A pro-life legal organization believes a federal appeals court decision yesterday underlines the importance of the November election.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Indiana's ban on Medicaid tax dollars for Planned Parenthood violates federal rules. The court said the state cannot eliminate the funding just because the abortion giant provides abortions.
Attorney Mary Harned of Americans United for Life tells OneNewsNow she disagrees with how the court interpreted Medicaid rules.
"We believe that [those rules] can be read right now to permit a law like Indiana's -- but of course they're not going to do it that way," she concedes. "What we need is a new administration to clarify that the Medicaid program permits states to prohibit abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds; that the states can actually impose these kinds of prohibitions on who can receive their funds."
Harned believes what would be even more effective is for Congress to pass a bill permitting the states to do so, rather than depend on the interpretation of bureaucrats or the courts.
"Absolutely -- that would be the best solution," she says. "And so again that shows why the Senate races are important as well, and of course the House races. We need to have a friendly Congress that could actually revisit this statutorily as well."
Texas also banned Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funds. The Obama administration denied Texas funding, so the state is handling the financing of it on its own.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Live Action Advocate has released another video of an undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood.
The probe shows the abortion provider lying about medical emergencies and a patient death. The phone calls were made to different Planned Parenthood locations that have needed ambulances to respond to medical emergencies.
Caller: "Has anyone been hurt? Like, has anyone … had a problem after having [an abortion]?"
Planned Parenthood: "I mean, you have some cramping, you have some bleeding, and, you know, some people faint."
Caller: "But is it dangerous?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
Caller: "Not at all?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
Caller: "So, I'm not gonna get like hurt or anything at the clinic?"
Planned Parenthood: "No ma'am."
At another facility, the Planned Parenthood worker assures the caller that "both of our procedures are safe and effective" and that no one has been hurt at the clinic. But Live Action reports that there had been medical emergencies at both locations.
The pro-life group also called the Planned Parenthood in Chicago, where Tonya Reaves recently died after undergoing a second-term abortion:
Caller: "Is it safe?"
Planned Parenthood: "Yes, it's safe."
Caller: "Well, has anybody gotten hurt because of having an abortion?"
Planned Parenthood: "Again, it's a very safe environment. It's very clean."
Caller: "So, no one's ever been hurt at your clinic?"
Planned Parenthood: "No."
That clinic worker omitted the situation of Tonya Reaves, who had an incomplete abortion at that facility, which resulted in a perforated uterus. An ambulance was not called for her until more than five hours later. She died at the hospital.
Live Action Advocate called Planned Parenthood clinics in seven states that had had medical emergencies, and not one acknowledged injuries to women.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Here's some food for thought from Trevin Wax at thegospelcoalition.org blog — 10 questions you never hear a pro-choice candidate asked by the media:
1. You say you support a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?
2. In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on "the war on girls" and the growth of "gendercide" in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?
3. In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents' consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
4. If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?
5. Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the "eugenics" movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate "weeding out" of those our society would deem "unfit" to live?
6. Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?
7. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that "abortion is the white supremacist's best friend," pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
8. You describe abortion as a "tragic choice." If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?
9. Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?
10. If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?
Contact: Cathy Ruse
Source: Family Research Council
The Texas-based legal firm Liberty Institute sent a letter Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking officials to clarify whether the Family Research Council (FRC) must offer contraceptives and possible abortion-inducing drugs under its employee health care plan.
FRC — a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C. non-profit organization dedicated to advancing faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview — is one of many similar groups nationwide that falls into a gray area under the HHS rule, issued earlier this year. The only groups totally exempt from it are churches; ministries that serve a variety of people have been given only until August 2013 to find a way to comply, compared with the secular businesses that were forced to begin complying this year.
So far, 37 lawsuits from religious organizations, as well as secular businesses owned by people of faith, have filed federal lawsuits against the Obama administration, saying the mandate violates their First Amendment rights.
"We certainly hope the Secretary will read the statute broadly and understand that organizations like FRC, which is a Christian 501c(3) religious nonprofit corporation, ought to be exempt from this draconian requirement," said Liberty Institute Senior Counsel Michael Johnson.
If the Obama administration does not respond by Nov. 5, another lawsuit could soon be added to the growing count.
"If FRC is forced to comply with this unconscionable mandate, we will be happy to file an immediate challenge on its behalf," Johnson said.
FRC President Tony Perkins said the organization will not comply with a mandate that forces it to violate the statement of faith that every job applicant there is required to sign.
"We are committed to repealing and replacing President Obama's unjust health care law, which used taxpayer dollars for abortion, further burdens American families, raises taxes and restricts religious liberty," Perkins said.
So far, only one plaintiff has won relief from the mandate: The Newland family of Denver, Catholics who own a secular heating and air-conditioning manufacturing company. A federal court in Colorado said the family does not have to comply with the rule while its case proceeds.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
A patient advocate group is greatly concerned that hospitals may be deliberately hastening the death of patients.
A survey conducted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) questions whether penalties for hospital readmission and other factors might cause hospitals to hasten the death of patients. The survey finds most people do not know patients who were placed on "terminal sedation" and denied fluids and nutrition.
However, as Dr. Jane Orient of the AAPS tells OneNewsNow, a majority of those surveyed believe Medicare's punishment for hospital readmission may be the cause of some patients' early death.
Of those surveyed, "17 percent said they did have first-hand knowledge of patients who were placed on terminal sedation with denial of fluids and nutrition when, in the doctor's opinion, they could have recovered with aggressive treatment," Orient details.
The survey was launched after one individual heard that a patient who had been relatively healthy was near death.
"She came back from a trip and found that someone who was usually in very good shape was near death in the hospital, being treated with terminal sedation," Orient notes. "[She] managed to stop this, and the patient recovered and did fine afterward."
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons was founded in 1943 to protect against government takeover of medicine.
Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow.com
Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading abortion provider, has spent $12 million on this year's presidential election through its political action committees.
That is more than it has ever spent in an election, and about half of it has gone for television ads in such battleground states as Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to the Associated Press.
Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's president, said she has "taken a break from [her] day job" to campaign for President Obama. In a video released by the Obama campaign on Oct. 19, Richards said, "Our daughters' and our granddaughters' future depends on" working to re-elect the president.
Richards' announcement came three days after the second presidential debate, when Obama mentioned Planned Parenthood five times, advocating continued federal funding for the controversial organization. In contrast with previous presidential campaigns, Obama has been outspoken in promoting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Richard Land doesn't "blame Planned Parenthood for being actively involved in the Obama campaign," the Southern Baptist pro-life leader said.
"If one reads the platforms of the two parties, it's in their self-interest to do everything they can to bring about President Obama's re-election, because the Republican platform called for Planned Parenthood to be defunded and the Democratic platform supported continued funding of Planned Parenthood," Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said.
"Unfortunately, there are hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, so I imagine Planned Parenthood sees a $12 million investment as a wise use of their funds in order to protect the gift of hundreds of millions of dollars they receive every year from the federal government.
"Personally, I find it unconscionable that our government is funding Planned Parenthood, and I strongly support their being reduced to zero in the federal budget," Land said.
Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, which are under investigation by a congressional subcommittee, received $487.4 million in grants, contracts and reimbursements from all government levels in 2009-10, the most recent year for which statistics are available. Planned Parenthood centers reported performing 329,445 abortions in 2010.
During the Oct. 16 debate, Obama again seemed to repeat his mistaken contention that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. He said millions of American women "rely on [Planned Parenthood] for mammograms."
Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms, however, a fact confirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the FDA said no Planned Parenthood clinic has a license to operate mammogram equipment, according to CNS News.
Planned Parenthood refers women to other clinics for mammograms, the organization acknowledged Oct. 17.
A subcommittee of the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee initiated an investigation of Planned Parenthood more than a year ago. It has been looking into reports of potential fraud and failure to report suspected sex abuse and human trafficking.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
A leading abortion rights organization has enlisted Academy Award-winning actress Meryl Streep and other movie/television stars in a campaign against pro-life legislative efforts.
The "Draw the Line" campaign of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) kicked off with online videos Oct. 9 featuring Streep, Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Lisa Kudrow, Tea Leoni, Audra McDonald, Olympia Dukakis, Amy Poehler and others.
"Every day, the opponents of our fundamental reproductive rights are passing laws designed to take those rights away," Streep says in her video. "They're shutting down doctors and clinics across the nation. They're making it nearly impossible for millions of women to get the essential health care they need."
The effort urges endorsements of CRR's "Bill of Reproductive Rights," which calls for protection for the right to abortion and other services.
C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., asked by Baptist Press for comment, noted, "Even wonderfully talented people need to be educated about the sanctity of EVERY human life. Women's rights matter. And so do the rights of unborn children, especially the right not to be killed in the womb.
"Pro-life Christians are at least as concerned as these actors and actresses about every woman's right to get accurate information about abortion," said Mitchell, who serves as editor of Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics.
Source: Baptist Press
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
