The move to declare a person a
"person" at all stages continues in Mississippi -- in spite of the
convincing defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment in November
that would have done exactly that.
A recent meeting with lawmakers in the
state capitol in Jackson dealt with proposed legislation to protect all
human life. Les Riley of Personhood Mississippi attended the meeting
and says one proposal before lawmakers will be the Adoption and Humane
Treatment of Human Embryos Act.
"Which will deal with embryonic
stem-cell research, human/animal hybrid bans, and things that the
pro-life movement didn't have to worry about 20 years ago [because]
they're now coming to fruition," he shares. "But [this act] also
provides the provision to make Mississippi the most embryo
adoption-friendly state in the nation."
In addition, legislation is being proposed to deal specifically with the life issue.
"We've proposed an amendment to the
legislature called the Life at Conception Amendment that basically
defines life as beginning at conception and specifically deals with the
objections that people had during the [recent personhood] campaign and
clarifies things."
During that campaign, opponents had
charged among other things that the amendment would ban in vitro
fertilization and birth control.
If the proposed bill does not pass the
state legislature, Riley says his group is fully prepared to again go
through the process of putting a constitutional amendment before voters
in the Magnolia State.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
January 13, 2012
Pro-Abortion Street Banners Called Out by Life Legal Defense Foundation as Illegal
Life Legal Defense Foundation Challenges Antagonistic Banners Lining City's Market Street in Violation of Code
It goes without saying that "politics happen" -- but they should not happen on the taxpayer dime on lampposts along Market Street in San Francisco. The Life Legal Defense Foundation has challenged the City of San Francisco with a blatant violation of its own city code. This month, inflammatory political statements promoting a Ms. Magazine-initiated pro-abortion campaign now waft over foot and auto traffic, as this municipal local marketing tool is abused, allowing feminist rhetoric to take the place intended for promotion of farmers' markets and neighborhood festivals.
The city regularly authorizes the display of banners to promote "city-sponsored," "city-funded," or "city-wide" events or "series of related events of interest to a significant portion of the residents of San Francisco and/or tourists." San Francisco does allow some non-event banners to be posted on city-owned utility poles, but they are restricted to "city convention facility banners" and "city neighborhood banners." A typical non-event banner would be the non-controversial San Francisco State University banners urging San Franciscans to "Support Public Higher Education: The Future Depends On It."
The offending banners, issued by the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign, bear blatantly political statements, including "U.S. Out of My Uterus," "Reproductive Rights are Human Rights," and "San Francisco is Pro-Choice," slogans which are clearly designed to provoke the ire of those who do not share the printed sentiments. The authors of the Silver Ribbon Month website reference a 2011 pro-abortion Ms. Magazine blog as the impetus behind the project, which is actually an event only in the virtual sense.
"The city minions who 'approved' these illegal banners might have thought that the public would ignore the challenge, but they are in error," said Dana Cody, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation. "We also believe this puts a stick in the eye of pro-life advocates who will be marching down Market Street on January 21 for the annual March for Life."
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: The Life Legal Defense Foundation
It goes without saying that "politics happen" -- but they should not happen on the taxpayer dime on lampposts along Market Street in San Francisco. The Life Legal Defense Foundation has challenged the City of San Francisco with a blatant violation of its own city code. This month, inflammatory political statements promoting a Ms. Magazine-initiated pro-abortion campaign now waft over foot and auto traffic, as this municipal local marketing tool is abused, allowing feminist rhetoric to take the place intended for promotion of farmers' markets and neighborhood festivals.
The city regularly authorizes the display of banners to promote "city-sponsored," "city-funded," or "city-wide" events or "series of related events of interest to a significant portion of the residents of San Francisco and/or tourists." San Francisco does allow some non-event banners to be posted on city-owned utility poles, but they are restricted to "city convention facility banners" and "city neighborhood banners." A typical non-event banner would be the non-controversial San Francisco State University banners urging San Franciscans to "Support Public Higher Education: The Future Depends On It."
The offending banners, issued by the Trust Women Silver Ribbon Campaign, bear blatantly political statements, including "U.S. Out of My Uterus," "Reproductive Rights are Human Rights," and "San Francisco is Pro-Choice," slogans which are clearly designed to provoke the ire of those who do not share the printed sentiments. The authors of the Silver Ribbon Month website reference a 2011 pro-abortion Ms. Magazine blog as the impetus behind the project, which is actually an event only in the virtual sense.
"The city minions who 'approved' these illegal banners might have thought that the public would ignore the challenge, but they are in error," said Dana Cody, Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation. "We also believe this puts a stick in the eye of pro-life advocates who will be marching down Market Street on January 21 for the annual March for Life."
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: The Life Legal Defense Foundation
Girl Scouts USA helping 'groom' future abortion clients
A watchdog group that speaks "the
truth about the Girl Scouts" has proof that the youth organization is
linked to Planned Parenthood.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Renise Rodriguez, an employee for the Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona, was ordered to turn her pro-life T-shirt inside out while she was at the Tucson headquarters. She resigned because of the incident that once again raises a question about the Girl Scouts' attitude on sexuality and abortion. Christy Volanski, whose daughters co-founded SpeakNowGirlScouts.com, says the Arizona group is linked to Planned Parenthood.
"That group has a sex-ed program for teens called 'Real Life. Real Talk,' and on the website of this Planned Parenthood sex-ed program, there is a live link to Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona because they are one of Planned Parenthood's partners in that program," Volanski reports, noting that other regional councils are also included.
Plus, the council is partnered with other abortion rights advocacy groups, which is documented on its website. And the Girl Scouts watchdog points out the problem with that association.
"In my opinion, it promotes promiscuity. They've distributed materials to children [that is] considered to be pornographic by government agencies. Planned Parenthood is basically grooming future abortion and birth-control clients," she concludes.
Volanksi stresses that her daughters' website lists a number of alternatives to the Girl Scouts that teach Christian values, chief of which is American Heritage Girls.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Earlier this week, it was reported that Renise Rodriguez, an employee for the Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona, was ordered to turn her pro-life T-shirt inside out while she was at the Tucson headquarters. She resigned because of the incident that once again raises a question about the Girl Scouts' attitude on sexuality and abortion. Christy Volanski, whose daughters co-founded SpeakNowGirlScouts.com, says the Arizona group is linked to Planned Parenthood.
"That group has a sex-ed program for teens called 'Real Life. Real Talk,' and on the website of this Planned Parenthood sex-ed program, there is a live link to Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona because they are one of Planned Parenthood's partners in that program," Volanski reports, noting that other regional councils are also included.
Plus, the council is partnered with other abortion rights advocacy groups, which is documented on its website. And the Girl Scouts watchdog points out the problem with that association.
"In my opinion, it promotes promiscuity. They've distributed materials to children [that is] considered to be pornographic by government agencies. Planned Parenthood is basically grooming future abortion and birth-control clients," she concludes.
Volanksi stresses that her daughters' website lists a number of alternatives to the Girl Scouts that teach Christian values, chief of which is American Heritage Girls.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Adult Stem Cell Researchers Ask Federal Appeals Court to Reverse District Court Ruling Regarding Research Using Human Embryos
Adult Stem Cell Researchers Ask Federal Appeals Court to Reverse
District Court Ruling That Federal Law Does Not Ban Federal Funding of
Illegal, Unnecessary, and Unethical 'Research in Which' Human Embryos
are 'Knowingly Subjected to Risk of Injury or Death'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asked to reverse federal district's ruling dismissing action to enjoin federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
Today, on behalf of the adult stem researchers it represents, the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and their co-counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, filed their opening Appellants' Brief asking the United States Court of Appeals to "reverse the district court's judgment in favor of Defendants, reverse the grant of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the denial of [Appellants'] Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand with directions to enter summary judgment for [Appellants]." Appellants argue that The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for funding human embryonic stem-cell research "are invalid because they violate [the federal law known as] the Dickey-Wicker Amendment" and because they were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, Appellants argue that they -- "not Defendants -- are entitled to summary judgment."
Appellants are appealing the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's July 27, 2011, decision dismissing their challenge to the Obama administration's unprecedented and unlawful federal funding of destructive human embryo research. Appellants argue that the district court erroneously interpreted and applied the Court of Appeal's April 29, 2011, ruling vacating the district court's August 23, 2010, preliminary injunction of the NIH Guidelines that the Obama Administration promulgated to permit the federal funding of "research in which" human embryos are "knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." While again affirming the standing of adult stem-cell researchers to challenge these regulations, the federal district court dismissed the case saying that it had no choice under the "mandate rule" but to follow the Court of Appeal's April 29 ruling that Congress' ban on human embryonic research was written in a sufficiently "ambiguous" fashion to ban the use of federal funds that risked the "injury or death" of human embryos, but not the use of federal funds to do research on the embryonic stem cells that were derived from such injury or destruction. In the words of U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth explaining his July 27 decision: "While it may be true that by following the Court of Appeals' conclusion as to the ambiguity of 'research,' the Court has become a grudging partner in a bout of 'linguistic jujitsu,' Sherley, 2011 WL 1599685, at 22 (Henderson, J. dissenting), such is life for an antepenultimate court."
The case began almost two years ago when, in response to President Obama's March 9, 2009 Executive Order, the NIH published and noticed for public comment regulatory guidelines allowing federal funds to be used for the first time for the creation of new stem cell lines (hESC) requiring the destruction of living human embryos. Before these guidelines became law, the Law of Life Project's General Counsel, Sam Casey, with his co-counsel Tom Hungar of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, representing the DO NO HARM Coalition, formally filed over 140 pages of legal and scientific comments objecting to what many people saw as the grossly irresponsible use of public funds to support research which is illegal, unnecessary, and an unethical breach of long-standing Congressionally-acknowledged principles barring such human subject experimentation. When NIH patently ignored and prejudged these comments and approximately 30,000 other comments opposing federal funding of destructive human embryonic stem cell research, the ongoing legal action was required.
LOLP's General Counsel, Sam Casey, who has been arguing the issues in this case for more than a decade, said: "Each time grant-awarding officials and federally funded scientists support or engage in hESC research, living human embryos are 'knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,' in violation of the federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The federally sponsored hESC research that the Guidelines support inevitably creates a substantial risk -- indeed, a virtual certainty -- that more human embryos will be destroyed in order to derive more hESCs for misdirected research purposes at the unwilling taxpayers' expense."
"The NIH chose to ignore both our DO NO HARM et. al. Comments, as well as approximately 30,000 other comments -- 60% of those received in the mandatory guideline review process -- which raised serious and highly relevant questions about the ethics and scientific merits of human embryonic stem cell research," said Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher partner, Tom Hungar, Mr. Casey's co-counsel. Hungar added, "the challenged NIH Guidelines clearly violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, but NIH's decision to turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of comments demonstrating that human embryonic stem cell research can't be justified even under the government's own criteria means that the NIH's guidelines were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and must be struck down for that reason as well."
After the NIH took any real consideration of the merits of hESC research "off the table" during its pre-ordained review process, effectively pushing a very specific and controversial policy despite laws designed to prevent exactly that action, the Law of Life Project and its co-counsel were left with no recourse but direct litigation, and the hope that the judicial system will ultimately rectify the injustice the NIH continues to unlawfully perpetrate at the taxpayers' expense. Since that time, after going to the Court of Appeals the first time in 2009 to establish their clients' "standing" to assert their claims, and a second time in 2010 unsuccessfully defending a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court on the strength of only the first of their three claims for relief, Casey says, "the Law of Life Project now must return to the Court of Appeals to respectfully ask it to give full consideration to all of plaintiffs' arguments, including those that it has not previously addressed. Given the legislative intent and legal history involved in this case and the enormous destruction of human embryonic life costing hundreds of millions of dollars Congress never intended to permit in passing the Dickey-Wicker amendment banning such expenditures, we have no choice but to now exhaust all of our judicial remedies before returning to the Congress, if necessary."
Contact: Samuel B. Casey
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asked to reverse federal district's ruling dismissing action to enjoin federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
Today, on behalf of the adult stem researchers it represents, the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and their co-counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, filed their opening Appellants' Brief asking the United States Court of Appeals to "reverse the district court's judgment in favor of Defendants, reverse the grant of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the denial of [Appellants'] Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand with directions to enter summary judgment for [Appellants]." Appellants argue that The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for funding human embryonic stem-cell research "are invalid because they violate [the federal law known as] the Dickey-Wicker Amendment" and because they were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, Appellants argue that they -- "not Defendants -- are entitled to summary judgment."
Appellants are appealing the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's July 27, 2011, decision dismissing their challenge to the Obama administration's unprecedented and unlawful federal funding of destructive human embryo research. Appellants argue that the district court erroneously interpreted and applied the Court of Appeal's April 29, 2011, ruling vacating the district court's August 23, 2010, preliminary injunction of the NIH Guidelines that the Obama Administration promulgated to permit the federal funding of "research in which" human embryos are "knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." While again affirming the standing of adult stem-cell researchers to challenge these regulations, the federal district court dismissed the case saying that it had no choice under the "mandate rule" but to follow the Court of Appeal's April 29 ruling that Congress' ban on human embryonic research was written in a sufficiently "ambiguous" fashion to ban the use of federal funds that risked the "injury or death" of human embryos, but not the use of federal funds to do research on the embryonic stem cells that were derived from such injury or destruction. In the words of U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth explaining his July 27 decision: "While it may be true that by following the Court of Appeals' conclusion as to the ambiguity of 'research,' the Court has become a grudging partner in a bout of 'linguistic jujitsu,' Sherley, 2011 WL 1599685, at 22 (Henderson, J. dissenting), such is life for an antepenultimate court."
The case began almost two years ago when, in response to President Obama's March 9, 2009 Executive Order, the NIH published and noticed for public comment regulatory guidelines allowing federal funds to be used for the first time for the creation of new stem cell lines (hESC) requiring the destruction of living human embryos. Before these guidelines became law, the Law of Life Project's General Counsel, Sam Casey, with his co-counsel Tom Hungar of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, representing the DO NO HARM Coalition, formally filed over 140 pages of legal and scientific comments objecting to what many people saw as the grossly irresponsible use of public funds to support research which is illegal, unnecessary, and an unethical breach of long-standing Congressionally-acknowledged principles barring such human subject experimentation. When NIH patently ignored and prejudged these comments and approximately 30,000 other comments opposing federal funding of destructive human embryonic stem cell research, the ongoing legal action was required.
LOLP's General Counsel, Sam Casey, who has been arguing the issues in this case for more than a decade, said: "Each time grant-awarding officials and federally funded scientists support or engage in hESC research, living human embryos are 'knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death,' in violation of the federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. The federally sponsored hESC research that the Guidelines support inevitably creates a substantial risk -- indeed, a virtual certainty -- that more human embryos will be destroyed in order to derive more hESCs for misdirected research purposes at the unwilling taxpayers' expense."
"The NIH chose to ignore both our DO NO HARM et. al. Comments, as well as approximately 30,000 other comments -- 60% of those received in the mandatory guideline review process -- which raised serious and highly relevant questions about the ethics and scientific merits of human embryonic stem cell research," said Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher partner, Tom Hungar, Mr. Casey's co-counsel. Hungar added, "the challenged NIH Guidelines clearly violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, but NIH's decision to turn a blind eye to tens of thousands of comments demonstrating that human embryonic stem cell research can't be justified even under the government's own criteria means that the NIH's guidelines were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and must be struck down for that reason as well."
After the NIH took any real consideration of the merits of hESC research "off the table" during its pre-ordained review process, effectively pushing a very specific and controversial policy despite laws designed to prevent exactly that action, the Law of Life Project and its co-counsel were left with no recourse but direct litigation, and the hope that the judicial system will ultimately rectify the injustice the NIH continues to unlawfully perpetrate at the taxpayers' expense. Since that time, after going to the Court of Appeals the first time in 2009 to establish their clients' "standing" to assert their claims, and a second time in 2010 unsuccessfully defending a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court on the strength of only the first of their three claims for relief, Casey says, "the Law of Life Project now must return to the Court of Appeals to respectfully ask it to give full consideration to all of plaintiffs' arguments, including those that it has not previously addressed. Given the legislative intent and legal history involved in this case and the enormous destruction of human embryonic life costing hundreds of millions of dollars Congress never intended to permit in passing the Dickey-Wicker amendment banning such expenditures, we have no choice but to now exhaust all of our judicial remedies before returning to the Congress, if necessary."
Contact: Samuel B. Casey
January 10, 2012
Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals allows Texas Sonogram Law to go into effect
Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals lifted the preliminary injunction on the Texas Sonogram Law on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have a likelihood of winning their argument. The Texas Sonogram Law, that was passed last year with the support of National Right to Life’s affiliate, Texas Right to Life, ensures that abortionists display an ultrasound image of the unborn child for the mother to view before an abortion decision. Abortionists are further required to allow mothers to hear the child’s heartbeat, and provide information about the development of the unborn baby.
“This breakthrough decision from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes, in the words of the Court, ‘the physicians obligations to display the sonogram images’ of the unborn child before an abortion,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for National Right to Life. “In practice, an ultrasound law that does not require the ultrasound to be displayed can become almost meaningless because virtually every abortion facility will slip a waiver form into the stack of papers mothers are asked to sign.”
In addition to Texas, both North Carolina and Oklahoma have also passed measures requiring an abortionist display an ultrasound image of the unborn child before an abortion. Both laws have been challenged.
Writing the decision for the court, Chief Judge Edith Jones clearly laid out the responsibility of the abortion provider: “The woman seeking an abortion may elect not to receive these images, sounds, or explanations. This election does not obviate the physician’s obligations to display the sonogram images or make audible the heart auscultation; the woman may simply choose not to look or listen.”
Added Balch, “We commend the work of Texas Right to Life for their hard work in ensuring that the abortionist must display the ultrasound image of the unborn child for the mother. Today, their tireless efforts have paid off, and we are so pleased by this success.”
Source: National Right to Life
January 6, 2012
News Links for January 6th
Planned Parenthood assets top $1B
New Mexico Abortionist Quits for the Sake of His 'Sanity'
Abortionists charged with murder of viable unborn babies
Family-friendly airline puts out the welcome mat for born (and preborn) children
Woman Battered by Abortion Clinic Manager Supported by Pro-Life Legal Organization
Graphic Abortion Ads Begin Airing in New Hampshire December 28th
Post-Abortive Women Say Sonograms Necessary
More Scandal for Abortionists
Ohio pro-lifers making progress
A roller-coaster year for pro-life movement
Pro-life group fights forced abortion
Abortionist accused of murder returning to MD
Abortion makes lonely toys cry on Christmas billboard
Abortionists charged with murder of viable unborn babies
Two doctors running a secret abortion clinic in Maryland are being charged with murder under the state’s fetal homicide law for aborting babies that could have survived outside the womb.
“This is a ground-breaking case that could have implications across the nation,” said Troy Newman, president of the pro-life group Operation Rescue.
Newman explained that the outcome “could blaze a legal trail that could eventually lead to major reforms in abortion laws.”
Doctors Steven C. Brigham of New Jersey and Nicola I. Riley of Utah were arrested on Dec. 28.
Brigham has been charged with five counts of both first-degree and second-degree murder, while Riley faces one count of each. Both physicians have also been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit murder.
Brigham secretly ran a late-term abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland, despite not having a license to practice in the state. He hired Riley to work with him.
After beginning late-term abortions in his New Jersey office, Brigham would then move the laboring women to Maryland – which has more permissive abortion clinic laws – to complete the procedures.
Police who searched the Elkton abortion clinic said they found the remains of 35 aborted babies in a freezer.
Although late-term abortions are not illegal in Maryland, a 2005 fetal homicide law allows the intentional killing of a viable fetus to be prosecuted as murder.
While the law has previously been used to prosecute those who beat or kill pregnant women, this appears to be the first time it has been used against an abortionist.
Operation Rescue filed a complaint against Brigham with the Elkton State Attorney after a teenage girl suffered a ruptured uterus in a botched abortion in August, 2010.
The organization then launched grassroots efforts to ensure that the case would move forward.
An investigation conducted by Operation Rescue revealed Riley’s criminal background and the fact that both Brigham and Riley had previously lost their licenses to practice medicine and had been banned from performing abortions in any state.
Brigham and Riley are both currently being held without bail as they await upcoming extradition hearings.
“We have worked for over a year to make sure Brigham and Riley were brought to justice,” said Newman. “This is a victory for the pro-life movement.”
Source: CNA
IVF Clinics Supply Embryos For Destructive Research Without Consent of Egg Donors
When a woman donates her eggs for one purpose–to help another woman have a child–is it right and ethical to instead use embryos made from her gametes for destructive research without her knowledge or consent? A survey of IVF clinics has discovered that this is precisely what is happening ubiquitously in the IVF industry. From the Reuters story:
Many U.S. fertility clinics don’t tell egg donors that embryos made from their eggs may end up being used in stem cell research, according to a new government survey. That’s despite widespread opposition to such research, which is considered morally offensive by a third of Americans, researchers write in the journal Fertility and Sterility.
They found that among 100 fertility clinics, two said they didn’t have a consent form for women donating eggs. Of the 66 clinics that sent in a consent form and said they used excess embryos for research, just 20 told women about that. And only three of 38 clinics that used some embryos for stem cell research in particular disclosed that to donors. “The survey shows that only a minority of IVF (in vitro fertilization) clinics mention to egg donors who are donating for the sake of treatment (as opposed to research) that resultant embryos might ultimately be used in research,” said study co-author Gerald Owen Schaefer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. “An even smaller minority mention stem cell research explicitly.”
This is a profound violation of trust. Women risk their health and future fertility–and in very rare cases, lose their lives–to allow others to bear children. They have a right to know if some of the embryos made from their eggs, which after all, are their biological progeny, could instead be destroyed for an instrumental purpose, an issue that could be material issue in the decision of some to become donors. As the Center for Bioethics and Culture’s movie Eggsploitation makes clear, too often egg donors (or sellers) are seen by IVF clinics as mere means to an end. This is yet another example.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Sex-ed available to teens 24-7
According to a pro-family group, most parents don't know that many health organizations and schools are offering websites and texting services to reach adolescents with information about sex.
Smaller school budgets and other factors have reportedly inspired the creation of sites and services like Sex-Ed Loop or the Planned Parenthood-run text-chat program, ICYC (In Case You're Curious). These texting and web services provide young users with information on sexual acts, diseases, and contraception. While critics say the information only promotes unsafe sex, advocates claim research proves the contrary. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) says he is troubled by the fact they are set up to elude parental scrutiny.
"Even beyond that, these sources of information do not have the kind of oversight that schools might have," he notes. "Certainly we have problems with some of the sex education that goes on in public schools, but at least there is a certain amount of vetting that takes place there."
According to The New York Times, Stephanie Cisneros, a Denver-area high school junior, likes ICYC because of its "immediacy and confidentiality." But as Sprigg points out, it is difficult, if not impossible, for parents to monitor this activity.
"If their children have their own cell phone with texting capability, or particularly with Internet capability, then I'm not sure they can protect them," he laments.
To counteract the barrage of risk reduction-only messages, Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association hopes her organization will kick off its own online service by next year.
Contact: Bob Kellogg
Source: OneNewsNow
Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report: Got $487.4M in Tax Money, Did 329,445 Abortions
According to its latest annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards and President Barack Obama. (AP Photo)
In addition, the number of adoption referrals made by the organization continued to decline.
The latest annual report covers the period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the PPFA’s fiscal year. The report states that the organization received “government health services grants and reimbursements” totaling $487.4 million.
Previous Planned Parenthood annual reports showed total funding from “government grants and contracts” (which were $363.2 million in 2009), while this year’s report also accounts for payments from Medicaid managed care plans among the payments the group receives from government .
When compared with previous annual reports, the latest one shows an almost steady increase in the number of abortions performed at its clinics: In 2006, Planned Parenthood did 289,750 abortions; in 2007, it did 305,310; in 2009, it did 331,796; and, in 2010, it did 329,445--a small decrease from the previous year.
The annual report for fiscal year 2008-2009 does not include abortion or adoption figures, but a PPFA Fact Sheet posted on its Web site and said to be current as of September 2010, states that 324,008 abortions were performed at Planned Parenthood clinics around the country in 2008.
According to PPFA’s annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008, in 2007 Planned Parenthood’s “adoption referrals to other agencies” totaled 4,912. In Fiscal Year 2010 that number was 841, a decrease of 82.8 percent.
The PPFA Fact Sheet states that adoption is included in 1 percent of services in 2008 (primary care and “other services” are included in that 1 percent), or 2,405 adoption referrals.
The latest annual report claims that abortion services make up 3 percent of “medical services,” but PPFA states it served 3 million people and performed 329,445 abortions – numbers that show 11 percent of customers received an abortion.
The Fiscal Year 2009-2010 annual report also shows that PPFA’s net assets as of June 30, 2010 topped $1 billion, specifically $1,009,600,000.00.
Planned Parenthood supporters at a rally in Philadelphia, Pa. (AP photo/Matt Rourke)
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization that lobbies Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, called the organization an “abortion giant.”
“With over a billion in net assets and a business model centered on abortion and government subsidies, it is time for Planned Parenthood to end its reliance on taxpayer dollars,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Despite an unprecedented effort by statewide and federal leaders to defund them, a wave of former employees willing to testify against them, and uniform agreement amongst Republican presidential candidates that they should be defunded, Planned Parenthood continues full-steam ahead.”
“They are unwilling to answer to the pro-life American majority that wants out of this business,” Dannenfelser said.
As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, a spokesperson with Planned Parenthood told Bloomberg’s Businessweek last year that 90 percent of government funding the organization gets is from the federal government or from Medicaid.
Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
January 5, 2012
Illinois Department of Public Health Hears Abortion Clinic Case
The owners of a Rockford, Ill., abortion clinic agreed to pay a $9,750 fine in order to resume doing business in a settlement with the state health department today.
The Northern Illinois Women’s Center had its license suspended last September, after the state found it neither had admitting privileges at licensed hospitals nor an experienced operating-room nurse on staff.
But the Thomas More Society, which represents the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative, said in a Nov. 23 letter to the health department the clinic owners were guilty of much more, including maintaining unsanitary surgical equipment, allowing the presence of dogs and rats and keeping shoddy records.
Though the clinic has since met the health department’s standards, spokeswoman Melanie Arnold said today it has no more room for error: Should NIWC repeat any of its previous violations, its license will be revoked permanently.
“There’s also another option,” Arnold said. “If the facility chooses to remain closed, it must surrender its license to the Department of Public Health, but the fine will be reduced to $1,000 because the risk of harm to the public is no longer there.”
Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitizenLink
December 23, 2011
Merry Christmas from the Illinois Federation for Right to Life!
The Illinois Federation for Right to Life wishes you and your family a very blessed Christmas!
Complete list of 2012 U.S. March for Life events
In order to help pro-life pilgrims plan their trip for the upcoming national March for Life in Washington D.C., below a list of events in and around D.C. Please check back frequently as this list will be updated as more details become available. If you know of an event that is not included on this list, contact us here .
Saturday, January 21
Mass for Life - Georgetown University
5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
March for Life Convention
12:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington D.C.
March for Life Youth Rally
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington D.C.
Regency Ballroom
Sunday, January 22:
Official March for Life Youth Conference
7pm-10pm
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life
8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
See full schedule.
March for Life Convention
8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington D.C
Students for Life of America National Conference
8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
North Bethesda Marriott
5701 Marinelli Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20852
March for Life White House Mini-Rally
3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Lafayette Park, Washington D.C.
Opening mass for National Prayer Vigil for Life
6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, D.C.
All night prayer vigil to follow. See schedule for details.
Monday, January 23
Giant 2010 Youth Rally and Mass for Life
7:30 - 11:30 a.m.
Verizon Wireless Center - Washington, D.C.
Closing mass for National Prayer Vigil for Life
7:30 a.m.
Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington D.C.
National Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers
8:00 – 10:30 a.m.
Capitol Hill Visitor’s Center – Rm. HVC-201
March for Life Convention
8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington D.C.
Lutherans for Life Worship Service
9:00 a.m.
Immanuel Lutheran Church
1801 Russell Rd.
Alexandria, VA 22301
Rally for Life
12:00 p.m.
National Mall and 7th Street
Washington D.C.
Ignatian Pro-Life Network March for Life Mass
9:30-11:00am
St. Aloysius Church 19 I (“Eye”) St NW, Washington, DC 20001
March for Life
1:30 p.m.
Washington D.C. National Mall
See details and route map.
National Pro-life Youth Rally
2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Upper Senate Park, Washington D.C.
Silent No More Awareness Campaign - testimonies
4:00 p.m.
Steps of the Supreme Court, Washington D.C.
Immediately following the March women from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign will be giving testimonies of their experiences with abortion.
March for Life Rose Dinner
6:00 p.m.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to Deliver Keynote Address
Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington D.C.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
How Population Control has Harmed National Security
For decades, a basic tenet of the international population-control lobby has been that declining fertility rates will generate a more stable international order. But according to an impressive panel of scholars who have contributed to a new book, this scenario of “geriatric peace” is untenably optimistic.
Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics is a collection of nine research essays, published by Potomac Books and edited by C-FAM senior vice president Susan Yoshihara and C-FAM senior fellow Douglas Sylva. In the book’s foreword, demographer and political economist Nicholas Eberstadt applauds its contributors for tackling the “profound and as-yet unanswered questions” associated with population decline and international politics.
The prevailing assumption that relatively old countries are predisposed automatically to peace is not historically defensible, as Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics points out. In the last century relatively aged regimes like Nazi Germany and Serbia in the 1990s were notable for their aggression against younger neighbors, and in classical history democratic Athens reacted to the demographic shock of a devastating plague by initiating a series of costly and ill-judged military actions.
Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics begins with three chapters, written by Phillip Longman, James R. Holmes and Francis Sempa, that set forth an analytical framework for assessing the interaction between geopolitics and demographic decline. The rest of the book is devoted to case studies of six key global actors: Russia, Europe and Japan, which are all wrestling with below-replacement fertility rates; the rising Asian powers of China and Japan, whose futures will be differentiated by strikingly different demographic profiles; and the United States, whose “demographic exceptionalism” makes it the only major developed power to resist depopulation.
In Russia, births declined by a stunning 50% during the period 1987–1999. Murray Feshbach analyzes the effects of this baby blight in the context of military recruitment. Exacerbated by the widespread incidence of HIV and tuberculosis, the country’s severe shortage of fit young males “will lead to a more tenuous situation in Russian society, including the military, than the economic dimension would portend,” Feshbach predicts.
Japan has sought to ameliorate its own demographic challenge by substituting high-tech weaponry for soldiers. In the process, “the minimal defense capabilities that Japan should retain as an independent nation have already been forfeited,” according to one Japanese general. These limitations might also restrict Japan from contributing effectively to regional military alliances. If so, Toshi Yoshihara warns in his strategic analysis, this “could add tremendous volatility to alliance politics and trigger competitive great power dynamics at the regional level that could nevertheless have global reverberations.”
Faced with similar demographic constraints, Europe is seeking to exercise “soft power” (as opposed to military and economic “hard power”) through its domination of multilateral institutions, and also on continued high immigration. Whether the multilateralist approach will be effective is entirely unknown, Douglas Sylva notes, while Europe’s fertility rates are now so low it would require an immigration influx far beyond what the continent can accommodate.
Sylva suggests European policymakers instead consider a radically different approach of trying to advantage their own native-born “family-oriented women” to increase birth rates. Writes Sylva, “Doing so, of course, would force Europe to abandon some of its most cherished tenets of feminism and multiculturalism, a step for which there is little evidence to suggest any European governments are prepared to take, despite the geopolitical consequences.”
Contact: Tom McFeely
Source: C-FAM
More Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Approved by NIH Director Collins for Christmas
Just in time for Christmas, NIH Director Francis Collins has approved more human embryonic stem cell lines for taxpayer funding, bringing the total number of hESC lines at the federal trough to 142. Today’s approval is not all that surprising–the four new lines, from the University of Queensland, were recommended for approval by the Stem Cell Working Group at the December 9, 2011 meeting of the Director’s Advisory Committee. The Stem Cell Working group had also voted not to approve six lines from China.
The four new hESC linies that have been approved are not for clinical use, however. Subsequent to the meeting and before the latest approvals, NIH also approved two other hESC lines, from Mt. Sinai Hospital in Canada. Those two lines are also restricted:
NIH-funded research with this line may only be conducted at Mount Sinai Hospital and “other Canadian laboratories affiliated with the Canadian Stem Cell Network for further research or potential clinical use.”
In the meantime, the current and future patient benefits of adult stem cells continue to be ignored.
Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
December 21, 2011
Abstinence funding restored in fed. budget
Funding for abstinence education has returned to the federal budget in the spending bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.
The $1 trillion budget, which staves off another potential government shutdown, allocates $5 million for abstinence-based Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) programs that were slashed by the Obama administration beginning in 2009.
Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, told the Focus on the Family-affiliate CitizenLink that the restoration of funding is a "step in the right direction."
Abstinence-only education has been under fire by critics who argue that it is ineffective and leaves teens at greater risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases if they engage in sex. Advocates for abstinence education, meanwhile, point to new evidence suggesting their programs are having a positive impact.
A Feb. 1, 2010, study published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine measured the effectiveness of abstinence-only education versus "safe sex" and "comprehensive" sex education by assigning high-risk students to one of the three programs. The study indicated that abstinence-only education was more effective in convincing students to refrain from sex. Additionally, students in the abstinence program were no less likely to use condoms if they did have sex, disputing a key argument of abstinence-only opponents.
A March 3 report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showed that more men and women ages 15-24 have never had a sexual encounter. The percentage of men who remained sexually pure increased from 22 to 27 percent, while the percentage of women rose from 22 to 29 percent. The study also indicated that 53 percent of boys and 58 percent of girls ages 15-17 had never had sexual contact.
Even mainstream media outlets gave some credit to abstinence education. "The data renders null and void the 'abstinence is unrealistic' claims made by anti-abstinence advocacy groups," Huber told Baptist Press regarding the CDC study.
Despite new evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence education, Huber told CitizenLink that "comprehensive" condom-based sex education still receives 20 times the funding of abstinence education in the federal budget.
"So we are a long way from parity," Huber said. "But it's definitely a step in the right direction. The important thing that we were really working to see accomplished this year was for abstinence education to be re-established as federal sex-education policy."
Contact: John Evans
Source: Baptist Press
December 20, 2011
Illinois governor, bishops differ sharply after discussion on abortion advocacy
After meeting with a group of Catholic bishops on December 17, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn told reporters that the discussion had been friendly and the prelates had spoken “only a little bit” about the Catholic political leader’s support for legal abortion. But the Illinois bishops quick responded with a statement taking issue with that report.
Governor Quinn reported that he had spent most of his time with the bishops talking about “how we could work together to fight poverty.” The bishops, while commending Quinn’s concern for the poor, said that the meeting was “between pastors and a member of the Church to discuss the principles of faith, not the works of faith.”
“As Catholic pastors, we wanted to remind the Governor that conscience, while always free, is properly formed in harmony with the tradition of the Church,” the bishops stated. Noting that Quinn has claimed that his support for legal abortion is prompted by his Catholic faith, the bishops continued:
A personal conscience that is not consistent with authentic Catholic teaching is not a Catholic conscience. The Catholic faith cannot be used to justify positions contrary to the faith itself.
Source: CNA
December 16, 2011
Illinois abortions for 2010 drop to lowest since 1973
With the release of the Illinois abortion statistics for 2010, we learn that abortions have fallen in Illinois to the lowest level since 1973 at 41,859, better than the previous low of 42,228 in 2003. Even in the counties near the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress in Aurora, IL, abortions fell for 2010 compared to 2009. However, for residents of the six counties most affected by the Aurora abortion facility (Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, and Will), abortions in 2010 were still higher by 10% overall compared to 2007.
The 2010 Illinois abortion total of 41,859 compares to 46,077 for 2009, which is a 9% decrease. Abortions fell for residents of most counties and for all age groups. Fortunately, abortions committed on women from other states also fell by 16%, but with abortions on women of unknown residence falling from 1,146 to 187, abortions on out-of-state women may have fallen much more.
These statistics are good news. The only concern comes from a June 16, 2011 Chicago Tribune article on "reporting gaps" in Illinois abortion records. That report revealed that for 2008, Illinois statistics show 47,717 abortions, but Guttmacher shows 54,920 Illinois abortions. This difference suggests that at least 7,203 abortions were not reported to the state that year. How many abortions were not reported to the state for 2010? We hope under-reporting has not been increasing!
Contact: Illinois Right to Life
Source: Illinois Review
Spending Bill Reinstates Abstinence Education Funding
A $662 billion omnibus spending bill passed by Congress Wednesday night contains $5 million for abstinence education programs.
In 2009, the Obama administration slashed community-based sexual risk avoidance (SRA) programs from the federal budget — giving comprehensive, condom-based sex education programs $16 for every $1 spent on abstinence education.
"We are very pleased that Congress has chosen to redress a real problem in sex-education policy by re-establishing abstinence education as a program for America's teens," said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA).
But it's only the first step in the right direction.
"This funding of five million dollars is contrasted against about 100 million dollars in the budget for contraceptive sex education," she said. "So we are a long way from parity. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. The important thing that we were really working to see accomplished this year was for abstinence education to be re-established as federal sex-education policy."
The bad news is that the bill also contains $297 million for Title X, the main federal funding stream for Planned Parenthood. The House version aimed to completely defund the group, but the Senate version wanted to give it $299 million.
And with a Friday passage deadline looming, some legislators are playing hardball to get their way on other measures.
One of those is the reauthorization of the International Religious Freedom Commission — the only independent agency which advises the U.S. State Department on issues of religious persecution around the world. The agency has been granted one temporary reprieve after another over the last few months, and was set to expire for good Friday if legislators didn't come to an agreement. At the last minute, lawmakers passed a stand-alone bill to reauthorize USCIRF for one year, adding an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., limiting the nine commissioners to two two-year terms apiece. That means the Commission will have seven vacancies in 2012.
The omnibus also contains language banning any federal funding from being used in the District of Columbia to subsidize abortions, but the Obama administration is leaning hard on legislators to take it out.
Capitol Hill insiders said the White House "is serious about its threat to shut down the federal government over the D.C. abortion ban,"
Contact: Karla Dial
Source: CitizenLink
December 15, 2011
The IFRL is Moving!
That's right! The IFRL is making plans to move the business office from Alton, Illinois to Springfield, Illinois.
We anticipate that the moving process will take several weeks and we ask for your patience if we are delayed in responding to your calls and letters. Be assured that your communication is always appreciated and important to us. We will do our best to respond to you as promptly as possible. So please do not hesitate to continue to contact us during this time of transition.
For current information you can always visit our website at www.ifrl.org which is updated daily with new information and action alerts and you can keep informed on all our news by subscribing to our weekly newsletter.
Thank you,
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)