The U.S. House of Representatives is soon expected to act on a bill that would ban the practice of aborting unborn babies on the basis of race or gender, and one proponent believes it will ultimately draw attention to the whole concept of legal abortion. Though no firm numbers confirm that abortions are sought on the basis of sex or race, Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life says census figures show that the practice is definitely afoot in the U.S. "Some of our [readers] may have heard about the taped interviews of some of the Planned Parenthood abortion facilities where the caller actually said, 'I'd like to make an offering to Planned Parenthood specifically for the abortion of black babies,' and they actually accepted the donation for that particular purpose," he notes. But Father Pavone points out that legalized abortion encourages discrimination on a greater level than that of gender or race. "What about the idea that one should want to abort a child simply because they're a child? In other words, legal abortion itself institutionalizes in the law the discrimination based on age -- that these children in the first nine months of their lives should be disposable," he offers. HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, would ban abortions based on race or gender, and Pavone says it awakens the conscience. "All of us need to bring that process further down the road," he suggests. If people recoil at that type of discrimination, then he believes it is time to "take a look at the whole concept of legal abortion in the first place." The measure includes criminal penalties for abortionists who perform a sex or race selection abortion, and it would establish civil remedies for the mother, father, and maternal grandparents of the unborn children. HR 3541 would also make it illegal to solicit or accept money for the performance of such procedures. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
The Obama administration has ended the government's anti-trafficking contracts with Catholic groups, which many say are the best in the business, and insisted that under its health care law many Christian groups must offer insurance coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients, prompting the first lawsuit on that issue. Against that backdrop, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), visited the Oval Office at the beginning of November for what he described as an "extraordinarily friendly" meeting with President Obama. "I found the president of the United States to be very open to the sensitivities coming from the Catholic community -- that we're worried about an intrusion on religious liberty," Dolan said during the USCCB's fall general assembly on Nov. 14. Dolan wouldn't go into specifics of his conversation with the president, but he said, "I left there feeling a bit more at peace about this issue than when I entered." Obama is considering expanding the religious exemption of the health care law, giving more latitude for religious organizations that don't want to pay for coverage of contraceptives, sterilization, or abortifacients. Kathleen Sebelius, the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, announced in August that the health care mandate for preventative services would include contraceptives. She also detailed a paper-thin religious exemption from that mandate: Only religious groups whose central purpose is "the inculcation of religious values" qualify for an exemption, and the group's employees must be primarily of one faith and primarily serve members of that faith -- leaving out most religious hospitals, relief organizations and the like. Some religious groups asserted that Jesus' ministry would not count as religious under this guideline if serving people of different beliefs is disqualifying. HHS is reviewing public comments it received this fall on the contraceptives rule and the exemption. Without other changes, the proposed rule goes into effect in August 2012. HHS official Richard Sorian wrote during the public comment period in late August that the department is "open to other definitions of 'religious organizations' to ensure organizations that have religious objections to covering contraception can choose whether or not to cover these services." But Sebelius said when she announced the rule that not covering contraceptives in insurance plans "would be like not covering flu shots." The department's definition of contraceptives includes "morning after pills" such as "ella," Plan B and Next Choice, all of which can block implantation after fertilization and have abortifacient qualities. Catholics weren't the only ones to object to the rule. Representatives from religious organizations across the spectrum -- the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Evangelicals for Social Action, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Prison Fellowship, World Relief, the National Association of Evangelicals, and Notre Dame Law School, among others -- protested the exemption, saying it was inadequate. Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land wrote in a letter to the administration that if the exemption is not broadened, "religious organizations will be forced to choose between their consciences and their social service work." "Surely," Land wrote, "many will choose to terminate operation of these services rather than provide contraceptives that would violate their sincerely held beliefs. Such an outcome would be devastating." The Council on Christian Colleges and Universities, representing 137 Protestant schools, also wrote a letter saying the mandate "will force most if not all of our institutions to violate their religious consciences." In late November, Belmont Abbey College, a 1,700-student Catholic school tied to a monastery in North Carolina, filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the preventative coverage mandate. The college, which doesn't qualify as religious under the current exemption because some of its students and faculty aren't Catholic, was the first religious organization to sue over the matter. Soon after the school filed the lawsuit, the administration indicated that it was considering broadening the religious exemption. "I hope they're feeling the pressure," said Lori Windham, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Belmont Abbey College in the health care case. "If a law is going to burden religion, it has to be neutral and generally applicable. This law is not neutral and generally applicable." The Becket Fund lawyers argue that the administration gave exemptions to certain businesses like McDonald's and teachers' organizations, but gave almost no protection to religious groups, which have explicit constitutional protection. Belmont Abbey's lawsuit denounces not just the mandated coverage of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients, but also "related education and counseling." The lawsuit says the mandate "forces Belmont Abbey College to fund government-dictated speech that is directly at odds with its own speech and religious teachings." Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and some Democrats in Washington are in uproar at the possibility of the change to the exemption. Planned Parenthood sent a message to supporters on Nov. 16, saying that "Tea Party Republicans and anti-women's health groups ... are trying to take away women's access to birth control -- it's as simple as that." Two days later, a more panicked email went out: "There's no time to lose. We've learned that President Obama may decide at any moment whether to take away birth control coverage from millions of women." Senate Democrats raised the issue on a conference call with White House officials, dismayed at the potential reversal of what one Democrat called "the progress made in favor of reproductive rights." The administration hasn't indicated when it may issue its decision on the religious exemption, but the government has just under two months to respond to Belmont Abbey's lawsuit. The religious community isn't cheering yet. "While there is the real possibility of a broader exemption, it remains to be seen whether it will protect all religious organizations and the conscience rights of individuals and insurers," said Bishop William Lori at the USCCB's fall general assembly. Meanwhile, in an issue that is unrelated to the health care law but related to the battle over religious liberty, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lost a federal grant this year and won't be able to work with human trafficking victims because of its position on abortion. The conference worked with trafficking victims for several years and was rated by HHS reviewers as the second-best applicant for the grant this year. But after the Obama administration issued a new edict this year saying it would give "strong preference" to applicants who provide or refer women for abortion, contraception and sterilization services, the conference lost the grant. Contact: Emily Belz Source: Baptist Press
Conservative lawmakers in the House of Representatives are making a push to ban abortions based on the gender or race of unborn babies. The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, authored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., would make it a criminal and civil offense to perform abortions for sex- or race-selection reasons. While women who seek such abortions would not be jailed, those who coerce women into getting such abortions could face up to five years in prison. "Today in America, 40 to 50 percent of all African-American babies, virtually one in two, are killed before they are born, which is a greater cause of death for African-Americans than heart diseases, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and violence combined," Franks said at a hearing on the legislation. Sex-selection abortions have long been an international problem. The Economist recently reported on the role that sex-selection abortion plays in son preference. The magazine called it "gendercide" and argued that "the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic." Steven Aden, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, added that "the United States is far from immune to this problem." Speaking at the Dec. 6 House committee hearing, Aden cited a 2008 study by Columbia University economists Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund that examined the sex ratio at birth among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean and Asian-Indian parents. They found "deviation in favor of sons" and "evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage," especially among second and third pregnancies if the first child was not born male. Steven Mosher, the president of Population Research Institute, said 89 percent of immigrant Indian women participating in a recent study had aborted girls. Nearly half of those had aborted more than one girl. "These women told ... of how they were the victims of family violence; how their husbands or in-laws had shoved them around, kicked them in the abdomen, or denied them food, water, rest in an attempt to make them miscarry the girls they were carrying," he said. At the House hearing, opponents claimed that Franks' bill discriminates against women. "Their true motivation behind this bill is not equal rights, but rather a restriction of women's rights," said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. But Mosher argued that "sex-selective abortion is rightly seen by many as the ultimate form of discrimination against women." Franks, whose bill has 60 co-sponsors, sees this issue as "the civil rights struggle that will define our generation." But passage in just the House will likely be the best prospect for his bill. Although the Democrat-controlled Senate will likely ignore Franks' legislation, conservatives hope that debate over the bill will increase national awareness of the issue. "This is a tragedy that should assault the mind and conscience of every American," Franks said. Contact: Edward Lee Pitts Source: Baptist Press
An important piece of pro-life legislation, the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act (ANDA), has a chance of passing the House of Representatives within the next week. The bill, which may be part of the House Labor and Health and Human Services spending package for Fiscal Year 2012, would protect the conscience rights of health care workers and religious groups who don't want to be forced into performing or referring women for abortions. "ANDA is particularly important in light of the recent cases we've seen of blatant discrimination against faith-based people and groups that don't want to participate in practices that violate their consciences. The case of the New Jersey nurses is a perfect example," said Ashley Horne, CitizenLink's federal issues analyst. "The longer we go without permanent protection for health care professionals who oppose the practice of abortion, the more in danger we become of being a country that disrespects the moral values of its citizens and forces them to check their beliefs at the door." In November, 125 members of Congress wrote to support including ANDA in the final appropriations bill. Urge your congressmen to include ANDA in the final appropriations bill for FY 2012. For contact information for your memeber of congress, please visit: http://www.house.gov/ and enter your zip code in the "Find your Representative" tool in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
On Wednesday, seven former employees of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) sent a letter offering their help to a congressional committee investigating the organization for misuse of federal funds and other crimes. In September, Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns sent a sharply worded letter to PPFA President Cecile Richards, demanding documentation of how the group makes sure the $1 million a day it receives in federal funds, which by law cannot be used to support abortion, are not commingled with unrestricted funding from other sources, as well as how employees go about detecting and reporting sexual crimes against women, such as trafficking, coercion and statutory rape. The seven former officers and employees, formerly associated with clinics from Massachusetts to California, said they had personal experience with and knowledge of PPFA breaking federal laws concerning all those issues. "We are of one mind that the extent of these problems with the organization is not fully understood by the American people, who are underwriting the growth of Planned Parenthood and its potent outreach to the young and the poor," they wrote. "The decision by the Energy and Commerce Committee to delve into the extent of these issues is long overdue, and it will provide and appropriate check and balance on an entity that, as we can personally attest, has operated as a law unto itself, gladly accepting tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer support while using the rubric of 'reproductive rights' to claim exemption from the normal standards of accountability that every other recipient of public funds is expected to meet." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Thanks to the nation's health secretary, pro-lifers are pleased that the Plan B "morning-after" pill won't be sold over the counter to minors anytime soon. At the last minute, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the advice of her own experts who actually wanted young girls to be able to buy the drug to prevent impregnation after intimacy. President Barack Obama is defending the decision. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America thinks Sebelius made the right decision. "We're very happy to not have to worry about having the Plan B right between the candy and the condoms at every counter in the grocery store and the drug store that we come to," she comments. And Crouse suggests that the HHS secretary's decision was made for political reasons, as opposed to political correctness. "It's a political decision made necessary by the fact that President Obama's disapproval ratings are above 50 percent," she explains. "So they're going into the election season, and she can't afford to make a decision that would alienate the vast majority of parents in this country who are very concerned about their children's well-being." Crouse also believes that pro-lifers who have worked so hard to fight Plan B's distribution should be credited for forcing Sebelius' hand and ensuring "a little bit of protection for our kids." The morning-after pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus, and according to Jeanne Monahan of the Family Research Council, making it available to girls under the age of 18 would not have been in the best interests of young girls. (Listen to audio report) "It's actually ... not good public health sense, and really not common sense to make a drug like this available without a prescription, and thereby without a doctor's intervention and some sense of medical screening," she contends. Monahan explains that Plan B is basically nothing more than a high dose of birth control, and no valid research indicates the impact it might have on women, let alone young girls. "So you can be sure that taking a high dose of hormones when a system is still developing can have some sort of impact on it, and potentially long-term impact," Monahan notes. "There have not been many studies on this, but most doctors will agree that that's something that would need to be taken into consideration." The Food and Drug Administration had recommended that the morning-after pill be available over the counter, but Sebelius decided against that. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Congressmen from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today had a lengthy discussion with four witnesses about gender- and race-based abortions, and why a law banning them may be necessary. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who chaired the discussion for the Subcommittee on the Constitution, is sponsoring the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which would hold abortionists accountable for terminating pregnancies based on the race or gender of the baby. Legislators, as well as three of the four panelists, expressed concern about the fact that gender-selective abortions are occurring in the U.S. already, particularly among ethnic groups which value boys over girls. Congressmen asked Steven F. Aden, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, how such a law might be enforced. "In the case of a sex-selection abortion, there's a requirement for the doctor to obtain full informed consent from the patient," Aden said. "If a woman has had two abortions in a row of a female baby, that might raise a question for him, to ensure that the patient has not been coerced into this, especially if she comes from one of the populations that has a proclivity for this." Investigative author Edwin Black spoke about the history of Planned Parenthood, and its seminal goal of exterminating black children, and the problems social engineering is already creating in countries where gender-selective abortions are encouraged. "Planned Parenthood was not rooted in eugenics," when it was founded, Black said. Rather, "it was eugenics. "Eugenics is an attempt to affect bloodlines. Right now, today this minute, the transhumanist movement, which is well-funded and well-established in the U.K. and the U.S., is trying to manipulate and create a society. The reason I'm here is because you are attempting to address a doorway that our society is going into because we are going into organized and systematized subtraction of a group — women or black people or whatever it is — to socially engineer." Asked what would happen if Congress were to pass a law mandating the opposite — advocating girls and certain races be targeted for abortion — Aden said it "wouldn't fly because it would be discrimination. "Congress is not bound to sit and wait until racial and gender discriminatory policies make themselves manifest," he said. "Congress can act proactively in addressing them." From a historical perspective, Black said, passing PRENDA is the only right thing to do. "I believe we can't fathom or measure what has been lost from any genocide," he said. "None of us may judge the value of a human being. We don't have the measuring sticks or the right to do this to another person. None of us can decide what's best for humanity. That's what nature is about, that's what the Almighty is about." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
A "morning-after" pill that can cause abortions may soon be as simple to purchase as deodorant and hair spray. '(This will) open the door for all sorts of abuse, and especially so when it comes to child abuse and child exploitation.' --Janice Crouse The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must decide by Wednesday whether it will permit the drug known as Plan B to be sold on store shelves instead of from behind pharmacy counters, The Washington Post reported. Wednesday is the deadline for the FDA's reply to a petition by the pill's manufacturer to loosen requirements for its sale. The "morning-after" pill, also known as "emergency contraception," works to restrict ovulation in a woman or prevent fertilization. The pill, however, also can act after fertilization, thereby causing an abortion, pro-life advocates point out. This mechanism of the drug blocks implantation of a tiny embryo in the uterine wall. Plan B is available in the United States without a prescription to women 17 years of age and older. Pharmacists, however, keep the pill stocked behind their counters. It also can be sold to men 17 and older. Girls 16 and younger must have a prescription to purchase the drug. The method of purchasing Plan B has been liberalized twice since 2006. Pro-life and pro-family advocates undoubtedly will protest again a move that makes it easier to obtain the drug -- especially if it makes it possible for children to purchase the pill. "When anybody can buy an emergency contraceptive like this over the counter, you open the door for all sorts of abuse, and especially so when it comes to child abuse and child exploitation," Janice Crouse, a spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, told The Post. Foes of the approval and expanded sale of the "morning-after" pill have expressed concern not only that it will result in the deaths of many unborn babies but open girls and women up to potential harm from unsupervised doses of hormones. In addition, they have said it would undermine parental oversight and set minors up for exploitation by adult sexual predators. The "morning-after" pill, which is also marketed under the brand Next Choice, is basically a heavier dose of birth control pills. Under the regimen, a woman takes a pill within 72 hours of sexual intercourse and another dose 12 hours later. Another "morning-after" pill, Plan B One-step, can be taken in a single dose within 72 hours. The FDA approved Plan B for sale by prescription in 1999. The agency authorized the non-prescription sale of the drug to women 18 and older in 2006. It lowered the age for non-prescription sale to 17 after it chose not to challenge a judge's ruling in 2009. The FDA approved Next Choice and Plan B One-step for marketing in 2009. Next Choice is available only by prescription, according to The Post. Plan B's manufacturer is Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the newspaper reported. contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press
Back in 2003, Holly Paterson died, age 18, died from septic shock after taking the abortion pill known as RU 486. Since then, her father Monty has researched the safety of what is sometimes called "medical abortion." From the SF Chronicle story (link behind paywall until 12/6 AM): Since that afternoon more than eight years ago, Patterson, who lives in Livermore, has spent every waking hour fighting to learn exactly how his daughter died — and to prevent other women and girls from compromising their health, and their lives. He has become an expert in RU-486, the "medical abortion" (as opposed to surgical), which involves taking two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, to terminate an early pregnancy of up to 63 days. In his research, Patterson uncovered other, previously unreported deaths linked to RU-486. He traveled to Washington to meet with FDA officials and share his findings. He testified before Congress, amassed an archive of information on the drugs, and was instrumental in getting warnings put on the labeling of RU-486. Medical abortion, which terminates an established pregnancy, is different from the "morning after pill," which operates like a highdosage contraceptive and is intended to prevent pregnancy. Today, medical abortions account for about 27 percent of all abortions in the United States. The story says there have been 14 known deaths from more than 1.5 million medical abortions, with more than 2000 serious problems reported, which may be an incomplete accounting since studies show that not all adverse effects from drugs make it into the statistics. Ralph Nader calls people like Patterson "victim advocates," and they often provide essential information to the public that would not otherwise be readily available. Patterson appears to fit that pattern. To protect other families from suffering as his has, he set up a WEB site, www.abortionpillrisks.com, to provide objective information about the risks of medical abortion. It is also worth noting that Patterson stays out of the pro-choice vs. pro-life fight: He has been careful, he said, not to be pulled into the abortion debate, despite being lobbied by antiabortion and prochoice groups. "I'm not pro-life or pro-choice," he said. "I'm pro-Holly." "After this happened, I dropped everything," Patterson said. "Here I was, this single, middleclass father trying to raise my kids and provide everything that I could for them. I had a lot of questions, and now I have a lot of answers. I want women to have the whole truth when making their choices." I noted with interest that many deaths and serious illnesses caused to women by RU 486 resulted from off label use. Another reason why I believe that off label prescribing constitutes unethical human experimentation and should be severely curtailed. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke
Since an international "right" to abortion doesn't exist, a number of countries recently corrected a United Nations official when he argued the contrary. Anand Grover, special rapporteur for health at the U.N., recently noted in his report to the delegats of the U.N. Third Committee an "international right" to abortion, and he chastised countries where abortion is illegal or limited. But his announcement sparked immediate reaction from several countries, according to Wendy Wright of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). "These delegates pushed back and they put him in his place and said that there is no international right to abortion and that he has gone beyond his authority in trying to reprimand countries for simply trying to protect their women and children from abortion," she reports. A delegate from Swaziland, for example, noted that the world is suffering from a number of health concerns like hunger and disease, and she criticized Grover for including a "non-existent" right to abortion within the right to health. Wright supports that argument, as she points out that pregnancy is not an illness. "The fact that these governments spoke out quite strongly at the U.N. when this 'right' was claimed is encouraging," she admits. "These governments are not going to allow these U.N. officials to go beyond their authority and try to browbeat countries into allowing abortion in their countries." The Egyptian delegation also criticized Grover, and Chile emphasized that there is a universal right to life for all human beings. Abortion was legal in Chile until 1989, and after its criminalization, maternal mortality decreased. So the C-FAM spokesperson concludes that that country's history proves that criminalizing abortion does not negatively affect the health of women. Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow
Pro-lifers are pleased that a notorious abortion clinic in Illinois will remain closed for the rest of the year, but they are hoping to uncover evidence that will ensure it stays closed for good. The Northern Illinois Women's Center in Rockford, which was shut down in late September by the state public health department (see earlier story), will now have its doors closed until January 4, thanks to an extension granted by an administrative law judge. Peter Breen, executive director for the Thomas More Society, says the pro-lifers he represents were concerned about a premature opening of the clinic since it did not meet a number of health standards when it was inspected for the first time in 14 years. "All three operating rooms failed to ensure a sanitary environment," Breen details. "The surgical instruments, which are actually inserted into the human body, were shown to not necessarily be sterile. The machine that was supposed to sterilize those instruments failed when it was tested, and it should have been tested every week; it wasn't tested for four months." Though he is pleased with the latest development, Breen hopes for even better news come the formal public hearing on January 4. "We may see the evidence sufficient that day -- and we think it's out there -- to ensure a permanent clinic closing," he says. That, the attorney concludes, would make Northwestern Illinois abortion-free for the first time since Roe vs. Wade. Contact: Bill Bumpas Source: OneNewsNow
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., introduced a bill that would hold abortionists accountable for the deaths of preborn babies targeted for their race or gender. Life advocates have long noted Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's philosophy of eugenics: She promoted abortion specifically to trim the size of the African-American population, and to this day, documents show abortion clinics are disproportionately located in black neighborhoods. In addition, statistics show that as people emigrate from India and Asian nations where boys are valued over girls, a corresponding rise in sex-selective abortions is occurring in the U.S. "We see a clear anomaly in the birth statistics (among some populations)," Franks said. "If it's a first child, the boy-girl ratio is about what it should be, about 50-50. If it's a second child, then the boy statistics go way up. If both the first two children are girls, it goes way, way up. There is no question sex-selective abortion is a horrifying reality in the land of the free and the home of the brave." The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which Franks introduced for the first time in 2009, has 49 cosponsors. On Dec. 6, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold an open hearing on the issue at 1 p.m. EST. Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
Yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 violates the Illinois State Constitution of 1970. The high Court is expected to grapple with the question of whether, and to what extent, the Illinois Constitution includes protection for abortion rights. Abortion was illegal in Illinois from the time of the State Constitution's adoption until the United States Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The Chicago-based Thomas More Society sought to intervene in the case on behalf of two Illinois State's Attorneys, whom the Act vests with enforcement responsibilities, and who questioned the adequacy of representation of their interests by the Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The Society also filed a brief for more than twenty Illinois State's Attorneys as amici curiae on the merits in defense of the Parental Notice Act in the Appellate Court. Paul Linton, Special Counsel for the Society, welcomed the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to review the Act. "The Illinois Supreme Court's action ensures that there will be a prompt resolution of the law's constitutionality, and we believe that the high Court will uphold the law. Similar laws in other States have been associated with significant declines in the numbers of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, births, and abortions among minors. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the vital interests that States have in protecting pregnant minors and the rights of their parents to provide guidance and counsel in this very sensitive area." Subject to certain exceptions, including medical emergencies, the Illinois Parental Notice Act -- whose enforcement has been blocked almost from its inception due to successive federal and state court challenges brought by the ACLU -- requires that an unemancipated minor notify one of her parents, her legal guardian, a step-parent residing in the same household, or a grandparent of her intention to obtain an abortion. The Act does not require parental consent, only notice, and it also provides for confidential options for "bypassing" the notice requirement, including expedited and confidential appeals, in cases where a minor has been abused or where a court finds she is mature enough to make her own decision, or it is otherwise in her best interest to proceed without notice. Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Thomas More Society
"The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, and a major waste of money," says Dr. Joseph Mercola. 
A well-known doctor who has repeatedly warned about the dangers of vaccines and who is particularly concerned about the Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, has released two video testimonies by young women who were severely harmed after having been injected with Gardasil. Dr. Joseph Mercola notes that the U.S. government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database indicates that Gardasil has been linked to 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, 41 reports of cervical cancer, and thousands of adverse events reports, ranging from headaches and nausea, to outbreaks of genital warts, anaphylactic shock, grand mal convulsion, foaming at the mouth, coma and paralysis. Dr. Mercola also says it is concerning that HPV vaccines protect against only two of the more common strains of HPV associated with cancer, HPV-16 and HPV-18, even though there are more than 100 different types of HPV, at least 15 of which cause cancer. Charlotte Haug, writing in the September issue of New Scientist noted, "Vaccinated women show an increased number of precancerous lesions caused by strains of HPV other than HPV-16 and HPV-18 … what effect will the vaccine have on the other cancer-causing strains of HPV? Nature never leaves a void, so if HPV-16 and HPV-18 are suppressed by an effective vaccine, other strains of the virus will take their place. The question is, will these strains cause cervical cancer? Results from clinical trials are not encouraging." In the first of the video testimonies a young lady named Brittney reveals that she was frightened into receiving the Gardasil shot just after she turned 21. Following the second of the two recommended doses she lost the use of her legs. She then provides a shocking list of medical problems that resulted from receiving the injections. In the second video, Ashley recounts the journey from being a healthy active teenager to a life of hospital visits, 911 calls, severe pain, nausea, difficulty breathing and not being able to walk from numbness in her legs. "If I had never gotten this shot I would be a normal teenager. I wish I could go back," Ashley says in the video. "Deadly blood clots, acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest and 'sudden death due to unknown causes' have all occurred in girls shortly after they've received the Gardasil vaccine," Dr. Mercola explains. "These are atrocious risks to potentially prevent cervical cancer one day down the road. Because let's not forget that the HPV vaccine has not yet been proven to actually prevent any kind of cancer." "The bottom line is that Gardasil is largely ineffective, potentially very dangerous, and a major waste of money," Dr. Mercola concludes. The videos, and further information, are available here. Contact: Thaddeus Baklinski Source: LifeSiteNews.com
A ruling handed down this week means that one of the most notorious abortion clinics in the country, the Northern Illinois Women's Center (NIWC) in Rockford, Illinois, will remain closed until January 4, 2012, when a formal public hearing will be held. The ruling on the suspension of the clinic's license was made by an Administrative Law Judge at the behest of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH). In addition to its health violations, the abortion facility is known for routinely displaying anti-Christian symbols, such as a nun in a coffin and a crucified rubber chicken, as well as taunting signs in its windows. The judge announced her ruling during a teleconference yesterday, when the department of health advised the judge that health concerns stemming from inspections of the facility remained unresolved. "Every week an estimated 25 children were killed in the Rockford abortion mill," noted Kevin Rilott, a veteran pro-life activist who regularly witnesses outside the abortion facility, at prolifecorner.com. "That's approximately 100 human lives a month destroyed in Rockford by abortion. "This means for the three months the Rockford abortion mill has been closed, up to 300 human lives may have been saved. Yes, some of these mothers may have gone to other cities to end the lives of their children - but many may have chosen life as well." Last week, attorneys Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society, and Jason Craddock, special counsel for the Society, wrote a lengthy letter to the health department, expressing grave worries about a possible premature reopening of the NIWC. The Thomas More Society attorneys were retained in the case by concerned citizens residing in the Greater Rockford area, including the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative and a Registered Nurse, who had been instrumental in persuading the public health authorities finally to conduct a series of inspections of the NIWC abortion facility after a protracted period of nearly 14 years — during which no inspections had taken place. The Society's letter pointed out that IDPH's long overdue inspections of the facility had uncovered a laundry list of "egregious health and safety violations," including gynecological cannulas (surgical instruments inserted during abortion procedures) that were stained with a "brown substance," "failure to prevent contamination of clean surgical equipment" and "repeated deficiencies in record keeping." Inspectors at the clinic had found shoes stored inside a box of survigal gloves, while "autoclave equipment used to sterilize medical instruments failed biological testing on at least two occasions." They also found that the abortionists did not have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and failed to meet requirements for a registered nurse to be present in the operating room, "leaving unqualified and unlicensed personnel to do tasks reserved by law for licensed, qualified professional personnel." "We pray that this Christmas season may mark NIWC's permanent closure," said the Thomas More Society's Tom Brejcha. NIWC's lawyers are claiming that its patients are "safe" despite its failure to abide by legal requirements. Contact: John-Henry Westen Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Common Sense Will Prevail 
The Obama Administration will announce shortly the final rule for the contraception mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Pro-Life Democrats are expecting a religious exemption that is consistent with longstanding public policy and current law. "The Administration is already unfairly under attack by Catholic conservatives who are using the proposed final rule to spread anti-Obama sentiment to lay Catholics," said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life. "The Administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs. It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters." Current law does not mandate private insurance coverage for contraceptives nor does it require free birth control. Under the current law, employers who oppose birth control on moral grounds may choose insurance without such coverage. But such employers certainly do not forbid birth control for their employees; they simply do not pay for it because it is against their religious beliefs. The PPACA included a provision requiring that insurance plans include free contraception coverage. But, when passed, PPACA also proposed to continue to allow employers an exemption to mandated contraception in offered health insurance plans if the employer objected on moral or religious grounds. This was part of the agreement reached by pro-life Democrats. The issue for pro-life Democrats is that certain types of birth control cause abortions of new embryos. "I would have never voted for the final version of the bill if I expected the Obama Administration to force Catholic hospitals and Catholic Colleges and Universities to pay for contraception," said former Pennsylvania Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. "We worked hard to prevent abortion funding in health care and to include clear conscience protections for those with moral objections to abortion and contraceptive devices that cause abortion. I trust that the President will honor the commitment he made to those of us who supported final passage." Women's groups scored a tremendous victory with a contraception mandate that requires all health insurance companies to provide free birth control. Some group, such as Emily's List and NARAL are now attempting to push the mandate beyond its hard won legislative intent by forcing employers who oppose contraception for moral reasons to include free birth control in their plans as well. They are also using scare tactics to convince their supporters that they are in jeopardy of losing coverage for birth control. "The campaign by Emily's list to scare women into thinking that they will no longer have access to birth control is as dishonest as the Republican campaign to convince voters that the PPACA funds abortion," said Stephen Schneck of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholics Studies at The Catholic University of America. "The PPACA does not fund abortion and not one woman will lose access to birth control under the new law. In fact, millions of women will now receive free birth control under that law." NARAL's and Emily's List dishonest campaign may well mean that millions of Americans could lose their access to employer sponsored health care. Notre Dame President, Father Jenkins expressed concern that the mandate "would compel Notre Dame to either pay for contraception and sterilization in violation of the church's moral teaching, or to discontinue our employee and student health care plans in violation of the church's social teaching," "This is more about business as usual in Washington with special interest groups trying to create controversy to raise money," said Dahlkemper. "Common sense would say health insurance, even if it does not include contraception coverage, is better than no insurance at all. If common sense prevails, the final rule will allow fair conscience protections that will not force religious institutions choose between social teaching and moral teaching." Contact: Kristen Day Source: Democrats For Life of America
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that an Armenian study-whose authors examined diabetes mellitus type 2, reproductive factors, and breast cancer-found a statistically significant association showing a 2.86-fold increased breast cancer risk from one induced abortion. [1] The study, led by Lilit Khachatryan, included researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania. Khachatryan's team reported a statistically significant 13% increased breast cancer risk for every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy (FFTP), with delayed FFTPs until ages 21-30 or after age 30 resulting in 2.21-fold and 4.95-fold increased risks respectively, as opposed to women with FFTPs before age 20. (Abortion is often used to delay FFTPs.) Giving birth resulted in a 64% reduced risk. Due to political correctness, the authors also inaccurately claimed, "Most evidence (of an abortion-breast cancer link)...points to no effect." Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York) said that is "plainly false." [2] Fifty-one of 68 epidemiological studies since 1957 report an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link (not counting biological and experimental evidence). Khachatryan's team cited only one (severely criticized) study, Melbye et al. 1997, to support their false claim of "no effect." [3,4,5] Although Melbye's team found no overall increased risk, they reported a statistically significant 89% increased risk for those having abortions after 18 weeks gestation. Khachatryan's group cited recall bias as a possible limitation of their study, but tellingly provided no citations to support that claim. According to this hypothesis, the only reason that scientists find an ABC link is not because abortion really does raise risk. Rather, more women with breast cancer accurately report their past abortions than do healthy women. Dr. Brind said, "The recall bias argument has been repeatedly disproved in the literature." [2,6] Similarly, authors of the Uzbekistan Health Examination Survey (which received financial and technical assistance through the US AID-funded MEASURE DHS+ program) said induced abortion is not negatively stigmatized in former Soviet states and that the collection of data is, therefore, successful. They wrote: "However, in the republics of the former Soviet Union and in many Eastern European countries, induced abortion is an accepted means of fertility control, and data on this topic have been collected in households in a number of these countries with apparent success (Sullivan, et al., 2003; Westoff et al., 1998, 2002)." [7] National Cancer Institute (NCI) branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton and her colleagues admitted in a 2009 study led by Jessica Dolle that abortion raises risk. [8] They demonstrated that they know recall bias is a red herring used to prop up abortion. After Brinton and the NCI told women during the agency's 2003 workshop to disregard retrospective studies because they were flawed due to recall bias, Brinton and Jessica Dolle and their colleagues subsequently used supposedly "flawed" data from their group's 1994 and 1996 studies for their 2009 study. [9-11] Dr. Brind concluded that Khachatryan's team "did not-and perhaps were not allowed to-characterize their findings honestly in the politically correct atmosphere of the U.S. and Europe. The good news is that they were able to report their findings in a prominent peer-reviewed journal at all." [2] Khachatryan's team also reported statistically significant results associated with breast cancer and diabetes mellitus type 2 (5.53-fold increased risk) and obesity (2.4-fold increased risk). 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) Khachatryan L, Scharpf R, Kagan S. Influence of diabetes mellitus type 2 and prolonged estrogen exposure on risk of breast cancer among women in Armenia. Health Care for Women International 2011;32:953-971. Available at: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07399332.2011.569041>. 2) Private communication from Dr. Joel Brind to Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer on November 15, 2011. 3) Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85. 4) Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>. 5) Brind J, Chinchilli VM. Letter. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1834-1835. 6) For a discussion of the research conducted on recall bias, see: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/bias/index.htm>. 7) Uzbekistan Health Examination Survey 2002. Analytical and Information Center. Ministry of Health. Republic of Uzbekistan. State Department of Statistics, Ministry of Macroeconomics and Statistics, Republic of Uzbekistan. ORC Macro, Calverton, Maryland. J.M. Sullivan and A.I. Kamilov. Ch. 6. "Induced Abortion." April 2004. p. 63. Available at: <http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACX976.pdf> 8) 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> 9) To learn more about the U.S. National Cancer Institute's sham workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link in 2003, see a letter to President Obama signed by scientists, physicians and the leaders of medical groups and pro-family organizations. Available at: <www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/ObamaLetter.pdf>. 10) Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. White E, Malone KE, Weiss NS, Daling JR. Breast cancer among young US women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:505-514. 11) Daling JR, Brinton LA, Voigt LF, et al. Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:373-380.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a pair of reports Thursday showing that among teens, birth rates have dropped over the last year — but sexually transmitted disease rates are increasing. According to the reports, babies born to teen moms dropped 9 percent in 2010 — the biggest single-year decline since 1946-47. And over the last two years, teen birth rates have dropped 15 percent. Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said that's entirely surprising, since the CDC also reported recently that nearly 75 percent of kids between the ages of 15 and 17 are remaining sexually abstinent. But the other 25 percent are more at risk than ever for sexually transmitted infections. According to the other report, chlamydia rates have increased 24 percent since 2006 — the highest they've been in 20 years. And most of the cases are found among teenage African-American girls. "The current sex ed policy as created by the Obama administration is almost solely focused on teen pregnancy prevention. So when they release these twin reports, but only one gets the headlines, it supposedly shows their teen pregnancy programs are successful," Huber said. "It's great that birth rates are down, but it's when teen sexual activity rates drop that we'll get real prevention. This shows me that the current policy is not taking care of the problem." Contact: Karla Dial Source: CitizenLink
