U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's profession that he is personally opposed to abortion while supporting its legalization fails to acknowledge the life-taking reality of abortion, said critics including a prominent Notre Dame law professor.
"It is a matter of yes, or no, and there is no 'personal' as opposed to 'public' about it," said Professor Gerard V. Bradley. "The question is intrinsically, and entirely, public."
Bradley told CNA on Oct. 12 that an analysis of the positions expressed by Biden and other "pro-choice Catholics" suggests that they "simply do not believe what the Church believes, namely, that abortion is the unjustified killing of a human person."
The connection between Catholicism and one's stance on abortion was discussed at the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky.
The 2012 presidential campaign marks the first time that Catholic candidates have run for vice president in both major parties. Moderator Martha Raddatz asked the candidates about their Catholic faith and the role it has played in shaping their contrasting views on abortion.
Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said that his pro-life stance is the result of faith, reason and science.
"I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith," he said. "Our faith informs us in everything we do."
In contrast, Biden argued that his support for legalized abortion is compatible with his lifelong Catholic faith, which he said "defines" his identity.
"Life begins at conception, that's the Church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life," he said. "But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others," Biden said.
Bradley said that this line of thought can be traced back to a small gathering of Catholic moral theologians in 1964 who met with the Kennedy family to discuss how one could "support liberalized abortion laws without overtly abandoning 'Catholic teaching' on the matter."
The "personally opposed, but" view on abortion became well-known largely through Catholic politician Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor and presidential candidate who laid out his beliefs in a 1984 speech at Notre Dame, he said.
But Bradley said that "efforts such as those of Cuomo and the Kennedys and of Joseph Biden last night utterly fail."
Their "central flaw," he explained, is a failure to acknowledge "what it is that one is actually opposing."
He observed that "if one judges - as everyone should and as the Church does - that the reason to oppose abortion is the reason to oppose killing any other innocent human person, then the 'personally opposed, but' position sounds ridiculous."
"The reason is that such killing is objectively, and gravely, wrong, a great injustice," he said, noting that no one says they "personally oppose" killing those with Lou Gehrig's disease but think the state should refrain from passing laws against such killing.
When the question is examined clearly, Bradley said, "the issue before public authority when it comes to abortion is the equal protection of the laws against killing."
"The question is not one's 'personal opposition' to anything," he explained. "The question is about public justice."
Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor for the Catholic Association, told CNA that the vice president's comments show a "remarkable disconnect."
"Vice President Biden said that he accepts that life begins at conception, but that he wouldn't impose that belief on others," she said. But the "very purpose of laws in a civil society are to impose limits and to protect the powerless."
Ferguson compared the vice president's position to saying that one is personally opposed to robbing someone at gunpoint but that "I won't impose my belief on others by supporting laws that protect people against robbery."
"His position is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church on the foundational issue of respect for life," she added.
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
ADF is backing Arizona's ban on non-emergency abortions after 20 weeks and has filed a brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Alliance Defending Freedom contends the law is based on expert medical proof that babies have pain sensors by the time they are 20 weeks in the womb, though some argue even sooner. Senior counsel Steven H. Aden tells OneNewsNow, "Every innocent life deserves to be protected."
"Not only does this law protect babies in the womb who feel horrific pain upon being torn apart in an abortion, the law is constitutional because it protects mothers from risky abortions, and it protects society from the barbaric effects of abortions that cause horrific pain to babies," he continues.
According to Aden, those are the core issues.
"The ACLU and The Center for Reproductive Rights, who brought this lawsuit, apparently don't care about that," he gathers. "What they care about is advancing their own political agenda and making money for the abortion industry."
ADF filed the brief on behalf of Doctors on Fetal Pain, an unincorporated association of physicians and medical researchers.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Walking to class with red tape across her lips last year, college student Betsy Joy was approached by a fellow student who asked what she was doing. She gave him literature describing her participation in the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity. He confided to her that his girlfriend had recently had an abortion.
"I told him where he could go to find healing," said Ms. Joy, a resident of Lansing, Mich. "It was a very powerful experience."
Tomorrow, young people across the country, in more than 1,000 schools and ministries, will take part in this year's Day of Silent Solidarity, which was founded in 2004 by Bryan Kemper, the founder of Stand True Pro-Life Outreach and the Youth Outreach Director for Priests for Life.
"Sometimes silence is the most powerful statement," said Kemper. "As pro-lifers, we try to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, but once a year, we join our silence to their silent suffering. It's not too late to join us." For more information about the event, or to sign up, go to www.silentday.org.
The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity is a project of Stand True, the youth outreach of Priests for Life, and is co-sponsored by LifeNews.com, Students for Life of America and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, challenged people of all ages to get involved with the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity: "Are you willing to give up your voice for a day for those who will never have a voice,'" he asked. "Can you do it for the least of our brothers and sisters?"
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reiterated his pro-life views after he made a statement in an interview that sparked concern about his dedication to protecting the unborn.
"I think I've said time and again that I'm a pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president," Romney told reporters in Ohio, according to Politico.
The former Massachusetts governor said that he would immediately "remove funding for Planned Parenthood."
"It will not be part of my budget," he stated.
"And also I've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president," he added. "I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas."
The comments came one day after controversy was raised by reports that the GOP contender had contradicted his previous position on abortion.
In an Oct. 9 interview with the Des Moines Register, Romney said, "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda."
He explained that he would use an executive order rather than legislation to revive the Mexico City policy, which President Obama had removed. Recent presidents have used executive orders to either remove or reinstate the policy according to their views on abortion.
The statements caused a stir among those who feared that the former governor was backing off of his commitment to the pro-life cause.
Some of Romney's critics have been skeptical of his claim that he had a pro-life conversion in 2004, after he confronted the issue of embryonic stem cell research and saw that it was wrong to create a human life simply to later destroy it.
However, Romney's advocates say that he has maintained a solidly pro-life record since his conversion, even in difficult political situations. As governor, he supported abstinence education in schools and vetoed legislation to allow the morning-after pill to be sold over-the-counter.
Spokeswoman Andrea Saul reiterated that Romney is "proudly pro-life" and "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."
Romney has previously voiced support for the Hyde Amendment, which is already part of current law and largely prohibits the use of taxpayer money for abortion, as well as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prevent abortion from the point at which unborn children can feel pain.
He has also repeatedly promised to appoint judges who adhere to the Constitution rather than activist judges who seek to define it in alignment with their own views.
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Human Life International took a close look at a study suggesting Obamacare will reduce abortions and concludes it is not true.
After thoroughly examining the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "ObamaCare"), Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International suggests that if the government wants to reduce abortions, it is going about it in the wrong way.
In the first place, Clowes points out that in states that fund abortion, the abortion rate is 50 percent higher. Secondly, he is convinced the government will get as many teenagers as possible on IUDs and injectable birth control.
Clowes
"The problem with this is IUDs and injectables have chemicals that cause early abortions," he says. "I was just looking at the patient information pamphlets, and they say on all of these things they cause early abortions by rendering the uterine lining hostile to implantation."
Plus, he believes teens will feel a false sense of security, resulting in promiscuity and a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. The study in favor of ObamaCare, however, stresses that every unwanted pregnancy that is avoided will save $13,000.
"But they completely neglect that over the 80-year lifespan of even an unwanted baby, they pay tremendous benefits back into society in taxes and goods consumed and so on, which amounts to millions of dollars each," Clowes tells OneNewsNow.
"I did a little calculation and found that for every single dollar that you save by using this kind of birth control, you lose $150 in the long run."
He concludes the long-term financial impact of ObamaCare will create an additional societal burden.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Planned Parenthood was among President Obama's buzzwords during the second presidential debate Oct. 16 as the incumbent mentioned the nation's largest abortion provider five times, using it to distinguish himself from Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
In discussions about tax cuts, workplace inequalities, differences between Romney and George W. Bush and earning votes for re-election, Obama found ways to underscore Romney's pledge to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
"We haven't heard from the governor any specifics, beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood, in terms of how he pays for that," Obama said at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., regarding Romney's plan for reducing the nation's $16 trillion debt while lowering tax rates.
Planned Parenthood, in the latest statistics available, reported performing 329,445 abortions in 2010 and received $487.4 million in government funds in 2009-10. In this election season, Obama launched a television ad campaign that made his pro-choice views a major theme. No previous Democratic nominee had ever made abortion a major general election theme in TV ads.
The debate, with a town hall format and CNN's Candy Crowley as moderator, included a question about workplace inequalities, specifically regarding women.
In his response, Obama said women increasingly are the breadwinners in the family and therefore need advocacy such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first bill he signed into law.
"This is not just a women's issue. This is a family issue," Obama said. "This is a middle class issue, and that's why we've got to fight for it."
The president noted "there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace: for example, their health care."
"A major difference in this campaign is that Gov. Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making," Obama said. "I think that's a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured, because this is not just a health issue; it's an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family's pocket."
Romney, Obama said, believes employers should decide whether a woman receives contraception through her insurance coverage. "That's not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Gov. Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care," Obama said. "They rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That's a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country.
Romney, in his answer regarding workplace inequality, said Massachusetts when he was governor had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state because of special efforts he made to employ qualified women.
"I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school," Romney said. "She said, 'I can't be here until 7 or 8 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school.' So we said, 'Fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.'"
Romney noted that 3.5 million more women live in poverty in the United States now than when Obama became president, and he said a strong economy will help women of all ages.
The president worked in another mention of Planned Parenthood when he was asked what he had done to earn re-election in 2012.
"Gov. Romney has made some commitments as well, and I suspect he'll keep those, too. You know, when members of the Republican Congress say, 'We're going to sign a no tax pledge so that we don't ask a dime from millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education and helping kids go to college,' he said, 'Me too,'" Obama said.
"When they said, 'We're going to cut Planned Parenthood funding,' he said, 'Me too.' ... That is not the kind of leadership that you need, but you should expect that those are promises he's going to keep," Obama said of Romney.
Another discussion of family arose from a question on gun control. When asked what his administration has done to limit the availability of assault weapons, Obama said more enforcement is needed but also that law enforcement and faith groups should work to "catch violent impulses before they occur."
Romney agreed, saying America needs to change its culture of violence through better schools and through parents.
"We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the benefit of having two parents in the home -- and that's not always possible; a lot of great single moms, single dads," Romney said. "But ... to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone -- that's a great idea because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will be able to achieve increase dramatically.
"So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system," Romney said.
In the closing question, the candidates were given an opportunity to clear up misconceptions the American public may have about them based on their opponents' campaigns.
Romney said he cares about 100 percent of the American people and wants everyone to have a bright and prosperous future.
"My passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God, and I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another," Romney said. "I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times."
Obama's only mention of faith in his answer was about Romney.
"I believe Gov. Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith," Obama said.
Contact: Erin Roach
Source: Bapitst Press
Citizens to Stand Up for Religious Freedom in Third Coast-to-Coast Event on October 20
This Saturday, just 17 days before Election Day, concerned citizens of Chicago will take to the streets to voice public opposition to the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Mandate. The HHS Mandate forces all employers -- including religious schools and hospitals -- to provide free contraceptives, surgical sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, regardless of religious or moral convictions.
Event Details:
What: Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally
When: Saturday, October 20, beginning at noon
Where: Federal Plaza, Adams and Dearborn, Chicago (click to view map)
Who: Thousands of local citizens opposed to Obama's HHS Mandate
The Chicago Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally will assemble downtown at noon on Federal Plaza, Adams and Dearborn, and those gathered will march to Daley Plaza for the main event and rally speakers. Concerned Chicagoans will join citizens coast-to-coast, as rallies take place in 138 other cities from Maine to Hawaii for this national outcry. A nationwide list of rally sites is available at www.StandUpRally.com.
The October 20 Stand Up Rally builds on the tremendous momentum created by two previous nationwide Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rallies held in March and June of this year, with over 125,000 citizens of all faiths attending local rallies at 300 sites coast to coast. With the Supreme Court's Obamacare ruling leaving this issue in voters' hands, the October 20 Stand Up Rallies are expected to draw the largest crowds yet.
The Chicago Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally has been organized by the Pro-Life Action League. Rally speakers include Dr. Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church, Relevant Radio's Father Rocky Hoffman, Roseland Community Hospital OB/Gyn Dr. Pamela Smith, Triune Health Group owners Chris and Mary Anne Yep, Notre Dame graduate student Angela Miceli, and Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League.
"Americans will not tolerate this blatant abuse of their religious freedom," said Eric Scheidler, one of the national co-directors of the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rallies. "This country was founded upon the solid understanding that freedom of religion was of paramount importance to those who fought to establish our nation. The rallies express our refusal to accept a forced violation of the rights of all Americans. We will be calling on the American people to vote for candidates who will overturn the HHS Mandate and restore religious liberty to America."
Information on the nationwide rallies is available at www.StandUpRally.com.
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Chicago Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally
Click here for the 2012 General Election IFRL-PAC Endorsements
Our mission is to help those who want their vote to protect the unborn, the disabled and the elderly. Those endangered innocent lives that are being threatened need men and women in government who respect all human life.
Our intent is to elect men and women of all political parties who will speak for and vote for legislation to protect the first and most important right for all of us - our right to life.
When more than one pro-life candidate seeks the same office, IFRL PAC always endorses the pro-life incumbent. There are a few candidates who we recommend over the opponent.
Some Candidates are Recommended this means that the candidate is pro-life but not endorsed.
Candidate Surveys for all candidates that returned surveys are on record at the IFRL office.
If you wish to inquire as to your candidate's positions on the pro-life issues, please call (217) 544-9700 and we will be glad to provide this to you.
Click here for the 2012 General Election IFRL-PAC Endorsements
The tragic case of Sung Eun Grace Lee, the 28-year-old banker dying of brain cancer, made headlines when she won a lawsuit against her parents to have her respirator removed, and then changed her mind. But let's leave the Lees alone. They have enough problems without our looking over their shoulders.
But there's something going on in the reporting of the Lee case that I think does require our focus. The media ubiquitously reported the controversy as involving the "right to die." For example, this Los Angeles Times story headlined, "Grace Sung Eun Lee Fights for Right to Die, Chooses Life." But that is wrong. There is no such thing in the USA as a right to die. And may there never be.
There is a right to refuse medical treatment, the actual issue in the Lee case. That's not the same thing. Indeed, even when refusing treatment is expected to lead to death, people sometimes live Example, Karen Ann Quinlan, whose parents brought the first right to refuse treatment case back in the late 70s, successfully compelling doctors to remove a respirator. But Quinlan unexpectedly breathed on her own and lived for about 10 more years.
Similarly, the late humorist Art Buchwald expected to die from kidney failure soon after he exercised his right to refuse dialysis and entered hospice. But he didn't die. Indeed, he eventually left hospice and lived long enough to write his last book before finally succumbing.
The only type of withdrawal of care that will always result in death is removing food and water, as happened to Terri Schiavo. But even the removal of medically-supplied sustenance isn't a right to die, rather, to not be subjected to an unwanted invasive physical intrusion upon one's body.
But Wesley, what about assisted suicide? Sorry, that doesn't establish a right to die either. The legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia actually creates a right for doctors to participate legally in terminating a qualified patient's life. If someone can't find a willing doctor, he or she has no right to force the physician to participate or refer to a doctor who will.
But surely, some of you might be saying, there is a right to commit suicide. Nope. There is often the power or ability to do so, but that's not the same thing as a right. Indeed, suicides can be forcibly prevented and the suicidal hospitalized involuntarily as long as they remain a lethal threat to themselves.
Bottom line: There is no right to die. It is an advocacy term used to push particular agendas, not an accurate description of the law.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
A just-released national survey shows that a clear majority of Democratic parents with school-aged children support abstinence education.
According to the study conducted by the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA), eight out of ten Democratic parents and nine out of ten Republican parents support abstinence education. Valerie Huber, executive director of the NAEA, is not surprised by the findings.
"When we talk to parents and to students, we find pretty much unanimity and support for abstinence education," she accounts. "But we did think it would be a huge surprise to policy makers in Washington who are setting policy that's totally out of touch with their support base."
She finds it particularly interesting that 60 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans oppose President Obama's efforts to entirely eliminate abstinence education funding.
"That particular finding, I think more than any other question on the whole survey, shows that the White House is out of touch with what's not only in the best interest of young people, but what their constituency wants for their children," Huber concludes.
Contact: Bob Kellogg
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Moral theologian Father Thomas Berg is praising the work of Shinya Yamanaka, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in medicine, for helping to "put human embryonic stem cell research largely out of business."
Yamanaka and John B. Gurdon, researchers in cell biology, were awarded the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries about the generation of stem cells.
"Yamanaka will be remembered in history as the man who put human embryonic stem cell research largely out of business, motivated by reflection on the fact that his own daughters were once human embryos," Fr. Berg, professor of moral theology at St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, N.Y. told CNA Oct. 8.
Gurdon's research was conducted in 1962 and showed that it is possible to reverse the specialization of cells. He removed a nucleus from a frog's intestinal cell and placed it into a frog's egg cell that had its nucleus taken out.
That egg cell was then able to develop into a typical tadpole, and his work was the basis for later research into cloning.
Until Gurdon's findings, it was believed that cell development could only happen in one direction, and that a mature cell nucleus could never become immature and pluripotent. A cell is called pluripotent if it can develop into any type of cell in the body.
Building on Gordon's work, Yamanaka published a paper in 2006 demonstrating that intact, mature cells can become immature stem cells. He inserted genes into mouse cells which reprogrammed those cells so that they became stem cells.
These reprogrammed cells are pluripotent. Yamanaka's breakthrough opened the door to studying disease and developing diagnosis and treatments.
Since this technique can produce a stem cell from any cell, it provides an alternative to embryonic stem cells, which are derived from destroyed human embryos.
"There is every potential for the morally licit use of the technique developed by Dr. Yamanaka--cell reprogramming. No part of the process need involve ethically tainted source cells," said Fr. Berg.
The Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community announced that this "is an important milestone in recognising the key role that non-embryonic stem cells play in the development of new medical therapies, as alternatives to human embryonic stem cells."
The announcement of the prize contrasts the success achieved in using non-embryonic stem cells with the disappointing results from embryonic stem cells. The commission's statement noted that "recently GeronCorp., the world's leading embryo research company, announced it was closing down its stem cell programme."
Fr. Berg said that "although tissues developed by this process (cell reprogramming) are not quite ready for robust human trials, much progress continues to be made."
It is hoped that this technique could someday lead to treatments in which a person's own cells are reprogrammed into organs that could replace any failing or damaged system.
Gurdon is a professor at Cambridge University, and Yamanaka is at Kyoto University. They will share the $1.2 million prize.
Contact: Carl Bunderson
Source: CNA/EWTN News
As the number of plaintiffs suing over the controversial HHS mandate reaches 100, a leading religious freedom legal group is hopeful about the outcome of the cases.
Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, explained that "nothing the government has done in the past months changes the fact that the mandate still violates federal law and the Constitution by forcing religious organizations to pay fines for the privilege of practicing their faith."
Duncan told CNA on Oct. 9 that the Becket Fund is still confident as it moves forward with lawsuits against the controversial federal mandate that requires employers to offer health insurance coverage of contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs, regardless of their religious beliefs.
In issuing the mandate, the Obama administration failed to offer a religious exemption to any group that serves or employs members of other faiths, as well as for-profit companies.
The administration did create a one-year "safe harbor" delaying the mandate from being implemented against objecting religious groups and has promised a future "accommodation" for religious freedom but has not yet given formal details about it.
The mandate has attracted legal action by more than 100 individuals and organizations, ranging from the first suit filed by Belmont Abbey College in Nov. 2011 – before many Americans were even aware of the mandate – to the most recent lawsuit filed by two Baptist universities on Oct. 9.
The plaintiffs include Catholics, Protestants, private individuals, religious organizations and for-profit businesses.
Among the diverse groups bringing lawsuits against the mandate are Eternal World Television Network, Hobby Lobby, the University of Notre Dame and several manufacturing companies.
Seven states have also sued over the mandate, along with numerous dioceses and Catholic Charities affiliates throughout the U.S.
Most of these cases are still waiting to receive a ruling. Bible publisher Tyndale House Publishers will appear at a hearing on Oct. 16, and Hobby Lobby has a hearing scheduled for the end of October.
One Colorado-based company, Hercules Industries, was successful in securing a temporary injunction against the mandate, while Missouri-based O'Brien Industrial Holdings lost its case in a federal district court but is appealing the decision.
In addition, a few cases have been dismissed as being premature, including those filed by Belmont Abbey College and Wheaton College. Courts determined that these plaintiffs were not facing imminent harm because the promised accommodation has not yet been finalized.
The colleges are appealing this decision, arguing that they are indeed suffering immediate injury under the mandate. They explained that their ability to hire new employees is significantly hindered if they cannot guarantee that they will be able to provide health insurance. In addition, they observed that the "safe harbor" does not protect them from private lawsuits by employees for failing to comply with the mandate.
A D.C. circuit court will hear an appeal that combines the cases of both colleges sometime after mid-November.
Emily Hardman, communications director for the Becket Fund, explained Oct. 9 that predicting a timeline for the rulings in the remaining cases is difficult because "each court can set their own times."
Even tougher would be guessing a timeline for a potential Supreme Court ruling, because that would require the cases to work themselves through the judicial system and be accepted for review by the nation's highest court.
However, Hardman observed that many insurance plans renew on Jan. 1, 2013, so the plaintiffs that are not protected by the "safe harbor" are likely to at least receive a ruling on whether they will be granted a temporary injunction by the end of the year.
She also pointed out that the results of the presidential election could offer a wave of relief to all of the plaintiffs at once. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the mandate, and his election in November would translate into a victory for everyone who is suing over the mandate.
But even if this happens, there is still need to be cautious, Hardman acknowledged. Some states have similar mandates that threaten religious freedom, although they are generally not as severe.
"The Becket Fund will continue fighting," she stressed.
Hardman said there is a need to engage the "public discussion" about the importance of religious freedom.
She noted that rhetoric about women's health and a "war on women" has become prominent in recent months, and this language could be leading people to believe that women have an inviolable right to free contraception at the expense of their employers.
It is important to counter these claims with facts, Hardman said. She explained that contraception is already widely available at low cost, so there is no crisis in access.
When people "look at what the mandate is actually doing," she said, they realize that returning to the system that was in place before the mandate took effect on Aug. 1 would not mean oppressing women, but leaving them free to purchase contraception as they see fit.
Educating the public about the nature of religious freedom is critical, agreed Duncan.
"Even if this mandate is scrapped, the bad principle behind the mandate must not be forgotten," he said, warning that it could "justify forcing religious people, organizations, and businesses to provide not only drugs their faith forbids, but also services such as abortion and assisted-suicide."
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Nearly one in 10 registered voters in America say they will only support pro-life candidates who share their position on abortion, a number that is larger than the corresponding data for pro-choice voters, according to a new Gallup poll.
Specifically, 9 percent of registered voters say they will only support pro-life candidates who oppose abortion while 7 percent of all registered voters say they will only back pro-choice candidates who support legalized abortion.
All total, about one in six voters in America are single-issue voters on abortion.
Gallup's Lydia Saad called it a "slight pro-life tilt, albeit one that could potentially benefit pro-life Republican candidate Mitt Romney."
Where do the candidates stand on abortion? Read 'Election 2012: Obama & Romney on abortion' here.In fact, Gallup historical data shows the issue has benefited pro-life candidates in every presidential election dating back to 1996, with pro-lifers ahead by 2 percentage points in every election except for 2004, when 12 percent of voters said they'd support only pro-life candidates and 5 percent said they'd support only pro-choice ones. In 2008, the issue favored pro-lifers, 7 percent to 5 percent.
Two other questions on the survey also favored the pro-life community:
-- 27 percent of pro-lifers and 39 percent of pro-choicers say they don't see abortion as a major issue.
-- 49 percent of pro-lifers but only 43 percent of pro-choicers say a "candidate's position on abortion" is "one of many important factors" they consider.
Pro-choicers, Saad wrote, are more likely to vote for a candidate who disagrees with them.
"Making obvious overtures to abortion issue-voters could hurt Romney and Barack Obama with the broader electorate that may want to see the candidates focusing more single-mindedly on the economy," Gallup's Saad wrote. "It could also backfire by activating abortion voters on the other side to turn out for the opponent. However, it is likely that both candidates are using micro-targeting to find and appeal to these voters as part of a comprehensive campaign strategy to maximize support wherever it exists, particularly in swing states."
The Sept. 24-27 survey was based on interviews with 1,446 adults.
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution last week endorsing guidelines, crafted with input from abortion advocates, supporting abortion as a human right.
The resolution endorses a paper by UN High Commissioner For Human Rights Navi Pillay that refers to abortion as a "sexual and reproductive health right." The nations of New Zealand, Burkina Faso and Colombia are sponsoring the resolution.
Focus on the Family's Director of International Government Affairs Yuri Mantilla said the resolution is "a waste of time."
"The United Nations Human Rights Council should not be focused on trying to promote abortion as a human right," he said. There are so many violations of human rights around the world, and so many crimes against humanity, Mantilla explained, that "it would be more helpful to construct a narrative of international law that is consistent with justice."
Twenty of the 47 council members also oppose the resolution, which was adopted without a vote. The 20 council members submitted an opposition letter, which will accompany it when the UN General Assembly reviews the issue later this month. The resolution's text, according to the opponents, focuses on promoting new rights that are not defined in international human rights declarations, "mainly the reference to 'sexual and reproductive health rights.' "
The UNHRC should focus on "real human rights," he said, including the right to life, family rights and religious freedom.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read the U.N.'s "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
Click here for the 2012 General Election IFRL-PAC Endorsements
Our mission is to help those who want their vote to protect the unborn, the disabled and the elderly. Those endangered innocent lives that are being threatened need men and women in government who respect all human life.
Our intent is to elect men and women of all political parties who will speak for and vote for legislation to protect the first and most important right for all of us - our right to life.
When more than one pro-life candidate seeks the same office, IFRL PAC always endorses the pro-life incumbent. There are a few candidates who we recommend over the opponent.
Some Candidates are Recommended this means that the candidate is pro-life but not endorsed.
Candidate Surveys for all candidates that returned surveys are on record at the IFRL office.
If you wish to inquire as to your candidate's positions on the pro-life issues, please call (217) 544-9700 and we will be glad to provide this to you. Click here for the 2012 General Election IFRL-PAC Endorsements
Theodore Shulman, a pro-choice activist who in 2010 threatened to kill several pro-life leaders, has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison.
Shulman, 51, pleaded guilty in May to one count of transmitting a threat to injure another person. The targeted victims named in the case are Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, and Princeton University's Robert George.
In January 2010, as the trial of Scott Roeder, a man accused of killing abortionist George Tiller, was under way, Shulman posted a comment on the Catholic news site First Things, threatening that "if Roeder is acquitted, someone will respond by killing" Father Pavone and Mr. George.
Father Pavone stated, "I have already publicly forgiven Mr. Shulman and pray for him every day. I also renew, with my friend Bill Baird, known as the Father of the Pro-Choice movement, the joint statement we made years ago rejecting hatred and violence in word and deed between those on opposite sides of the abortion issue."
For more information, go to www.priestsforlife.org/nonviolence.
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
The Radiance Foundation, in partnership with the Virginia Coalition for Life, has launched a wide-scale TooManyAborted.com billboard campaign in Hampton Roads, Virginia, with the messaging: "Fatherhood Begins in the Womb." Twenty billboards and over one hundred bus and light rail posters have been placed throughout the region to raise awareness of the impact of fatherlessness on (born and unborn) children. The pro-family, pro-adoption initiative challenges the culture of abandonment and death that Roe v. Wade has fostered since 1973.
In the early 60s politicians raised the alarm about a 25% fatherlessness rate in the black community. Today, 41% of all U.S. children are born to unmarried women: 35.7% of white children and an astounding 72.3% of black children. Children who grow up in single female-led homes are 5 times more likely to live in poverty. Out of the 1.21 million annual U.S. abortions, 84% are among unmarried women. This is a nationwide crisis. Abortion and poverty have taken the place of fathers.
Infant mortality is nearly 2 times higher among father absent homes. Yet Planned Parenthood of Southeast Virginia (PPSEV) distorted black infant mortality rates to get approval from the Virginia Department of Health for an expansion to their Virginia Beach abortion center. The request was publicly rejected, then approved behind closed doors. PPSEV falsely claims their new medical addition will be used mostly for "urinary incontinence procedures." Ryan Bomberger, Chief Creative Officer of The Radiance Foundation, points out the absurdity: "Planned Parenthood isn't in the business of doing 'urinary incontinence procedures'. Abortion is what they do. Using 43 black infant deaths to justify causing more deaths is despicable." Bomberger, who is black, is an adoptee, adoptive father and Emmy® award-winning creative professional. "We need efforts that uplift the family, encourage responsibility and actually reduce the unintended pregnancy rate. Planned Parenthood has grossly failed at this core Title-X function by not budging the national unintended pregnancy rate since 1995, despite receiving half a billion taxpayer dollars annually."
Star Parker, syndicated columnist and President of C.U.R.E. (Center for Urban Renewal & Education), adds: "Planned Parenthood has injected its venom into urban America for decades. TooManyAborted.com exposes how they've left our inner-cities fatherless and made abortion the number one killer of black Americans." Contact: Ryan Bomberger,
Source: The Radiance Foundation,
According to a lawsuit filed in New York City, doctors are being pressured to declare people brain dead so that their organs may be harvested for transplants.
The whistleblower lawsuit by Patrick McMahon, a former nurse practitioner, claims the non-profit New York Organ Donor Network hired coaches to train employees on how to be more persuasive to doctors and family members.
Rita Marker of the Patients Rights Council tells OneNewsNow the lawsuit is overdue.
"When you have someone who is truly dead, other parts of his or her body can certainly be used for transplant. But the operative word is 'truly' dead," she notes.
"There are so many different definitions of brain death -- you could be considered brain dead in one state, and across the state line, which could be a mile away, you could be considered not dead."
For example, when a person is still breathing on his or her own, that person is not dead.
"But they are stretching the limits of this now, and so there are people who are pushing, pushing, pushing," Marker declares. "And they justify it by saying, Well, this person's going to be dead really soon, anyway. Why can't they be helpful in saving someone else's life? -- that's the rationale. The point, however, is that they are not dead."
Marker poses a different scenario to illustrate her point: If a person's organs were not to be transplanted, and the person was still breathing, would the family agree to go ahead and have him or her buried or cremated while still alive? She believes "they would probably say no. They would be horrified, because the person is actually not dead."
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
