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
Conservatives are generally labeled with this accusation [of conducting a "war on women"] because of the pro-life stance with which the Republican Party aligns. But the pro-life position actually protects women's health against the negative effects of abortion.
The effects of abortion on women are well documented. According to research compiled by FRC in The Top Ten Myths About Abortion, medical complications "include cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, bleeding, hemorrhage, serious infection, pain, and incomplete abortion." The abortifacient RU-486 carries risks similar to those of the abortion procedure.
Psychological complications of abortion include "increased risk of major depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal behaviors, and substance dependence." More recently, Post-Abortion Syndrome (as a subset of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) has been identified in women who suffer from effects like guilt feelings, anxiety, and flashbacks.
Of greatest concern, perhaps, are the dangers of abortion to adolescent girls. Sarah Robinson summarizes some of the research:
Adolescents who have had abortions, compared to those who have given birth, report more sleeping problems, frequent marijuana use, and increased need for psychological counseling.
MARRI research demonstrates the link between a woman's upbringing and her likelihood to abort her first child. An intact family structure and weekly religious worship in her family of origin make her least likely to have an abortion. These factors also make her least likely to have a non-marital pregnancy to begin with. Countering the negative effects of abortion in teenagers, which can extend into later life (especially in women who have multiple abortions), begins with restoring the role of the family and religion in the life of young women.
Contact: Sharon Barrett
Source: FRCBlog.com
A pro-life legal ministry is joining in the argument against ObamaCare.
Life Legal Defense Foundation has filed a brief in support of a lawsuit filed against the ObamaCare mandate to provide coverage for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization. Attorney Dana Cody tells OneNewsNow their brief was filed in the case lodged by Legatus and Weingartz Supply Company.
"And we're pointing out to the court that they're forcing employers to violate their religious beliefs to pay for drugs when there are serious health risks that are not being considered," she says.
There is research dating back several decades to review, and it has been examined extensively.
"I mean there are all sorts of complications on down the road and there's literature out there from the World Health Organization and others that call contraceptives carcinogens -- so why are we expected to fund that over our conscientious objections," Cody inquires.
Plus, the "morning-after" pill, Plan B, and the "week-after" pill, Ella, according to the attorney, can terminate a human embryo. So Cody contends people should not have to violate their religious beliefs because "a government agency says women need the drugs" -- and people should consider that when they vote for elected officials, she adds.
"We need to be sure that we're out voting for a candidate who doesn't endorse this sort of strong-arming of the taxpayers," she cautions.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Bible and Christian book publisher Tyndale House has filed suit against the Obama administration's abortion/contraceptive mandate, asserting it is an unconstitutional violation of religious liberty to force the publisher to pay for drugs that violate its faith tenets.
The mandate requires employers -- with few exceptions -- to carry employee health insurance plans that cover contraceptives and drugs that can cause chemical abortions. The latter drugs often are called "emergency contraceptives" and can act after conception, even after implantation. They come under brand names such as Plan B and ella.
Tyndale is the publisher of The Living Bible as well as books by James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Bill Bright and Josh McDowell.
At least 30 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate.
Churches and religious conventions are exempt from the mandate, but many religious organizations are not. That means many Christian colleges, hospitals and ministries must comply with the mandate, even though they may staunchly oppose abortion and/or contraceptives. The Tyndale lawsuit, filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), says the publisher opposes only contraceptives that can cause abortions. Employers that fail to comply face hefty fines.
The mandate was implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after President Obama signed the health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The law itself does not include the mandate language, although it gives the federal government the power to decide what should and should not be covered under the law.
"This action arises because the federal government has deemed devout publishers of the Bible to be insufficiently 'religious' to enjoy religious freedom in America," the suit states. "The federal government is mandating that Tyndale House Publishers violate its and its owners' beliefs by covering morally objectionable items in their health plan pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010."
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says Tyndale and its owners "are Christians who are committed to biblical principles," including the "belief that all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God from the moment of their conception/fertilization." Tyndale's owners believe the drugs "can cause the death of human beings created in the image and likeness of God shortly after their conception/fertilization."
Controversy over the mandate has made its way into the presidential race, with Mitt Romney running an ad referencing the issue, saying "religious freedom is threatened." His running mate, Paul Ryan, went so far as to say "I can guarantee" that the mandate "will be gone" if Romney is elected. Obama, meanwhile, has said the issue is not about religious freedom but about women's health.
The mandate went into effect Aug. 1, but HHS gave all non-profit religious organizations until August 2013 to comply. Tyndale, though, is a for-profit company and ineligible for the extension. Its employees' new insurance plan year began Oct. 1, meaning Tyndale is in need of immediate relief from the court, the suit states.
Tyndale -- which has 260 full-time employees -- functions as a thoroughly Christian organization, the suit states. For instance:
-- One of its corporate goals is to "honor God."
-- It holds a weekly chapel service for employees.
-- It opens business meetings with prayer.
-- It sends employees on mission projects to support Christian mission organizations, paid for by the company.
-- It contributes 10 percent of its profits each year to Christian organizations.
-- Its trustees must affirm a statement of faith that proclaims, for instance, "there is one God, eternally existent in three persons."
The HHS mandate provides an exemption for churches and church-like bodies provided they are non-profit and meet all four of the following criteria: 1) "The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization"; 2) "The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization"; 3) "The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization"; and 4) The organization is a church, an integrated auxiliary of a church, a convention or association of churches, or is an exclusively religious activity of a religious order, under Internal Revenue Code 6033(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A)."
ADF attorney Matt Bowman said Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the Book that they publish."
"To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration's mandate is," Bowman said. "Americans today clearly agree with America's founders: the federal government's bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out."
Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press
