Pro-Lifers Picket NEA Teacher Convention in DC: Soldier On Despite Storm Impact, Heat Wave, Eugenic-Racist and Sexist Remarks

     

Pro-Life advocates successfully staged another peaceful picket demonstration outside the National Education Association's convention in Washington, as scheduled on July 2, despite having their ranks moderated by the flooding, storm damage, and power outages afflicting the region. The pro-lifers delivered their union-reform message to thousands of NEA delegates arriving at the convention center, even though only sixteen were able to assemble.
 
"Most local pro-life activists from nearby Virginia and Maryland had to forego their plans to picket the NEA as they dealt with the disastrous effects of the violent weather. Some called to report being evacuated due to flooding and electrical blackouts or hindered by blocked and jammed roadways," said organizer Bob Pawson, an NEA member teacher from Trenton, NJ.
 
Undaunted, Pawson urges pro-lifers and other interested parties to, "Start preparing now for the NEA's 2013 convention in Atlanta, GA next July 1st."
 
Pro-lifers displayed posters stating: 'Abortion Kills Teachers' Careers;' 'Make NEA Abortion Neutral;' '25 Abortions = 1 Lost Classroom;' and 'Save Babies, Save Your Jobs.' They gave flyers to delegates documenting NEA's pro-abortion actions. A Truth Truck with huge signs, operated by Ron Brock, circled the convention center.
 
Pawson said, "One NEA delegate unwittingly echoed the eugenic racism of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, by saying that abortion 'results in higher quality students.' Another made a sexist remark to male pro-lifers stating, 'You men have no say about abortion; you lack a uterus.' Encouragingly, a few delegates did thank us for being there or discretely gave the thumbs-up sign."
 
"It's certainly the height of stupidity for the bully-bosses of a teacher union to support the aborting of future students. What a scam on us union members who are compelled to pay exorbitant dues – only to have our job security not-so-well-protected by radical, pro-abortion educrats. It's morally outrageous and economic suicide."
 
"Imagine how America's parents must feel when teacher union bosses claim to 'care about children' while promoting the killing of babies. Then, those same arrogant educrats demand more money from the taxpaying parents to educate the surviving children. That's quite a rip-off scheme."
 
"We joined NEA for collective bargaining; not to be bullied or misrepresented on moral, social, or political issues. NEA must repeal its 'Family Planning' resolution and other policies, out of respect for the diversity of 3.2 million members. NEA must totally disengage from abortion; become truly neutral and non-involved."

Coontact: Bob Pawson

Crisis pregnancy centers get big legal win

      

In the latest legal victory for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers nationwide, an appeals court has struck down a Baltimore, Md., law that would have required such facilities to post, in large print outside their doors, a sign saying they don't provide abortions or refer clients to abortion providers.

Crisis pregnancy centers said the signs would have chased women away before they got the help they needed, and they also argued the signs were an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

In a 2-1 ruling June 27, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the centers, upholding an earlier decision by a lower court judge.

In a separate 2-1 decision the same day, the appeals court also struck down a Montgomery County, Md., law requiring that pregnancy centers post a sign with two disclosures: first, stating that a "licensed medical professional" is not on staff, and second, that the "Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider."

The Montgomery County law, the court said, "amounts to an impermissible government control of speech."

"The government-mandated statement, which must be posted 'conspicuously' on a pregnancy center's wall, suggests to potential clients that the center is not to be trusted and that a pregnancy center's services, like religious counseling or job placement assistance, will usually be inferior to those offered by medical professionals," the majority ruled.

"To be sure, Montgomery County is entitled to believe that pregnancy is first and foremost a medical condition, but it may not compel unwilling speakers to express that view."

Last year, a federal judge blocked enforcement of a New York City ordinance that would have required crisis pregnancy centers to post signs saying they don't perform abortions or refer women to abortion providers.

Often supported by churches, crisis pregnancy centers are needed, supporters say, because Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest abortion provider -- is biased in its counseling and has a financial interest in guiding women to abortions.

The pro-life centers often provide such free services as pregnancy tests, ultrasound exams, prenatal care, childbirth classes, testing for sexually transmitted diseases, post-abortion counseling and material assistance. Abortion clinics typically do not provide many of these services.

The ultrasounds -- which show a woman her unborn baby in detail -- have been particularly helpful in deterring abortions.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-life legal group, was involved with both cases and applauded the rulings.

"Pregnancy centers offer real help and hope to women. They should be free to share that message instead of being compelled to provide the government's preferred message, which sends women elsewhere," said ADF attorney Matt Bowman. "Pregnancy centers provide women with the emotional support and practical resources they need, giving them more choices. They should not be made to speak negatively about the important services they provide."

Contact: Michael Foust

Source: Baptist Press

Tenn. law Tenn. law restricting sex-ed could serve as national model

     

State legislators in Tennessee have made it official: Sex toys and graphic promotions of sexual activity are not welcome in public schools.

With the signing into law of SB 3310 by Gov. Bill Haslam, public schools that teach sex education classes must emphasize abstinence, and teachers are barred from promoting "gateway sexual activity" that encourages students to sexually experiment.

"We are very pleased with the passage of the Tennessee law, and we think that it could and should serve as a model for other states to follow," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Tennessee only mandates sex education in school districts where the teen pregnancy rate exceeds a certain rate. But before the new law, some districts brought in speakers and curriculum that included explicit depictions of sexual conduct.

The Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN) documented a 2010 incident at Hillsboro High School in Nashville when a speaker with Nashville CARES, an AIDS awareness and education program, taught a sex education class at the school. The speaker used anatomically correct models to show students how to perform a graphic sex act. FACTN also noted that in some schools, Planned Parenthood presented sexual education curriculum that included links to its national website.

Huber added that some organizations claim they teach abstinence, but their curriculum goes in a decidedly different direction.

"It's asking students to creatively think of what kind of sexual activities they can still engage in and not get pregnant," she said. "Well, that's not how you and I define abstinence."

The new law, signed in May, specifically prohibits promoting sexual experimentation and forbids materials that "condone, encourage or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students," as well as "devices manufactured specifically for sexual stimulation." It also gives parents the option to sue if a teacher violates the law's guidelines.

While the law prohibits distribution of contraceptives on school property, it allows "medically-accurate" information about contraception to be provided as long as it is consistent with the law's other provisions and emphasizes that only abstinence eliminates all risk.

Tennessee's efforts take their place among a larger national struggle over sex education, one that Huber argues is filled with misinformation. She says the NAEA sought to counter that misinformation with a two-part study called "Considerations for Protecting Teen Health" released on June 19. It looks at both so-called comprehensive" sex education (CSE) programs and abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance (SRA) sex education.

"[W]e think that there needed to be a definitive study that would give us the facts rather than the sound bites, and we think that this study does so in a rather exhaustive manner," Huber said.

Part one of the study examines CSE programs, exploring their curricula, examining what it calls the "debatable" research metrics being used to promote them, and their current promotion by the Obama administration.

"The CSE approach has been the mainstay of sex education for decades, receiving the lion's share of all funding even though research results for this approach are dismal, particularly in the school setting," the study states.

A key argument of the study is that the CSE approach focuses only on minimizing the physical risks associated with sexual activity, ignoring the non-physical consequences of sexual activity for many teens. The study cites research that found most teens who had sex reported at least one negative effect, with girls especially saying they felt bad about themselves or felt used, and that teen sex leads to more than twice the risk of divorce later in life. It also points to research that shows teens who engage in casual sex have a higher risk of lower grades, problems in school and are less likely to go to college.

Huber adds that depression and suicide rates "skyrocket" among teens who add sex to their relationships, and sexually active teens are more likely to abuse alcohol and use drugs.

"If they think that the worst thing they have to worry about is a pregnancy or even an STD, then they aren't receiving all of the information," she said.

The study also found that such "comprehensive" programs include very little information about abstinence, with most skill-building activities centering on condom skills. It cites curriculum that suggests teens can be "abstinent" while still engaging in certain sexual activities, which exposes teens to STDs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact.

CSE curricula also exaggerate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs, according to the study, with one curriculum encouraging teachers to withhold information on condom failure rates.

The NAEA study tackles the research behind CSE, arguing that among other weaknesses, it uses flawed metrics, is over-generalized and suffers from conflict of interest, since much of the research was led and published by researchers who were either employed by the curriculum publishing companies or wrote the curriculum themselves.

Part two of the study seeks to show that abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance education is the best approach. Starting from the premise that all non-marital teen sexual activity is high-risk and should be avoided, SRA education is designed to prevent all negative consequences by preventing sexual activity in the first place.

"Rather than encouraging teens to experiment with gateway sexual behaviors that could compromise their health and their ability to avoid sexual intercourse, SRA programs encourage teens to avoid all risk by focusing on non-sexual activities in their dating relationships," the study says.

SRA programs follow a holistic approach that goes beyond addressing the physical consequences of sex, the study says, examining the reasons why teens have sex in the first place. Effective SRA programs typically include skill-building exercises that focus on topics including goal-setting, skills to resist sexual pressure, the benefits of waiting until marriage for sex, and medically accurate information on how contraceptives such as condoms may reduce the physical risk from sexual activity but don't eliminate them. SRA programs avoid normalizing or promoting teen sexual behavior.

The study cites research that shows SRA programs are effective at reducing teen sexual activity, saying that 25 peer-reviewed studies demonstrated "significant and positive behavioral change" among participants.

Ideology plays a large role in federal government rejection of the SRA approach, the study argues, citing a 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence education programs. Of the seven witnesses assembled, five said that even if SRA was shown to be as effective as or more effective than "comprehensive" sex education, they would still oppose funding for the SRA approach.

But the message of abstinence is resonating with teens and parents, the study argues, citing data that shows fewer teens are having sexual contact and that parents support programs that place primary emphasis on abstinence.

Huber urges abstinence education supporters to take action in correcting a 16-to-1 funding disparity that favors "comprehensive" sex education programs.

"Obviously we are at a dangerous spot for sex education policy right now," she said. "The current administration has virtually eliminated all the abstinence education that they could."

She points to a potential fix in the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act introduced into Congress. The bill authorizes grants for SRA programs and clarifies what an authentic SRA program teaches.

"We have currently about 70 co-sponsors," Huber said, "but we need a whole lot more, so that we can see this change that is not only what parents want but is in the best health interest of our teens."
--30--
John Evans could serve as national model

     

State legislators in Tennessee have made it official: Sex toys and graphic promotions of sexual activity are not welcome in public schools.

With the signing into law of SB 3310 by Gov. Bill Haslam, public schools that teach sex education classes must emphasize abstinence, and teachers are barred from promoting "gateway sexual activity" that encourages students to sexually experiment.

"We are very pleased with the passage of the Tennessee law, and we think that it could and should serve as a model for other states to follow," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Tennessee only mandates sex education in school districts where the teen pregnancy rate exceeds a certain rate. But before the new law, some districts brought in speakers and curriculum that included explicit depictions of sexual conduct.

The Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACTN) documented a 2010 incident at Hillsboro High School in Nashville when a speaker with Nashville CARES, an AIDS awareness and education program, taught a sex education class at the school. The speaker used anatomically correct models to show students how to perform a graphic sex act. FACTN also noted that in some schools, Planned Parenthood presented sexual education curriculum that included links to its national website.

Huber added that some organizations claim they teach abstinence, but their curriculum goes in a decidedly different direction.

"It's asking students to creatively think of what kind of sexual activities they can still engage in and not get pregnant," she said. "Well, that's not how you and I define abstinence."

The new law, signed in May, specifically prohibits promoting sexual experimentation and forbids materials that "condone, encourage or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students," as well as "devices manufactured specifically for sexual stimulation." It also gives parents the option to sue if a teacher violates the law's guidelines.

While the law prohibits distribution of contraceptives on school property, it allows "medically-accurate" information about contraception to be provided as long as it is consistent with the law's other provisions and emphasizes that only abstinence eliminates all risk.

Tennessee's efforts take their place among a larger national struggle over sex education, one that Huber argues is filled with misinformation. She says the NAEA sought to counter that misinformation with a two-part study called "Considerations for Protecting Teen Health" released on June 19. It looks at both so-called comprehensive" sex education (CSE) programs and abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance (SRA) sex education.

"[W]e think that there needed to be a definitive study that would give us the facts rather than the sound bites, and we think that this study does so in a rather exhaustive manner," Huber said.

Part one of the study examines CSE programs, exploring their curricula, examining what it calls the "debatable" research metrics being used to promote them, and their current promotion by the Obama administration.

"The CSE approach has been the mainstay of sex education for decades, receiving the lion's share of all funding even though research results for this approach are dismal, particularly in the school setting," the study states.

A key argument of the study is that the CSE approach focuses only on minimizing the physical risks associated with sexual activity, ignoring the non-physical consequences of sexual activity for many teens. The study cites research that found most teens who had sex reported at least one negative effect, with girls especially saying they felt bad about themselves or felt used, and that teen sex leads to more than twice the risk of divorce later in life. It also points to research that shows teens who engage in casual sex have a higher risk of lower grades, problems in school and are less likely to go to college.

Huber adds that depression and suicide rates "skyrocket" among teens who add sex to their relationships, and sexually active teens are more likely to abuse alcohol and use drugs.

"If they think that the worst thing they have to worry about is a pregnancy or even an STD, then they aren't receiving all of the information," she said.

The study also found that such "comprehensive" programs include very little information about abstinence, with most skill-building activities centering on condom skills. It cites curriculum that suggests teens can be "abstinent" while still engaging in certain sexual activities, which exposes teens to STDs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact.

CSE curricula also exaggerate the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy and STDs, according to the study, with one curriculum encouraging teachers to withhold information on condom failure rates.

The NAEA study tackles the research behind CSE, arguing that among other weaknesses, it uses flawed metrics, is over-generalized and suffers from conflict of interest, since much of the research was led and published by researchers who were either employed by the curriculum publishing companies or wrote the curriculum themselves.

Part two of the study seeks to show that abstinence-centered sexual risk avoidance education is the best approach. Starting from the premise that all non-marital teen sexual activity is high-risk and should be avoided, SRA education is designed to prevent all negative consequences by preventing sexual activity in the first place.

"Rather than encouraging teens to experiment with gateway sexual behaviors that could compromise their health and their ability to avoid sexual intercourse, SRA programs encourage teens to avoid all risk by focusing on non-sexual activities in their dating relationships," the study says.

SRA programs follow a holistic approach that goes beyond addressing the physical consequences of sex, the study says, examining the reasons why teens have sex in the first place. Effective SRA programs typically include skill-building exercises that focus on topics including goal-setting, skills to resist sexual pressure, the benefits of waiting until marriage for sex, and medically accurate information on how contraceptives such as condoms may reduce the physical risk from sexual activity but don't eliminate them. SRA programs avoid normalizing or promoting teen sexual behavior.

The study cites research that shows SRA programs are effective at reducing teen sexual activity, saying that 25 peer-reviewed studies demonstrated "significant and positive behavioral change" among participants.

Ideology plays a large role in federal government rejection of the SRA approach, the study argues, citing a 2008 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence education programs. Of the seven witnesses assembled, five said that even if SRA was shown to be as effective as or more effective than "comprehensive" sex education, they would still oppose funding for the SRA approach.

But the message of abstinence is resonating with teens and parents, the study argues, citing data that shows fewer teens are having sexual contact and that parents support programs that place primary emphasis on abstinence.

Huber urges abstinence education supporters to take action in correcting a 16-to-1 funding disparity that favors "comprehensive" sex education programs.

"Obviously we are at a dangerous spot for sex education policy right now," she said. "The current administration has virtually eliminated all the abstinence education that they could."

She points to a potential fix in the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act introduced into Congress. The bill authorizes grants for SRA programs and clarifies what an authentic SRA program teaches.

"We have currently about 70 co-sponsors," Huber said, "but we need a whole lot more, so that we can see this change that is not only what parents want but is in the best health interest of our teens."

Contact: John Evans
Source: Baptist Press

ObamaCare ExpandsTaxes, Abortion

      
 
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the new federal health care law constitutional last Thursday, analysts have been busy dissecting its future impact.

Though much remains to be seen as more facets unfold, a few things are clear already: Unless Congress repeals the law, it will raise taxes on a long list of goods and services, and it will make everyday Americans complicit in subsidizing abortions through insurance.

"The Affordable Care Act was used as a vehicle for hijacking health care reform to force a radical anti-life agenda on the American people," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life. "The law forcibly and unfairly intertwines all Americans and their hard-earned money with the abortion industry."

The law requires insurance companies participating in federal health care exchanges to impose a surcharge of at least $1 per person each month to pay for the abortions obtained by women in the insurance pool, and to keep this fact hidden before consumers enroll.

It also is one of the top 10 single largest tax hikes in history: Over the next 10 years, it is expected to take $675 billion of dollars above what taxpayers are currently paying, in a variety of forms — including some that will take effect as early as next year.

One of the largest is the new 0.9 percent payroll tax hike for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples earning over $250,000, which kicks in next year, said Nick Kasprak, an analyst and programmer at The Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.

Also, "there are a lot of tiny ones," he added. "Changes to medical savings accounts — you can't use those to pay for over-the-counter medicine anymore. It limits the value of these tax-free accounts. Annual fees on insurance companies, manufacturers of prescription drugs — they all get passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The deduction for medical expenses has been changed, so you can't deduct as much. They all add up to a fair amount."

As a result, several Republican governors have said they simply will ignore ObamaCare until after the November elections, in case a new crop of lawmakers finds the legislative will to repeal it.

"Today's ruling crystallizes all that's at stake in November's election," Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said last Thursday. "The only way to stop Barack Obama's budget-busting health care takeover is by electing a new president. ObamaCare increases taxes, grows the size of government and puts bureaucrats over patients while doing nothing to improve the economy."

Contact: Karla Dial
Soource: CitizenLink

News Links for June 29th

     

SCOTUS Health Care Ruling Jeopardizes Future of Liberty

Q&A: Why pro-lifers oppose the health care law

Pro-Life Teachers Protest Union's Liberal Agenda

Abortion: the Modern Day Slave Master?

Climate change a pro-life issue?

Only one group remains pro-choice, says expert

Pro-lifers freed from loitering charges

"I don't want to be a father yet"

Pro-Abortion V-Day Erupts in Response to Michigan Pro-Life Bill

Personhood campaign continues in OK primary; sweeping victories for pro-Personhood reps

Personhood Campaign Continues in Oklahoma Primary with Sweeping Victories for Pro-Personhood Representatives

Maryland pregnancy centers in the clear

New fund will help fight forced abortions in China

Father of forcibly aborted Chinese baby reported missing

Abortions continue at Spanish Catholic hospital, pro-life protesters charge

British Medical Assoc. Docs Refuse Assisted Suicide Neutrality

Court Ruling Keeps Abortion Funding, Religious Freedom Violation, Health Care Rationing and Other troubling provisions

      

In a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, maintaining the "individual mandate" as constitutional, not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing clause.

The only part of Obamacare the Court limited was the law's requirements on state Medicaid programs to expand or face a loss of all Medicaid funding.

So, here are the several pro-life and religious freedom problems that now stand with the Court's blessing, and other items of concern (section references are to PPACA, P.L. 111-148):

I. The abortion subsidies and funding scheme stand (see chart of Obamacare abortion scheme for more detail: http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF10C08.pdf)

Federal subsidies for health plans that include elective abortion in state exchanges will continue. (Section 1303)

The abortion fee will require every person in a plan that has abortion coverage will pay at least $12 per year even if they do not want abortion services. (Section 1303)

Allowing direct funding of abortion through direct spending in community health clinics (Section 10503), and high risk pools (Section 1101).

Subsidies for the government run "multi-state" plans remains even if they include elective abortion (Section 1334).

There are No conscience protections against government discrimination against businesses, providers, or health insurers who refuse abortion. The limited conscience protection is from insurers against providers, but the government can discriminate against anyone who refuses to offer or refer for abortion if they chose (Section 1303).

II. Religious Freedom infringement through HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate, which narrowly restricts religious liberties to churches (Section 1001). Penalties for failure to comply could be $100 per day per employee for the employer (and insurer) who fails to offer "preventive care services", including contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations free to the patient.

III. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) remains in effect, an entity that will reduce Medicare costs through rationing health care (Section 3403).

IV. OTHER ISSUES:

The "individual mandate" continues as a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, whether from an employer or in the individual market (Section 1501).

The mandate remains on mid-size and large employers to offer "minimum essential coverage" — which means plans that can't exceed 9.6% of salary, and plans cover 60% of total health care costs (they don't have to cover all the essential benefits). If employers don't offer these, they face penalties (Section 1511).

States are required to establish exchanges or, if they chose not to, the Federal government will establish and run them in the state (Section 1311).

Contact: David Christensen
Source: FRC Blog

The truth about 'risk reduction' sex education

      

A newly released study from the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) presents a decisive challenge to the content, research, and funding of comprehensive sex education.
 
Valerie Huber, executive director of the NAEA, says this exhaustive report examines the differences between comprehensive sex education and abstinence education, and it shows the dismal research used to prop up comprehensive -- or "risk reduction" -- sex education.

"The research base for comprehensive sex education is seriously lacking," Huber tells OneNewsNow. "That argument is merely a strawman argument for the administration to push an ideological agenda that is, in fact, harmful to young people."

For too long, she says, people have been duped into believing sexual risk reduction is the best option for children. But this report, she believes, is a game-changer.

"I say that because it responds in a proactive manner to all of the attacks against sexual risk-avoidance abstinence education, and it also looks from an objective research view at what it takes to be an evidence-based program," the NAEA executive director explains.

Contact: Bob Kellogg
Source: OneNewsNow

Pro-choice, pro-'gendercide'

     

New undercover footage further reveals that pro-abortion organizations support sex-selective abortions and encourage women to carry out such terminations.

    
 
The latest undercover work from Live Action took place in North Carolina. The video shows a National Abortion Federation (NAF) clinic in Raleigh and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chapel Hill advising women on how to move forward with aborting their baby girls because they want a boy instead. For example, a worker at the Raleigh clinic advises a woman to lie to her OB/GYN.

Woman: "If I went to them and they did the ultrasound and [said] everything is healthy and it looks good, but it's a girl, would they be judgmental of me if they found out later that I aborted because it was a girl?

NAF: "No. All you would have to do, if you wanted to go back to them for a follow-up or keep them as your regular doctor, just say that you had to go to the hospital and miscarried."

Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, says these clinics are hypocritical.

"They are helping the search-and-destroy mission of little girls," she asserts. "And I think that more and more people are realizing that this is fundamentally hypocritical and that the organization and all these groups that claim to pamper women are really helping wage the war against women."

Rose notes that the U.K., Australia and other countries have bans on sex-selective abortion, and she says it is time for the United Sates to ban "this most lethal form of gender discrimination."

"It's about time the United States started to protect these girls from gendercide," she contends.

Live Action's "Gendercide in America" project has now documented abortion clinics' support for sex-selection at eight clinics in five states.

Contact: Bill Bumpas
Source: OneNewsNow

Supreme Court Decision Means Americans Must Elect Mitt Romney and a Pro-Life Congress Committed to Repealing ObamaCare

Supreme Court Decision Means Americans Must Elect Mitt Romney and a Pro-Life Congress Committed to Repealing ObamaCare

    

"All voters who care about the value and dignity of human life must do everything they can to elect Mitt Romney and a Congress who are committed to repeal of ObamaCare," said National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. "If President Obama wins re-election, it will mean massive abortion subsidies and it will put the lives of millions at risk through systematic government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care."

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the ObamaCare law is a call-to-action for the right-to-life electorate to work to elect a Congress and president this November committed to repealing ObamaCare in 2013, in order to prevent a future in which abortion insurance will be heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers and federal bureaucrats will be authorized to ration life-saving medical treatment.

That is the assessment of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, after analysis of today's ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

Under the enacted law, federal tax-based subsidies will begin in 2014 to subsidize millions of private insurance plans that will cover abortion-on-demand, including some plans ("multi-state plans") that will be administered by the federal government. Under another provision of the law, the federal government could even order many plans that do not receive federal subsidies to cover abortion as a "preventive" service. The law also created an array of other mechanisms and funding pipelines by which access to and subsidies for abortion can be expanded if President Obama wins a second term.

Moreover, few Americans realize that under ObamaCare, private citizens' right to spend their own money to save the lives of their own families will be subject to drastic restriction.

Unless repealed, ObamaCare will give federal bureaucrats the power to impose so-called "quality" measures on all health care providers, under which treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed to save that patient's life or preserve the patient's health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. In 2015 and thereafter, an 18-member "Independent Payment Advisory Board" is directed to inform the federal Department of Health and Human Services how to use those imposed standards to limit what private citizens are permitted to spend on their own families' health care to below the rate of medical inflation.

These and other provisions of the law that will authorize rationing are documented at
http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/index.html.

National Right to Life strongly opposed enactment of the ObamaCare law because of its abortion and rationing components.

Source: National Right to Life

Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

Key provisions of the individual mandate were upheld with some restrictions on Medicaid changes.

In a dramatic conclusion to the year's most divisive legal debate,SCOTUSBlog says the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that the so-called individual mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act is constitutional — a decision that it's believed means the entire law passed by President Obama survives.

On Morning Edition, NPR's Ari Shapiro just explained that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax.

The Obama administration had argued that mandating that everyone in the country have insurance was constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That was the administration's "A argument," as Ari explained. The "B" argument was that the individual mandate was constitutional under the federal government's ability to tax. During debate in Congress and in the law itself, the mandate is called a "penalty." It was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the penalty was indeed a tax.

It appears, Ari said, that the "tax argument is what saved President Obama's signature law."

According to SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who was the deciding vote on the key issue of whether the so-called individual mandate would survive. The vote was 5-4, says Goldstein, and Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the "conservatives" while Roberts shifted to the "liberal" side.

Source: NPR News

S. J. Res. 29 would cut heart out of First Amendment

      

NRLC Letter to the U.S. Senate on S. J. Res. 29

Dear Senator:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, urges you to oppose S. J. Res. 29, a proposed constitutional amendment that would cut the heart out of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. NRLC reserves the right to include any roll call on S. J. Res. 29 in our scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides in part that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." While the First Amendment applies broadly, first and foremost it was intended to provide absolute protection for the right to speak freely about those who hold or seek political power.

It is precisely that form of speech – speech about those who hold or seek offices of power in government, at the Federal or state level – that is targeted by S. J. Res. 29. Under the proposal, Congress would be granted virtually unlimited power to regulate and ration speech about those who hold or seek federal office, including both congressional and executive offices. This power would extend to "the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections," including (but not limited to) "the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates."

S. J. Res. 29 would grant to state officeholders an equivalent power to regulate spending "made by, in support of, or in opposition to" state candidates – legislative, executive, or judicial.

It is predictable that this language will be construed to encompass not only any money spent for overt appeals to elect or defeat "candidates," but also to disseminate any speech that criticizes "candidates" or that portrays their actions or positions in a light that they find unflattering. There is no exemption for the "institutional" news media, or for any medium of communication. The power to regulate and ration political speech would extend to every mode of communication – print, electronic, broadcast, internet, etc.

The power to regulate and ration would also extend to "in kind equivalents," which could include volunteer labor, including donations of time and talent by professionals and celebrities.

"Candidates" will, of course, include all current office holders. Incumbent office holders frequently vote on matters of public controversy, and if S. J. Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, it is predictable that incumbent office holders will employ the power granted to inhibit or punish those who criticize them – partly if the criticisms are reaching an audience of any appreciable size. Among the many incumbent-protection-racket proposals that have been put forth under the banner of "campaign finance reform," this proposed constitutional amendment is the most ambitious power grab – a naked attempt to permanently empower the political patrician class to substantially insulate its members from criticism by and accountability to the plebeians.

Perhaps a lone speaker standing on a stool in the park, upbraiding the local congressman for a recent vote, could remain outside the scope of the restrictions that would flow from S. J. Res. 29 – but if he first went to a local copy shop to buy some leaflets to draw listeners to his presentation, he could no longer rely on the protection of the First Amendment. His "expenditure" would be deemed permissible, or criminal, solely at the pleasure of those who already hold the reins of power.

One other thing is predictable: If S. J. Res. 29 were part of the Constitution, the sweeping powers it grants to those who hold political office would, in time, be employed with particular ruthlessness towards individuals or groups who advance causes that are out of favor with important political elites – as has already occurred in some so-called "liberal democracies."

Because NRLC believes that S. J. Res. 29 would have a crippling effect on the ability of the National Right to Life Committee to continue to effectively advocate on behalf of members of the human family who cannot speak on their own behalf – unborn children, and the medically dependant and disabled – NRLC strongly opposes this measure. In the NRLC scorecard of key roll calls of the 112th Congress, a vote for S. J. Res. 29 will be accurately characterized as a vote to empower elected lawmakers, federal and state, to restrict and punish speech that is critical of their votes and positions on public policy issues.

NRLC urges you to reject the frontal assault on the First Amendment embodied in S. J. Res. 29.

Source: National Right to Life

News Links for June 22nd, 2012

     

Giving of Life Awards More than $140,000 to 14 Ministries and Launches New Projects Season

Pending vote on definition of personhood

Dangerous Doctors Participate in California Abortion Project

One Abortion Clinic Closes, Five Others Stop Surgical Abortions Due to Pennsylvania Law

CBR Crushes Northland Abortion Clinics in Federal Court

Knights of Columbus files comment against altered HHS mandate

KS revokes doctor's license in abortion case

Canadian pro-aborts' 'infantile' behavior

Abortion proponents admit defeat at Rio conference

ADF calls on U.S. leaders to condemn forced abortion atrocity in China

Emotional goodbye for young Italian mother who died for unborn child

Doctor alleges massive euthanasia in Britain

Photo sparks global outrage over China's one-child policy

     

Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have used social networks to protest China's one-child policy after a photo surfaced of an unconscious mother lying next to her seven-month old aborted fetus.

Chinese officials said they are investigating the case which occurred in the northern province of Shaanxi, where police forced Feng Jianmei to undergo an abortion after she was unable to pay the $6,200 fine levied by the government against those who wish to have more than one child.

Feng's husband posted a photo of the dead baby boy on a popular social network in China. The baby had been given a lethal injection directly into his head, while his mother was strapped to the bed by force.

More than half a million Chinese posted comments expressing outrage at the incident, and news of the forced abortion eventually spread to Facebook, Twitter and the international media.

In the 1970s China established its one-child per family police, which includes forced abortion and sterilizations. Those who violate the law and have more children are at risk of losing their jobs and paying heavy fines.

According to Carlos Polo of the Latin American Office of the Population Research Institute, publicizing these incidents is "the first step towards their eradication."

"Since the first visit to China in 1979 by our president, Steve Mosher, the PRI has sent numerous teams to research the application of the one-child policy," Polo told CNA.

In 2009, the PRI sent a field research team to six countries where the UN Population Fund helped China to apply the policy. Evidence of exorbitant fines, reprisals against families, persecution, forced late-abortions of babies was sent to officials in Washington, D.C. with the recommendation that financing for this population control organization be cut off.  

"Our work helped to cut millions of dollars in funding which unfortunately the Obama administration has reinstated," Polo said.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Finding the Consciousness in “Unconscious” People Worth the Cost?

     

Patients diagnosed as persistently unconscious may be the most scorned people on earth. I mean, who else could be called a turnip or carrot with impunity?  It is within the context of this "unrepentent bigotry"  that I analyze a hopeful story about increasing efforts to find the consciousness within the diagnosed unconscious.

We have discussed before how scientists used advanced brain scanning techniques to determine that at least some of these patients are responsive. Now, Nature reports that research is ongoing to develop means that would allow some of these patients to communicate. From, "The Mind Reader" (June 14, 2012, no link):

Now, using an EEG, Owen is planning to study 25 people in a vegetative state every year…One goal is to identify other brain systems, such as smell or taste, that might be intact and usable for communication...

The studies will also explore whether these patients have the capacity for greater intellectual depth. Owen thinks that some people in a vegetative state will eventually be able to express hopes and desires, perhaps like French magazine editor Jean-Dominique Bauby, who dictated his memoirs by repeatedly winking one eye. "I don't see a reason why they could not have a similar richness of thought, although undoubtedly some will not," Owen says.

More power to him. But some worry that it might interfere with the dehydration imperative:

Owen's methods raise more difficult dilemmas. One is whether they should influence a family's or clinician's decision to end a life. If a patient answers questions and demonstrates some form of consciousness, he or she moves from the 'possibly allowed to die' category to the 'not generally allowed to die' category, says Owens. Nachev says that claiming consciousness for these patients puts families in an awkward position. Some will be given hope and solace that their relative is still 'in there somewhere'. Others will be burdened by the prospect of keeping them alive on the basis of what might be ambiguous signs of communication.

It's remarkable how getting these people dead seems so important within some bioethical circles.

Here's what I worry about: In a world in which such people are denigrated as so many plant products and their bodies coveted as potential organ farms, will it matter?  Or will we decide that we know what we don't want to know? After all, when people communicate it humanizes them, making it harder to view them as a mere natural resource.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Fetal Surgery Shows Unborn Babies Are Patients Too

     

We hear sometimes from pro abortion types that fetuses are nothing of moral note until they are born–and sometimes not even then, e.g. personhood theory.  We are sometimes told that during prenatal care, only the mothers are patients.  Yet, a story just came out about life saving prenatal surgery.  From the CBS Miami story, "World's First of It's Kind Surgery Saves Miami Girl's Life:"

To see 20-month old Lyna Gonzalez, you would think she's just like every other toddler at that age – vibrant and energetic. "She's perfectly normal, thank God," said mother Tammy. But it wasn't always that way. During her pregnancy, Gonzalez's doctors discovered a benign tumor the size of a tennis ball growing on her unborn baby's mouth. Doctors told Tammy there was little chance her daughter would survive birth – and if she did, she would require an immediate tracheotomy in order to breath and have multiple surgeries thereafter.

Ah, not a "fetus," not a collection of tissues, not a parasite, but an "unborn baby."  Back to the story:

After a lot research and heart ache, Tammy sought help from University of Miami/Jackson Memorial fetal surgeon Ruben Quintero. Quintero, a pioneer in fetal medicine, has treated many birth defects and high risk conditions while the baby is still in the womb. "The concern with these tumors is they grow very rapidly, the cause bleeding which leads to the death of the baby," said Quintero. In May 2010, Quintero and Dr. Eftichia Kontopoulos operated on Tammy's baby in utero. Using an endoscope guided by ultrasound they performed a first of its kind surgery and removed the tumor from the fetus' mouth.

Now, who was the patient in that surgery; The gestating baby or the mother?  The baby!  And that is also true in other forms of prenatal care, in which both mother and child can be properly considered patients.  In other words, fetus's are human beings too and we should not let abortion ideology deflect us from this fact.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Christian Medical Assn: HHS birth control mandate similar to China's views

     

The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA) has filed official comments opposing as "unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American" a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that forces virtually all health insurance plans in the country to provide free contraceptive pills, devices and surgeries on demand regardless of users' ability to pay.

The CMA document deplores the fact that "The administration is instituting a decidedly un-American policy that (a) classifies pregnancy as a disease requiring mandated treatment and (b) advocates the prevention of child-bearing as a health care cost savings. Unlike communist leaders in countries like China, Americans historically have not viewed pregnancy as a disease or children as an unwelcome product posing a cost burden."

The comments of CMA and other groups were filed with HHS before the June 19 deadline for public comments on the rule, which has generated nationwide protests over what opponents consider a frontal assault on religious freedom, since the rule does not exempt most religious employers who object to the drugs on moral grounds.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted:

The contraceptives and sterilization mandate affects all people no matter what their faith is, and it is an attack on our first and most precious rights. Religious freedom and respect for conscience are among the most important issues that all people of faith face. This is a battle we dare not lose.
CMA Executive VP Dr. Gene Rudd added:

While researchers continue to debate whether certain mandated drugs labeled as contraceptive may actually end the life of a developing human embryo, the mandated drug Ella almost certainly has such a post-fertilization effect; it's the only way to explain the effectiveness rates claimed for the drug. What we have learned during this debate over the potential abortifacient nature of certain contraceptives is that those with a social agenda will deceive to achieve.

The Christian Medical Association document asserted that the HHS mandate is unlawful and unprecedented in that it violates abortion-related provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the law under which the mandate is enacted), federal laws protecting conscience rights and constitutional protections for religious liberty and just compensation.

CMA also noted that besides violating constitutional religious liberties, the mandate also "offers no accommodation options whatsoever to protect secular conscientious objectors."

The CMA comments conclude, "The administration retains only two realistic options regarding this unlawful, unprecedented, unwise and un-American policy: rescind the policy or face defeat in the courts. The CMA encourages rescission of this policy in its entirety."

More information on the mandate and comments from other organizations are available online.

Source: Standard Newswire

Bush admin's promotion of abstinence pays off

      

The abortion movement is losing more than Americans' support. A new study shows that it also lost a significant chunk of business between 1990-2008. During those 18 years, the government says the abortion rate plummeted by 32% among women in their early twenties. Although the decline was smaller for women in their late twenties, there was still a noticeable drop (6%) in the older demographic.

According to experts on both sides, abortion rates are down across the board - a victory FRC celebrated in February when the government announced that the teen abortion rate had plunged by 59% from 1988 to 2008. One factor helping to build a culture of life is the growth of pregnancy resource centers, which FRC documents in A Passion to Serve.

Pregnancy rates, birth rates, and abortion rates have all fallen off--a trend that most liberals are chalking up to increased birth control. But taken together with another recently published report from the Centers for Disease Control, abstinence seems to have been a major factor.

After eight years of prioritizing abstinence education, the country may finally be seeing the fruit of President Bush's emphasis on "save" sex. Unfortunately, when liberals took over Congress and the White House, they not only zeroed out abstinence education, but they made teaching it a disqualifying factor for federal grants. Time will tell if the birth rates can withstand the administration's multi-million dollar, Planned Parenthood-style "if it feels good, do it 'safely'" sex education. As the Bush years are starting to show, self-control is a good personal policy - but it's also good public policy.

Source: Family Research Council

U.S. on brink of one-child policy?

     

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.

Contact: Bill Bumpas
Source: OneNewsNow

News Links for June 15th

     

No Patent Pending for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Cheering Euthanasia Sure Fire Way to Win Show Biz Awards

Pro-Life Battleground States Project Begins June 23

Doctors could screen unborn children for 3,500 genetic disorders

School Allows Pro-Life Displays

Botched abortion at clinic caught in dumping scandal

Abortion Seller Fights Religious Freedom Amendment in North Dakota

Botched abortions bring clinic shutdown

Protester arrested for vandalizing pro-life display

PP sets up clinic on high school campus

ND in the clear for personhood amendment?

Abortionist's back-up docs under scrutiny

Hawaii Planned Parenthood clinics help women arrange tax-funded sex-selection abortions

China: Woman Forcibly Aborted at Seven Months (warning, graphic image)

Phony “Death Panel” Definition Won’t Make the Issue Go Away

    

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.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke