URGENT ACTION ALERT

U.S. House of Representatives Votes
Wednesday, May 30, on Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541)
-- Bill Would Place National Ban on Abortion as Sex-Selection Method

TAKE ACTION NOW!

 

 

This is an urgent congressional alert from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

 

National Right to Life is urgently requesting phone calls to the offices of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, to urge them to vote for a bill that would impose a nationwide criminal ban on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection, at any stage of pregnancy.

 

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill, H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, on Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at about 7 PM Eastern Daylight Time.

 

The bill is being brought up under a fast-track procedure called "Suspension of the Rules," under which a two-thirds vote is required for passage.

 

Because this vote has been scheduled on short notice, the use of phone calls is strongly recommended.  If you send an email message to a lawmaker's office on this matter, it is quite like that nobody will read it or count it until after the vote is over.

 

Please click on any one of the "Take Action Now!" links in this alert.  This will take you to the National Right to Life Legislative Action Center.  After entering your zip code, you will be shown the correct phone number to call for the person who represents you in the U.S. House, and also suggested quick "talking points" to make during the call.

 

In a letter sent to House members today, National Right to Life said: "There are credible estimates that 160 million women and girls are missing from the world due to sex selection, and the figure may be even higher.  Writing in the Fall 2011 issue of The New Atlantis, political economist Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute observed, 'In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.'  Several academic papers have put forward evidence that the practice of sex-selection by abortion is also increasing in the United States, especially although not exclusively within communities of immigrants from Asia."

 

The NRLC letter also says:  "Of course, pro-life [House] Members will support this legislation.  But it is to be hoped that even many Members who deem themselves 'pro-choice' will recoil at the notion that 'freedom of choice' must include even the choice to abort a little unborn girl, merely because she is a girl.  Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a 'war on women' must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls."

 

To read the full NRLC letter, or to access other documentation on the issue of sex-selection abortion and the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, click on "Take Action Now!" and follow the links provided. 

Take Action Now!

News Links for May 25th

     

Ave Maria University drops student health insurance in response to HHS mandate

Michael J. Fox Finally Gets Real

911: Moans, screams heard from botched abortion victim at Carhart's NE mill

Abortion doctor says women who undergo procedure live with guilt

Maine Budget Cuts Funds to Planned Parenthood

Abortion Business Exposed by Activists Surrenders License

Two Wisconsin Abortion Outlets Stop Performing Chemical Abortions

Notre Dame vs. Obama

Abortion survivor fulfilling her purpose

African American Leaders Decry NAACP Endorsement of Homosexual Agenda, Say Issue also Linked to Abortion

Silent No More Founders: From China, We Can Learn the Truth About Abortion and Breast Cancer

Personhood USA Commits to Assisting European Partners with Vatican-supported Personhood Petition

Operation Rescue Hands Over Leaked Abortion Records to the Board of Healing Arts

What the hearing on the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” tells us about abortion and abortionists

     
     Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

Last Thursday the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 3803, the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."  What the bill would accomplish can be described almost clinically: it would ban abortions on pain-capable unborn children, beginning at 20 weeks fertilization age (22 weeks LMP) in the District of Columbia.

But what it would mean in reality—in flesh and blood—cannot be genuinely appreciated unless you take the time to read prepared testimony and/or to watch the video of the oral testimony of three physicians.

In Parts two, three, and four, I will highlight portions of the testimony of Anthony Levatino, M.D., Colleen Malloy, M.D., and Byron Calhoun, M.D., respectively.

But by way of introduction, it's important to understand that much of the limited media coverage was an exercise in diversion—the same "let's quibble over the witness list"–intended (as always) to take the discussion down a rabbit trail, in the process ignoring what really happens to a baby who is pain-capable when aborted.

The Washington Post, helpful as always, ran "An interview with a late term abortion provider." Abortionist Willie Parker is sanctified early, a great guy who only got in the abortion trade eight years ago "largely out of what he says was concern for women's needs going unmet. Parker is primarily based in Washington and Philadelphia, but also travels monthly to see patients in Alabama."

You can read the interview conducted by the Post's Sarah Kliff, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-doctor-speaks-out-against-ban-on-late-term-abortions/2012/05/20/gIQAOzG7eU_story.html, so let's address just a couple of points in what is unintentionally an amazingly revealing interview.

Asked about the six states that already have enacted the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Parker tells us, "It's a gambit around public opinion… I think it's a very calculated strategy that fails to take into account the complexity of these cases."

"Gambit"? Please. These laws, like the proposed District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, are as straightforward as it gets. Is it okay to rip pain-capable unborn apart limb from limb, or is it not? And what's "complex" about grasping the baby's body parts (in English, arms and legs) and then grasping her head and crushing it 'in order to remove it from the vaginal canal" (see www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html)? Brutal, yes, barbaric, yes, disgusting, yes. But not "complex." It's as simple as anesthetizing your conscience.

Speaking of which, Parker adds that these laws "create this impression that abortion providers are callous, and allow people to conflate murder and abortion. People feel morally justified to say 'this is wrong' because they're led to think it's close to murder."

The implication is that ordinary citizens have to be persuaded, be talked into, moral revulsion at a "procedure" that makes what takes place at slaughterhouses look like daycare centers. Not so. Once most people understand what is taking place—when the gauzy rhetoric about "choice" is stripped away–they don't need you or me to be scandalized.

One additional and VERY important point that NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson made in a follow up online comment:

"In his interview with Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, Dr. Willie Parker estimated that 1 percent of abortions occur after the first trimester. This is a gross underestimate. Indeed, in a printed statement opposing the bill that he posted on the internet, dated May 17, Dr. Parker himself wrote that "roughly 12% of abortions occur at or after 13 weeks after a woman's last menstrual period," citing figures cited by the CDC. This is 12 times the figure he cited in the interview. However, Ms. Kliff stayed steadfast in the "wiffle ball interview" mode and did not challenge Parker's wildly erroneous figure — or anything else he said, really."

A Dozen Federal Lawsuits Challenge Health Care Mandate

     
 
In a sweeping defense of religious freedom, 43 Catholic entities — including the University of Notre Dame — filed 12 federal lawsuits on Monday challenging a government mandate that they cover contraceptives and possible abortion-causing drugs in their health plans.

"It is a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty," said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a statement.

The Catholic Church joins other religious groups and businesses in opposing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that all employers provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. They contend the mandate violates the First Amendment.

The USCCB is not involved in the lawsuits. But many other well-known Catholic organizations are plantiffs in the federal suits filed in eight states — Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas — plus Washington, D.C.

Those filing the suits include Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America; archdioceses in D.C., New York and St. Louis; as well as Catholic health-care providers; elementary and high schools; and charities.

Notre Dame gave President Obama an honorary degree when he delivered the 2009 commencement address. The irony of the Indiana school now challenging him in court was not lost on family advocates.

"It shows the erosion not only of religious liberty, but of goodwill," said Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute. "Notre Dame extended an olive branch to a president that they had disagreements with … it shows how surprised some are to go from 'Let's have a dialogue' to receiving a legal fiat to cover contraception. President Obama has shown no respect for differences."

Anna Franzonello, legal counsel for Americans United for Life, graduated from two of the universities that filed suits.

"There are not going to be plans that pro-life Americans can be on, "she said, "that don't violate their conscience."

Contact: Steve Fountain
Source: CitizenLink

An abortuary's priority targets

     

In releasing a survey that shows abortionists are targeting colleges in a substantial way, Students for Life says that underlines the need for pro-life campus groups.
 
Life Dynamics in 2011 released "Racial Targeting and Population Control," an exhaustive study of zip codes that proved Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities are strategically located near minority-dominated neighborhoods. Now, Students for Life's Kristan Hawkins tells OneNewsNow her group checked out the significance of Planned Parenthoods in zip codes that were not minority areas.

"Those zip codes that were not African-American or Latino neighborhoods were within five miles of a college," Haskins reports. "And then we looked at Planned Parenthoods. There [are] about 780 Planned Parenthood affiliates across America, and we found that 78.8 percent, so 615, Planned Parenthoods are located within five miles of a college [or] university."

She suspects those locations are targeting 18- to 25-year-old students and are helping Planned Parenthood sell its message of contraception and abortion. But in Hawkins' view, that underlines the need for a pro-life message.

"It just confirms what we know -- that we have to be there on college campuses because it's the ground zero of the pro-life movement," she asserts. "And it confirms even more why it's important to have a Students for Life group on a campus, to be there educating students and providing a source of support for pregnant and parenting students who need help."

She notes that with the appropriate support, pregnant students can have their babies and continue their education.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Abortion brought to Congress' attention

     

Congress is currently considering two pro-life bills -- one addressing taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants, the other dealing with late-term abortions in Washington, DC.
 
An amendment has been attached to a bill in Congress that would eliminate taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants detained by customs officials. The language, authored by Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) and Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), is attached to a funding bill for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) points out that it was revealed a few weeks ago that U.S. tax dollars were being used to finance college education for illegal immigrants. Now, it is learned that ICE is providing pregnancy services, including abortions, for illegals.

"This is just outrageous, and it just seems that there is no end to the kind of things this administration is willing to do with taxpayer money to implement their agenda, which includes abortion for anybody and everybody who wants one," Crouse laments.
 
But the Appropriations Committee's amendment would ensure that taxpayer dollars will not be used to fund abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's health is in danger.

"You start reading the fine print [of the administration's report], and you discover that it covers everything from the time the woman wants to get pregnant until the time that her child is able to walk," the CWA spokeswoman explains. "It provides prenatal care straight through to care of the baby after it's born, or the abortion, if the woman decides to have an abortion."

Plus, ICE will provide transportation to an abortion clinic and back, all on the taxpayers' dime. But the new amendment, if passed, would prevent that.

Congress is also considering a measure that would ban abortions after 20 weeks in Washington, D.C. Most scientists agree that a preborn baby can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation. (Listen to audio report)

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HR 3803) is sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona). Former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave is now vice president of government affairs for the Susan B. Anthony List. Her group is pushing for the measure's passage.

"The gruesome procedure by which their life is ended is just unconscionable," she asserts. "And so this is legislation in the House of Representatives that has 193 co-sponsors. It has momentum and really acknowledges the humanness of that precious unborn child."

Musgrave points out that several states, including Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, Alabama, Oklahoma and Arizona, have already approved measures similar to HR 3803.

"The presumed nominee, Mitt Romney, running against the most pro-abortion president ever has pledged to advance this legislation at the national level," the pro-lifer notes. "So, [it's] a very important time right now for pro-life people around this country to let their members of Congress know that they're very supportive of a 20 weeks ban for the District of Columbia."

Currently, abortion is legal in D.C. through the ninth month of pregnancy. At a hearing in the U.S. House earlier this month, members of Congress were informed that one abortion facility in the city openly advertises abortion at seven months into pregnancy. Three doctors pointed out that only about five nations in the world have such an extreme legal policy.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Majority of Americans Support First Amendment Conscience Rights and Exemptions in Health Care

Americans say rights of religiously affiliated organizations should be protected

     

As America's bishops and Catholic organizations around the country file lawsuits to protect their First Amendment rights from the government's health care mandate, a new survey finds that a significant majority of Americans support the right to opt out of providing drugs, services and procedures for religious reasons.

According to the Knights of Columbus-Marist Poll, the survey found that three in four Americans (74 to 26 percent) say that freedom of religion should be protected, even if it conflicts with other laws. Majorities would also protect the First Amendment conscience rights of hospitals, health care workers and insurers.

Strong majorities would let individual health care providers and organizations opt out of providing: abortion (58 to 38 percent), abortion-inducing drugs (51 to 44 percent), in vitro fertilization treatments that could result in the death of an embryo (52 to 41 percent), medication to speed the death of a terminally ill patient (55 to 41 percent) and birth control pills (51 to 46 percent). The number supporting the right to opt out of providing birth control is particularly interesting given the fact that more than eight in 10 Americans (88 percent) believe contraception is morally acceptable.

"This survey reveals that the American people are fundamentally dedicated to protecting the First Amendment conscience rights of everyone," said Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson. "Allowing people to opt out of these procedures or services -- which violate their faith -- is the right thing to do. It is also key to protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoys strong public support as well."

Overall, the survey found that half (50 percent) of Americans have heard of the debate over the government's health care mandate. The mandate, promulgated by the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, requires employers -- including organizations that are religiously affiliated -- to provide free insurance coverage to women for services including sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and birth control.

In addition, a strong majority of Americans (52 to 31 percent) also indicated that laws in the United States have made it more difficult to follow one's religious beliefs in recent years.

The survey also found that an overwhelming majority of Americans said that forcing health care workers and doctors to provide abortion is morally wrong (72 to 27 percent). Majorities also said that abortion (58 to 40 percent) and same-sex marriage (52 to 45 percent) were morally wrong.

The Knights of Columbus-Marist poll surveyed 1,606 adults from May 10 through May 14, 2012. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the continental United States were interviewed by telephone with live interviewers. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined. Results are statistically significant within +/- 2.5 percentage points. The error margin increases for cross-tabulations. Survey tables are available at www.kofc.org.

Contact: Andrew Walther
Source: Knights of Columbus

50% of Americans now Identify as Pro-life

      

For the first time in many years, the majority of Americans identify as pro-life. A Gallup poll released this week shows that 50% of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" while 41% identify as "pro-choice." The sentiment in the country is definitely moving in our direction and against the abortion-on-demand agenda promoted by the Obama Administration.

Here are the specifics of the Gallup poll...

"Pro-Choice" Americans at Record-Low 41%

Americans now tilt "pro-life" by nine-point margin, 50% to 41%
by Lydia Saad

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as "pro-choice" is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves "pro-life," one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.



Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for "pro-choice" -- from 1998 through 2008 -- to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

Decline in "Pro-Choice" Views Seen Across Partisan Groups

The decline in Americans' self-identification as "pro-choice" is seen across the three U.S. political groups.

Since 2001, the majority of Republicans have consistently taken the pro-life position, but by a gradually increasing margin over "pro-choice." That gap expanded further this year, with the percentage of Republicans identifying as pro-life increasing to 72% from 68% last May, and those identifying as pro-choice dropping to 22% from 28%. Still, Republicans' current views are similar to those found in 2009.



The percentage of political independents identifying as pro-choice is 10 points lower today than in May 2011, while the percentage pro-life is up by six points. As a result, pro-lifers now outnumber pro-choicers among this important swing political group for only the second time since 2001, with the first occurring in 2009.

More broadly, since 2009, independents have been fairly closely divided between the two abortion positions, whereas for most of the 2001-2008 period, significantly more independents were pro-choice than pro-life.



Democrats' views on abortion have changed the least over the past 12 years, with roughly 60% calling themselves pro-choice and about a third pro-life. Democrats' identification as pro-choice was above this range in May 2011, but has returned to about 60% in the current poll.



The shift in abortion views over the past year is not due to a change in the political composition of the samples. In the May 2-6, 2012, Values and Beliefs poll, 47% of respondents are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 41% are Republican or lean Republican. This is similar to the partisan composition of the May and July 2011 surveys, which showed a close division between pro-life and pro-choice Americans.

Views About Morality and Legality of Abortion Hold Steady

While Americans' identification as "pro-choice" has waned over the past year, their fundamental views about the morality and legality of abortion have held steady. Half of Americans, 51%, consider abortion morally wrong and 38% say it is morally acceptable -- nearly identical to the results in May 2011.



Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views, established in 1975, asks Americans if abortion should be legal in all circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances. Since 2001, at least half of Americans have consistently chosen the middle position, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, and the 52% saying this today is similar to the 50% in May 2011. The 25% currently wanting abortion to be legal in all cases and the 20% in favor of making it illegal in all cases are also similar to last year's findings.



Bottom Line

Since 2009, Americans have been closely divided in their identification with the labels most commonly used by each side of the abortion debate, although twice in that time period, including today, the percentage identifying as pro-life has been significantly higher than the pro-choice percentage. This represents a clear shift from 2001 to 2008, when Gallup most often found pro-choice adherents in the plurality.

Abortion has been the focal point of some prominent news stories in the past year, including congressional efforts to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood because of its abortion services, as well as to investigate Planned Parenthood's financial practices. There was also a widely reported controversy over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure cancer foundation's temporary decision to suspend grants to Planned Parenthood pending the outcome of that congressional investigation. And the ongoing conflict between the U.S. Roman Catholic Church and the Obama administration over mandated health insurance for contraception is partially related to abortion, in that some contraception methods, such as the "morning-after pill," can halt the development of a fertilized egg.

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

Upcoming Gallup reports will explore Americans' 2012 views on abortion in greater depth, including looking at trends by gender, age, and other demographic variables.

Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-6, 2012 with a random sample of 1,024 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

Source: Family PAC and Gallup Poll

Abstinence program gains HHS approval

     

Heritage Keepers, an abstinence-based sex education curriculum offered by Heritage Community Services in Charleston, S.C., has been approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after a study found it effective in delaying sexual initiation among youth.

The study involved 2,215 students in grades 7-9 and demonstrated that those receiving the Heritage Keepers curriculum were significantly less likely to become sexually active at the 12 month follow-up than those in a comparison group.

For those in the comparison group, sexual experience increased from 29.2 percent to 43.2 percent, compared to an increase from 29.1 percent to 33.7 percent among those who participated in Heritage Keepers.

The HHS has specific metrics with which to determine if a program is "effective," and Heritage Keepers is the only abstinence-based program to this point to gain this HHS status.

Yet Heritage Keepers is not the first abstinence education curriculum with positive behavioral results, noted to Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

"We currently have 26 such studies," Huber said, "but their [HHS] list does not reflect this impact."

Heritage Keepers is on the Web at http://heritageservices.accountsupport.com/abstinence_education.html.

The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank not affiliated with Heritage Community Services, points to 17 separate studies that indicate significant positive results from abstinence education, such as delayed sexual initiation and reduced levels of early sexual activity.

According to Christine Kim, a policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, and Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at Heritage, teenagers who are abstinent in high school are "almost twice as likely to attend and graduate from college when compared with sexually active teens from identical social backgrounds."

Kim and Rector also report that abstinence education programs are not simply teaching teenagers to avoid sexual initiation but are "developing character traits that prepare youths for future-oriented goals."

Heritage Keepers abstinence education program states that its goal is not only "to reduce the number of teens initiating sexual activity and increase the number of sexually active teens returning to abstinence" but also to encourage students "to develop a strong sense of personal identity and worth, set protective boundaries," resist negative peer pressure, determine and protect personal values and goals and set high standards for themselves.

Daniel Heimbach, senior professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, said biblical sexual morality, including abstinence outside of marriage, "always works for the best mentally, biologically and sociologically, whether people believe in God or not."

"Not only is there much less risk to human health in avoiding promiscuity," Heimbach, author of "True Sexual Morality," said, "but scientists have found that the human brain is wired to make much stronger attachments when sex is limited to one partner and that promiscuity makes stable attachments harder and harder to achieve."

For Heimbach, however, "the only true and sufficient foundation for moral obligation to keep sex holy is the holiness of God. All men are called to 'be holy as God is holy,' and keeping sex holy requires abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage."

Richard Ross, professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, agreed that as important as the practical benefits of abstinence are in encouraging teenagers to make wise decisions, they are outweighed by helping students remain pure out of a response to the lordship of Christ.

"Sexual purity is a powerful way to acknowledge the supremacy of Christ," said Ross, cofounder of the True Love Waits movement. "It allows students to move out in Kingdom activity with great passion and power.

"Avoiding [sexually transmitted diseases] and not having early babies are good things, but they pale in comparison with a focus on bringing great glory to Christ through a generation who abide in Him in purity.

"The most powerful way to impact prom-night decisions is for parents, leaders and peers to more fully awaken teenagers to God's Son, to invite them to make a promise to Him, and to walk beside them in a shared journey toward purity."

Heimbach believes the home should be the primary place for teaching God's standard for sex.

"Nothing influences the sexual expectations and moral character of children more than the behavior of their parents," he said.

Heimbach also encourages parents "to speak, explain and instruct children to help them understand what sexual purity requires and why it is truly best for all in the long run."

Ross added that, while the home and the church must work together in a partnership, primary responsibility falls to the parents.

"Parents will lead children spiritually, one direction or another. The faith and morality of the children almost always will mirror that of parents," Ross said.

This does not require parents to have perfect pasts, Heimbach said.

"It is never too late to start modeling sexual purity 'from now on.' But what will never work at all is for parents to expect children to 'do as I say, not as I do.' That approach will assure disastrous results every time," he said.

Working with the True Love Waits campaign, Ross is continually reminded of the individual importance of abstinence being encouraged at home, church and school.

"Tens of thousands of students who made purity promises and kept those promises are moving into biblical marriages," Ross said.

"They are finding deep joy in committed sexual relationships, without flashbacks, emotional scaring or guilt. By waiting on sex, they now are experiencing the greatest delight in sex -- just as God planned."

Contact: Aaron Earls
Source: Baptist Press

Rolling pro-life billboards to blanket key states

     
   
A "Vote Pro-life" campaign is under way and hopes to impact key states in the 2012 election. The project is sponsored this presidential election year by an organization called Created Equal.
 
Mark Harrington, the group's founder, says about its recent efforts: "We have rolled out a mobile billboard voter education campaign on the pro-life issue."
 
As Harrington explains, the campaign is non-partisan and does not endorse candidates. "We're just compelling people to register to vote, and then to vote on November 6 and vote pro-life," he explains. "And we're doing that with billboard-size images of aborted fetuses and embryos on the sides of box trucks."
 
The idea, he says, is to educate voters about abortion in several key battleground states: Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Iowa. That education includes getting the point across to voters that an abortion claims the life of an unborn baby.
 
"They don't realize the gravity of the issue -- and that's why these pictures on the sides of trucks will compel them hopefully to reason to the conclusion to vote pro-life [on] November 6, 2012," says Harrington.
 
Harrington's team has already hit the road with the first phase of the campaign in Ohio and then in Florida, including the Republican convention which takes place in Tampa in late August.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

News Links for May 18th

      

Surge in Pro-Life Millennials Ushers NARAL Leader's Exit

Pro-aborts recognize dwindling support

Medical Morality Requires Equally Valuing Unconcious Patients

Abortionist going into family practice

Sub-par abortionist ratted out

Pro-lifers cleared without lawsuit

Tenn. sex-ed more focused on abstinence

Criminal Charges Against Pro-Life Advocates Dropped in South Dakota

Final Exit Network Ghouls Indicted in MN

NM forces taxpayers to fund 1,786 abortions in 2011

Ohio hospital hires late-term abortionist that it once banned

Memorial Service for the Unborn Killed in Wyoming

Kansas Expands Conscience Protections for Pharmacists

Attention brought to another shoddy abortuary

Missouri Seeks Protections for Pregnancy Resource Centers

Record crowd attends Canada's March for Life

Spain would save over $72 million by axing abortion funding

Lake County Right to Life Opposes Dold's Planned Parenthood Defense

      

From Lake County Right to Life -

On Wednesday last week, U.S. Congressman Robert Dold introduced HR 5650, the Protecting Women's Access to Healthcare Act. In his introduction of this egregious bill, Congressman Dold said, "As a pro-choice Republican, I believe that this legislation is critical because it insures non-discrimination within the Federal Title X family planning program. We have seen several attempts to block funds and exclude health care providers from participating in the Title X program, simply because they separately offer services beyond the scope of Title X. We should not discriminate against hospitals and organizations that provide access to basic preventative and in some cases, lifesaving services for so many underprivileged women through Title X."
 
Standing with Representative Bob Dold as he introduced HR 5650 was Darlene Crocket of Planned Parenthood and Candy Straight and Susan Bevan with Republican Majority for Choice.
 
Representative Dold is critical of his fellow Republican for seeking to block funds from Title X, "simply because they separately offer services beyond the scope of Title X."  What he fails to mention is that these "services" refer exclusively to abortion.

Representative Mike Pence introduced the Pence Amendment last February.  This amendment would defund Planned Parenthood because, although Planned Parenthood has been banned from using federal funds for abortions, the loophole allows Title X to free up other money that can be indirectly used for abortion.  Representative Pence said, "We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of Title X federal funding.  What's clear to me, if you follow the money, you can actually take the funding supports out of abortion.  We then have a much better opportunity to move forward to be a society that says yes to life."   The Pence Amendment was passed by the House in February with Representative Dold voting against the amendment.         
 
Lake County Right to Life supports the Pence Amendment and strongly opposes Representative Dold's attempt to use taxpayer funding for abortion.

Chinese Study: “Women With a Previous Induced Abortion Had a Significant Increased Risk of Breast Cancer”

     
 
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that a Chinese study consisting of 1,351 subjects published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention in February, 2012 reported a very statistically significant increased risk of breast cancer for women with previous induced abortions (IAs) in comparison with women without previous IAs. [1]Researchers led by Ai-Ren Jiang reported a statistically significant 1.52-fold elevation in risk for women with IAs and a "significant dose-response relationship between (the risk) for breast cancer and number of (IAs)," meaning that risk climbed with number of IAs.
 
For premenopausal women with IAs, the numbers were relatively small, and the observed 16% risk elevation was not statistically significant. However, for those with three or more IAs, the risk climbed to a statistically significant 1.55-fold elevation.
 
By contrast, postmenopausal women with IAs experienced a statistically significant 1.82-fold elevation in risk, compared to those with no IAs. Risk climbed with number of IAs from a statistically significant 1.79-fold increased risk for one IA and a statistically significant 1.85-fold elevation for two IAs, to a non-statistically significant 2.14-fold elevated risk for three or more IAs.
 
Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York) advised the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer that earlier Chinese studies [3,4] underestimated the breast cancer risk of IAs. A one-child-per-couple policy is in force, and most women have abortions after first full term pregnancy. (First full-term pregnancy reduces risk by maturing 85% of the mother's cancer-susceptible breast lobules into permanently cancer-resistant lobules.) He said it:
 
"tends to suppress the relative risk values, which makes the Jiang numbers all the more credible - underestimates if anything. Also, a place like China is good to measure the dose effect of abortion, and the statistics are strong enough to show a highly significant trend, which strengthens a causal inference."
 
A Chinese study in 1995 by L. Bu and colleagues, including Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, reported a statistically significant 4.5-fold elevated risk among women with IAs who developed breast cancer at or before age 35, compared to older women (who experienced a statistically significant 2.5-fold elevated risk). [2]
 
Four of seven Chinese studies report statistically significant risk increases for women with IAs. Fifty-three of sixty-nine epidemiological studies dating from 1957 report risk elevations for women with previous IAs. Biological and experimental research supports an abortion-breast cancer link. [5]
 
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. Jiang AR, Gao CM, Ding JH, Li SP, Liu YT, Cao HX, Wu JZ, Tang JH, Qian Y, Tajima K. Abortions and breast cancer risk in premenopausal and postmenopausal women in Jiangsu Province of China. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2012;13:33-35. Available at: <http://www.apjcpcontrol.org/page/popup_paper_file_view.php?pno=MzMtMzUgMTIuMiZrY29kZT0yNzAxJmZubz0w&pgubun=i>.

2. Bu L, Voigt L, Yu Z, Malone K, Daling J. Risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion in a population at low risk of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:S85. (abstract).

3. Ye Z, Gao DL, Qin Q, Ray RM, Thomas DB. Breast cancer in relation to induced abortions in a cohort of Chinese women. Br J Cancer 2002;87:977-981.

4. Sanderson M, Shu X-O, Jin F, Dai Q, Wen W, Hua Y, Gao Y-T, Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai breast cancer study. Int J Cancer 2001;92:899-905.

5. For a list of 68 of those epidemiological studies, see: <http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm>. One study excluded from this list was: Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

From China, Blind Activist Chen Testifies Before Human Rights Panel

Chen Defended Women from Forced Abortion

    

Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese human rights lawyer who caught the attention of the world over the past two weeks in his bid to escape house arrest in China by seeking help in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, testified via telephone about his well-being and that of his family and brave supporters Tuesday at a hearing held by Congressman Chris Smith (NJ-04).

"Chen Guangcheng is among the bravest defenders of women's rights in the world," Smith said. "Chen defended thousands of women from the ongoing, most egregious systematic state-sponsored exploitation and abuse of women in human history -- pervasive forced abortion and involuntary sterilization as part of China's one child per couple policy -- and has suffered torture, cruel and degrading treatment, unjust incarceration, and multiple beatings as a result.

"The sheer magnitude of this exploitation of women has been largely overlooked and trivialized by many -- and even enabled. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has for over 30 years supported, defended, and whitewashed the crimes against women and children Chen struggled to expose. That's why President Reagan and more recently President Bush defunded the UNFPA. In an indefensible reversal, the Obama Administration has provided approximately $165 million to the UNFPA."

After listening to a panel of witnesses testify on human rights abuses in China, Smith announced contact with Chen was made.

"Mr. Chen, you are on -- welcome back," said Smith, Chairman of the House congressional panel that oversees international human rights. The event was broadcast live by CSPAN. Click here to view video.

"I just want to talk about what had happened to my other family members after I escaped from my own home," Chen told the panel through a translator. "On April 26th around midnight, there was a group of thugs [of] the Chinese local authorities, [who] just broke into my home, and started beating them violently. And my elder brother was taken away by these thugs and without any reasoning, and then they came back and started beating up on my nephew, Chen Kegui. They used sticks and violently beat him up. For three hours he was bleeding on his head and face -- it would not stop."

Smith likened Chen's confinement at a Beijing hospital to house arrest as Chen awaits documentation to travel to the U.S. with his wife and two children. He said the hearing was intended to focus on Chen's cause.

"Following his escape from house arrest, Chinese officials started breaking into the homes of his family in the same village and rounding up those who may have assisted him for interrogations," Smith said at the hearing. "When local officials and thugs broke into the home of Mr. Chen's brother, Mr. Chen's nephew, Chen Kegui reportedly tried to defend himself with a kitchen knife. He is now in a police detention center.  I am extremely concerned for his welfare, as well as that of Mr. Chen's other extended family members. Now, eleven days later, Mr. Chen is still in the same hospital room, with his wife and two children under de facto house arrest." Click here to read Smith's opening remarks.

When Smith asked him if the U.S. Embassy had been able to make contact with extended family and friends who are at risk, Chen said, "I'm not very clear on the specifics," but that the U.S. embassy has been communicating with him every day. "Because my wife and children have been under such a long time of difficulties with malnutrition, low blood pressure, when I see them under these circumstances, I felt very saddened."

"I want to extend my gratitude and thankfulness to all those who care and love my family and myself and our situation, especially to the American people who show they care about the policies and justice -- those are universal values -- I am very, very grateful to all of you," Chen said. "I'm not a hero. I am just doing what my conscience asks me to do. I cannot be silent. I cannot be quiet when facing this evil against women and children. This is what I should do."

The hearing, entitled, "Chen Guangcheng: His Case, Cause, Family, and Those Who are Helping Him," featured human rights leaders determined to assist Chen by speaking out at an open hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.

In an unplanned live call-in to a May 3rd hearing of the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Chen testified by phone about his concerns. Within hours, the Chinese government announced that Chen could apply to travel to the United States. Chen is currently at a hospital in Beijing, still awaiting necessary travel documents. There is growing international concern about reports that Chinese officials are retaliating against his extended family and supporters.

As he did May 3rd, Bob Fu, himself a former political prisoner and now Founder and President of the ChinaAid Association, made contact with Chen during the hearing.

"Recently, when lawyers Jiang Tianyong and Teng Biao tried to visit Chen Guangcheng in hospital, they were both beaten and Jiang lost the hearing in one ear," said Bob Fu. Fu told the panel that despite the fact that the two sides have reached a well publicized agreement on Chen's freedom and security, Chen remains under house arrest in hospital, and his visitors are barred, tailed and beaten.  "Chen Guangcheng has paid an extremely heavy price to defend the rights of the disadvantaged groups who were the victims of coercive population control measures (mainly women).  His conscience, courage and spirit has been like a light shining in the long dark night of China's human rights, and also inspiring people around the world who are struggling for human rights and justice."

Wei Jingsheng, a former political prisoner and today Founder and Chair of Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition, cautioned the panel about the challenges when negotiating with the Chinese Communist regime. "They are only restrained by their interests, but not bound by their promises. That is because, fundamentally, they do not recognize common knowledge and reason, but only their great ideals."

Mei Shunping, who became pregnant a number of times but was forced to have multiple abortions at the hands of the Chinese government, testified to the brutality of the one child policy which destroyed her life and marriage. "In 1999, I escaped the country that humiliated and destroyed me, and came to the free soil of America."

Reggie Littlejohn, Founder and President, Women's Rights Without Frontiers, briefed the subcommittee on the treatment of two prominent activists who are supporters of Chen: He Peirong, who was instrumental in Chen's escape, and Jiang Tianyong, a key member of Chen's legal team. Both have suffered harassment. "Although Pearl and Jiang appear safe for the moment, who knows whether the Chinese Communist Party will retaliate against them once Chen comes to the United States," Littlejohn said. "Women's Rights Without Frontiers calls upon the United States Congress and the Department of State to raise the issue of the safety of Chen's supporters, who are heroes in their own right."

Tiananmen Square Massacre student activist and founder of All Girls Allowed Chai Ling also testified before the subcommittee.

"Incredibly, U.S. officials fretted about the timing of Chen's arrival at the Embassy," Chai said. "After he left, they downplayed his concerns for his family's safety. Several days ago, an American official casually told the New York Times: 'The days of blowing up the relationship [with China] over a single guy are over.' Seeking genuine protections for Chen and his family should hardly have 'blown up the relationship.' But more to the point, it grieves me to hear Chen dismissively referred to as 'a single guy.' He is one man; it is true. But he is a symbol -- a hero -- in the eyes of women, children, and the poor in China."

Contact: Jeff Sagnip
Source: chrissmith.house.gov 

Controversy continues as Girl Scouts celebrate 100 years

           

Celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, Girl Scouts of the USA is continuing to fall under scrutiny for its alleged connections to groups that promote abortion, contraception and homosexuality. 

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, said that the bishops are looking into concerns about the Girl Scouts organization.

In March, Bishop Rhoades penned a letter to his fellow bishops explaining that the committee recently met and discussed  "a variety of the concerns" that have been voiced about Girl Scouts of the USA over several years, including "possible problematic relationships with other organizations" and "problematic programmatic materials and resources."

In recent years, the Girl Scouts have met with increased allegations of acting against traditional values.

In 2010, two teenage girls who had spent eight years in Girl Scouts left the organization and created Speak Now: Girl Scouts, a website dedicated to raising awareness about the problems they discovered within the organization.

The two young teens – Tess and Sydney – said that it had become "increasingly apparent" that the Girl Scouts organization had values that were incompatible with their own.

"Leaving Girl Scouts was not a casual, easy, or convenient decision," they said. However, in the end, they decided that they needed to "stand for our beliefs, for the dignity of life, the sanctity of marriage, modesty, purity."

Concerns over ties to Planned Parenthood also led 10-year-old Grace Swanke to leave her Girl Scout troop and start selling her own cookies, which she calls "Cookies for Life." She donates the proceeds from her sales to pro-life groups.

Two years ago, concerns were raised over reports that a sexually explicit Planned Parenthood brochure had been distributed at an international Girl Scouts meeting.

In January 2012, a Colorado troop attracted criticism for allowing a 7-year-old transgender child to join, despite the fact that he was not a girl.

Objections have also been voiced to the Girl Scouts' relationships with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, an organization that promotes abortion, contraception and homosexuality around the globe.

Representatives of the Girl Scouts denied having knowledge of the Planned Parenthood brochures at the conference and have said that the organization does not take a stand on abortion or birth control.

However, controversy over the organization continues and has drawn the attention of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Voicing gratitude for the work that Catholic Girl Scout troops have done to serve girls and the wider community for many years, Bishop Rhoades also recognized in his recent letter that some important questions remain unanswered on both the local and national levels.

He reiterated his intent "to keep the bishops apprised of the Committee's ongoing consideration of this matter."

Bishop Rhoades said that the committee hopes to offer resources for "local level use" by bishops, priests, youth ministers and educational leaders.

These resources "may include considerations related to the identity of Catholic troops and considerations that may be helpful for parents," he explained.

Furthermore, he said, the committee has recommended having staff from the bishops' conference work with the National Federation for Catholic Youth Ministry to identify and address and remaining questions or concerns that remain at the local level.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declined to comment on the matter with the Girl Scouts because it is ongoing. 

However, the controversy has led some families to pull their daughters out of Girl Scouts and turn instead to other organizations that offer some of the same activities for young girls, but with a Christian approach. 

American Heritage Girls, a Judeo-Christian focused girls organization, was founded in 1995 in Ohio by a group of parents seeking "a wholesome program for their daughters" to contrast the secular options available.

The organization has grown to more than 19,000 members in 45 states.

Recent years have also brought significant growth for the Little Flowers Girls' Club, a Catholic program for girls aimed at promoting virtue by exploring saints, Scripture and the Catechism.

Started in 1993 by a Catholic mom of 11, Little Flowers now has some 50 registered groups throughout the U.S. and Canada, although registration is optional, as the groups are run at the local level.

The group says that it "strives to bring the Catholic faith alive and inspire the girls to become authentic Catholic women."

Source: CNA/EWTN News

'Doe' describes odd twist in landmark abortion case

     

The plaintiff in one of the landmark cases that opened the door to abortion in 1973 says her pregnancy was used by the legal system without her permission.
 
Two companion Supreme Court cases in 1973 -- Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton -- led to decisions that legalized abortion on demand. "Doe" in Doe v. Bolton is actually Sandra Cano, who says she was seeking a divorce at the time, but discovered a shocking result.

"I wanted my two children and I went to the Atlanta Legal Aid," she said during a recent appearance on American Family Radio's Today's Issues. "And from there, unbeknownst to me -- I still don't know how all this came about -- I became 'Doe' in Doe v. Bolton without my knowledge."

Cano was pregnant at the time and then found out she was to have an abortion arranged by her well-meaning mother. Cano says she would never have agreed to have an abortion and did not believe in abortion.

"Regardless of me saying no, I'm not going to have an abortion, I ran away the night before I was to go into the hospital at Georgia Baptist to have an abortion and I went to Hugo, Oklahoma," she described.

Yet while she did not have the abortion, the case continued to wind its way through the court system, using her pregnancy, resulting in a ruling in favor of abortion on demand. Norma McCorvey -- the "Roe" in Roe v. Wade -- contends her name was similarly misused in that case. McCorvey is now a pro-life activist and operates a pro-life ministry called "Roe No More."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Pro-Life Federal Lawmakers Challenge Policy of Legal Abortion Until Birth in Our Nation's Capital!

     

TAKE ACTION NOW!

 
Today, in the nation's capital, the District of Columbia, there is no limit whatever on abortion.   It is legal to the very moment of birth.
 
No more than five nations in the world have a legal policy that is this extreme.
 
Today, at 4 PM EDT, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution will hold a hearing on an NRLC-backed bill that would protect unborn children in the District after they have reached 20 weeks fetal age -- the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803).
 
To read a general Media Advisory issued by NRLC on this hearing and the legislation, click here.  Below, we provide some more detailed background information that you may find useful, and guidance on how you can help pass this vtal legislation.
 
The reason that abortion is legal to the moment of birth in the federal capital is that a body known as the "District Council," which operates on authority delegated by Congress, completely repealed the local abortion law.  But the responsibility for changing that rests entirely with the Congress -- and the President.  Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall "exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such District . . ."
 
H.R. 3803 was introduced by Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.  The bill is based on an NRLC-model bill, first developed in 2010 and already enacted in six states.  In the bill, Congress adopts "findings" (declarations of fact) that by 20 weeks after fertilization (if not earlier), the unborn child has the capacity to experience great pain.  The bill then prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother.
 
Now that the extreme abortion policy in the District has been brought to the attention of Congress, the issue boils down to this:  Any lawmaker who does not approve of unlimited legal abortion until the moment of birth would be well advised to vote for this bill.  A vote against H.R. 3803 will be scored by NRLC as a vote to ratify a policy of unlimited legal abortion until the moment of birth.  On this issue, no Member of Congress can shift responsibility to any other political body -- Article I of the Constitution makes it crystal clear that the responsibility rests entirely with Congress -- and the President.
 

TAKE ACTION NOW!

 
This debate is not about symbolism, but brutal reality.  Not far from the White House, an abortion clinic sells abortions on request (credit cards or cash only) up to 24 weeks fetal age (which is 26 weeks in the "LMP" ob-gyn dating system, counting from the last menstrual period, about the beginning of the sixth month), by the "D&E" dismemberment method, which involves tearing off the baby's arms and legs by brute force.  The method is depicted in a medical illustration posted on our website here.  It will also be graphically described at today's hearing by Dr. Anthony Levatino, who at one time performed many such abortions.
 
Ironically, in the District of Columbia (as in many jurisdictions), there are severe penalties in place for cruelty to animals.  Under Section 22-1001 of the District's criminal code, a prison sentence of up to 5 years is possible for cruelty to a cat, dog, guinea pig, or other animal (defined to include "all living and sentient creatures (human beings excepted)."
 
The hearing will begin at 4 PM Eastern Daylight Time.  You can watch the hearing on the internet on the Judiciary Committee website at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/hear_05172012_2.html
 
Testifying at today's hearing will be Dr. Anthony Levatino, an obstetrician-gynecologist who at one time performed many D&E abortions but who now opposes abortion; Dr. Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist from Northwestern University who will testify regarding the pain perception capacities of babies who are born very prematurely; and Dr. Byron Calhoun, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at West Virginia University specializing in maternal and fetal medicine, who will testify regarding humane medical approaches to cases in which an unborn child is diagnosed with a genetic disorder or other serious medical condition.  Also testifying will be an opponent of the bill, Christy Zink of Washington, D.C., who had an abortion after learning that her unborn son had a malformed brain.  The written statements submitted by the witnesses will be available on the Judiciary Committee website (and on the NRLC website), but to see the question and answer portions of the hearing, you will have to watch the video, either during the live feed or after the fact.
 
The Constitution Subcommittee will not vote on H.R. 3803 today.  Instead, the full House Judiciary Committee will hold a voting session (called a "markup") on the bill on a future date that has not yet been announced.
 
The progress of H.R. 3803 to the House floor may be enhanced if the bill obtains 218 cosponsors (a majority of House members).  Currently the official list of House cosponsors stands at 194.  Please check the list of cosponsors, arranged by state, on the NRLC website here.  If any House member from your area has not yet cosponsored, please telephone his Washington, D.C., and in-district offices to urge that he or she promptly do so.
 
To reach the easy-to-use e-mail tool on the NRLC website, which will allow you to rapidly send suggested messages to your federal representative(s) by e-mail, please click here.
 
NRLC does not regard its House scorecard for the 112th Congress as being complete until the House has voted on H.R. 3803  -- but any House member may "vote early," so to speak, by cosponsoring the bill.  Once the committees have completed work on the bill, however, additional cosponsors may no longer be added.
 
The NRLC website contains much documentation on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and on the scientific evidence that unborn children, by 20 weeks if not before, have the capacity to experience great pain, here.
 
To read NRLC's latest letter to House members on this bill, click here.
 
Identical legislation (S. 2103) has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah).  A list of current cosponsors is here.

Take Action Now!

Source: National Right to Life