Apparently, Planned Parenthood is no longer content exploiting just women and children–so they've moved on to the federal government. Over the past several years, it seems the country's biggest abortion provider has also been running one of the country's biggest scams: a Medicaid racket that's ripped off millions of taxpayer dollars.
Today, it appears that at least six states have been targeted by Cecile Richards's scheme, which reportedly conned the government with hundreds of thousands of bogus reimbursement claims.
One of those states–Texas–will be hearing its first arguments on the issue this week in U.S. District Court, thanks to former Planned Parenthood director-turned-whistleblower Abby Johnson. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she plans to expose at least 87,000 instances of fraud during her time as a clinic manager in Southeast Texas.
Based on her testimony and supporting documents, Planned Parenthood routinely submitted ineligible claims on everything from pap smears to STD and pregnancy tests. In fact, Johnson says her bosses at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast were under so much financial pressure that they would repeatedly tell staff, "We must turn every call and visit into a revenue-generating client."
A ring of at least 10 clinics were falsifying patient charts, which they would "fix" and "cover up" before the auditors and inspectors came.
"People may hold different views about abortion," Johnson says, "but everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else. It certainly isn't entitled to any public funds, especially if it is defrauding Medicaid and the American taxpayer."
In states like Iowa, the plot was so sophisticated that clinics were getting $26.32 reimbursement checks for a $2.98 package of birth control. State and local governments have poured more than a billion dollars into Richards's group–and this is how she repays them? Twenty-eight million in stolen funds in Iowa, $6 million in Texas, $180 million in California, and similar allegations in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
And while we can't say exactly where the dollars went, evidence suggests President Obama's campaign was one of the biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood's largesse. Thanks to this extra revenue from overbilling, Richards's group had the flexibility to spend a whopping $15 million to put Barack Obama back in the White House, where he can keep the money flowing to his favorite chain
Contact: Tony Perkins
Source: Ililnois Review
Martin Cullen, an intensive care physician in Sydney, writes that the increasing acceptance of euthanasia has helped increase patients' distrust of doctors.
"I never cease to marvel how deeply some families of my patients distrust the medical profession," says Martin Cullen. "Between me and them is a wall of suspicion. I know how used car salesmen must feel."
"No longer do families assume that their loved one will be cared for," he continued. "Families feel they need to be advocates for their sick relative. They aggressively question all of my suggestions for care. I really can't blame them. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalized, non-voluntary euthanasia, aka murder, is no longer unknown."
"Nowadays when I bring bad news to families and tell them that death is imminent and that we can do no more, I expect resistance and hostility," he added. "Just a few weeks ago I was treating an elderly woman who was very sick. Her family told me that they believed that their father had been euthanased years before. They weren't going to let us doctors take their mother, too. They looked at me as if I were a murderer. It was very unsettling for me."
Source: CWN
In June of this past year, photos of a Chinese woman and her dead child flooded the Internet, accompanied by the account of how Feng Jianmei was abducted from her home and forced to undergo a late-term abortion by local family-planning officials. Mrs. Feng's story spread across international news headlines and provoked outrage by national governments. The European Parliament issued a terse statement calling the incident "unacceptable."
A recent article makes the case that any law which restricts abortion--such as waiting periods or parental consent--is the equivalent of China's brutal forced abortion policy that victimized Mrs. Feng. The article from the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion group Planned Parenthood, says this because both represent "coercion in reproductive decision making." According to their analysis, "forcing a woman to terminate a pregnancy she wants or to continue a pregnancy that she does not want both violate the same human rights."
The article equates legal restrictions on abortion to enforced abortion by drawing false parallels with regard to both the nature and intent of the laws being compared. The article's author notably contrasts the continuation of a pregnancy, rather than conception, with its termination. No mention is made of any government policy which provides for the forced impregnation of women, only those which protect a pregnancy which has already been established. While this may be in part due to the fact that no country has a policy which allows for government-sanctioned rape, it also attempts to change the context of the debate.
A large portion of the article focuses on United States laws such as those requiring counseling prior to abortion and blocking taxpayer funds from subsidizing abortions. According to the author's thesis, these policies, like the Chinese family-planning regulations, force women "either to have or to not have children for the greater good of those other than themselves." While the article provides examples of national policies providing incentives or deterrents to childbearing enacted in response to fears of population explosion or implosion, no mention is made of the good of the child itself. The Guttmacher article fails to acknowledge any possible motivations for restricting abortion outside of "pronatalist" efforts by leaders to increase national birth rates.
However, government policies intended to increase childbearing typically focus on factors existing prior to the conception of a child, such as increased maternity leave, tax incentives, and housing benefits, such as those introduced in Russia in the 1980s. While abortion rates in Russia have been declining since the 1970s, the pronatalist policies instituted by the government have been incentives to childbearing, not restrictions on abortion. However, while the Guttmacher article fails to explicitly define which policies encouraging larger families it deems coercive, it provides only the most extreme instances of forced abortion and sterilization as counter-examples.
In their attempt to characterize restrictions on abortion in the United States as human rights violations comparable to forced abortion in China, the author completely ignores the argument that abortion itself is a violation of the human rights of the child, despite the fact that many Americans believe that life begins at conception.
Contact: Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
Source: C-FAM
Many pro-life groups have issued statements regarding the election
results. So perhaps it is time for the Illinois Federation for Right to
Life to issue a post-election statement to our membership, affiliates
and pro-life activists. Perhaps even past time. I have been thinking
about what to say to you. I will not insult or offend you by even
suggesting that giving up or giving in is something that you have
seriously considered. I know you. That is not the spirit that governs
your life. Your heart drives you to do what is right in the face of
great adversity. You simply cannot turn away from confronting evil with
good. So I know you will be on the front line defending innocent life
at all costs no matter how dark the days may appear. You are the light,
you must show up.
The Federation is and will always be a grassroots organization. The
strength of this organization is our foundation. You are our strength.
So I have concluded that it is not time for me to issue a statement to
you but a time for me to seek wisdom from you. It is a time for
questions.
The IFRL Board of Directors will meet soon. And we will begin a process
of evaluation. It is time to think about new ideas, new methods and
new strategies. We intend to do so. We want to hear from you. You are
the past, the present and the future of the pro-life movement in
Illinois. What do you think we need to do to change the direction of
this state? What are your ideas? What has your experience taught you?
Please write us. I am certain that together we will discover the
answers.
We all worked hard. We gave our all. I am aware that it is tough to
face the results. But we are tough. We live in a state that has turned
its back on innocent life but we will not let that stand-ever. So we
get up, brush ourselves off and march on proclaiming the eternal truth
that life is sacred.
Give up? Not a chance.
Contact: Dawn Behnke
Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life
The people of the United States ensured an Obamacare future by
apparently reelecting President Obama and maintaining a Democratic
Senate. Here are the immediate consequences:
1. The IPAB will go into effect: As I have written, IPAB is the
cornerstone of a planned bureaucratic state. The only way now to thwart
that is pure obstructionism. First, by filibustering the nominations
that President Obama will make to the Board. Not going to happen.
Second, by defunding. Even though the House will stay Republican, I
don’t see them taking that route on what, to most people, is an abstract
issue.
2. The attack on religious freedom will continue: The Obama
Administration is an implacable foe of faith operating outside the four
walls of church or cloister. Don’t look for the president to offer
religious institutions who oppose the free birth control rule anything
other than lip service to accommodation of religious institutions.
Businesses will be forced to take their cause to the Supreme Court.
Don’t count on help there, as the technocratic statists control the
court 5-4, perhaps 6-3. Eventually, we will see a free abortion rule.
3. The Mandate will now be carried out: States that have been resisting
will now begin to cooperate with the Feds by establishing exchanges.
4. There will be death panels: In a centralized system, rationing is the
cost containment method of choice. The UK shows us the future of the
USA. Already, powerful liberal voices on health care such as the New
York Times and New England Journal of Medicine, have called for it. It
is going to become very scary to be considered unproductive.
5. Single Payer, here we come: Obamacare is going to eventually implode.
That will also take down the private insurance market. The result, in
about 10 years, will be single payer. And that is by design. Oh, and
single payer’s inevitable outcome is health care rationing.
Obamacare isn’t just about health care. It is–as designed–a cultural
bulldozer, forcing the left’s liberal social views on all of society.
And at this point, I am not sure what can be done about it.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The number of lawsuits against the Obama administration over a rule
forcing employers to provide insurance covering contraceptives and
possible abortifacient drugs reached 40 this week, when a medical supply
company in Minnesota filed a complaint on Nov. 5.
Stuart Lind, who owns Annex Medical, Inc., is a Catholic dedicated to
“conducting business in a way that is pleasing to God and is faithful to
Biblical principles and values,” according to court documents. He says
the mandate is forcing him to violate his religious beliefs.
“This case follows the successful challenges of the (Health and Human
Services) mandate by for-profit businesses in other states,” said Erick
Kaardal of the Minneapolis-based law firm Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A.,
one of the attorneys representing Lind. “We are the first to file in
Minnesota. We hope to have the Constitution applied to protect business
owners’ religious liberties elsewhere.”
The Obama administration gave secular businesses until this past August
to comply with the mandate. Faith-based organizations, including
Catholic hospitals, universities and ministries, have a so-called “safe
harbor” extension that gives them until August 2013 to find a way to
comply.
Annex Medical refuses to adhere to the mandate and will drop its
insurance plan altogether by Jan. 31, unless courts provide relief, the
law firm stated.
Tom Janas, a businessman and entrepreneur, is another plaintiff in Annex
Medical, Inc. et al. v. Sebelius. Earlier this year, Janas, who also is
Catholic, sold his company, Roffe Container, Inc., to a competitor
after learning he would be forced to violate his religious beliefs in
order to comply with the HHS mandate. Janas plans to purchase another
business in 2013, and is suing for relief from the mandate.
The 40 lawsuits against the Obama administration currently comprise more than 110 plaintiffs.
Last week, a federal court in Oklahoma heard arguments from Hobby Lobby,
the largest corporation so far to challenge the mandate. The Becket
Fund for Religious Liberties, which is representing Hobby Lobby, said a
ruling on the request not to be forced to comply while the lawsuit
proceeds is expected in the next few weeks. Should the court grant the
request, Hobby Lobby would be the third company to receive temporary
relief from the mandate.
Contact: Bethany Monk
Source: CitizenLink
ADF today is in federal court in the nation's capital defending Tyndale
House Publishers in the first post-election challenge to the HHS
mandate.
Based on its biblical convictions, Tyndale objects to the requirement
that it provide free insurance coverage for drugs that cause abortions.
The Bible publisher actually filed suit October 2 on behalf of the Carol
Stream, an Illinois-based organization that is owned by a foundation.
As OneNewsNow reported earlier, the largest privately held Christian
publisher of Bibles, Christian books and biblical media is not
considered "religious" -- even though it is a non-profit foundation that
provides grants to meet physical and spiritual needs of people
worldwide.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman tells OneNewsNow very serious constitutional issues are at stake.
"Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish," Bowman contends.
"For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is
alarming. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is
willing to disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom
to achieve certain political purposes."
The foundation that owns Tyndale distributes 96.5 percent of its profits
to religious non-profit causes worldwide. Still, the publisher is
subject to the mandate because the Obama administration rules for-profit
corporations as categorically non-religious.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
With the re-election of Barack Obama, the international pro-life movement faces more threats
As Barack Obama prepares for another term as America's president, Human
Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet is calling on
pro-lifers around the world to stay vigilant, to pray, and not to give
up hope.
"Under the most radical anti-life president America has ever seen, the
U.S. taxpayers have funded a destructive foreign policy, which has
already done great harm around the world," said Father Boquet. "But we
must continue to fight for those who cannot defend themselves, and we
cannot lose hope, because the Lord of Life is on our side.
"We need prayer now more than ever for our unborn brothers and sisters
around the world facing death due to the policies of the Obama
administration, and for those facing persecution for daring to spread
the Gospel of Life," Father Boquet said. "May Our Lord Jesus Christ give
us the strength to run the race and win the fight for life."
Contact: Stephen Phelan
Source: Human Life International
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, issued the following statement about President Obama's re-election:
"The collision course of the Obama Administration with the Catholic
Church could have been averted, but now it is assured instead.
"It is therefore time to recommit ourselves to the basics: a clear
proclamation of the truth, an uncompromising fidelity to our principles,
and an unwavering commitment to civil disobedience.
"Many in Church leadership failed to connect the dots between personnel
and policy. They prayed and preached against the HHS mandate, but then
were silent about the election, and called the police to remove citizens
who leafleted the Church parking lot trying to inform voters about
where the candidates stood on this issue.
"Meanwhile, the national pro-life groups have done outstanding work in
this year's election, with initiatives, creativity, and energy as great
as I have ever seen, and there is no doubt that the election results
would have been far worse without that activity.
"The pro-life cause will prevail in America. In the elections of 2014,
we will work for a pro-life Senate majority to further blunt the ability
of President Obama to damage the cause of life.
"And in the meantime we will continue the cultural progress that is so
clearly on the side of life, as more minds and hearts embrace the
unborn, as more abortion mills close, and as more women and men speak up
about how abortion harmed them.
Contact: Leslie Palma
Source: Priests for Life
Despite pro-life setbacks in the Nov. 6 election, there is still hope
and ample opportunity for progress in promoting a culture of life in the
coming years, pro-life advocates are saying.
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, explained
that the election “confirmed for every pro-lifer that we cannot rely on
politicians to abolish abortion.”
“We first must change the culture and then the culture will shape our politicians and laws,” she told CNA.
On Nov. 6, President Barack Obama was elected to a second term by the
American people after committing himself to furthering tax-payer funded
abortion without restrictions.
Deep political divisions between the U.S. House and Senate also make it
unlikely that major federal pro-life legislation will pass in the coming
years.
At the state level, a Florida measure that would have prevented taxpayer
funds for paying for abortions failed, while a parental notification
law for girls under 16 seeking an abortion in Montana was passed. An
attempt to repeal the death penalty in California also failed to win
voter approval.
But Hawkins believes there is still important work to be done in changing minds and hearts across America.
The election “showed that we can't be afraid to talk about these ‘hard
issues,’” she said, pointing to the Democratic Party’s strong emphasis
on abortion at its national convention and throughout the campaign.
The Republican Party failed to respond with an equally strong emphasis,
she said, and exit polls indicate that “there were a lot of pro-lifers
missing” on Election Day.
“We need to march forward, courageously, doing what we have been doing
for the past four years,” Hawkins asserted. She listed her priorities as
reaching out to women in need, spreading the pro-life message and
working through local efforts to expose and de-fund Planned Parenthood
and remove its presence from schools.
“We need to work to develop better alternative and resource centers in
our communities, so no women is ever forced to sacrifice her kids to and
to put her life in the hands of Planned Parenthood,” she added.
Hawkins also stressed the importance of reaching out to young people.
While support for Obama was down from 2008 among young voters, the
president still captured a significant majority of the youth voting
bloc.
“There is much more work to be done educating young people about abortion,” she said.
While Gallup polls indicate that this generation of young people is
pro-life, it can be difficult for them – having been taught all their
lives that truth is relative – to move from the understanding that
abortion is wrong to the conviction that abortion should be illegal, she
explained.
“We must continue forward, speaking to our young people about their
worldview, why life is intrinsically valuable, and how making a horrific
act such as abortion illegal is the morally right thing to do,” she
said.
Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, agreed
that there is a need to continue building on the “dramatic success”
achieved in the past decade.
The election was definitely a loss for the pro-life movement, she said,
but the good news is that groups like Americans United for Life have a
“clear, direct and strategic plan” for moving ahead.
Despite the hostile atmosphere at the national level, there is
significant hope for pro-life advances at the state level, she
explained.
In the past four years, Americans United for Life has promoted the
passage of nearly 100 pieces of pro-life legislation in states across
America, including sonogram laws, clinic regulations and other abortion
restrictions.
“We’re seeing a tidal wave of pro-life legislation sweep across the
country,” Yoest said, noting that the “accumulation of victories” is
encouraging.
While she acknowledged that it would be good to have Supreme Court
justices who respect the right to life, she added that it is still
possible to navigate around the court’s infamous 1973 decision and
“start legislating for a post-Roe America.”
Yoest also pointed to the importance of changing minds and hearts through one-on-one engagement with women in need.
She cited efforts to partner with pregnancy care centers to show women
that although abortion may be a legal option, it is not a good option.
“By working with those women, we shape the culture,” she explained.
Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA/EWTN News
Two states have pro-life amendments under way, as Mississippi gets set to launch another petition drive for a Personhood Amendment -- and Florida prepares to vote on a proposed pro-life constitutional amendment on Tuesday.
Mississippi's Amendment 26 failed to gain voter approval in last November's election, but that won't stop a renewed effort. Les Riley of Personhood Mississippi tells OneNewsNow the group actually started working on a new campaign the day after the 2011 election.
"The main job has been researching and listening to what voters had to say, what their objections were [to Amendment 26]," he describes. "We're working on another amendment that will address all the concerns that people had, but still protect all children."
That's because in the weeks preceding the 2012 election, Planned Parenthood and even then Governor Haley Barbour confused the issues related to the amendment, according to Riley.
"They said that it would ban birth control and all kinds of other craziness to try to scare people," Riley explains. "Because, you know, Planned Parenthood didn't want people to have an up-or-down vote on banning abortion -- because they knew if they did they would have voted to stop abortion in our state."
According to Mississippi law, a constitutional amendment that fails cannot return to the ballot for two years. Riley hopes to make an announcement soon on launching a new petition drive in early 2013 to put a revised Personhood Amendment on a 2014 ballot.
And in The Sunshine State ...
In a campaign similar to Mississippi's recent campaign for the Personhood Amendment, Florida is presenting the pro-life Amendment 6 for a vote on the 2012 ballot. Yes on 6 Campaign manager Jim Frankowiak tells OneNewsNow the measure has the usual list of opponents, including Planned Parenthood and the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He explains what the amendment would do for the pro-life cause in Florida.
"We want to align Florida law with federal law," he says. "That means no government funds for abortion or health benefit coverage of an abortion. And perhaps of even greater importance is opening the door to future legislation that would restore parental consent for abortion involving a minor female."
At present, Florida does not require parental consent in such cases.
"So a young lady under the age of 18 does not have to tell her parents or guardian if she plans to have an abortion," Frankowiak remarks. "Current law does not require parental notification. It takes 60 percent of the vote in Florida for approval of a constitutional amendment."
Florida's Amendment 6 has been endorsed by many people, including former Governor Jeb Bush, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Baptist Convention and Florida Family Action.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com
We are told repeatedly that assisted suicide will be a mere "last resort" that needs to be available as an escape valve when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. Never mind that countries in which the populations have embraced assisted suicide/euthanasia, life-terminating practices have expanded to people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, the elderly "tired of life," the mentally ill and depressed–and even widely acknowledged (if still technically illegal) infanticide.
Yet, here in the USA, we are supposed to believe the death agenda is just a teensy-weensy, itty-bitty, miniscule adjustment in medical norms.
Baloney. Assisted suicide advocates are just following the well-worn path of cultural transforming campaigns; insist that there should be little fuss about a minor change about which we need to "have a conversation"–until the radicals control the castle walls. Then the hammer comes down, the minor change grows exponentially, and the conversation is stifled.
But now, with Massachusetts perhaps poised to pass an assisted suicide legalization initiative, we are seeing a little more candor. In Slate, Lewis M. Cohen says that the MA vote will "change how the nation dies." From the article:
But the Massachusetts ballot question has the potential to turn death with dignity from a legislative experiment into the new national norm. The state is the home of America's leading medical publication (the New England Journal of Medicine), hospital (Massachusetts General), and four medical schools (Harvard, Boston University, University of Massachusetts, and Tufts). Passage of the law would represent a crucial milestone for the death with dignity movement, especially since 42 percent of the state is Catholic and the church hierarchy vehemently opposes assisted dying. Vermont and New Jersey are already entertaining similar legislature, and if the act passes in Massachusetts, other states that have previously had unsuccessful campaigns will certainly be emboldened to revisit this subject.
Well, MA is one of the country's most liberal state–and that often counts more than stated religious affiliation. But that point aside, I think that if MA does pass assisted suicide, other states in New England could follow.
And that would be lethal to the Hippocratic value of treating all patients as moral equals. Consider the full-throated advocacy these days for cutting medical costs. What could be cheaper than transforming intentional drug overdoses into a "medical treatment?" About $1000 is about all it would cost to get a patient dead, and that probably includes doctor's visits. But it could cost more than $100,000 to provide the kind of care required so that patients didn't want assisted suicide.
Don't think that issue hasn't crossed the technocrats' minds. Vermont, for example, has created a single payer state health care system. But they don't know how to pay for it. Some are now suggesting legalizing assisted suicide and joining it with health care rationing. Not only that, but the latter could help drive the former.
Normalizing assisted suicide could also put pressure on the dying and seriously ill or disabled to move on. If you think this sounds like a potential "duty to die," you are not crazy. That too is bubbling on the bioethics burner.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The controversy over comments made by U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock reveals the undeniable ugliness of American politics. At the same time, the media firestorm underscores the importance of getting the pro-life position right -- and expressing it well.
Mourdock, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, was debating his opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly when the issue of abortion emerged. Both candidates claimed to affirm that life begins at conception, but Mourdock called for the end of abortion on demand. He then extended his remarks with these words:
"This is that issue that every candidate for federal, or even state, office faces, and I too stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view and I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have [for abortion] is in that case [where] the life of the mother [is threatened]. I struggled with it for a long time, but I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen."
Immediately, Mourdock was charged with claiming that God intended a rape to happen. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign said that President Obama "felt those comments were outrageous and demeaning to women." Democratic operatives and media voices denounced Mourdock as hateful, extremist, and worse, and even many of his fellow Republicans scattered and ran for cover. Some demanded that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney should pull an ad supportive of Mourdock.
A closer look at Mourdock's comments reveals that the candidate was not in any true sense calling rape "something that God intended to happen." Everything Mourdock said in that answer flowed from his stated presupposition that life begins at conception, and that every human life is a gift from God.
Nevertheless, the liberal media went into full apoplexy, painting Richard Mourdock as a woman-hating extremist with reprehensible views on an issue as serious as rape.
Almost none of those who quoted Mourdock in making these charges used the full quotation, much less the audio of its delivery in the debate. The full quote reveals that the candidate was affirming the full dignity of every human life, regardless of the circumstance of conception.
To their credit, some in the media saw through the controversy. Writing for The New Republic, Amy Sullivan made clear that she disagrees with Mourdock's position, but she honestly explained his words, and she expressed disappointment in his treatment by many liberal commentators.
In her words:
"Despite the assertions of many liberal writers I read and otherwise admire, I don't think that politicians like Mourdock oppose rape exceptions because they hate women or want to control women. I think they're totally oblivious and insensitive and can't for a moment place themselves in the shoes of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rape. I think most don't particularly care that their policy decisions can impact what control a woman does or doesn't have over her own body. But if Mourdock believes that God creates all life and that to end a life created by God is murder, then all abortion is murder, regardless of the circumstances in which a pregnancy came about."
She is exactly right, and bravely so. She continued:
"Take a look again at Mourdock's words: 'I came to realize that life is a gift from God. And ... even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.' The key word here is 'it.' I think it's pretty clear that Mourdock is referring to a life that is conceived by a rape. He is not arguing that rape is the something that God intended to happen."
Amy Sullivan also acknowledged that Mourdock's position is "a fairly common theological belief." Her candor and honesty were refreshing exceptions to most of the coverage.
Similarly, Kevin Drum, writing in the liberal journal Mother Jones, also registered his disagreement with Mourdock's argument. Nevertheless, he was bold to ask the obvious -- "can't we all acknowledge that this is just conventional Christian theology?" He added, "What I find occasionally odd is that so many conventional bits of theology like this are so controversial if someone actually mentions them in public."
Both Drum and Sullivan described Mourdock's argument as a form of theodicy, meaning a defense of God that points to good coming out of evil. They are certainly right to identify this argument as germane to the context of rape and pregnancy, but Mourdock did not actually go so far as to make the argument.
The controversy over his statements reveals the irresponsibility of so many in the media and the political arena. The characterizations and willful distortions of Mourdock's words amount to nothing less than lies.
At the same time, Mr. Mourdock is responsible for giving the media and his political enemies the very ammunition for their distortions.
The debate question did not force Mourdock to garble his argument. The cause of defending the unborn is harmed when the argument for that defense is expressed badly and recklessly, and Mourdock's answer was both reckless and catastrophically incomplete.
The issue of exceptions that might justify an abortion cannot be discussed carelessly. Furthermore, any reference to rape must start with a clear affirmation of the horrifying evil of rape and an equal affirmation of concern for any woman or girl victimized by a rapist. At this point, the defender of the unborn should point to the fact that every single human life is sacred at every point of its development and without regard to the context of that life's conception. No one would deny that this is true of a 6-year-old child conceived in the horror of a rape. Those who defend the unborn know that it was equally true when that child was in the womb.
No doubt, Mourdock meant to express this point, but his words fell far short of an adequate expression of the argument. In his political situation, that failure might be fatal. In terms of the cause of defending life, his argument makes the task more difficult.
And yet, this controversy was really not about a failure of communication. Behind it all is the great chasm that separates those who defend the sanctity of life and those who defend abortion on demand. With that in mind, how should the defenders of life think about exceptions that might justify an abortion?
One truth must be transparently clear -- a consistent defense of all human life means that there is no acceptable exception that would allow an intentional abortion. If every life is sacred, there is no exception.
The three exceptions most often proposed call for abortion to be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. These are the exceptions currently affirmed by Mitt Romney in his presidential campaign. What should we think of these?
First, when speaking of saving the life of the mother, we should be clear that the abortion of her unborn child cannot be the intentional result. There can be no active intention to kill the baby. This does not mean that a mother might, in very rare and always tragic circumstances, require a medical procedure or treatment to save her life that would, as a secondary effect, terminate the life of her unborn child. This is clearly established in moral theory, and we must be thankful that such cases are very rare.
Next, when speaking of cases involving rape and incest, we must affirm the sinful tragedy of such acts and sympathize without reservation with the victims. We must then make the argument that the unborn child that has resulted from such a heinous act should not be added to the list of victims. That child possesses no less dignity than a child conceived in any other context.
How should we think of these questions in light of our current cultural and political context? We must contend for the full dignity and humanity of every single human life at every point of development and life from conception until natural death, and we cannot rest from this cause so long as the threat to the dignity and sanctity of any life remains.
In the meantime, we are informed by the fact that, as the Gallup organization affirmed just months ago, the vast majority of Americans are willing to support increased restrictions on abortion so long as those exceptions are allowed. We should gladly accept and eagerly support such laws and the candidates who support them, knowing that such a law would save the life of over a million unborn children in the nation each year.
Can we be satisfied with such a law? Of course not, and we cannot be disingenuous in our public statements. But we can eagerly support a law that would save the vast majority of unborn children now threatened by abortion, even as we seek to convince our fellow Americans that this is not enough.
We must argue for the dignity, humanity and right to life of every unborn child, regardless of the context of its conception, but we must argue well and make our arguments carefully. The use and deliberate abuse of Richard Mourdock's comments should underline the risk of falling short in that task.
Contact: R. Albert Mohler
Source: Baptist Press
The American Nursing Association has a draft opinion out reiterating its opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is well worth the read. From the draft opinion:
The American Nurses Association (ANA) is strongly opposed to nurses' participation in assisted suicide and active euthanasia because these acts are in direct violation of The Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements (herein referred to as The Code, 2001), the ethical traditions and goals of the profession, and its covenant with society. Nurses have an obligation to provide humane, comprehensive, and compassionate care that respects the rights of patients but upholds the standards of the profession in the presence of chronic, debilitating illness and at end-of-life.
The ANA notes that the lives of the terminally ill have just as much value as the lives of other people:
Provision 1, Interpretive Statement 1.3 of
The Code (2001) speaks to the nurse's commitment to the inherent:
"worth, dignity and rights of all human beings irrespective of the nature of the health problem. The worth of the person is not affected by death, disability, functional status, or proximity to death."
That is a hugely important point, but typically, one the media continually ignore or refuse to see in their emotive and one-sided coverage of this crucial cultural issue.
The point of the publication of the draft position is to obtain public comment. May I suggest applause?
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: National Review
The mother of rock star Steven Tyler's aborted baby continues to advocate for unborn children after writing a 5,000-word account of her experience last year in LifeSite News.
Among the upcoming speaking engagements for Julia Holcomb, now a mother of seven, is a Life Legal Defense Foundation dinner event Nov. 17 in Santa Clara, Calif.
More than 35 years after her abortion, Holcomb recounted the story of her relationship with Tyler, lead singer of the rock band Aerosmith and a former "American Idol" judge, in the 5,000-word account.
She became Tyler's girlfriend in 1973 when she was only 16. Her mother gave guardianship of Holcomb to Tyler, enabling her to travel with him across state lines on the band's tours. He requested she have his child and proposed marriage to her after she became pregnant in 1975.
Tyler changed his mind, according to Holcomb, and pressured Holcomb to abort their child, who turned out to be a boy. In recalling the abortion, Holcomb wrote, "My baby had one defender in life; me, and I caved in to pressure because of fear of rejection and the unknown future. I wish I could go back and be given that chance again, to say no to the abortion one last time. I wish with all my heart I could have watched that baby live his life and grow to be a man."
Holcomb said, "Nothing was ever the same between us after that day, though I did not return home for over a year.... I was grieving the loss of my baby and I could never look at Steven again without remembering what he had done to our son and me."
In his autobiography, Tyler acknowledged the abortion's impact, saying, according to LifeSite News, "You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated." He asked himself, "[W]hat have I done?"
After Holcomb returned home, she began attending a United Methodist church with her family. She "found forgiveness in Jesus," Holcomb said. She met her future husband during her first year in college, and they have been married for more than 30 years. They converted to Roman Catholicism in 1992.
Of her burden to share the pro-life message, Holcomb wrote, "I pray that all those who have had abortions, or have participated in any way in an abortion procedure, may find in my story, not judgment or condemnation, but a renewed hope in God's steadfast love, forgiveness and peace."
Holcomb's account can be accessed at www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-light-of-the-world-the-steve-tyler-and-julia-holcomb-story.
Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
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
