A Christian medical group's spokesman is concerned the contraception mandate in ObamaCare reflects an attitude similar to that behind China's one-child policy. Tuesday (June 19) was the deadline for public comments on the Obama administration's mandate forcing virtually all health insurance plans in the nation to provide free contraception. The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association expressed its opposition to the rule. CMA senior vice president Dr. Gene Rudd says his group filed official comments with Health and Human Services on Monday, right before the deadline. "[We were] explaining to them why this is both unprecedented, unwise, unlawful -- and basically un-American to proceed down this line," he states. Rudd tells OneNewsNow there are a number of reasons to oppose this directive. "[It is] undermining a foundational tenant of our society -- First Amendment rights, undermining years and many laws that have protected our conscious rights and [promoting] the whole attitude that somehow pregnancy is something to be systematically abandoned or avoided," he says. "All those reasons are reasons to want to overturn this mandate that's coming out from Health and Human Services." He notes China's one-child policy -- a policy he says reflects the philosophy that additional children are not good. "I fear that we are adopting some of that same philosophy in our country where we're saying that the government can decide it's a favorable policy to decide that children are a liability to our culture; therefore, we're going to have policies and procedures to help avoid that," he remarks. The CMA spokesman says he can understand individuals making decisions regarding how many children to have and when, but argues that is not the government's decision.
The Medical Establishment continues to try and misdirect the conversation on the pending threat of "death panels" under Obamacare. They pretend it is about "end of life discussions." But even though Sarah Palin mistakenly made that allusion when she first coined the term, she quickly corrected her mistake–as we noted here. "Death panels" really refer to the threat of health care rationing and centralized cost/benefit bureaucracies deciding that efficacious treatments will not be covered based on quality of life invidious discrimination–as occurs already in the UK, Canada, and Oregon's Medicaid rationing law. But they keep pretending. Latest example: In the Annals of Internal Medicine, a physician named Mark Vierra recounts an experience from his practice in which a woman decided to take her dying husband home to die rather than keep him maintained on machines in the ICU. He concludes with an allusion to death panels. From "Death Panels" (no link, 6 March 2012 ) Recently, we have been warned that government "death panels" would knock us off. The provision in the new health care legislation, which said that private, end-oflife discussions between a patient and his or her physician would be reimbursable every 5 years, somehow became a sinister governmental strategy to kill us quickly and save resources. It disappeared from the President's health care legislation, was quietly added back as a Medicare provision, but disappeared again when the new Medicare guidelines came out. Can this sensible, thoughtful proposal really be so objectionable? "I want to take him home." I am so grateful to this man's brave wife, who knew exactly what her husband would have wanted. She didn't need me to tell her what kind of man her husband was, to discuss with her the meaning of life or the nuances of medical futility. What she needed was someone to help her see what was about to happen in the world of medicine—a world that was foreign to her but one in which I travel every day. These conversations are difficult for me. They are so much harder than explaining the rationale for an operation, the side effects, or the risks; I don't feel that I am very good at them. But every one of my patients is going to die one day. Like it or not, I should have these conversations earlier, more often, and more comfortably. If that makes me part of a death panel, well, I suppose I can live with that. Of course, that doesn't make Vierra part of a death panel. It is part of the job. But rather than playing hide the ball by discussing a non death panel issue, I wish Vierra had addressed the real threat of death panels, e.g., a similar situation in which a different wife wants to keep her husband in the hospital to extend his life–and government bureaucrats and cost/benefit schedules tell her she can't. Or, they refuse to cover chemotherapy because it will only likely extend life for several months. and the Obamacarians decided that benefit wasn't worth the price. Or, how doctors/bioethicists are already refusing wanted life-extending treatment based on Futile Care Theory protocols. Those are the very real threats about which the death panel polemic properly applies. Pretending otherwise won't make the issue go away.
International reaction is stirring in response to shocking photos that illustrate forced abortion in China.
China restricts families to having just one child, though there are some exceptions. So, women are forced to abort if they do have a second pregnancy. For example, a woman seven months along was beaten on June 3 and forced to abort her second child. The baby was placed next to her in bed, and a picture was taken to shame her.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president and primary spokesperson for the Susan B. Anthony List, says it is a travesty that the leaders of the U.S. are doing nothing about this.
"We should, as planet earth, as children of God, be outraged and express that, certainly to China," she urges. "But our direct representative, President Obama, has all the power in the world, as does Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, to communicate our great displeasure and to revoke funding for the United Nations Population Fund."
She says that is an organization that "has turned a blind eye over and over to this abuse." And it is a taxpayer-funded body.
"You and I contribute to the U.N. Population Fund, which manages the Chinese Population Family Control Program on the ground," Dannenfelser details. "You and I and everyone [reading] are implicit in this forced abortion that happened and every other one that has occurred."
Through an executive order in 2009, President Obama resumed funding to the organization and requested $47 million from the 2012 budget for the cause.
With the release of a new undercover video from Live Action, there is a fresh push for federal legislation to ban sex-selective abortions.
Live Action visited two abortion clinics in Hawaii, where employees encouraged prospective patients to abort female babies and use tax dollars to pay for it. In the first video, an undercover investigator talked with a worker at a clinic in Maui, who encouraged her to abort a baby girl:
Employee: "…and like I said -- everybody has a different story and a different reason, and this is your reason and this is your situation. So, they should be accommodating, because we can help you determine, and it's nobody's business and nobody's reason but yours."
In a similar video filmed in a Honolulu Planned Parenthood, a Live Action undercover worker was encouraged to proceed with aborting a girl and to use state insurance to pay for it:
Employee: "You've got to go with the state Quest, or you've got to pay out of your pocket."
Life Action: "What's Quest?"
Employee: "State insurance."
Live Action: "Quest -- so it covers abortion?"
Employee: "Yeah."
Live Action: "How much of it?"
Employee: "All of it."
Live Action: "Really?"
Employee: "Uh huh."
Live Action: "And they don't, it doesn't matter the reason?"
Employee: "No."
Live Action: "So, if I wanted to terminate a girl, the government would pay for it?"
Employee: "They don't care."
The day after the release of the latest video, Senator David Vitter (R) of Louisiana introduced a bill called the "Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act," which would make abortions on the basis of gender illegal.
Live Action has previously released undercover video revealing sex-selective abortion practices in Arizona and Texas.
With the focus of part of Planned Parenthood's school sex-ed program being on religion and sexuality, one pro-lifer says the aim is simply to use the Bible to promote an unbiblical agenda.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois works within local public schools, it says, "to ensure that students are provided with medically-accurate, age-appropriate, comprehensive sexuality education." Educational sessions cover health topics like reproductive healthcare, contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases, and religion and sexuality.
The whole purpose of the latter, according to Jim Sedlak of the American Life League (ALL), is to convince clergy, parents and students that "it's okay with God" to have intimate relations for pleasure and eliminate the pro-creation factor.
"It is really an attempt by Planned Parenthood -- much as they try to say that it's okay to have an abortion and God is okay with that -- that the Bible does not have prohibitions against having out-of-wedlock sex and that it is truly okay to do it," Sedlak says.
But as he points out, that fits within Planned Parenthood's agenda to sell contraceptive products, get children involved in intimacy, then direct youngsters to abortion when the contraception fails.
Unfortunately, clergymen are often used to sell the message "that all of these religious people who say that the Bible says you should be abstinent outside of marriage and then faithful to your partner inside of marriage are wrong, that the Bible doesn't say that at all," the pro-lifer laments. "And so they twist all of the phrases and verses in the Bible into making you believe what they want you to believe."
Sedlak goes on to note that few parents know what their children are being taught through the Planned Parenthood curriculum being used in public schools. OneNewsNow also reported recently that the federally funded abortion-provider has set up a clinic on the campus of a high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Sometimes, you need to call 'em like you see 'em. That's what Dr. Wesley Smith, an ally of FRC who has appeared on Tony Perkins' webcast on health reform, has done in his new article, "Fat Stem Cells into Bone Casts Light on Advocates Lies." As he documents in his piece, too often proponents of embryonic stem cell (ESCR) research do what small children do when caught in a fib – they just "make stuff up." Yet ESCR champions are still given visibility and credibility by those in the media, government, and academia for whom ethical limits on scientific research are not boundary-markers but legalistic inconveniences. That's sad, both because of its moral dimensions for nascent human persons – embryos – and for the caliber of honest scientific and political debate in our country. As Dr. Smith says, "Reasonable people can differ about ethical issues. But, if we are to have reasoned debates, the public must be told the truth. Too often in the ESCR and animal rights debates … that doesn't happen." It's also regrettable because as the hard science repeatedly demonstrates, ethical adult stem cell research works. Earlier today, what some are calling a "breakthrough for arthritic knees" was described in the Australian publication Body and Soul: The treatment is called fat-derived stem cell therapy. It supports the regeneration of joint and tendon disease by harvesting adult stem cells from the patient's own fat – specifically adipose tissue, found in the abdominal region. The cells are injected into the affected area to replace lost or damaged cells, reducing inflammation and encouraging the repair and regrowth of healthy tissue. Although fat-derived stem cell therapy is still in its infancy, early results indicate it may lead to cartilage regeneration, delaying the need for joint replacement by 10 or 20 years and possibly, if the disease is treated at the early stage, stop its progression altogether. FRC's Dr. David Prentice has advanced adult stem cell therapies with courage and energy for years. You can read more about his efforts and view FRC's videos on ethical adult stem cell treatments that – unlike ESC treatments – actually work at Stem Cell Research Facts.
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes a study of 1,028 women ages 20-44 in the April 15, 2012 issue of Cancer Research found that recent users of depo provera (DMPA) for 12 months or more had a statistically significant 2.2-fold increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer. [1] The authors, Christopher Li and his team (including Janet Daling) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called it the "first large scale U.S. study" examining the link between DMPA and breast cancer. They concluded it's the fifth study "conducted over a diverse group of countries that have observed that recent DMPA use is associated with a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer." [2]
Li's team said the 2003 Women's Health Initiative study of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) "strongly suggest" that agents containing progestin, "medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), in particular, increase a woman's risk of breast cancer." MPA combined with estrogen raised risk by 24%, while estrogen only replacement therapy "had a nonstatistically significant reduced risk." [3]
Like cancer-causing oral contraceptives (the pill) and combined (estrogen + progestin) HRT, the DMPA-breast cancer link supports an abortion-breast cancer link. Estrogen in the presence of progesterone (i.e. progestin) stimulates the growth of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 breast lobules.
"In the case of DMPA or any other progestin-only pill, the estrogen component is provided by the woman's own ovarian estrogen," reported Joel Brind, professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, added:
"In implementing Obamacare, the federal government will require employers to purchase insurance that provides women free abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations, including DMPA. Why offer free drugs that damage women's health, but not free life-saving drugs? That's the perfect definition of a war on women!
"Cancer groups should have implemented a nationwide awareness campaign about the DMPA-breast cancer link, but it's no surprise they didn't. They've lied to women about the risks of abortion, oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy for decades. They still haven't reported that two studies since 2009 strongly linked oral contraceptive use with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer." [4,5]
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. Li C, Beaber E, Tang M, Porter P, Daling J, Malone K. Effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on breast cancer risk among women 20 to 44 years of age. Cancer Research 2012;72(8):2028-2035.
2. Ibid, p. 2034.
3. Ibid, p. 2028.
4. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf>.
5. Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Halley J, Weiss L, Marchbanks PA, Spirtas R, Ursin G, Burkman RT, Simon MS, Malone KE, Strom BL, McDonald JA, Press MF, Bernstein L. Use of four biomarkers to evaluate the risk of breast cancer subtypes in the Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Cancer Research 2010;70(2):575-587. Available at: <http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/2/575.long>.
On Monday, June 11, the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture on the nomination of Andrew D. Hurwitz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to vote against cloture, and reserves the right to include the roll call on cloture in the NRLC scorecard of key right-to-life votes of the 112th Congress.
In 1972, Hurwitz was a clerk to Jon O. Newman, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut. During the time that Hurwitz was Newman's clerk, Newman issued a sweeping ruling that struck down a recently enacted Connecticut law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of mother. The Newman ruling -- styled as Abele II -- was issued the year before the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, but after the Supreme Court had conducted the first of two rounds of oral arguments in that case.
In Abele II, Newman enunciated a new constitutional doctrine under which state prohibitions on abortion prior to "viability" would be deemed to be violations of a constitutional "right to privacy." Newman's ruling left it an open question to what extent a state would be permitted to apply limitations on abortion even after "viability."
In 2002, when Hurwitz was 55 years old and already a justice on the Arizona supreme court, he authored an article titled, "Jon O. Newman and the Abortion Decisions," which appeared in the New York Law School Law Review. In this article, Hurwitz argues that Newman's Abele II ruling heavily influenced the then-ongoing deliberations of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Hurwitz makes a persuasive case for his thesis, citing comments made by Supreme Court justices during the second round of oral arguments in the Roe case, information from the now-public archives of some of the justices who were involved, and personal conversations with Justice Stewart (for whom Hurwitz clerked in 1973-74) and others who were directly involved in the crafting of Roe v. Wade.
Hurwitz provides particularly detailed and plausible evidence that Newman's opinion was instrumental in persuading Justice Blackmun to abandon a draft opinion that would have limited the "right to abortion" to the first three months of pregnancy, and to adopt instead the more sweeping doctrine laid down in the final Roe v. Wade ruling, under which states were barred from placing any meaningful limitation on abortion at any point prior to "viability" (and severely circumscribed from doing so even after "viability").
Hurwitz wrote: "This viability dictim, first introduced by Justice Blackmun into the Roe drafts only after Justice Powell had urged that he follow Judge Newman's lead, effectively doubled the period of time in which states were barred from absolutely prohibiting abortions. . . . Judge Newman's Abele II opinion not only had a profound effect on the United States Supreme Court's reasoning, but on the length of time that a pregnant woman would have the opportunity to seek an abortion." The entire tone of Hurwitz's article leaves no doubt that he considers Newman's role in leading the Supreme Court majority to adopt a much more expansive right to abortion than otherwise might have occurred, to be a major positive achievement of Newman's career.
Roe v. Wade has been critiqued as constitutionally indefensible even by liberal legal scholars who agree with legal abortion as social policy. Many others believe that Newman and the Supreme Court justices who Hurwitz asserts followed Newman's "lead," were engaged in a super-legislative activity -- an exercise memorably denounced by dissenting Justice Byron White as "an exercise in raw judicial power." Of these critiques, there is no hint in Hurwitz's presentation, which is laudatory from start to finish.
The recasting of the draft Roe ruling, which Hurwitz credibly attributes to Newman's influence, had far-reaching consequences. The absolute number of abortions performed nationwide in the fourth, fifth, and sixth months of pregnancy increased greatly after Roe was handed down. Abortion methods were refined, under the shield of Roe, to more efficiently kill unborn human beings in the fourth month and later. The most common method currently employed is the "D&E," in which the abortionist twists off the unborn child's individual arms and legs by brute manual force, using a long steel Sopher clamp. (This method is depicted in a technical medical illustration here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DEabortiongraphic.html) Well over four million second-trimester abortions have been performed since Roe was handed down.
This carnage is in part the legacy of Jon O. Newman – but Judge Hurwitz clearly wants to claim a measure of the credit for himself, as well. In Footnote no. 55 of his article, Hurwitz relates a 1972 interview in which Justice Stewart "jokingly referred to me as 'the clerk who wrote the Newman opinion'." Hurwitz remarks that this characterization "I assume . . . was based on Judge Newman's generous letter of recommendation, a medium in which some exaggeration is expected." [italics added for emphasis] It is impossible to read Footnote 55 without concluding that Judge Hurwitz could not resist the opportunity to put on record his personal claim to having played an important role in the development of the expansive abortion right ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
NRLC urges you to oppose cloture on the nomination of Judge Hurwitz, and reserves the right to include the cloture vote in the NRLC scorecard for the 112th Congress.
The youth group joined the adult Bible class I spoke to recently in South Dakota. They sat in the front row which impressed me as there was no indication their leader "forced" this upon them! After the study on the God-given value of human life, I handed these young people the fetal models I had used as illustrations. They seemed to enjoy touching them and passing them amongst themselves.
After awhile nearly everyone left, except one girl. She's the one who asked the question. She remained in her seat holding the twenty-week baby in her lap. Tears flowed down her cheeks. I sat down beside her to inquire what was wrong, but before I could speak she asked, "Why is the world so dumb?" Her sobs replenished the stream of tears.
Here was a teenage girl angry at the world for its horrid treatment of the unborn. Here was a teenage girl, her tear drops falling on the baby she held, grieving for the unborn who would never be touched or held. I affirmed her right to be angry. I lauded her compassion. I tried to encourage her by the fact that God can use both her anger and compassion to instill in her a real passion for His gift of life and for upholding and defending it. Looking back I'm guessing He already had!
I'm not sure how much my encouragement helped her. I am sure how much her encouragement helped me! How encouraging to see passion in this teen and so many others like her. I told this youth group, as I try to tell all the youth with whom I speak, that I am counting on them to translate their passion and energy for life into words and deeds that will influence our culture in a way my generation did not. I am convinced they will!
After something like this you think of those things you wish you would have said! Psalm 37 comes to mind. "Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers!" (1) And then in verses 12-13, "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming." We should be angry as the wicked of our age plot against the most vulnerable of lives. But we get nowhere if we just rage against the wicked and become preoccupied with attacking them. They are nothing but a "laugh" to God. He will handle them.
The Holy Spirit, through David, offers a more positive approach in the intervening verses. For example, "Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him, and he will act. He will bring forth your righteousness as the light, and your justice as the noonday" (5-6). We at LFL will continue to equip Lutherans to be "Gospel-motivated voices For Life." We will continue to help Lutherans apply the Gospel to the life issues and "trust in him, and he will act." After all, the Gospel is the most powerful and positive life-affirming message in the universe! It changes hearts. It changes lives. It's just what a dumb world needs!
Everything. Governor Scott Walker's decisive and stunning recall victory is rippling through Wisconsin and the nation. The consequences are huge – especially for continuation of building a culture of life in this great state.
Make no mistake – Gov. Walker is a true believer in preserving the sanctity of human life. He began his advocacy for life as a student at Marquette University where he was leader of the campus pro-life group. As a state Assembly Representative and now as Governor, Walker has established an unprecedented record of leadership and support for the most vulnerable among us.
In the short time he has been governor, a number of laws that will make a difference have been signed, including to take dollars away from Planned Parenthood, curb the abortion involvement of the University of Wisconsin Hospital Authority, protect taxpayers from paying for abortions, and protect women from coerced and dangerous RU486 chemical abortions. As a result of that law, Planned Parenthood and one other abortion clinic have stopped doing chemical abortions in Wisconsin.
The recall victory has huge national implications.
President Obama's election team just placed Wisconsin in the "toss-up" or "battleground" category, despite the President's 14-point victory in 2008. Although exit and other polls still show Obama leading Romney in Wisconsin, the huge turnout for the governor and sophisticated get-out-the-vote effort have gotten the full attention of the Obama team and national pundits.
President Obama did not come to Wisconsin to campaign for pro-abortion Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, probably because he sensed a Barrett loss. Now, Obama's election team is watching what seemed like a sure win for Wisconsin's electoral votes grow more unsure by the day.
Planned Parenthood and its allies are reeling. Gov. Walker has taken on the status of cult hero, or, as described by Barrett, a "rock star." He is truly loved by his supporters who came out in droves to work and vote for him.
Gov. Walker's recall victory surpassed his 2010 totals by significant numbers. It appears that Gov. Walker will have a long tenure as leader of our great state of Wisconsin, and that is very good news for those we defend.
Contact: Barbara Lyons Source: National Right to Life
"What if you could read much of your child's medical future while it was still in the womb? Taking a major step toward that goal, one fraught with therapeutic potential and ethical questions, scientists have now accurately predicted almost the whole genome of an unborn child by sequencing DNA from the mother's blood and DNA from the father's saliva." — From "Sequencing the Unborn," which appeared in "Science Now."
Publishing in the journal Science Translational Medicine, researchers at the University of Washington say they have found a new noninvasive procedure that may allow women someday soon to test their unborn babies for more than 3,500 genetic disorders. Researchers believe problems will be worked out within five years.
The team pieced together the entire genetic profile of an unborn baby only 18.5 weeks after conception by taking plasma from the mother and a swab of saliva from the father.
"They then reconstructed the genetic code of the unborn baby, then tested the accuracy of the results by using umbilical cord blood after the baby was born," ABC News reported. The method was repeated in another couple on a younger baby (8.2 weeks after conception), a time when less fetal DNA is in the mother's blood.
"The primary significance of this is that … it may broaden the availability of genetic screening to more patients, while at the same time screening for much larger panels of disorders than can currently be detected," said Jacob Kitzman, who worked on the project.
The lead scientist, Dr Jay Shendure, said, "This work opens up the possibility that we will be able to scan the whole genome of the fetus for more than 3,000 single-gene disorders through a single, non-invasive test."
Added Kitzman, "The improved resolution is like going from being able to see that two books are stuck together to being able to notice one word mis-spelled on a page."
The 800 pound elephant in the room are the eugenic implications. Already upwards of 90% of babies found to have Down syndrome are aborted.
"The scientists say their new test would identify far more conditions, caused by genetic errors," reports Stephen Adams, of the British newspaper, the Guardian. "However, they warned it raised 'many ethical questions' because the results could be used as a basis for abortion."
ABC News addressed the abortion implications straight on its story:
"When the time comes for the procedure to be used in a clinical setting though, Kitzman said clinicians would face the challenge of interpreting these results and communicating them with expectant parents — both the results themselves and the uncertainties that come with them.
"While these advances will help better understand risk factors for illness, [bioethicist Art] Caplan predicted 'they will be among the most controversial forms of testing ever to appear in medicine as the debate over abortion and disabilities both shift to whole genome genetic testing.'"
Bioethicist Wesley Smith is not a fan of the new test. Writing on his blog, Smith observed, "This test, if it comes to pass, will not only be used to eradicate children with Down, cleft palate, and dwarfism–as already happens–but also the propensity for adult onset cancer. Oh yea, that already happens with embryo screening." Smith added, "The list of abortion excuses could spread into cosmetics, hair and eye color, height, propensity to weight gain, the list could go on and on."
Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: National Right to Life
The following are details for the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally in Illinois:
WHEN: Friday, June 8, Noon to 1:00 p.m. Central
WHERE: Federal Plaza, 50 W. Adams Street, Chicago and in over 150 other cities nationwide
WHAT: Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally
WHO: Thousands of Citizens opposed to President Obama's HHS Mandate
SPEAKERS:
Eric Scheidler, Co-Chairman of the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom and Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago (audio message) Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz, Founding Chair of the Legislative Committee of the Chicago Rabbinical Council Asma Uddin, Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Editor-In-Chief of AltMuslimah.com Elizabeth Kirk, Visiting Scholar, Center for Ethics & Culture at the University of Notre Dame WHY: President Obama's HHS Mandate, enacted under the Affordable Care Act of 2010, attacks religious freedom by forcing employers, including religious schools and charities, to provide contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, without regard to moral or conscience objections.
VISUALS/AUDIO:
Citizens of all faiths, races and ages holding signs [flags, balloons, etc.] "Surprise" swing band will appear in rally Songs, hymns and prayers for our country and its leaders to restore religious liberty
For more information on the Nationwide Rally effort, including media contacts for the national leadership team, visit StandUpRally.com/press.
Earlier this week, the New York Times published an article by science writer Pam Belluck titled "Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded." The research piece that had been long in the works and its release was strategic, given our national focus on the Administration's contraceptive mandate. Belluck focused on the "mechanisms of action" of Emergency Contraceptives (EC), or what exactly happens when EC's are used. Belluck's thesis? EC's do not prevent implantation and therefore are not abortifacients. Unfortunately, in the process of trying to prove her theory Ms. Belluck left out a lot of critical information that astute readers have every right to know.
Dr. Donna Harrison, a board-certified OBGYN, responded to Belluck's piece yesterday, "NYT Convolution of Facts." I highly recommend reading this piece in its entirety but additionally I am highlighting a few key points below and including quotes from both articles.
1) The research question at hand is specifically Plan B's potential to prevent implantation. Dr. Harrison explains the science behind how Plan B works and then connects this to the heart of the debate. "Plan B is a progestin, a type of progesterone. Progesterone is a hormone that must be in a woman's body for her to be able to allow the embryo to implant and develop the placental connections between the embryo and the mother. But Plan B is a very large dose of progesterone, higher than the woman's body would normally make. It is the effect of that high dose which is under debate."
2) Conflicting Research. There are a number of studies indicating that Plan B prevents implantation and more recently a few studies that do not support this. Unfortunately, however, for Ms. Belluck's readers, her piece makes it sound as though one can act with certainty that Plan B does not prevent ovulation. But Richard Doerflinger associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had a nice quote responding to Ms. Belluck, "I would be relieved if it doesn't have this effect….So far what I see is an unresolved debate and some studies on both sides." He also noted that because of difficulties in ethically testing the drugs on women, "it's not only unresolved, but it may be unresolvable."
3) Collapsing Plan B and Ella. Plan B and Ella are completely different drugs with very different modes of action. Ms. Belluck created confusion by conflating these two drugs in her piece and made broad claims that would extend to all ECs. According to Dr. Harrison, "lumping together two very different drugs and calling them "morning-after pills" allows for clever confusion of what is known about the mechanism of action of each drug, and the role of progesterone in helping the embryo to implant and sustain the pregnancy."
4) Studies show that Ella can cause an abortion pre and post implantation.
Dr. Harrison noted the following:
"Ella is a second-generation derivative of the abortion drug RU-486, and is equipotent with RU-486 in blocking the action of progesterone at the level of the ovary and endometrium, one of the facts I explain in my paper on this topic. Indeed, if taken before a woman ovulates, Ella will interfere with progesterone action and prevent the egg from being released. But the critically important question is what happens when you take Ella after ovulation. And the answer is clear. Ella blocks the action of progesterone at the level of the ovary, and blocks the action of progesterone at the endometrium, both of which interfere with implantation."
5) Dr. Trussell is, err, chameleon-like. Dr. James Trussell is quoted as a major researcher in the NYT piece and his research is key to the Department of Health and Human Services' ASPE brief on the cost effectiveness of the contraceptive mandate. Dr. Trussell conveniently changes his message about the drug's efficaciousness to fit with the abortion industry's goal du jour. Dr. Harrison makes the following comment, "[a]nd here, abortion proponents speak out of both sides of their mouth. The quote from Trussell in theNYT article was particularly amusing. If you read his previous research papers, sometimes he claims over 90 percent efficacy from Plan B, and sometimes he claims around 50 percent efficacy. Why these differences? Well, as he so readily admits, you can't get numbers of 90 percent efficacy without some sort of post-fertilization effect. So when the issue of mechanism of action is raised, suddenly the efficacy for Plan B gets 'adjusted' to what would be expected from a drug with no post-fertilization effect. But, when issues of funding arise . . . well Plan B becomes much more effective."
6) Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) prevent implantation. Well here is one point that I will give to Ms. Belluck. She acknowledges that certain copper IUDs (yes, included in the contraceptive mandate) can prevent implantation of a newly fertilized embryo. "scientists say, research suggests that … the copper intrauterine device (also a daily birth control method), can work to prevent pregnancy after an egg has been fertilized."
In the end, this conversation requires caution and continued unbiased research. The difference between preventing and destroying life is immensely significant to women who choose to take these drugs. Women have the right to know about all of the scientific research, not merely the research supporting an individual ideology.
When you're on the wrong side of Planned Parenthood, you're on the right side of history. The left's disingenuous and intellectually lazy "war on women" talking points have blown up in its face. Most polls show Mitt Romney fast gaining on President Obama with female voters. Some polls even show him pulling ahead.
Still, it's the multibillion-dollar abortion industry that may just give Romney the boost he needs to take a permanent lead. Just days after pro-life investigative group Live Action released devastating evidence that Planned Parenthood systemically engages in the grisly practice of sex-selection abortion -- a charge to which it now admits -- the cash-flush abortion Goliath has done Obama an ironic disservice by endorsing his re-election bid. The group has additionally launched a $1.4 million advertising campaign to smear Mitt Romney.
Let's put aside for a moment the scandalous disclosure that while Planned Parenthood receives over 350 million per annum in your taxpayer dollars, it nonetheless spends millions engaging in partisan politicking for the DNC. Troubling as that may be, utterly horrific is the revelation that this extremist organization -- which absurdly presumes to defend "women's rights" -- has been caught red-handed torturing little girls to death in mamma's womb, simply because mamma wanted a boy.
This discovery -- eerily reminiscent of Communist China's forced one-child sex-selection policy -- has shocked the conscience of an entire nation. So disturbing are the facts that on Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 354, introduced by Republicans in Congress. Unbelievably, because the bill required a two-thirds majority for passage, Democrats were able to narrowly abort the measure by a vote of 246-168.
The legislation, which would have outlawed sex-selection abortions altogether, was also opposed by President Obama. This comes as little surprise when you consider that, while a state senator, Obama repeatedly fought Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This law simply required that when a baby survives a botched abortion -- when she is "born alive" -- further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to save her life.
But according to our president -- leader of the "civilized" world -- a law preventing the abortionist from finishing her off is "really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion."
This, coupled with Democratic support for sex-selection abortion (now on record), represents the true "war on women." This is misogyny at its deadly worst. Take note, America: Obama and Democrats have officially endorsed the Mengelian practice of explicitly targeting little girls -- over boys -- for live dismemberment.
Still, there is good news here. This entire saga has placed in the national spotlight the irreconcilable incongruities central to our nation's ongoing policy of legalized abortion on demand.
Consider, for instance, that under current federal and state law, if an off-duty abortionist -- if any man, for that matter -- physically assaults a woman and her unborn daughter dies, that man has committed murder. Yet if mom walks into Planned Parenthood and authorizes that same man to rip her baby girl limb-from-limb, it's her "choice." First case: murder. Second case: "choice." Both cases: dead baby girl.
Furthermore, consider that -- as established by a 2006 Zogby International poll of over 30,000 Americans in 48 states -- 86 percent support a law banning sex-selection abortion. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that since the vast majority recognize the objectively reprehensible nature of sex-selection abortion, they, too, might recognize that it's equally reprehensible for mom to have baby killed for no reason at all? This is what current law allows, without restriction, through the ninth month.
Indeed, incongruities abound. Still, it is the indefensible nature of empty "pro-choice" rhetoric that, I believe, will ultimately end legalized abortion in America. Truth, even when buried for decades, eventually has a way of rising to the surface.
It's inevitable. Roe v. Wade will, in time, be tossed, alongside the slavery-justifying Dred Scott decision, exactly where both shameful scars on Lady Liberty belong: in the trash heap of historical inhumanity.
Just as those who excused slavery are reviled by history, so, too, will be those who called themselves "pro-choice."
Abortion clinic director turned pro-life activist Abby Johnson has announced she will launch of a new ministry to help people trying to leave the abortion industry.
“We have hundreds of ministries for post-abortive women and men. There is literally nothing for these former clinic workers,” Johnson said. “We are going to change that.”
The new outreach, which is called “And Then There Were None,” will focus on providing emotional, spiritual, financial and legal support to clinic workers as they transition out of the abortion industry.
“Our goal is to proactively reach out to workers in the abortion industry to try to help them find other non-abortion related employment,” Johnson said in a May 30 statement.
Johnson felt prompted to create And Then There Were None after having helped several clinic employees transition out of the abortion industry over the past several months.
Aside from prayer, the “most crucial aspect” of the organization is raising money “so these clinic workers can literally afford to leave the abortion industry.”
The organization will allow supporters to donate funds to help workers continue to provide for their families while seeking other employment.
The group will also provide counseling, spiritual guidance for any religious denomination, and free legal support when necessary.
Johnson experienced a conversion and left the abortion industry after having worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years, two of which were spent as the clinic's director.
After assisting in an ultrasound-guided abortion, Johnson had a “massive change of heart,” but was also influenced by the prayers of the Texas-based pro-life group, Coalition for Life.
Planned Parenthood attempted to file a restraining order against Johnson, citing their concern that she would share confidential information about the clinic and patients. The request was denied by a Texas judge on Nov. 9, 2009.
After much prayer and researching Bl. John Paul II's “Theology of the Body,” Johnson entered the Catholic Church in 2011.
Thomas More Society Establishes Life House Ireland and Co-Sponsors Free Event
This Sunday, June 3rd, the Thomas More Society (TMS) will sponsor the First Annual Irish Festival for Life in Chicago, with Irish music, dancing, refreshments, and pro-life speakers, including Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of TMS, Joe Scheidler, famous founder of the Pro-Life Action League, and Charlie Rice, the renowned pro-life law professor (emeritus) from the University of Notre Dame.
"The European abortion regime, backed by International Planned Parenthood and a gaggle of American billionaires, wants to force Ireland into relax or repeal its pro-life laws, flouting the will of the great majority of Irish people," said Brejcha, who has been an advocate for life in Ireland by providing free legal counsel for Irish pro-life groups and activists over the last decade. "We're co-sponsoring and speaking at this festival to urge people to support the pro-life movement in Ireland before they're bulldozed into retreat and surrender by the rich and powerful European bullies and pro-abortion zealots who would suppress Irish liberties in their grim campaign to destroy Irish infants' lives."
To bolster Irish efforts to remain abortion-free, the Thomas More Society recently helped to establish Life House Ireland, a tax-exempt non-profit entity based here and designed to forge bonds of "Friendship for Life" between American and Irish pro-lifers. Life House Ireland is both educating our fellow citizens and raising funds here in the United States for the Life Institute in Ireland, a group of educators and activists which is spearheading a high-quality, intensive effort to thwart the current attacks on pro-life laws in Ireland.
Niamh Ui Bhriain, the eloquent, inspired, and fiery young president of the Life Institute, will be the keynote speaker. She will describe the situation in Ireland and the strategic initiatives underway there to fend off the potent pro-abortion assaults on Irish laws upholding the sanctity of life, and she will explain how people here in the U.S. can help.
The First Annual Irish Festival for Life will take place on Sunday, June 3rd, from 2pm-5pm, at The Irish American Heritage Center, 4626 North Knox Ave. in Chicago. The event is free, but please register at irishfestivalforlife.eventbrite.com.
Contact: Tom Ciesielka Source: Thomas More Society
The pro-life community will press on in spite of the U.S. House rejecting a bill that would have banned sex-selective abortions nationwide.
The House failed to obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to suspend rules and proceed on passage of the bill, which means it remains legal in almost all states to terminate an unborn baby's life based on his or her gender. Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony List, points out the vote was not in line with the public's view.
Marilyn Musgrave (former Colorado congresswoman)"When polled -- according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute -- 77 percent of Americans support a ban on sex-selection abortion. They don't believe a little baby should die just because of its gender," she explains. "And 80 percent of women support a ban on sex-selection abortion."
Musgrave believes sex-selection abortion could be an issue in the November election.
"I think that they will keep it in mind if we can get the word out there that this president and these members of Congress are so pro-abortion that they don't even understand the moral objection that the vast majority of Americans have," she remarks. "Hearing the words 'It's a girl' should not be a reason for abortion."
Musgrave notes that sex-selection abortion is already illegal in four states -- Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. So now the battleground goes to the legislatures in the remaining 46 states to ban the abortions.
The Charlotte Lozier Institute is SBA List's education and research arm.
