September 24, 2012

Illinois appeals court backs pharmacists who object to providing morning-after pill

     

An Illinois appellate court has ruled in favor of two pharmacists who objected to providing emergency contraception because they said it infringed upon their religious beliefs.

A lawsuit by Luke Vander Bleek and Glenn Kosirog challenged a 2005 executive order by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich requiring all pharmacists to fill prescriptions for the so-called morning-after pill.

They argued they were protected by the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. That law says health professionals cannot be punished if they refuse to offer a service because of their conscientious convictions.

The Chicago Tribune reports that Friday's ruling applies only to the two pharmacists. But their lawyer, Francis Manion, says the precedent means the state cannot go after other pharmacists who similarly refuse to provide the pill.

Source: The Chicago Tribune

September 21, 2012

News Links for September 21st

     

Planned Parenthood Faces Complaints Over Incompetent Abortion Services

Victory Against Planned Parenthood that Failed to Report Incest and Rape of Minor

March for Life in Spain to demand 'zero' abortions

Birmingham's Planned Parenthood May Face Multiple Investigations

Missouri Defies Free Birth Control Rule

Botched Abortion at Lone Birmingham Clinic Brings on New Lawsuit

Success in regenerating human organs with adult stem cells


State still at odds with parental rights

Black prolife group defends Huelskamp comments about Planned Parenthood

Focus on parental rights

Another Woman's Life Imperiled at Planned Parenthood, Records Show

Abortionist fighting for return of her license

RU-486 gets around pro-life laws

Closed means closed

Abortuary complying with Alabama's orders?

Collusion in Planned Parenthood case?

China’s claim to end forced abortion misleading

Thomas More for parental notification in Illinois

Study: Mother, preborn child may both survive cancer

     

The Lancet, a British medical journal, has published new information that questions the need to abort a baby to improve the prognosis for a pregnant patient with cancer.

Dr. Julie Griffin of the Christian Medical Association (CMA) tells OneNewsNow about the study, which was led by respected Belgian cancer physician Frederic Amant. Though his research indicates the possibility of saving both the baby and mother, it does not suggest that outcome can be accomplished in all cases.

Griffin, Dr. Julie"But definitely there is reason to believe that a mother and her preborn child can withstand the throes and the treatment of chemotherapeutics, and both can make it through a pregnancy safely, and the child will do quite well," Dr. Griffin says.

The medical evidence in the study encourages working harder to maintain and salvage the child's life and not to make a hasty decision to abort the child.

"I think that it's something that is supported biblically -- that when we look to save both lives that that is something the Lord wants us to do," the CMA spokesperson suggests. "So we as believers need to continue to point in that direction, and even through the medical evidence that is now pointing towards the importance of both lives and the possibility of both lives being saved."

Still, the question arises of when abortion would be necessary. Griffin says that depends on the "covenant relationship" between the doctor and patient, as well the father. She concludes that it needs to be approached on the basis "of hope and the sanctity of life and weighing the very difficult decisions that sometimes have to be made."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com

NYT Front Page Adult Stem Cell Story

    

I couldn’t believe my eyes: But there it was, right on the front page of the New York Times: “A First: Organs Tailor-Made With Body’s Own Cells.”

The story goes into great detail describing an Iceland research success in which a dying man’s trachea was fabricated using plastic and the patient’s own cells, still functional after several years. And then, it describes the progress being made in more sophisticated experiments. From the story:

    Human stem cells are part of the body’s system for building and repairing itself. They begin as a blank slate, but are able to become specialized cells specific to particular tissues or organs like the windpipe. In recent years, scientists have made great advances in understanding how stem cells can differentiate in this way

Wow! Adult stem cells can be transformed into different types of tissues.  Who knew?  Well, readers of this blog have for years.  Not so sure about readers of the NYT.

Scientists are experimenting with interesting approaches:

    Labs around the world are now experimenting with scaffolds. In some cases the goal is to use the natural scaffolds themselves to build new organs — to take a donor lung, for example, strip all its cells and reseed it with a patient’s own cells. Why not use what nature has perfected, this line of thinking goes, rather than try to replicate it in a synthetic scaffold?

And perhaps even better:

    Because the need for this kind of work is potentially so enormous, “we cannot pretend that we can reseed with the specific cells outside the body,” he said. Instead, he envisions developing even better scaffolds and implanting them without cells, relying on drugs to stimulate the body to send cells to the site. His ultimate dream is to eliminate even the synthetic scaffold. Instead, drugs would enable the body to rebuild its own scaffold. “Don’t touch the patient,” Dr. Macchiarini said. “Just use his body to recreate his own organ. It would be fantastic.”

Congratulations, New York Times.  You finally reported the real news about regenerative medicine.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Is IVF a Human Right?

     

The abortion license, ironically, helped lead directly to a view that there is a fundamental right to have children.  And to be sure, people should not be forced to be sterilized, or to take birth control, or have abortions.  Hello People’s Republic of China!

But those are “negative” rights, that is, a right possessed by the individual that the state cannot violate.  But many take the right to procreate into the land of entitlement, e.g., a “positive right” to have children by any means they choose–and if that is true, it means human cloning, three related biological parents, etc.  And now, Costa Rica is in the dock of Inter-American Court of Human Rights because it outlaws IVF.  From the Scientific American story:

    The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is set to decide whether Costa Rica, the only country that completely prohibits in vitro fertilization (IVF), has infringed basic rights with its ban. The tribunal — which is based in the Costa Rican capital of San José but rules on human-rights violations throughout Central and South America — met last week to hear a case brought by affected couples against Costa Rica.

    The decision, expected in the next few months, may oblige Costa Rica to lift the ban and regulate IVF. But scientists are concerned that if the prohibition is upheld, it will set a bad precedent for laws related to health, including one that would lift a ban on experiments involving humans, such as drug trials, that was first brought before the country’s parliament in 2011.

My take: There should be no “right” entitlement to IVF.  Nor should a country be prevented from prohibiting human experimentation.  I don’t approve of such a law, but creating a fundamental entitlement “right” to engage in human experimentation would be a huge mistake.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Ryan: Obama's the extreme one on abortion

     

Seemingly hitting back at the Obama campaign for its championing of abortion rights in ads and speeches, Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan told a crowd Friday that Obama is the "extreme" candidate on abortion and that the president has never "lifted a hand to defend the most helpless" of human beings.

It was the furthest that either Ryan or Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has yet gone in criticizing Obama on abortion. Obama campaign ads have called Romney and Ryan extreme on the issue.

"Apparently, the Obama-Biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion -- at any time, under any circumstances and even at taxpayer expense"

"Giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue, and in complete disregard for millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party," Ryan said at the Values Voters Summit, a gathering of pro-family voters and organizations in Washington. "In the Clinton years, the stated goal was to make abortion 'safe, legal and rare.' But that was a different time, and a different president. Now, apparently, the Obama-Biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion -- at any time, under any circumstances and even at taxpayer expense."

The Democratic platform passed at the party's convention said the party "strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay" -- a reference to tax-funded abortion. The platform added, in a knock against laws such as parental notifications and 24-hour waiting periods, "We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Said Ryan referencing an Obama theme, "'We're all in this together' -- it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious. Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born. ... When you get past all of the president's straw men, what we believe is plain to state: These vital questions should be decided, not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. And in this good-hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and child alike."

"We don't write anyone off in America, especially those without a voice. Every child has a place and purpose in this world. Everyone counts, and in a just society the law should stand on the side of life."

In three nights, the Democratic Convention saw 25 speakers reference the party's support for legal abortion, an average of eight speakers a night in what was the biggest emphasis on the issue since at least the 1992 convention. During his speech Obama said he didn't want government to "control health care choices that women should make for themselves." Biden said he favored a "future where women control their own choices, health and destiny." First Lady Michelle Obama said her husband believes women "are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care." The presidents of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America also spoke.

The Obama campaign has referenced abortion in more TV ads this year than any major presidential candidate in history.

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press

Lawsuits against contraception mandate continue

    

Hobby Lobby's lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate to provide coverage for the "morning-after" and "week-after" pills in insurance exchanges has gained some support.

Washington, DC-based Independent Women's Forum points out that 27 lawsuits involving religious institutions and businesses have been filed to stop the federal government from imposing the coverage. Spokesperson Hadley Heath tells OneNewsNow IWF's support is based on religious freedom and limits to the government's authority to mandate.
Heath

"Every American -- whether they're religious or not -- has a right to live in accordance with their values, to live according to their moral conscience," she says. "Of course, this intervention on the government's part is going to be something that has implications not just for family-owned businesses or for Catholics, but it has economic impact as well. It's going to, I believe, affect the market for birth control and affect some prices in healthcare. So there are many factors to be considered."

Heath adds when government is involved "there are winners and losers and there are secondary and sometimes indirect consequences that were not intended."

Heath believes people need to understand the seriousness of the consequences of violating the constitutional rights of the institutions, businesses and individuals impacted by the mandates.

Hobby Lobby recently filed a lawsuit over the healthcare reform mandate, claiming it is forcing the business owners to "violate their own faith."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com

How Assisted Suicide Hurts Suicide Prevention

    

My biweekly On the Square today deals with the wave of suicide prevention. I partly blame the assisted suicide movement and the suicide prevention community’s failure to grapple with the pro advocacy of the “death with dignity” crowd.

I begin by noting that suicide prevention seems to receive less attention than when I was practicing law. Not only that, but suicide itself seems to have become more societally accepted. From, “Invisible Suicide Prevention Day:”

    Not only does suicide prevention receive less emphasis, but certain segments of society have grown pro-suicide—or more accurately stated, pro- some suicides. Who can deny it? Pro-suicide billboards, mostly sponsored by the Final Exit Network, make headlines. The late Jack Kevorkian was lionized for helping to end the lives of more than one hundred and thirty disabled and terminally ill people, even becoming the subject of a hagiographic movie starring Al Pacino. “How to commit suicide” books can be found at your local retailer, and assisted suicide advocacy groups are treated as respectable “patients’ rights” groups in the media. Meanwhile, as debates rage about the best way to cap the surging cost of our medical system, a Vermont newspaper editorialized in favor of legalizing assisted suicide as a way to help pay for that state’s new single-payer health plan.

I ask why the shift in attitude? I point a finger of at least partial blame. I discuss the “rational suicide” movement within the mental health professions and the laws here and abroad that have legalized suicide and euthanasia as a medical treatment. I then point out how the top suicide prevention organizations in the world are utterly silent about the ubiquitous pro ‘some’ suicide advocacy, and point out that undermines the prevention cause:

    The World Health Organization has been similarly derelict, urging that preventers restrict access to “common methods of suicide” and engage in “many levels of intervention and activities” to protect the suicidal. The guidelines also point out that “adequate prevention and treatment of depression . . . can reduce suicide rates, as well as follow up contact.”

    In contrast, rather than helping people stand against the darkness, the assisted suicide movement seduces people toward embracing it through talk of “death with dignity.” Rather than ensuring access to treatment for mental illness, they claim it often isn’t needed because suicides apparently inspired by serious sickness, disability, or mental illness are not really suicide, but “aid in dying.” They even want the means provided. Thus the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement thwarts suicide prevention by promoting precisely opposite values and actions.

I conclude:

    This much I know: Until and unless we stand up against assisted suicide, Suicide Prevention Days will remain invisible.

Euthanasia advocates like to paint themselves as oh, so compassionate. I see it as quite the opposite. Morally, they have much for which to answer.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
source: Secondhand smoke

Thomas More Society at Illinois Supreme Court: Seeking to Intervene in ACLU Lawsuit Attempting to Declare Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 Unconstitutional


      

Thomas More Society's special counsel Paul Benjamin Linton, Esq., will argue before the Illinois Supreme Court today at 9 a.m., seeking to intervene in a lawsuit brought by the Illinois ACLU in an attempt to declare the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 unconstitutional.

The ACLU brings claims that the law is a violation of the Illinois State Constitution of 1970, even though the Act was upheld as constitutional after a lengthy federal litigation that concluded three years ago. Linton will petition the high court to reverse rulings by the trial court in Cook County affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District, holding that downstate county prosecutors would not be permitted to intervene in the lawsuit, which is being defended by the Illinois Attorney General's office.

Linton is arguing on behalf of Stewart Umholtz of Tazewell County and Edward Deters of Effingham County, a Republican and Democrat, respectively, that the very premise of the ACLU's lawsuit -- that the Illinois Constitution protects a right to abortion that is stronger than the federal abortion right recognized in Roe v. Wade -- is patently false. Indeed, the county prosecutors maintain that there is no abortion right whatsoever prescribed by the Illinois Constitution, let alone one stronger than the federal right, and therefore the ACLU lawsuit must be dismissed.

The Cook County trial court had dismissed ACLU's case on the ground that an Illinois abortion right was no stronger than the federal right, and thus the federal court upheld the parental notice law that was dispositive of the state court lawsuit. The Appellate Court, however, reversed and remanded the lawsuit for further proceedings on the merits of ACLU's claim.

Both the Attorney General's office and the Thomas More Society and Linton, acting on behalf of the downstate prosecutors, then sought leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, and the high Court allowed both petitions. Linton argues that the Illinois Attorney General has been an inadequate representative of the prosecutors' interests in that she declines to argue the strongest point of the defense, namely, that there is no abortion right at all under the Illinois Constitution, given the record of proceedings before the Constitutional Convention in which the delegates voted to leave the issue for legislative determination.

Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Thomas More Society

September 14, 2012

News Links for September 14th

     
Abortion rhetoric at DNC criticized for failure to respect women

HHS Secretary Sebelius cited for violating Hatch Act

Abortion drugs, maternal deaths linked

Planned Parenthood Settles Overbilling Case

Abortion giant threatens pro-life group with legal action

Abortion and Women’s Health

Abortionist wants recognition that abortionists have consciences, too

Democratic convention emphasizes economy, contraception mandate

Pro-Lifers Across Maryland and Washington DC Join Together This Fall to End Abortion

Missouri Legislature overrides governor’s veto of bill to stop HHS-mandate and abortion coverage in health insurance

Tennessee Catholic groups sue over contraception mandate

Abortuary complying with Alabama's orders?

Former Abortionists Join the Pro-Life Movement

How to Legally Defend the Free Speech Rights of Pro-Life Advocates

Abortion never medically necessary, Irish pro-lifers tell public

Coercive Family Planning at Apple Facilities in China? Chen Guangcheng and Others Raise Question

Pro-life advocates warn against disabilities treaty

     

Pro-life advocates have joined a leading homeschooling organization in urging the Senate not to ratify the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). President Barack Obama signed the treaty in 2009, but the Senate has not yet ratified it, even though it was recently approved by a Senate subcommittee.

In 2006, the Holy See announced that it would not sign the CPRD. Archbishop Celestino Migliore, at the time apostolic nuncio to the United Nations, said that the Holy See could interpret two ambiguous articles of the treaty “in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights of parents.”

The inclusion of the phrase “reproductive health” in article 25, however, led to the Holy See’s refusal to sign the accord. Archbishop Migliore said:

    We opposed the inclusion of such a phrase [reproductive health] in this article, because in some countries reproductive health services include abortion, thus denying the inherent right to life of every human being, affirmed by article 10 of the Convention. It is surely tragic that, wherever fetal defect is a precondition for offering or employing abortion, the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.

    For this reason, and despite the many helpful articles this Convention contains, the Holy See is unable to sign it.

Source: Catholic World News

Study: Childbirth, not abortion, safer for women

     

While abortion activists claim terminating a pregnancy is safer for the woman, several studies reflect that giving birth is less dangerous.

The latest study involves records on a half-million women in Denmark. It concludes that childbirth is indeed safer than abortion.

Dr. David Reardon of the Elliot Institute explains that statisticians looked at records over a 30-year period before making this analysis.

"[They] were able to look at link records, death certificate records and the complete reproductive history," he details, "and the results showed that compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions were about twice as likely to die in each of the ten years following an abortion. It was evident even within the first 180 days."

Reardon tells OneNewsNow there is a problem with the information presented by abortion proponents in this country.

"[They] basically take reports of maternal deaths and abortion deaths, when there's no systematic way of gathering them, and they just claim that abortion is like 14 times safer than childbirth," he says.

"Whereas, in fact, three different data sets from three different countries -- the United States, Finland and Denmark -- show that the opposite is true, that abortion has a higher mortality rate than childbirth."

The Elliot Institute founder adds that two of the studies reveal that in the first year after an abortion, the biggest cause of death is suicide.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com

Democrats and Planned Parenthood Compare Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan to STD's at Democratic National Convention

      

Planned Parenthood was passing out condoms inside a pink cover which had this message on the front; "Protect Yourself from Romney & Ryan."

The condoms were being passed out to Democrat delegates, inside the security perimeter at the DNC, so Planned Parenthood had permission from Party and Convention officials.

Faith and pro-life leaders are appalled that DNC officials would compare Governor Romney to an STD and reduce President Obama's Campaign to "gutter politics."

Leaders also saddened that the Obama Administration and Planned Parenthood would cheapen and diminish the fight against STD's with such a shameful and crass political stunt.

Two questions must be asked of President Obama.  "Are these condoms what he meant by hope and change?"  And, "Who paid for these condoms?"

Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states,

    "It has hard to believe President Obama, Planned Parenthood and the DNC would resort to such gutter politics in comparing Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan to STD's at the Convention.

    "It is tragic that the President and his party will reduce this Presidential campaign to such crass and extremist levels.  This is why so many Americans are turned off by the political process.

    "It is also tragic that the Democrat Party which helped fight for civil rights and reached out to the poor and needy across our nation would now stoop to the level of passing out condoms comparing a Presidential Candidate and his running mate to STD's.  I wonder how Harry Truman or Thomas Jefferson would feel about this?

    "Let me be clear on this, shame on you President Obama and the DNC. With all the pressing social issues facing our nation, can you and your party really be taken seriously after a stunt like this?"

Brandi Swindell, Founder and President of Stanton Healthcare, adds,

    "As a woman, human rights activist and founder of a life-affirming medical clinic, it is shocking to see Planned Parenthood reduce and diminish the fight against STD's in such a cheap and crass way.  It clearly shows that they are more interested in creating a circus like atmosphere than dealing in a serious way with pressing social issues.

    "It also shows that the President and his party are attached at the hip with Planned Parenthood and their radical anti-woman agenda.  President Obama now is time for real solutions and not cheap political tricks.  Is this really the best you have to offer our nation?"

Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney

National Suicide Prevention Strategy Silent About Suicide Advocacy

     

Last year, I wrote here about how “Suicide Prevention Day” was pretty much invisible. Well, can any of you guess which date was National Suicide Prevention Day for 2012?  (Cue the Jeopardy music.) Time’s up: September 10: Come and gone without making a ripple, with mostly blog or Website comments.

The Surgeon General did issue a new prevention policy–that mostly got attention because it adds special attention to the risk of suicide for gay youth.  But I note that it is silent about the growth of suicide promotion by the euthanasia/assisted suicide movement.  From, “2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention:”

    From encouraging dialogue about suicidal behavior to promoting policies that support suicide prevention, the National Strategy states that suicide prevention efforts should:

    Foster positive public dialogue, counter shame, prejudice, and silence; and build public support for suicide prevention;
   
    Address the needs of vulnerable groups, be tailored to the cultural and situational contexts in which they are offered, and seek to eliminate disparities;

    Be coordinated and integrated with existing efforts addressing health and behavioral health and ensure continuity of care;

    Promote changes in systems, policies, and environments that will support and facilitate the prevention of suicide and related problems;

    Bring together public health and behavioral health;

    Promote efforts to reduce access to lethal means among individuals with identified suicide risks; and,

    Apply the most up-to-date knowledge base for suicide prevention.

So, doctors should not write–and pharmacists should not fill–lethal prescriptions because that puts the means of self-killing intentionally in the hands of the suicidal, right?  Not. Mentioned. At. All.

So I will: We can’t prevent suicide by pretending that very loud voices aren’t promoting suicide as an acceptable way to deal with human suffering caused by illnesses, disabilities, and mental illnesses. Indeed, these days their voices are the loudest and are amplified by a fawning and supportive media.  Unless prevention experts push back against the pro suicide proselytizing, they will continue to grow increasingly invisible.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke

Youth Group Launches 'I Vote Pro-Life First' Campus Tour

     

Students for Life of America, the nation's largest pro-life youth organization, announced today a nationwide effort to educate 300,000 voters and recruit 1,200 Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) youth volunteers through its I Vote Pro-Life First Initiative this fall.

The initiative asks every American, particularly young adults, to sign a pledge stating that a candidate's stance on the life issue will be the most important issue that a person looks at when deciding which candidates to vote for, from local school board to President of the United States.

"If a candidate does not support the basic right to life, we believe they cannot be trusted to handle any other issue, fiscal or social, with honor and dignity," said Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America. "We plan to educate voters, recruit volunteers, and urge voters to vote for the candidates that respect life in all its stages."

On September 17th, SFLA will launch its I Vote Pro-Life First Campus Tour, which will visit several universities (below) in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and, Pennsylvania. Former nurse, pro-life activist and blogger, Jill Stanek will headline the tour.

The Campus Tour was created following results from SFLA's June national poll of 805 18-24 year olds, which showed that college-aged students are expecting to vote in large numbers and are split on the issue of legalized abortion. Students for Life of America will use its national campus program to recruit over 1,200 GOTV youth volunteers this October to knock on or call 300,000 voter households before Election Day.

The I Vote Pro-Life First initiative is a coalition effort with other national pro-life organizations such as RNC for Life, Live Action, The Justice Foundation, Pro-Life Nation, Rock for Life, I Am Whole Life, The Frederick Douglass Foundation, Lifenews.com, JillStanek.com, AbolishAbortion.com, Pro-Life Action League, California Civil Rights Foundation, and Created Equal. Senator Rick Santorum joined representatives from the coalition on a webcast last week to educate pro-lifers of the new initiative.

Contact: Maria Ciarrocchi
Source: Students for Life of America


Hobby Lobby files suit against abortion mandate

     

Evangelical-owned Hobby Lobby has filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration's contraceptive/abortion mandate, becoming the largest business yet to take action against the rule and underscoring once again that the issue impacts more than just Catholics.

With more than 500 stores in 41 states, Hobby Lobby's owners always have made their faith a central part of their business. Their stores play Christian instrumental music and are closed on Sundays. Hobby Lobby contributes to Christian organizations and during Easter and Christmas runs full-page ads with Gospel-centered messages in newspapers.

The mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, requires businesses to purchase insurance plans that cover contraceptives, including "emergency" contraceptives that can cause chemical abortions. The latter drugs often are labeled morning-after pills and come under brand names such as Plan B and ella. They can work before implantation and -- in the case of ella -- after implantation.

Hobby Lobby is represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed the suit Wednesday (Sept. 12). There now are 28 separate suits against the mandate, although most of them involve religious organizations that will be impacted by the rule, according to Becket.

Although Hobby Lobby's insurance plans cover contraceptives that are preventative in nature, the company won't cover anything that causes a chemical abortion, says David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO.

"These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful," Green said during a conference call with reporters. "... We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

The mandate went into effect Aug. 1, but Hobby Lobby won't be impacted until Jan. 1, when the new insurance year for its employees begins.

The mainstream media has focused most of its attention on Catholic organizations and has rarely used the word "abortion" in reporting on the controversy, but the reality is much different, said Becket Fund attorney Kyle Duncan.

"We hope that this lawsuit, on behalf of such a large and prominent evangelical Christian business, will draw attention to the fact that the government is trying to force people of all different faiths to violate their faith," Duncan said during the conference call. "This is not by any means a Catholic-only issue. Some of the drugs involved in the mandate can cause an early abortion. And many Americans who are not Catholic have a problem with this."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, asserts the mandate violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of freedom of religion, speech and association. It asks the court to issue an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the mandate. In a separate case in July, a federal court issued a ruling preventing the mandate from being enforced against a Colorado business whose owners are devout Catholics, but the ruling applied only to that business.

Hobby Lobby would face millions of dollars in fines if it does not comply. If it chose simply to drop insurance for employees altogether, it would face fines of $26 million per year, Duncan said. If it chose to offer insurance but simply not comply with the mandate, the fines would be even larger: more than $400 million per year, he said.

"The government has turned a deaf ear to the rights of business owners," Duncan said.

Perhaps countering what critics will say about Hobby Lobby and the lawsuit, Green said the company cares about its employees.

"That's why, unlike most major retailers, we are open only 66 hours per week and are closed on Sunday, to allow our employees to spend time with their family," Green said.

Also, the company's minimum wage for full-time employees is 80 percent above the national minimum wage, he said.

The issue is about religious liberty, Green said.

"Hobby Lobby has always been a tool for the Lord's work," he said. "... For me and my family, charity equals ministry, which equals the Gospel of Jesus Christ. ... But now our faith is being challenged by the federal government."

The mandate was announced by HHS in August 2011 as part of the health care law championed by President Obama. Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law in June of this year, the justices' ruling did not deal with the religious liberty issues surrounding the contraceptive/abortion mandate. That means the nation's highest court could yet strike down what has been for religious groups the most controversial part of the law.

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press

New Book, Planned Bullyhood, Exposes Planned Parenthood’s Shakedown of Cancer Group Susan G. Komen for the Cure

    

Former Susan G. Komen Vice President Karen Handel's new book released today, Planned Bullyhood, reports on Planned Parenthood's orchestrated shakedown of the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, in February 2012. Handel explained that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards spent weeks organizing what Handel called "one of the most contemptible acts of coordinated bullying in modern American political history."

Richards' allies included the Obama administration, abortion enthusiasts in the Big Media (including MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell), 26 U.S. senators (25 Democrats, one independent), the highest levels of the Democratic National Committee (including Debbie Wasserman Shultz) and others. Handel said the tyrannical left was unified in its overt preference for Planned Parenthood over the best interests of Komen and women's health.

Handel provided evidence suggesting some Komen insiders and even Democratic commentator and lobbyist Hilary Rosen - Komen's adviser at the public relations agency, SKDKnickerbocker - may have leaked information to Planned Parenthood.

Komen founder Nancy Goodman Brinker had once served on a Planned Parenthood's advisory board in Texas. Despite the long friendship between the two organizations and millions of dollars given to Planned Parenthood during the last two decades, Cecile Richards ruthlessly back stabbed her Komen friends, even after having promised not to create a firestorm. Richards threatened Komen's financial well-being by urging corporate and individual donors to stop giving to the breast cancer group.

Komen's 2011 grants - allegedly intended for education and breast cancer screening - totaled $680,000. Komen executives considered the grants "low quality" and of poor service to women because Planned Parenthood only provided manual breast exams. It referred women elsewhere for mammograms, and the results weren't measurable.
 
Handel argued that Komen's "ill-timed decision" to stop the grants coincided with a political decision inside the Obama administration. In order to win the women's vote, the administration created a smokescreen to conceal its "abysmal economic record" and the particularly adverse impact of unemployment on women.

The Obama administration, she said, concocted the "trumped up" war on women to distract the public from its difficulties with Catholic voters resulting from its mandate requiring employers to purchase insurance providing women with free sterilizations, (cancer-causing) hormonal contraceptive steroids and chemical abortions. The administration conveniently "put Komen at the center of the 'war on women'."

Many people had objected to Komen's grants over the years because Planned Parenthood sells women cancer-inducing abortions and hormonal contraceptive steroids (i.e. the birth control pill and Depo Provera birth control) and because it was possible for Planned Parenthood to re-direct Komen's funds to the abortion side of its business. Handel, however, claimed Komen's relationship with Planned Parenthood was unrelated to abortion. She wrote:

"Our dealings with Planned Parenthood also had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, although those of us at Komen National were surprised to learn that, in some of the community grants - and contrary to previous Komen statements - dollars were going to general administrative costs."

Handel said there is a second, significant issue that should be of concern - Planned Parenthood's "tax-guzzling agenda." Planned Parenthood has a "vested interest" in seeing Democrats win the White House, she wrote, because "millions of dollars in existing government funding and robust new streams of government dollars were at risk" (probably as a result of ObamaCare). Tax dollars totaling nearly $1.5 million per day are directed to Planned Parenthood's non-profit organization. Planned Parenthood's non-profit organization can legally give millions to its political pac as a gift. Those funds are used to elect politicians that will vote to give Planned Parenthood more tax dollars and support its billion-dollar-a-year business. The abortion behemoth also uses the funds to defeat political candidates who either oppose its agenda or refuse it further taxpayer money. Handel reported that in 2004, Democrats were the recipients of 95% of Planned Parenthood's pac spending. In 2008, Democrats received 99% of its pac spending.

Handel learned there was support for Planned Parenthood within some Komen affiliates, and she heard anti-Republican and anti-Catholic sentiments expressed. Some called her "righty-tighty" for having run as a one-time Republican candidate for governor of Georgia.

After the Catholic bishops conference in Ohio issued a statement in 2011 "to direct Catholic parishes and schools away from fundraising for Komen and toward activities and organizations" that were "fully consistent with Catholic moral teaching," Handel said she heard several references made about those "Crazy Catholics" and "nutty right-wingers."

It took only three days of hammering from the abortion lobby before Komen's founder Nancy Goodman Brinker capitulated to Planned Parenthood and agreed to continue giving the abortion provider what Komen's leaders had called "low quality" grants.

Komen's public relations adviser, Hilary Rosen, cheered Planned Parenthood's victory. According to Handel, she "retweeted something from Nancy Pelosi. Here's what Pelosi tweeted:

"'When women speak out, women win - Komen decision to continue funding Planned Parenthood is a victory for women's health.' A few minutes later, Rosen (@hilaryr) had tweeted herself: 'Congrats to Susan G. Komen for the Cure....No room for politics in fighting cancer."

The Komen-Planned Parenthood debacle provides a lesson for all corporate and non-profit leaders who are considering giving Planned Parenthood grants. Like the mafia, once you're in, you are expected to continue paying for life. Handel encouraged corporate leaders threatened with a shakedown not to capitulate to bullies, like Planned Parenthood, and to stand their ground, just as  AT&T had done so in 1990 when it stopped funding the abortion behemoth.

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Contact: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Planned Parenthood responsible for Reaves' death

    

After reviewing the autopsy report of a Chicago woman, Operation Rescue concludes that her death was the result of a botched abortion.

Tonya Reaves went to a Chicago Planned Parenthood for the procedure and died hours later. Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger tells OneNewsNow the autopsy reveals that the surgical abortion was done when Reaves was 16 weeks along and that she died from complications.

Sullenger, Cheryl"What we also determined was that all of those complications were survivable, if she had received emergency care in a timely manner," the pro-lifer notes. "Instead, Planned Parenthood let her hemorrhage in the abortion clinic for five and a half hours before getting her help."

Clinic workers then shared no information with emergency room physicians, forcing them to solve the puzzle before doing a hysterectomy. But it was too late. Reaves had a perforated uterus and possibly a severed artery.

"We are going to file a complaint with the medical board in Illinois against Carolyn Hoke, who is the medical director for Planned Parenthood," Sullenger reports. "We believe she was the abortionist who was responsible for Tonya's botched abortion."

The pro-life group will also seek an investigation on the basis of alleged criminal neglect. This particular Planned Parenthood does not advertise for surgical abortions, so Sullenger adds that there is a question about whether it is properly equipped to perform those procedures or handle complications.

Contact: Charlie Butts   
Source: OneNewsNow.com

September 7, 2012

News Links for September 7th

    
The Stand Up for Life challenge

Does insurance coverage increase abortion rate? The 'Romneycare' precedent

Irish primate promises vigorous fight against legalizing abortion

Chinese activist urges Apple to act on One-Child rule

Charlotte diocese holds prayer vigil, adoration during DNC


Pro-lifers looking to be acknowledged at DNC

Midwives, Others May Perform Abortions in California

Protestant college appeals judge's dismissal of challenge to HHS mandate


Planned Parenthood's Sex, Politics & Cocktails


Barry Hearts Adult Stem Cells

Ethics Complaint Filed Against DA Howe for Misconduct in Planned Parenthood Criminal Case

40 Weeks of Fetal Development

Greenpeace activists harass Crossroads walkers, shouting ‘Long live abortion! We are pro-death!

New revelations in Reaves’ death as abortionist pays up in Medicaid fraud case

Risk of death increases after abortion: Danish study

DNC shows off pro-abortion extremism in Charlotte

     

It's not surprising that speakers tonight at the Democratic National Convention made no attempt to disguise the abortion extremism of the Democratic platform and President Barack Obama.

NARAL President Nancy Keenan used her speech to make DNC 2012 the abortion convention as she proudly proclaimed the Democratic Party's support for abortion. It's understandable given the shared and unwavering dedication of NARAL and the President to the policy of abortion on demand without limits. Following Keenan, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius praised Obamacare, which will lead to expanded insurance coverage for abortion.

Every day, more than 3,000 mothers across the country have abortions. These women and their children deserve better than a violent procedure that leaves one dead and one wounded. But you won't hear that at this year's DNC. Look no further than their platform to see how extreme and out of touch with Americans they truly are. Even with 59% of Americans opposing the vast majority of abortions, and still more than 1.2 million abortions annually in this country, the Democratic Party has never seen any limit on abortion they liked, or any abortion they opposed.

As the DNC begins to showcase their pro-abortion extremism in Charlotte, the differences between Barack Obama and the pro-life ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have never been more clear.

Contact: Carol Tobias
Source: National Right to Life