Non-Physicians Allowed to Perform Abortions in California

Life Legal Defense Foundation Says Bill Morphed from Boat Paint to Humans

      

The California Senate voted last week to pass a bill allowing non-physicians to perform aspiration abortions. Senate Bill 623, introduced by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), extends a program run by the University of California, San Francisco, in which nurse practitioners, midwives and physicians assistants are trained to perform abortions.

"This bill was originally created to regulate boat paint," said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "Now it's regulating and destroying human lives."

Ms. Kehoe claimed that the bill was necessary to fill gaps in the availability of abortion caused by the shortage of doctors in parts of the state. The bill went through three attempts before passage. Ms. Kehoe "gutted and amended" the bill after its introduction, which raised some protest from other members of the Senate. This spring, a Senate committee rejected an attempt to pass a broader bill allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. In the end, a narrower version of the bill was passed. Rather than opening abortion to non-physicians generally, the bill focuses on extending a U.C. San Francisco program training physicians assistants and others to perform first trimester abortions.

For months, the Life Legal Defense Foundation has been tracking down information on the U.C. San Francisco program. Earlier this year, they filed a Writ of Mandate to compel disclosure with a public records request for complete information. "There have been numerous attempts to resist records requests, leaving us wondering what they have to hide," said Katie Short, Legal Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "It is important for Californians to find out what is being done in this training program -- who are the abortionists conducting the training? How many women are being injured by these non-physician abortionists?"

Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation

Planned Parenthood rally speakers frame pro-life views as anti-woman

     

Supporters of Planned Parenthood argued at a Sept. 4 rally that pro-life views amount to the belief that women are inferior and should not have certain rights.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) asserted that pro-life politicians are trying to remove "women's basic rights" and the ability to control "their destinies."

Republicans believe that women "are not created equal" and do not include women "when they talk that freedom and liberty stuff," she argued.

Moore charged that abortion foes are radically "backward-looking" and warned against those who want women "to be barefoot and pregnant."

Moore was one of several speakers who endorsed President Barack Obama at a Sept. 4 Planned Parenthood rally held outside the NASCAR Hall of Fame in Charlotte, N.C., during the Democratic National Convention.

The rally featured a woman dressed as a giant container of birth control pills who led chants, as well as speakers like Emily Sussman, executive director of Young Democrats of America, who declared that she is a "b-tch for choice."

Although the rally was not an official convention event, Planned Parenthood supporters wearing pink t-shirts were very prominent around the convention center.

Many of the speakers at the event focused on a controversial federal mandate that requires employers to provide health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and early abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

Religious organizations and individuals across the country have voiced objections to the mandate, arguing that it infringes on their freedom of religion because such products and procedures are contrary to their beliefs.

Republican candidates have vowed to protect religious employers and those who object from the mandate.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told the crowd that "we're fighting over the right of women in this country to have birth control" and argued that opponents of the mandate "want to let our boss decide whether or not we should be able to get birth control."

But the numerous churches and secular employers who object to the mandate have responded to these claims by pointing out that most companies already cover contraception and would be free to continue doing so. Employees who work for the minority of morally objecting employers can find contraception already widely available for little cost at many pharmacies and for free at some health clinics, they add.

Still, rally participants repeatedly made the claim that their opponents are attempting to prevent insurance policies from covering birth control.

Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker argued that the GOP is "denying women access to healthcare."

"You see, there's some people in the Republican Party that believe that when they say all men are created equal, that they are leaving out women," he said.

Speakers at the event veered away from discussing abortion, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider.

"It's not just about abortion," said actress Aisha Tyler, a Planned Parenthood national board member.

When discussing the organization and surrounding issues in the months leading up to the election, she advised the crowd, “don't let it be about abortion,” shift the focus to "women's health."

The transition in emphasis may have been in response to polls that indicate Americans who identify as "pro-choice" are at an all-time low.

In addition, Democrats for Life of America recently announced that nearly one in three Democrats self-identifies as pro-life. The organization made an attempt to expand the party's 2012 platform to include pro-life positions in addition to pro-abortion views, but its request was rejected.

While they acknowledged that significantly lower rates of women supported the Democratic Party in the 2010 election, speakers at the Planned Parenthood rally did not address the growing numbers of pro-life Americans, and instead focused on the "extreme" views of those who oppose abortion and the contraception mandate.

Georgetown University law graduate Sandra Fluke also spoke at the rally, highlighting the importance of the 2012 election.

Fluke has become a hero for the push to promote the contraception mandate since she testified before a U.S. House committee in February on why she believed religious institutions such as Georgetown University should be required to provide free contraception to students.

The 31-year-old recounted stories of fellow students who allegedly suffered because they were unable to treat medical conditions with contraceptives, even though the university's student health care plan was later shown to cover birth control if needed for medical purposes rather than contraceptive ones.

Fluke told rally attendees to spread the word that women will die from lack of health care if Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are elected.

"This is personal," she stressed.

Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News

'Very evident' that Dems stand with Planned Parenthood

     

With the curtain closed on the Democratic National Convention, one pro-lifer is certain about where the party stands on life issues.

Marilyn Musgrave, spokesperson for the Susan B. Anthony List, says the party's pro-abortion stance was evidenced by the selection of speakers at the DNC. Two of them were Nancy Keenan of NARAL and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

"Well, the fact that Cecile Richards was there really speaks to the extreme position of the party [that's] very evident in their platform," Musgrave asserts. "Also this reflects her close relationship with the most pro-abortion president ever."

Upon listening to Richards' speech, the SBA List spokesperson noticed that the fact that Planned Parenthood kills more than 300,000 preborn babies each year was missing -- "or even the word 'abortion,' for that matter."

"Talking about women's health -- abortion is not healthcare," Musgrave asserts. "Planned Parenthood has gotten by with this image of providing healthcare. Their money comes in from abortions -- that's what they're all about."

Richards claimed that several million women would be denied health services like cancer screenings without Planned Parenthood. But the fact is those services are available through other sources that do not do abortions.

Musgrave goes on to stress that the party platform seeks no restrictions at all on abortion, even late-term and sex-selection.

Contact: Charlie Butts 
Source: OneNewsNow

'Mrs. Obama Almost Makes You Forget That Her Husband Supports Killing Babies and Killing Natural Marriage. Almost...' Says Alveda King

    

The First Lady of America took the grandstand last night in a rousing speech. As the emails flooded into my cache, with the pros and cons, I wrote back to one sincere young lady: "She looked beautiful and proves that she's nearly as much a consummate skilled politician as her husband. She almost makes you forget that her husband supports killing babies and destroying natural marriage. Almost..."

In comparison to Mrs. Romney's sincere and impassioned speech in support of her husband last week, Mrs. Obama's speech was more glittering and glamorous. She skillfully moved through the controversial issues of abortion and homosexual marriage by drawing comparisons between the two leading candidates without ever mentioning her husband's opponent's name during the subtle attack on his candidacy.

Mrs. Obama's efforts to pit the rich against the poor also fall short of the mark, when we consider that both candidates and their families are not poor people. The President and First Lady are not poor by a long shot. Both candidates also have humble beginnings in their ancestries. Neither the President nor the Governor have ancestors who have been slaves in America by the way.

What the First Lady didn't mention is the high number of jobless families, and the astronomical debt her husband has run up in the name of entitlement during his tenure. This debt will fall on the backs of our children, at least those who don't end up contracepted or aborted or not conceived in the first place.

However, after saying all of this, we can admit that both Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama have delivered stunning and memorable speeches in support and defense of their husbands. Women can be proud that two intelligent women are at the forefront of this year's elections.

Women should also be very wary of an agenda that is very harmful to the female and family populations of America, which is the agenda that Mrs. Michelle Obama, the First Lady of America is promoting. The current administration supports programs and initiatives such as homosexual marriage and the HHS Mandate which delivers harmful chemical and medical procedures that are linked to strokes, heart attacks, breast cancer and a host of other ills that are harmful to the lives of babies and women.

The question that is continually being asked is: "What diseases do abortion and unnatural contraceptives cure?" Pregnancy and childbirth are not diseases, so how can abortion and harmful contraceptives help women? Who is on guard for the civil rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for women and babies who are being hurt, maimed and slaughtered in the name of birth control and abortion?

Of course, Mrs. Obama stayed away from these issues as much as she possibly could during her speech. It would be amazing if the women of America, if the voters of America could step away from the glory and the hype for a moment and put some of these questions before the First Lady and the President of the United States.

I'll end with this one... All that glitters ain't gold.

Contact: Eugene Vigil, by Alveda King
Source: King for America

Democratic platform endorses unrestricted abortion, same-sex marriage

     

The Democratic Party platform for 2012 “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade, endorses legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and regards the promotion of “gay rights” as an American foreign-policy priority.

The program approved by the Democratic Party at this week’s convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, no longer says that abortion should be “rare,” as previous party platforms once said. In a blanket statement of support for unrestricted legal abortion, the platform says: “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The platform adds that the option of abortion should be available to all women “regardless of ability to pay,” underlining Democratic support for taxpayer-financed abortions.

In a new bid for support from homosexual activists, the platform says: “We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under the law for same sex couples."

Regarding the rights of churches that refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage, the platform says: “We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.” That sentence is ambiguous, insofar as it says that religious institutions should be allowed to decide “how” to celebrate marriages; the platform gives no indication that they should remain free not to solemnize homosexual marriages.

The Democratic platform applauds the Obama administration’s decision to treat same-sex relationships as “families” for purposes of immigration policy, and to fund programs that finance gay-rights organizations abroad through the State Department. The platform explains that “gay rights are human rights.”

"President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers,” the Democratic platform proclaims. And: “President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to supporting family planning around the globe...”

Contact: Catholic World News

Why abortion should be election issue

    

While the economy remains the focus of the presidential election, one conservative advocate explains why social issues should be a main part of the dialogue.

Some believe Romney and establishment Republicans want to downplay topics like abortion. But Gary Bauer, president of American Values, tells OneNewsNow that pointing out the Democratic Party's policy positions on the subject can educate voters. He maintains the mainstream media wrongly reports that the GOP is the radical party on abortion, especially in regards to "exceptions" like rape and incest.

Bauer, Gary (American Values)"It's the other side that has an extremist position, because they will not outlaw any abortions -- not for a 15-year-old without her parents' permission, not abortions to pick the sex of the baby, not abortions in the seventh and eighth month of pregnancy," he asserts. "Not only will they not outlaw them, they expect us to pay for those abortions."

Bauer predicts voters will not hear reporters challenge President Barack Obama or the Democratic Party concerning what he considers "extremist views" like abortion on demand -- at least not like the media challenged GOP leaders in Tampa last week for protecting the unborn. But he also believes Republicans should not avoid discussing the subject for fear of condemnation.

"This party at the grassroots, it's the party of Lincoln and Reagan. It's the party that was based on the idea that in America, everybody is protected by the words of our founding documents," Bauer states about the Republicans. "That includes, in the beginning of our party, slaves -- we were the party that said they were men; they should be welcomed. And today we're the party that believes that our children ought to be welcomed into the world, have a seat at the table and be protected under the law."

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden support abortion on demand, which, according to various polls, is a position shared by less than one quarter of Americans. For instance, The Daily Caller reports that Gallup recently found that 86 percent of Americans believe such abortions should be illegal.

Contact: Russ Jones
Source: OneNewsNow

New Links for August 31st

      

AULA president brings pro-life, pro-woman policies to GOP Convention

Paradox of Outlawing Eugenic Embryo Implantation but OK Eugenic Abortion

Suicide Pushers Impact UK Statistics

Movie 'Aborted Sun' Inspires Hope for Miscarriage and Abortion Grief

Abortionist Involved in Secret Maryland Late-Term Abortion Scheme Suspended

Colorado Personhood Coalition to Challenge Colorado Secretary of State's Determination on Personhood Signatures

Cook County State's Attorney Dismisses Battery Charges Sought by Abortion Clinic Against Pro-Life Counselor

Over 2,100 Masses Registered for Pro-Life Novena

Pro-life Community to Remember the Victims of Abortion at the Time Warner Arena in Charlotte as the DNC Prepares to Start

Under Obamacare 15-year-olds in Oregon can get tax-funded sterilization without parental consent

Obama believes life is 'expendable' in the womb, 'or even beyond the womb'

Romney pledges to protect 'sanctity of life,' marriage in GOP acceptance speech

Man attacks pro-life activists; two weeks later, still no arrest made

Abortion survivor lambasts Obama infanticide vote in 'withering' new ad

Asian population conference laments aging, but touts abortion and contraception

More research shows link to multiple abortion and pre-term, underweight babies

79 Congressmen sign briefs supporting Catholic institutions in suit against HHS mandate

      

Some 79 members of the US House of Representatives have signed amicus curiae briefs in support of the 40 Catholic institutions that have brought suit to halt enforcement of the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate.

The amicus briefs, prepared by the American Center for Law and Justice, oppose a bid by the Department of Health and Human Services to dismiss the lawsuits, which were brought by Catholic dioceses, schools, and charitable institutions.

The representatives who joined in signing the briefs were: Jeff Landry (LA), Robert Aderholt (AL), Todd Akin (MO), Mark Amodei (NV), Michele Bachmann (MN), Spencer Bachus (AL), Lou Barletta (PA), Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Dan Benishek (MI), Gus Bilirakis (FL), Diane Black (TN), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Charles Boustany (LA), Kevin Brady (TX), Paul Broun (GA), Dan Burton (IN), Francisco "Quico" Canseco (TX), Bill Cassidy (LA), Steve Chabot (OH), Michael Conaway (TX), Chip Cravaack (MN), Jeff Duncan (SC), Renee Ellmers (NC), Stephen Fincher (TN), John Fleming (LA), Bill Flores (TX), J. Randy Forbes (VA), Jeff Fortenberry (NE), Virginia Foxx (NC), Bob Goodlatte (VA), Gregg Harper (MS), Andy Harris (MD), Vicky Hartzler (MO), Wally Herger (CA), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Bill Huizenga (MI), Bill Johnson (OH), Walter Jones (NC), Jim Jordan (OH), Mike Kelly (PA), Steve King (IA), John Kline (MN), Raul Labrador (ID), Doug Lamborn (CO), James Lankford (OK), Bob Latta (OH), Dan Lipinski (IL), Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO), Dan Lungren (CA), Don Manzullo (IL), Jeff Miller (FL), Mick Mulvaney (SC), Tim Murphy (PA), Randy Neugebauer (TX), Alan Nunnelee (MS), Pete Olson (TX), Steven Palazzo (MS), Ron Paul (TX), Steve Pearce (NM), Joe Pitts (PA), Ted Poe (TX), Mike Pompeo (KS), Ben Quayle (AZ), Reid Ribble (WI), Phil Roe (TN), Todd Rokita (IN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Dennis Ross (FL), Steve Scalise (LA), Bobby Schilling (IL), Jean Schmidt (OH), David Schweikert (AZ), Adrian Smith (NE), Chris Smith (NJ), Lamar Smith (TX), Glenn Thompson (PA), Tim Walberg (MI), Lynn Westmoreland (GA), and Joe Wilson (SC).

Source: Catholic World News

More Evangelical Colleges Rise to Oppose Obama Anti-Conscience Mandate

     
Our alma mater, Biola University, has now joined the growing number of Evangelical and Catholic colleges and universities suing the federal government over the Obama health care law's requirement that all health care providers provide medical insurance plans that include access to abortion and abortion-causing drugs.

Biola President Barry Corey explained why our school is fighting the Obama anti-conscience mandate in these eloquent words:

"It is simply a natural outgrowth of our calling to be stewards of the mission Biola's founders have trusted to us, to hold fast to biblical convictions even in the midst of shifting cultural sands. It is unjust that the federal government has mandated that institutions of faith like Biola, which has held biblically centered convictions for over a century, violate their consciences in this manner. It is an infringement on our freedom to be the university God has called us to be."

Biola's suit, undertaken jointly with Indiana's Grace College and Seminary, is being filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). As East Coast Biolans, we are proud of and grateful for the stand of our school.

We represent two different generations of Biolans (Rob, '79 and Julia,'09), but Biola represents something timeless: The eternal truth of the Word of God.  For standing up for that truth, we're thankful for President Corey's leadership and the continued strong stance of our school.

Contact: Rob Schwarzwalder and Julia Kiewit
Source: FRC Blog

The Casualties of the Healthcare Law

      

As we close out this historic month of August, 2012, I can't help but comment on a very sad day that marked the start of a new moment in American history. The infamous "contraceptive mandate" began its implementation stage on August 1, 2012, and on this day the landscape of the separation of Church and State as we have known it in the United States was drastically altered. On that day groups were forced to violate religious dictates and consciences on such matters as insurance coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Those who have been following this debate will well remember that one year ago, the department of Health and Human Services used its regulatory power to mandate that the full range of Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptives be included in all health insurance plans, minus a very small group of religious employers, namely places of worship.

A massive public outcry ensued this decision, resulting in the Obama Administration announcing a purported "accommodation" last February (one that is yet to be worked through in any level of detail) as well as a one year "safe haven" for certain religious employers while they worked through the logistics of violating their consciences.

Organizations that do not fulfill the safe haven criteria include businesses, and groups that must not have provided any kind of contraception coverage before the February 10th regulation was issued. A number of lawsuits have been filed in response, including many asking for immediate injunctions against the mandate set to begin on Wednesday.

So who are the first casualties of the healthcare law? One such group is Weingartz Supply based out of Ann Arbor,Michigan. The organization provides supplies for lawn-mowing and snow removal. Until now the business, owned by a Catholic has not included contraception coverage, but now will be required to do so. Representing Weingartz and a Catholic business organization, Legatus, the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan filed a suit asking for an injunction from the mandate, but a hearing has not yet been set despite a May filing.

Similarly, a family-owned heating and cooling business in Colorado, Hercules, sought and received a temporary injunction the Friday before the mandate was to be implemented. But the injunction is specific to their family business, other groups are not covered.

Other casualties of the healthcare law include insurers and participants in the individual market who must to comply with the HHS Mandate as well as schools that have already removed health insurance coverage because of the HHS Mandate. To date this includes Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio as well as Ave Maria University in Florida. Note the irony, given that the goal of the healthcare law was to have more people covered, not less.

By far the vast majority of religious groups impacted by this mandate will feel the pinch once the safe harbor period (and the election) is over.

As we reflect upon this defining moment in history where HHS has in essence used regulatory power to redefine Church and State relations, I can still find comfort in the balance of power existing in our U.S. democratic system. The constitutionality of this regulation will ultimately be decided by the courts, where approximately 50 suits related to the HHS mandate currently wait to be heard.

Contact: Jeanne Monahan
Source: FRC Blog

A Better Educated Public = A More Pro-Life Public

     
A new poll from CNN shows that a majority of the U.S. is pro-life.

The CNN poll shows that 62 percent want abortions illegal in all cases or legal in only certain circumstances. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America (CWA) suggests that the survey results reflect a better educated public.

"Quite frankly I think it shows that Americans are looking at the current situation when it comes to abortion and realizing that the vast majority of abortions are for a woman's convenience or for birth-control," she notes.

The public is beginning to see that more and more abortion patients are women who have had multiple abortions and are in their 20s and 30s, rather than the former image of a frightened teenager facing an unplanned pregnancy.

"So, I think people are looking at that and saying is this the kind of culture we want, where people on a whim just get rid of a pregnancy? And they're saying no, this is not the kind of country we want," Crouse offers.

With better technology, especially with sonograms, the CWA spokesperson says women realize they are carrying a real human being, not a clump of cells.

She goes on to attribute the better educated public to the 40 years of hard work on the part of grassroots pro-lifers.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow

Media scrutinizes GOP pro-life positions; ignores Obama's positions on late-term, sex selection abortions and infanticide

     

"The mainstream news media is once again demonstrating its eagerness to use any excuse to portray a Republican presidential ticket as out of the mainstream on abortion, while ignoring the truly extreme positions taken by the pro-abortion candidate -- this year, President Obama," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

The current media focus is on the position of the Romney-Ryan ticket on prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he supports rape and incest exceptions to a law providing general protection for unborn children. This is the same position taken by pro-life President George W. Bush, who did much to advance federal policies to move towards a society in which all were "welcomed in life and protected in law."

According to a 2005 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," one percent of the women who were surveyed while seeking abortions reported having an abortion because they were victims of rape. Legislation to prohibit early abortion in cases of rape and incest is not under consideration in Congress. Indeed, since 1993, Congress provided federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest. Starting that year, those exceptions were added to the Hyde Amendment (the law which generally prohibits federal Medicaid funding for abortion), in addition to the original life-of-mother exception. When the rape/incest exceptions were added to the law, the Clinton Administration estimated that it would result in federal funding of abortion "nationally to about 1,000 women," despite the huge size of the federal Medicaid program (over 33 million persons covered in 1995, and over 50 million today). (Letter from President Clinton to Gov. Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, February 22, 1994). Subsequent reports issued by HHS showed that the actual number of federally funded abortions nationwide, even with the rape-incest exceptions, ranged between 112 and 458 nationwide between FY 1994 and FY 2007.

Much has been made of Congressman Paul Ryan's cosponsorship of the "Sanctity of Human Life Act" (H.R. 212). This resolution-like bill affirms the general principle that every individual member of the species homo sapiens should be recognized as a human being. It does not contain any prohibition of anything, or any penalty for anything. The details of implementing such a principle, including the type and definition of exceptions to any enacted law protecting unborn children, would have to be contained in language enacted by elected legislators -- generally reflecting, presumably, the majority views of their constituents.

When covering such legislation, many reporters show themselves willing to embrace even extravagant extrapolations as factual, or to adopt tendentious, advocacy phraseology as their own. For example, Stephanie Condon, identified as "a political reporter for CBSNews.com," wrote in a "news" story on August 15, concerning Ryan and the "Sanctity of Human Life Act"[italics added for emphasis]: "Supporters of reproductive rights have loudly pointed out that this type of legislation would not only outlaw abortion but potentially some forms of contraception or even in vitro fertilization. Personhood initiatives are so extreme that even card-carrying conservatives like former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour have expressed concerns that they go too far . . ."

Despite the remoteness of these matters from any legislation currently under consideration in Congress or likely to be considered by the next Congress, the mainstream news media finds them worthy of sustained attention. Yet there is little interest by these journalists in performing a symmetrical exploration of the outer parameters of President Obama's policy positions on abortion -- even with respect to bills that are under active consideration in Congress.

For example, recently NRLC brought it to the attention of Congress that currently, in the District of Columbia -- a federal jurisdiction -- abortion is legal for any reason, until the moment of birth. (This is because the "District Council," utilizing delegated congressional authority, repealed the entire abortion law.) On July 31, 2012, by a solid majority of 66 votes (220-154), the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a bill (H.R. 3803) to overturn this policy, and replace it with a ban on abortion after 20 weeks fetal age (the beginning of the sixth month), except to save the life of the mother. At the same time, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) filed the same measure as an amendment to cybersecurity legislation (S. 3414) -- a White House priority -- that was pending in the Senate when the August recess began.

Source: National Right to Life

Abortion and the Political “Big Tent”

      

In the past week, two troubling comments regarding abortion caught my attention—one of which justifiably caught the attention of the entire country. Once again much heat but little light was generated in the ensuing brouhaha.

The first troubling comment was a particularly inept and painful statement from U.S. Representative Todd Akin, which included the phrase “legitimate rape.” Akin’s unfortunate comment could have provided an opportunity to explore with greater clarity and depth a philosophical and moral question of supreme importance, but instead what followed was superficial, dishonest, and exploitative noise. Our feckless talking heads and political leaders chose to use Akin’s comment for political jujitsu rather than enlightened discourse.

Some random thoughts on the Akin debacle:

 •There exists no such thing as “legitimate rape.” “Legitimate rape” is an oxymoron.
 •Akin’s disastrous sentence construction, which implies that some rapes are legitimate, communicated an idea that he does not believe and did not mean to say. The correct phraseology would be something like “legitimate claimsof rape,” meaning that some claims are false, which of course is true. Some women claim to have been raped when actually they have not been raped.
 •This clumsily expressed fact—that some women falsely claim to have been raped—could have provided an opportunity to discuss the pragmatic, intellectual, and moral problems with the position of those who oppose abortion except in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
 •The pragmatic problem of permitting abortions (or federal funding of abortions) for pregnancies resulting from rape is that such exceptions put the government in the thorny position of determining whether claims of rape are legitimate, that is to say, true. Rebecca Kiessling,  who was conceived in rape and is now a pro-life attorney, explains:

Rape exceptions in the law actually put the government in the position of having to ascertain when the child was conceived, who the father is, whether the child was conceived during the alleged rape or during intercourse with her husband or boyfriend, and if the child was conceived during the time frame of the alleged rape, then the government would need to determine whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or not….So rape exceptions serve to perpetuate the injustice against rape victims that their accounts are to be viewed with skepticism…

 •But more important are the inextricably linked intellectual and moral problems with rape and incest exceptions. If the product of conception between two humans is a human, and if human life—including inchoate human life—is deserving of protection, then the manner of a baby’s conception is irrelevant to a determination of whether that inchoate life has the right to continued existence.
 •Certainly the manner of conception has meaning to the victim of rape or incest. And society should have compassion for these victims, offering as much help as possible. But the ends of alleviating suffering do not justify the means of exterminating the innocent life growing inside rape victims. The mother’s right to control her reproductive processes and parts does not supersede the right of a baby simply to exist. Just as a rape victim had no control over the criminal act that resulted in a pregnancy, neither had the baby so conceived. The suffering of rape victims does not justify the further and more horrifying victimization of preborn babies.
 •It is intellectually inconsistent and morally bankrupt to argue that life begins at conception, that all human life has intrinsic value and rights, but that society has the right to exterminate the life of another if its temporary dependency status is painful to another.

The second troubling comment came from Kay Bailey Hutchison, retiring Republican senator from Texas who said this on a Sunday morning news program:

Mothers and daughters can disagree on abortion, and we shouldn’t put a party around an issue that is so personal and also, religious-based. I think we need to say, “Here are our principles, and we welcome you as a Republican. We can disagree on any number of issues, but if you want to be a Republican, we welcome you.”

Several thoughts:

 •How many times have you heard Democrats beseech the Democratic Party to abandon their position on abortion in order to accommodate pro-life Democrats?
 •The arguments in support of the pro-life position are not exclusively religious.
 •When using the “personal” nature of abortion as a defense, Hutchinson needs to remember that there are two persons involved. Who speaks for those who can’t?
 •Hutchison’s statement is quintessential political double-speak: While asserting in one sentence that opposition to abortion should not be a party position, she asserts in the next sentence that “here are our principles.” Is Hutchison saying that opposition to abortion should or should not be one of the Republican principles?

It seems that Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison are again calling for the  infamous “Big Tent” that allows for the destruction of marriage and the unborn—you know, those trivial issues that can’t hold a candle next to fiscal issues. Apparently, the Republican tent is supposed to become big enough to accommodate a herd of donkeys.

Contact: Laurie Higgins
Source: Illinois Family Institute

HHS revises mandate third time; foes say it misses the point

       

A slight revision of the federal contraception mandate offers some additional protection for certain religious employers but is not sufficient to ease religious freedom concerns, said a lawyer who is working to challenge the mandate in court.

Hannah Smith, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told CNA on Aug. 27 that the Obama administration is governing by “sloppy executive fiat” and is failing to address the underlying problem with the controversial mandate.

She explained that for the third time in seven months, the federal government has rewritten the guidelines for the “safe harbor” that offers a one-year reprieve from the mandate to some non-profit religious organizations that object to its demands.

“They’re making it up as they go along,” she said. “They haven’t really thought through these issues carefully.”

The Becket Fund is representing Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, in a lawsuit challenging the mandate. The controversial rule requires employers to offer health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

Wheaton College argued that the mandate violated its religious freedom and filed for a preliminary injunction preventing its enforcement.

As a result, the federal government changed the safe harbor requirements, allowing Wheaton College to qualify for the temporary delay in the mandate.

Smith observed that the safe harbor, as it had previously been written, did not apply to Wheaton. The Christian college does not object to all forms of contraception, but only to products that cause early abortions, she said.

Initially, the safe harbor did not apply to employers that offered coverage of some contraceptives, she explained, but that regulation has now been changed to include those that accept certain elements of the coverage while objecting to others.

In addition, she said, Wheaton College was originally disqualified from the exemption because it had offered coverage of the products it objected to after Feb. 10, which was the deadline by which employers must discontinue the coverage in order to qualify for the reprieve.

Smith explained that coverage of early abortion drugs Ella and Plan B had been “inadvertently and unknowingly included in the plans,” and when administrators discovered it, they immediately began working with the college’s insurance company to remove the coverage. This process was not completed until March.

The federal government has now decided that because the college had “made efforts” to remove the coverage before Feb. 10, it can qualify for the safe harbor, she said.

But although the new regulation offers some protection to Wheaton College, it is “not a complete victory,” Smith cautioned.

She explained that the safe harbor is merely a 12-month “delay tactic” that will postpone “the inevitable conflict that will arise” between government and religious organizations that object to the mandate.

In addition, she said, Wheaton College is not entirely protected over the next year, because employees can still file private lawsuits trying to force the college to adhere to the mandate.

After the new regulations for the safe harbor were announced, Wheaton’s lawsuit was dismissed as premature in a court decision that pointed to the administration’s promised “accommodation” for religious freedom, she noted.

But the accommodation proposals put forward by the administration “are not satisfactory to religious institutions” and do not adequately address concerns of religious freedom, Smith stated.

She said that the Becket Fund will be carefully assessing options and following possible developments with the administration’s proposed accommodation to determine what further legal action may be necessary.

Source: CNA/EWTN News
 

News Links for August 24th

    

Documents from KS judge show Planned Parenthood charges fraudulently dropped

Woman Rushed to Hospital from Haskell's Late-Term Abortion Clinic Outside Dayton

'We are Women' DC Rally Countered by 'Women Speak for Themselves' and Pro-life Prayer Response

Pro-life groups in Uruguay denounce new attempts to legalize abortion

Fr. Frank Pavone's Statement on Republican Platform Committee's Abortion Plank

US, UK medical journals increasingly tout euthanasia

Survey shows US voter confusion on abortion

New 911 Call from Haskell's Abortion Clinic: 'She's Bleeding Quite Badly'

Woman-friendly Catholic business sues over HHS mandate

Stanek: Obama is "most pro-abortion president ever" (video)

Genetically Engineered Babies Are Moral Duty, “Ethics” Guru Claims

Abortionist admits, ‘most women having abortions are not raped’

Two more non-Catholic Christian colleges sue over HHS mandate

New 911 call from late-term abortion facility: ‘she’s bleeding quite badly’

Joan Appleton dies: Abortion nurse turned pro-life activist

“Why is there this huge fuss about sex-selection abortion?”

Who Really Cares About Women?

Why should we trust the pro-euthanasia lobby if they can’t even agree amongst themselves about what they want?

Pro-life Democratic group criticizes platform

     

The Democratic platform committee has rejected an effort to acknowledge the diversity within its party over the abortion issue, and the party is poorer for it, according to Democrats for Life of America.

Meanwhile, the Republican platform committee has again approved language advocating for the legal protection of unborn babies. The section endorsed by the committee Aug. 21 said: "Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

The Democratic draft platform released Aug. 9 did not include a recognition that Democrats hold divergent views on abortion, thereby rejecting an effort by Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) to include language that was in the 1996 platform. DFLA said the exclusion of language welcoming both pro-life and pro-choice voters greatly weakens the platform.

"For the good of the Democratic Party, we will continue to advocate that the platform language should reflect the true diversity of views within the Democratic Party," DFLA Executive Director Kristen Day said. "Our message is simple: If you are pro-life and a Democrat, you can make a difference, thus the case for recognition. Inclusion can make a critical difference in this fall's election."

The Democratic Party has increasingly become identified with abortion rights in recent decades, though DLFA said nearly one-third of Democrats identify themselves as pro-lifers. In 1978, Democrats held a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with 292 seats, including 125 (43 percent) pro-life party members, according to DFLA. Now, only 17 (9 percent) of the 184 Democrats in the House are pro-life, DFLA said.

DLFA cited the following results from Gallup polling in 2011 to demonstrate the diversity in the party:

-- 84 percent of Democrats support informed consent for a woman seeking an abortion.

-- 61 percent back parental consent for a minor before an abortion.

-- 60 percent endorse a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

-- 59 percent support the ban on partial-birth abortion.

-- 49 percent back requiring an ultrasound test before an abortion.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press

Federal and State Civil Rights Violations Cited in New HHS Mandate Lawsuit Filed in Federal District Court in Chicago for Private Employer

Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project and Thomas More Society File Suit on Behalf of "Best Place to Work for Women" Suing Obamacare to Stop Forced Group Insurance Coverage for Abortifacients, Sterilization, and Contraception

    

Triune Health Group, recently named by Crain's Chicago Business as the Best Place to Work for Women in the Chicago metro area, filed suit yesterday in U.S. District Court against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services ("HHS"), the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the Illinois Department of Insurance for a "declaratory judgment" and injunction to prevent and stop an infringement of their civil rights. Christopher Yep, founder, president and CEO of the family-run business, along with Mary Anne Yep, co-founder, Vice President and Chief Personnel Officer, and the company as a whole, are suing the federal and state governments for violating their fundamental rights to religious liberty and free speech by requiring them to provide group insurance coverage of abortions, sterilization, and birth control for their employees.

The Yeps, devoted Catholics, embrace a belief which is embedded in Triune's mission statement that each individual be "treated with the human dignity and respect that God intended." The Obamacare mandate, administered by HHS and the other federal agencies named in the lawsuit, as well as the Illinois insurance mandate, administered by Illinois' Department of Insurance, require the company to provide abortion-related and contraceptive coverage for its employees and their families, which imposes a gravely oppressive burden on the Yeps' deeply held religious beliefs.

"The federal and state governments are coercing our clients to violate their conscientious convictions, which is completely at odds with the resounding declarations of our Founding Fathers and our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, the national public interest law firm representing Triune and the Yeps, together with the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project. "As a federal court ruled just last month in Colorado, no government official may impose such an insupportable burden on American citizens' deeply held religious beliefs without a compelling reason. But there is no compelling reason here, when so many other options are available for providing these services, which are fully compatible with Triune’s corporate mission statement and the Yeps' religious beliefs," said Brejcha.

Sam Casey, managing director and general counsel for the Jubilee Campaign's Law of Life Project, also had high praise for the Yeps' courage in standing up for their fundamental rights, applauding the Yeps for "taking a stand to defend their right to run their business in a way that does not conflict with their faith and religious conscience."

The Obama Administration has defended forcing private employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception, with an argument that people of faith forfeit their religious liberties once they opt to engage in business. But last month, Colorado-based Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns and runs it won a federal injunction to suspend the Obama Administration's mandate against that company. The newly filed Triune case also asserts the primacy of religious liberties and free speech on behalf of a private company and its owners, who view business as a form of religious stewardship and an integral part of their lives as faithful Roman Catholics.

Triune Health Group has won public plaudits, not only as "the best" employer for women but also as an outstanding employer for everybody, having also placed very high on Crain's 2012 "Best Place to Work" list.

The new lawsuit by Triune and the Yeps also names as defendants the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Illinois Department of Insurance Director Andrew Boron.

Contact: David B. Waxman
Source: Jubilee Campaign Law of Life Project

Court approves Texas ban on Planned Parenthood funding

    
In a unanimous decision, a federal court on Tuesday lifted an injunction that protected Planned Parenthood from a Texas law that bars state funds from organizations that perform or promote abortion.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who backed the law, said Aug. 21 the decision is “a win for Texas women, our rule of law and our state’s priority to protect life.”

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Steven H. Aden also praised the decision in an Aug. 22 statement, saying it shows “abortionists and their political allies are bluffing when they say that states cannot stop taxpayer funding from being used to subsidize abortions, whether directly or indirectly.”

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans lifted a federal district court’s temporary injunction that preserved state funding before an October trial in which Planned Parenthood intends to challenge the law, the Associated Press reported.

The court decision said the district court “gave insufficient attention to Texas’s authority to subsidize speech of its choosing within its programs.”

The funds concern the Texas Women’s Health Program, which provides services to many women not qualified through Medicaid. The program previously funded Planned Parenthood’s provision of family planning and health services to poor women. About 65,000 women of the 130,000 enrolled in the program secured services through the abortion provider, though state funds were not used for abortion.

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, said the legal case is “about the women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, birth control and well-woman exams.

However, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot said Aug. 21 that the decision “rightfully recognized that the taxpayer-funded Women's Health Program is not required to subsidize organizations that advocate for elective abortion.”

He said his office is “encouraged” by the decision and will continue to defend the Women’s Health Program in court.

State-level efforts to defund abortion providers have increased in recent years.  However, they have faced significant legal and regulatory obstacles as well as interference and threats from pro-abortion rights officials in the federal government.

In December 2011 the Obama administration threatened to deny federal funding to the Texas women’s health program if the law stood.

A similar defunding effort in New Hampshire that threatened $1.8 million in funding for Planned Parenthood caused the Department of Health and Human Services to say it would give a federal grant to the abortion provider.

In July 2012 a federal official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Chicago reaffirmed that an Indiana law barring Medicaid funds to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood is unacceptable on the grounds that it denies women the freedom to choose their health care providers, according to the Associated Press.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Forced Dehydration for 12-Year-Old Gunshot Victim?

    

Texas has an awful futile care law. It permits hospital bioethics committees to impose members/doctors’ values that a patient’s life is not worth living based on quality of life.  A story just out shows the injustice of the process–a terrible law about which I write here in more detail.

On August 6, a 12-year-old boy was shot in the head.  Even though a reliable diagnosis and prognosis for persistent unconsciousness requires at least 3 months, hospital personnel reportedly went in rapid succession from “donate his organs” to “end his life” mode. From the Spero News story:

    But on August 13, the hospital convened an “ethics panel”, a legal entity where under Texas law medical officials can make a decision that care would be futile to restore the quality of a patient’s life. If they decide care would be futile, the hospital can terminate care after 10 days.

That’s only one week from the shooting.

    Most patients who fall under a “futile care” decision are living with the assistance of ventilators and feeding tubes. But due to a mistake in procedure, the hospital said the panel didn’t technically convene. Informally, though, hospital officials told Zach’s parents that they didn’t want to treat their son anymore. Three days later, Zach was able to breathe on his own and no longer needed a ventilator.

But that improvement didn’t matter:

    On the same day, a family member visited Zach in the hospital and asked the parents why Zach was on palliative care. To the parent’s surprise, Zach was not receiving food or water. When the parents tried to discover why the hospital was denying their son food and water, they found a “do not resuscitate” order in Zach’s chart. According to Texas law, doctors can insert DNR orders into a patient’s chart if the doctor considers care to be futile, overruling both the patient’s and the family’s wishes.

Do not resuscitate is not the same thing as do not nourish!  It only applies to not performing CPR in the event of a cardiac arrest, not a general do not sustain life directive.

Because the hospital broke the rules, care was restored.  But apparently not for long:

    Rachel Bohannon, spokesperson for Texas Right to Life, said they advised the mother to confront the doctor. “The hospital broke the law when they withdrew food and water. That can’t be done without an ethics committe’s approval,” she said.

    Reluctantly, the doctor removed the DNR order, reinstated food and water, but again told the parents that he didn’t want to treat their son. “She is the legal guardian and medical decision maker. But when care is considered futile, her rights are trumped by the hospital,” Bohannon said. Bohannon said she expects the hospital to reconvene the ethics panel. “This time they’ll follow all the rules so that it sticks. When that happens, Zach has 10 days to leave the hospital or risk having his basic medical care taken away.”

Remember the Haleigh Poutre case?  She was 12 when beaten nearly to death by her step father with severe head trauma. Doctors said she would never recover and ordered her food and water removed too.  But because the process took a few months, she recovered enough clear awareness that the dehydration was called off. Today, she eats on her own and when last written about, was in school receiving rehabilitation.

There are so many things wrong here that cry out for a lawsuit. Calling Alliance Defending Freedom!  Calling Alliance Defending Freedom.  There is a life to save.  Again.  Calling Alliance Defending Freedom!

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Barack Obama, pro-abortion extremist -- and why the news media avoid tough scrutiny of Obama's abortion history

     

"The new obsession is the platform of the Republican Party on abortion, which is an obsession,” [Republican National Committee Chairman Reince] Priebus said Wednesday on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on Fox News. “What about the obsession about a guy who believes in partial-birth abortion? I mean, what about that obsession? I mean, why aren’t we talking about that very, that minority view of abortion in our country that this president holds dear to his heart? We’re not talking about that.”
("Reince Priebus attacks Obama on abortion," by Kevin Robillard, Politico, August 23, 2012.)

In the opinion piece below, "Obama the abortion extremist," published today by Politico, National Review Editor Rich Lowry asserts, "The Democrats and the press habitually travel in a pack, but never more so than when a social or cultural issue is involved, especially one touching on sexual morality. Then, it’s not a matter of mere partisanship or a rooting interest. It’s personal." Lowry goes on to discuss how this hostility to the pro-life position manifests as a proclivity for subjecting pro-life Republican candidates to intense scrutiny on abortion-related issues, while ignoring or glossing over the extreme positions that Barack Obama has taken throughout his political career on abortion-related issues.

As the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) observed in an August 20 release, "The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the 'abortion rights' positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration."

The August 20 NRLC release is here.

In October, 2008, NRLC published a detailed article examining the news media's collaboration in allowing Obama, during the post-nomination phase of the 2008 campaign, to rewrite his history on various abortion-related issues, including legislation dealing with infants born alive during abortions. The article, which is here, also explores the news media's near-total disinterest in examining the implications of Obama's endorsement of the most extreme pro-abortion measure ever proposed in Congress, the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act," which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and re-legalize partial-birth abortion.

An NRLC "white paper" documenting Obama's actual history on the born-alive infants legislation is here.

An NRLC statement on President Obama's recently announced (but virtually unreported) opposition to the pending legislation to ban the use of abortion for sex selection is here.

To view "Video: Obama Says He's 'Pro-Choice' on Third-Trimester Abortions," by John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog, August 22, 2012, click here.