flimsy substitute for law so Pitts found another pro-life Democrat, Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., to co-sponsor his amendment, which has now passed the House 251-172.
 
However Pitts' new bill faces the same prospects as the amendment that he co-sponsored with Stupak in 2009. Its chances of passage in the Senate are remote.
 
So why bother?
 
After the bill passed, I was asked on a PBS talk show To the Contrary if Republicans were being frivolous in taking up congressional floor time to deal with abortion when what Americans want today is congressional action on the economy.
 
My response was "no, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and actually in light of ObamaCare, it is critical for lawmakers to protect healthcare workers and hospitals with a conscience clause."
 
In fact, the attention that the bill has gotten in the short time since it passed the House indicates that the level of interest in abortion, and the potential use of taxpayer funds for it, remains high.
 
Two high level Democrats -- former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman -- issued statements criticizing the bill shortly after it passed.
 
According to Pelosi, the provision assuring that healthcare providers, including hospitals, are not forced to provide abortions, even though they receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, means "that women can die on the floor and healthcare providers do not have to intervene."
 
Wasserman Schultz said, "This extreme legislation is dangerous for women's health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families."
 
Liberals love to frame the killing of developing humans as being about women's lives, health and rights. But, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3 percent of abortions are performed for reasons of a woman's health. Abortions that are performed because a woman's life is in danger amount to a fraction of 1 percent. That leaves more than 96 percent for convenience with some 50 percent repeat customers.
 
Regarding abortion, the liberal agenda is really about two things. One, an alleged right to sexual promiscuity; and two, an alleged right to have others bear social and financial responsibility for that promiscuity.
 
Fortunately, a sizable part of the American population doesn't see things this way. And, fortunately, a sizable part of our population remains in awe of the miracle of life and our responsibilities toward all aspects of life, both in and outside the womb.
 
It doesn't take that much thought to realize the fallacious thinking that suggests that matters of economy and matters of morality have nothing to do with each other.
 
The "right to abortion" culture is simply a subset of the entitlement culture, the culture that says your life is about making claims on others rather than personal responsibility.
 
Disrespect for life and disrespect for property go hand in hand. We can't divorce our sexual promiscuity from our fiscal promiscuity. Restoring personal responsibility in both areas is what we need today to get our nation back on track.

Contact: Star Parker
Source: OneNewsNow

On guard against Gardasil

     
A conservative, non-partisan foundation that advocates high ethical and moral standards in the nation's public life has uncovered more disturbing information about an FDA-approved vaccination that California is making available to young girls to fight against a sexually-transmitted virus.
 
The human papillomavirus (HPV) is thought in some cases to lead to cervical cancer, so Governor Jerry Brown has approved legislation that allows girls as young as 12 years old to obtain the Gardasil vaccine without their parents' knowledge. So Judicial Watch spokesman Christopher Farrell tells OneNewsNow that his organization utilized the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the latest reports from the Food and Drug Administration on the drug.

"In the latest batch of documents, there are 26 new reported deaths," he cites.

There are also thousands of reported side effects, including seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, and short-term memory loss. As a result, some well-respected scientists are now raising questions about Gardasil.

"Diane Harper, a doctor from Dartmouth University who was involved in the clinical trials, has expressed reservations. Another doctor [Abby Lippman] from McGill University up in Canada [has] raised issues or concerns," he lists. "Even The New England Journal of Medicine had a couple of questions about the vaccine, its efficacy, its safety, etcetera."

But in response to the concern about the deaths, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists "there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine."

Farrell suggests that parents look over the information provided on the Judicial Watch website before they agree to permit their children to receive the controversial vaccination.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Non-profit Biomedical Research Company Answers the Pro-Life Donor's Dilemma

     

For years, pro-life donors have faced an increasingly common dilemma: a desire to support worthy biomedical research to find cures for diseases like cancer and heart disease without violating their moral or pro-life convictions.

"Unfortunately, most people would be shocked if they knew the extent to which fresh aborted fetal tissue and aborted fetal cell lines are used in biomedical research," says Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life, an industry watchdog group.  "In fact, it is so widespread there are actually few, if any, institutions that pro-life people can donate to in good conscience."

Until now.  Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, (SCPI) of Seattle, WA is the only non-profit biomedical research institute that refuses to use any morally objectionable research method at any step in the process.

Founded by world renowned adult stem cell scientist Dr. Theresa Deisher, the organization's mission is "dedicated to providing scientific research, education and resources to encourage safe, moral, pro-life medicines and therapeutics."   The organization is also investigating the health consequences of aborted human DNA and cellular contaminants in medicines.

And that includes the "hot button" issue of childhood vaccines.  According to their website, www.soundchoice.org, 90% of children vaccinated in the last 10 years were most likely injected with aborted fetal DNA components.  More ominously, these fetal DNA contaminants could lead to serious health consequences and may be contributing to the rise in childhood leukemia, autism and other autoimmune disorders.

"SCPI has done the research to show it," stated Dr Deisher. "We measured the level of fetal DNA in vaccines and are now researching the consequences.  Even the FDA has acknowledged the dangers of having fetal DNA contaminants present in our vaccines.  Just how dangerous remains to be seen, but it's unconscionable not to do the research and find out."

"The equipment and research material needed is very costly," says Vinnedge.  "But not nearly as costly as it would be to society and to families affected by autism if they can't continue their research due to lack of funds."

Judie Brown, President of American Life League, a group that exposes the morally objectionable research done by some of the nation's largest medical research charities, agrees.  "We frequently get inquiries from pro-life donors about this or that medical research organization, including some of the largest and most popular charities in the country.  Donors become disillusioned as they learn that aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used by their favorite charity for medical research. But not anymore thanks to SCPI."

Brown sums it up this way: "If you support Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, you will be supporting a charity worthy of your donations. They are doing fantastic work."

Recently SCPI introduced a new line of merchandise touting their "Prolife Produced" insignia, a certification strategy that is being marketed to companies whose products are not developed, discovered or contaminated with aborted fetal or embryonic materials.  Consumers will have peace of mind when they see that seal of approval on cosmetics and medicines they are purchasing.

"When people see that insignia on our shirts, hats, sweatshirts and baby tees they immediately smile," noted Deisher.  "It's simple, non-offensive and to the point:  after all, we are all pro-life produced!"
 
All proceeds will go toward funding their moral research programs and therapeutics.  For more information visit their website at www.soundchoice.org where you can also donate on line and order Prolife Produced merchandise including Dr Deisher's DVD on aborted fetal DNA in vaccines: Is there a link to autism?

Contact: Chris Brown
Contact: Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute

Medical Conscience: Should Hospitals Be Forced to Provide Abortions?

     

An abortion/medical conscience controversy is riling the decidedly pro choice state of Washington, presaging what I think will become one of our own most contentious bioethical controversies.  The issue involves the existence and extent of "conscience rights" for medical professionals and facilities opposed to participating in interventions that take human life.

Here's the context: Catholic Providence Health and Services has purchased a hospital, which is now refusing to perform abortions.  From Nicole Brodeur's column, "Swedish Abortion Decision: How About Respect for Patients?" published in the Seattle Times:

Swedish Medical Center is still getting blowback for its decision to stop performing elective abortions "out of respect for the affiliation" it is completing with Providence Health & Services, a Catholic, not-for-profit organization. Six little words. But, seven days later, Swedish Medical Center is still getting blowback for its decision to stop performing elective abortions "out of respect for the affiliation" it is completing with Providence Health & Services, a Catholic, not-for-profit organization.

It's not as if women are just having the door slammed in their faces. The hospital is affiliating with a Planned Parenthood clinic to ensure that women who want to stop being pregnant, can.  But that's not enough for many pro choice advocates:

Within hours of that announcement, Swedish said it would be partnering with Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW) to establish a nearby clinic that would provide reproductive health services, including abortions by Swedish-affiliated doctors. No matter. Women, women's groups and health-care advocates were on the phone, online and outraged. "How dare you put in peril the reproductive health care of women by relegating a solution to a difficult choice to another organization," one woman wrote on Swedish's website. "Next it will be the alleyway." She's got a point. While abortion has been legal for 38 years, no one can seem to leave it in the hospitals, on the books, or in the privacy of women's minds and bodies.

So "choice" is a one way street?

Here's what I think is really going on.  The angry abortion advocates are really furious because of the implicit message the hospital's wattery decision to refer instead of perform, sends: Abortion is morally wrong.

Brodeur uses the controversy to complain about limited access to abortion in the Washington, screaming that it means murder!

In 2008, there were 50 abortion providers in Washington, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that does sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. And yet, more than half of Washington's counties had none. So the women in these counties — 11 percent of women in the state — had to travel for an abortion. Not all of them could. When women are put in that position, it means late-term abortions, unsafe abortions, abandoned babies and, in the most desperate cases, women who outright kill their newborns, or themselves.

No, it almost always means that babies are born, who–like Steve Jobs (born to an unwed mother and given up for adoption before legalized abortion)–then have a shot at living a productive and satisfying life.

But here's the bottom line: Absent extraordinary circumstances, no medical professional should be forced to take a human life.  (Here is an articleWesley J. Smith wrote about medical conscience and its proper parameters.)

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

The Right to Die or the Duty to Die - Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

     

The latest news from the Land of Oz (not the wizard), is that Dr. Oz, aka Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz, will host an upcoming episode on assisted suicide, on his Dr. OZ Show.  The main focus will be on whether or not you have the "right to die?"

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Oz got his media start as a health expert on, none other than, the Oprah Show. Wikipedia gives a portrait of Dr. Oz as a bright and accomplished individual, though with some very interesting contradictions. On the one hand, he's the director of the Cardiovascular Institute and Complimentary Medicine Program at New York's Presbyterian Hospital. On the other hand, he was awarded the 2011 James Randi Educational Foundation Media Pigasus Award; which the foundation itself states, "is for promoting nonsense". The foundation complained about Dr. Oz's support of energy medicine, faith healing and psychic mediums.  Dr. Oz holds the dubious distinction of being the only person to have received this prestigious "nonsense award" for 2 years in a row.

Now, to prepare everyone who has not yet been down the yellow-brick road of euthanasia, this scarecrow, Dr. Oz, has provided you with a helpful survey on the show's website, titled: "Should You Have The Right to Die?" Here are the 4 questions:

The 1st question on the survey is: "Should you have the "right" to die?"  The 2nd question is: "Should your family have a say in your right to die?" The 3rd question goes on to ask: "Do you believe that doctors should assist patients end their lives?" And the 4th question is: "Have you discussed your "right to die" with your family?"

Ok, now here's my question: "What is the real reason for a doctor's assistance here?"  Is the doctor there to simply give advice about methods of killing yourself?  I think most people who wish to end their lives can figure that out for themselves, as is evident with most suicides. Does the doctor give permission?  No.  It's still your "choice" - the word elect of those who promote murder these days, just as in abortion.  So what real purpose does the doctor serve? What is "assisted suicide" as opposed to other suicides?

It is simply a sly way to white-wash something that is inherently and intrinsically wrong.  If I kill myself in the privacy of my own home, I'm committing an act, which most of society would find tragic and pitiable. But, having a doctor present while I off myself, is an attempt to normalize it and remove the stigma of suicide. Suicide is then re-packaged as a mere compassionate medical decision between one and one's doctor, just as in the case of abortion.  It appears to grant social acceptance, even taking on a seemingly romantic way to end one's life.

Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name is still a rose"; did he not?    Ending one's life is still suicide, even if assisted. You can't change the nature of something with words, or how you package it.  

Now of course, Dr. Oz will use the data from the answers to this survey, to compile more justification for his agenda of normalizing suicide. 

But, how much farther down the yellow-brick road will it be, before the "right to die" becomes the "duty to die"?  Trust me, not that much farther. If and when you become a significant burden, requiring extensive care-giving, interruption to the life plans of others or financial hardships on your family and loved ones, and even an emotional drain, how long will it be before those around you believe, that it is your "duty to die"?

Some notable voices in bioethics believe, that as a matter of what they term, "distributive justice", when people reach a certain advanced age, severe disability, or very poor health, they owe it to society, their families, and yes, even themselves, to make an end of their lives. 

Futile Care Theory, aka "medical futility," has been on the bioethics movement's agenda for more than 10 years. If a patient or their family desire life-sustaining treatment, yet doctors feel that treatment is "inappropriate" based on quality of life and/or costs; they may unilaterally withhold treatment - the recent Baby Joseph case being a prime example. Joseph's doctors, supported by hospital bioethicists and administrators, told his parents that they were going to refuse all further life support.   The doctors totally and completely ignored and sought to usurp the wishes of the parents for their child's medical treatment. After a much publicized court case, Priests for Life, stepped in and was able to find a hospital that would take Baby Joseph, and give him the medical treatment his parent's wished.  But, how long will it be before there are no more hospitals left who will do this?

So, what is the point of Dr. Oz's question: "Should you have the right to die", when the ultimate agenda is not going to be about your rights at all!  It is simply the slow turning up of the temperature on the frog, leading to the complete and unalterable denial of your so called rights. 

Make no mistake, the word "futile" does not refer to the treatment - it refers to the patient!  Our lives and the lives of our loved ones, are going to be relegated to futile and burdensome, if we become seriously ill or lose our mental capacities.  The recent words of the televangelist Pat Robertson, where he gives advice for people to divorce a spouse afflicted with Alzheimer's, so that they can move on with their own lives, shocked and appalled many. But the medical profession's diagnosis will not be divorce, but medical murder. 

We should all be well advised, the "duty to die" movement is spreading, and it will not stop with the terminally ill.

Source: Lake County Right to Life

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Challenges CBS News, Health.com to Debate Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

      

CBS News and Health.com have damaged their credibility by publishing identical statements that falsely claim the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link is a myth. Therefore, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer challenges both organizations to debate the ABC link.
 
"We expect CBS News and Health.com to duck the challenge, just as other organizations have whose leaders would rather see women die of breast cancer than expose the truth that abortion is not safe," said Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. "After behaving like snipers, they cut and run. They should be ashamed of themselves.
 
"Think," demanded Malec of CBS News and Health.com. "If medical texts and medical authorities say childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, then who has the greater risk - the woman who aborts or the woman who has a baby?"
 
The websites for both CBS News and Health.com falsely asserted that:
 
"Myth: Having an abortion raises your risk of getting breast cancer. Reality: Because abortion is believed to disrupt hormone cycles during pregnancy and breast cancer is linked to hormone levels, numerous studies have investigated a causal link⎯but found no conclusive evidence for one." [1,2]
 
The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute reported last week that 53 of 66 epidemiological studies reported an independent link between abortion and breast cancer, meaning that abortion leaves the breasts with more places for cancers to start (in addition to the loss of the protective effect of childbearing). That doesn't count the biological and experimental evidence that supports the link.
 
National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton co-authored a 2009 study on use of the birth control pill and triple-negative breast cancer. [3] She and her colleagues included abortion among "known and suspected risk factors" for the disease and found a statistically significant 40% increased breast cancer risk among women who had abortions. They concluded abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer.
 
"Try to debunk that, CBS News and Health.com," demanded Malec.
 
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.
 
References
 
1. "25 breast cancer myths busted." Health.com. Available at: http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20533364_24,00.html
 
2. "25 breast cancer myths busted." CBS News. Available at: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10009735-25.html?tag=page
 
3. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

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

Students for Life of America Suffers Second Tragic Loss

     

Jon Scharfenberger, 22, a staff member at Students for Life of America (SFLA), died early this morning from injuries sustained in an Oct. 8 car crash.

Scharfenberger was with his coworker, 28-year-old Kortney Gordon, on their way back to SFLA's headquarters in Virginia from an event in Georgia when the head-on collision happened. Gordon and her preborn daughter, Sophy, died on impact, as did the driver of the other car. Two college students who were riding in the back seat of Gordon's car are expected to make full recoveries.

A native of Warwick, New York, Scharfenberger graduated from Ave Maria University this year. While in college, he served as president of his campus chapter of Students for Life, and interned for both SFLA and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

Scharfenberger joined SFLA full-time in July, and was named director of the group's new Pregnant on Campus initiative in August. He played a crucial role in establishing a pro-life campus group at Florida International University, which saved the life of a pre-born baby just one week later.

Scharfenberger, who is survived by his parents, two sisters and one brother, died doing what he loved: On his Facebook page, he lists his position with SFLA, followed by the note, "Traveling the country saving babies!"

Contact: Karla Dial
Source: Students for Life of America

ObamaCare and abortion funding - a 'ticking time bomb'

     

The Senate and Barack Obama are standing in the way of eliminating use of federal funds for abortion -- including abortion funding under ObamaCare.
 
After a 251-172 vote Friday by the U.S. House to ban federal tax dollars for abortion under the administration's landmark healthcare reform law, the Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) now goes to the U.S. Senate. Congressman Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) points out to OneNewsNow that the law as currently written will provide tax dollars for that purpose.
 
"... ObamaCare, when phased in fully in 2014, will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs, including and especially in exchanges, resulting in more dead babies and wounded mothers than otherwise would have been the case," says the New Jersey lawmaker.
 
Senator Alan Nunnelee (R-Mississippi) supports the measure passed by the House. "ObamaCare should not have served as a vehicle for abandoning or weakening federal policies on abortion funding," he says. "Healthcare is about saving and nurturing -- not about taking human life."
 
Although the House passed the bill by a substantial margin, Senate leadership is opposed to even taking a vote -- and President Obama has promised to veto it if it does reach his desk. OneNewsNow asked Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee if there does not appear to be a chance of passage, why bother with the legislation?
 
"Well, because the issue is so important -- and we are hopefully building towards a victory in the future," he responds. "But we have to keep calling the attention of the American people to the problem: the ticking time bomb of ObamaCare -- which unless we can repeal it is going to cause enormous damage.
 
"And so these debates are very important," he concludes, "and it's very important that we get the members of Congress on record on these issues."
 
Johnson adds that with a presidential election next year -- and many members of Congress on the ballot as well -- it is critical that pro-life advocates keep up on what is happening on Capitol Hill.
 
"And anybody who objects to the ObamaCare law or who objects to major provisions of it, such as those involving abortion, ought to be paying attention to how their elected representatives are voting on those matters," he argues.
 
The pro-life spokesman explains that is how the representative form of democracy works -- and he believes debates such as the use of federal tax dollars for abortion are an important part of that process.

Contact: Charlie Butts
source: OneNewsNow

Many babies not given chance for Jobs' 'happy story'

     

One pro-life activist believes the passing of entrepreneur Steve Jobs brings light to the fact that every life has a contribution to make to society.
 
In 1954, a young college student named Joanne Schieble realized she was pregnant. Since she was unmarried and unwilling to halt her education, she decided to give the baby up for adoption. Paul and Clara Jobs welcomed her baby boy into their home in 1955 and named him Steven. He later went on to co-found Apple Inc. and Pixar Animation Studios.

"Most people don't realize that he was a happy story because he was adopted and he was born before Roe v. Wade," notes Yvonne Viramontes, coordinator with 40 Days for Life.

"Every single person is worth their life here; we need them," she contends. "Other children who are aborted these days could have been great people like him. So although he was able to be adopted, many are not these days."

But the pro-lifer laments that Jobs supported Planned Parenthood while he was alive.

"Poor babies that are being aborted, we don't know if they're the ones who are going to cure cancer or [write] special songs, [or have] special talents… All of these poor babies are being aborted now and are not given the chance to show us what a wonderful world this could be," Viramontes regrets.

She adds that Jobs was one of several notable figures who were adopted, including Nelson Mandela, Nancy Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Eleanor Roosevelt, and John Lennon, among others.

Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow

Where public stands on abortion protocol

     

A national poll recently conducted and released by Angus Reid Public Opinion shows that only 21 percent of people believe abortion ought to be legal in all cases.
 
The poll tracks closely with others from the last three decades, and Derrick Jones of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tells OneNewsNow the results are similar with what Gallup found earlier this year, "that people really are rejecting the idea of abortion for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy. It also shows that until we get to a point that we can welcome the unborn child in life and protect them in law, the American people are very supportive of laws that protect both mothers and their unborn children," he adds.

The Angus Reid poll also shows that the vast majority of people surveyed, whether Democrat or Republican, support parental consent before an abortion is provided to an underage girl. Jones says it makes sense to the public that if a girl is unable to get her ears pierced without parental consent, the same consideration should be in place in the case of abortion. Even so, Democrats are more likely than Republicans (25% to 12%)  to favor abortion, saying they support keeping all abortions legal.

"This is a medical procedure, a surgical procedure that has inherent physical risks, emotional risks, [and] mental risks, and this is a time where parents absolutely need to be involved and be there for their child," the NRLC spokesman contends. "So, the support for having parents involved certainly is not surprising -- and again, it tracks with opinion polls that we've seen over the past two decades."

And Jones emphasizes that the issue is not political; instead, it is a matter of human rights.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow 

HB 3027 Will Promote Abortion, Force out Abstinence in Sex Education

Oppose Illinois House Bill 3027, the new sex education bill.

    

The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW, and numerous other Illinois pro-abortion organizations.  The bill will be taken up in the fall veto session, which begins on October 25.  HB 3027 has already been passed by the Illinois Senate.
 
HB 3027 mandates that every public school teaching sex education in grades 6 – 12 must teach comprehensive sex education.  Lake County Right to Life has numerous major problems with this bill, including:
 
It mandates curriculum promoting abortion, stating that it is legal, safe, and parents don't have to know about it.
 
It calls for "medically accurate" sex education, but the curriculum misinforms students by telling them that "morning after pills" don't cause abortion.
 
It will force abstinence programs out of the public schools by taking away local control and mandating the teaching of contraception and condoms.  Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach comprehensive sex education if they wish.
 
It does not follow the Centers for Disease Control recommendations that a) abstinence be prioritized and b) school health education policies and programs be locally determined and consistent with community values.  Many communities in Illinois have strong Judeo-Christian value systems and would have their teachings violated by the requirement that contraception be taught to children.
 
It promotes policies proven to be ineffective in California school programs.  Since 1992, California has taught only comprehensive sex education, while Illinois has allowed abstinence education.  This has resulted in California having a much higher teen pregnancy rate than Illinois (96 teens per thousand versus 60 teens per thousand).
 
Illinois will not be stepping forward, but backward in the requirement to teach comprehensive sex education in Illinois public schools. Why should Illinois legislators adopt the failed policies of California and call it progress?
 
We urge concerned citizens to contact their state representatives and ask them to vote No on HB 3027.

Click here to find the contact information for your representative.

House approves Protect Life Act despite Obama veto threat

     

U.S. House Passes Protect Life Act, 251-172!    

Take Action!
 
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the NRLC-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) by a vote of 251-172.
 
The Protect Life Act would nullify the multiple abortion-expanding provisions of the 2010 federal health care law ("ObamaCare").
 
On October 5, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius vehemently defended the 2010 health care law in a speech to a NARAL Pro-Choice America fundraiser, saying 'we are in a war' with critics of the law.   On October 12, the White House issued a formal veto threat against the Protect Life Act.  "President Obama won enactment of ObamaCare in 2010 partly by pretending that the bill did not expand abortion -- but now the mask is coming off," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.
 
In an October 6 letter to U.S. House members, NRLC noted that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148, "ObamaCare") ". . . contained multiple provisions that provide authorizations for subsidies for abortion, both implicit and explicit, and also multiple    provisions that opened doors to abortion-expanding administrative actions."  The Protect Life Act would prohibit the use of any PPACA-authorized funds for abortions or to subsidize health plans that cover abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest.   The Protect Life Act would not restrict the sale or purchase of insurance coverage for abortion with non-federal funds.
 
During today's debate, opponents of the bill repeatedly claimed that it would allow hospitals to deny women "emergency" abortions.  In reality, the bill does not change the longstanding federal law in question, called EMTALA, which requires that in an "emergency" a hospital must do its best to stabilize both the pregnant mother and her "unborn child" (which is the term used in the statute).  The Protect Life Act allows federal funding of an abortion required to save a mother's life.
 
The Protect Life Act is sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Il.).  On today's vote on passage, the bill was supported by 236 Republicans and 15 Democrats.  It was opposed by 170 Democrats and two Republicans.

To read the October 6 letter sent by NRLC to House members in support of the bill, click here.  To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.  To view a video of the February hearing, click here.

Former abortion worker describes life at Boston Planned Parenthood

     

Catherine Adair, a former Boston Planned Parenthood worker, shared her story at the Value Voters Summit on Saturday.

Now a Catholic stay-at-home mom and pro-life advocate, Adair described her reaction to footage showing Planned Parenthood's complicity in child sex abuse, as well as gruesome details from her time working at a PP abortion center where business was "all abortions, all day, every day."

Adair's comments were made as a panel member in the breakout session titled, "Exposing and Defunding Planned Parenthood, America's Abortion Giant." The other panel members were Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Live Actions' Lila Rose, whose video Adair referred to.

Click here for the video.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com