December 7, 2012

Mississippi May Become First Abortion-Free State as Hospitals Refuse Last Abortion Facility



Mississippi is poised to become the first abortion-free state in the nation as the last remaining abortion facility within its borders reports that it is having difficulty complying with the law.

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Mississippi passed a regulation that requires abortion facilities in the state to have board certification and obtain admitting privileges. The latter requirement, which allows abortionists to send women that are injured during an abortion to local hospitals for further treatment, was said to serve as a safeguard to protect women that need critical medical care.

After the bill was signed into law, Jackson Women's Health Organization, the last abortion facility in the state, filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the requirements. During a hearing in July, the facility explained to the court that it had been unsuccessful in obtaining admitting privileges, and was granted six months of additional time to comply with the law under the direction of federal judge Daniel Jordan.

Jackson Women's Health Organization now has until January 16th to find a hospital that will grant it admitting privileges, but with one month left to go, the facility says that it is still being refused by area hospitals.
 
According to court documents filed last week by administrator Shannon Brewer, the facility has applied to seven hospitals in central Mississippi, and all have turned it away. Some locations would not even provide an application to complete.

"At Baptist Medical Center, executive assistant for medical staff services Teresa Ayala told JWHO administrators that hospital would not send an admitting privileges application," reports Jackson Free Press. "Brewer's declaration also indicates that Ayala was less than helpful in providing the clinic information it needed to contact Baptist's physicians."

University Medical Center in Jackson said that it would only grant admitting privileges to employees of the hospital.

"The other five hospitals that rejected JWHO's applications–River Oaks Hospital in Flowood, Crossgates River Oaks Hospital in Brandon, Madison River Oaks in Canton, Woman's Hospital in Jackson and Central Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson–are owned by Naples, Fla.-based Health Management Associates Inc.," Jackson Free Press continued. "Each of these hospitals responded to JWHO with similarly worded letters citing the hospitals' abortion policies and concerns about 'internal and external disruption of the hospital's function and business within this community.'"

Rusty Thomas of the States of Refuge campaign, which focuses on ending abortion in the five states in America that have just one abortion facility, told Christian News Network that he believes the facility will likely close — just in time for the 40th year of Roe v. Wade.

"All of the pieces of the puzzle are pointing to Jackson, Mississippi for the 40th year of Roe v. Wade," he stated. "We are on the verge of making history."

States of Refuge, therefore, is planning a gathering in Jackson in January 2013 instead of Washington, D.C.

"Imagine one state being set free from blood guiltiness," Thomas said with excitement. "If one state falls, it does send a message that it can continue in other states."

He said that he hopes that if and when the facility closes, it will encourage others to take a stand for life.

"Hopefully, it would inspire others that you don't have to wait for the Republican Party or [any] politicians," Thomas commented. "These are the moments God uses to get others involved."

The other four states where only one abortion facility remains are Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota.

"Once it falls, the march is not over," Thomas advised. "On to other states."

Contact: Heather Clark
Source: Christian News Network

Planned Parenthood Mandates Abortion for its Affiliates



There's more evidence that Planned Parenthood is devoted to its primary mission of abortion.

In late 2010, Planned Parenthood mandated that its affiliate centers throughout the U.S. provide on-site abortions by 2013. Mallory Quigley of the Susan B. Anthony List tells OneNewsNow the Planned Parenthood of South Central New York is pulling out and becoming an independent organization for that reason, making it the third Planned Parenthood to do so.

"At Susan B. Anthony List, we think that this is just evidence that Planned Parenthood's chief concern is about making money off of abortion," she says. "It's a huge moneymaker, and the most recent data we have available is that they perform over 329,000 abortions in one year."

Quigley also believes it is evidence that the national office is ruling with an iron fist. Proof of that comes from three former center directors who left the organization.

"They say that the reason that they got into this business is because they wanted to help women, and a lot of them believe in access to contraception and non-abortion healthcare services for women, but this is just going to show that Planned Parenthood really is synonymous with abortion and that they will not stand for any of their affiliates to dissent in any way to their abortion-on-demand ideology," she remarks.

On March 1, 2013, Planned Parenthood of South Central New York will become Family Planning of South Central New York.

Two Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas went independent in 2011 after refusing to comply with the corporate abortion mandate.

Contact: Charlie Butts  
Source: OneNewsNow.com

Abortion advocates push for over-the-counter morning-after pills for minors




Representatives of 40 pro-abortion organizations will meet with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and urge her to permit the morning-after pill to be sold to minors over the counter.

"When it comes to emergency contraception, time is of the essence," said Kirsten Moore, president and chief executive of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. Making people get a prescription, and get that prescription filled, is a barrier to care – and we don't need to be putting that barrier in people's ways."

According to the National Institutes of Health, the morning-after pill works "principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation" of a fertilized egg "by altering the endometrium" – thus potentially acting as an abortifacient.

Source: CWN

December 4, 2012

U.N. Treaty Fails in Senate


Several pro-family and parental rights groups are relieved to see the U.S. Senate fail to ratify a United Nations treaty concerning the disabled.

The vote on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was largely along party lines. Prior to the vote, Utah Senator Mike Lee (R) rose to argue against the bill, citing concerns over possible relinquishment of sovereignty of the United States to a U.N. body.

"I've also heard from parents of disabled children who are concerned that this treaty will threaten their rights as parents to determine the best education, treatment and care for their disabled children," he cited.

Lee also pointed out that the United States is already the world leader in terms of providing for the needs of the disabled, so it does not need a United Nations panel as a forum in order to be a model to other nations looking to improve their laws.

It would have taken the votes of 66 of the 99 members present to ratify the treaty.

"On this vote, the yeas are 61; the nays are 38," the Senate president announced. "Two-thirds of the senators present not having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of the ratification is not agreed to."

Groups like the Home School Legal Defense Association and Joni and Friends strongly opposed the treaty. Susan Yoshihara of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute warned OneNewsNow in September that ratification of the measure would have opened the door for more abortions.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com

November 30, 2012

News Links for November 30th

GQ magazine names pro-life activist 'Rebel of the Year'


A secular men's magazine has praised Chinese anti-abortion advocate Chen Guangcheng in its December 2012 issue, placing him on the list of “Man of the Year.”

Gentleman's Quarterly, the popular men's entertainment and fashion magazine, lauded the blind activist for his fight against forced abortions and sterilizations in China, calling him a “humanitarian cause célèbre.”

Despite its usual fare of risqué photo spreads and articles, the latest issue features a three-page interview detailing Chen's house arrest, torture and eventual escape to the United States in May 2012.

Blinded by a serious illness when he was young, Chen is a self-educated human rights attorney who spoke out against China's one-child policy and the coerced abortions and sterilizations that are often used to enforce it. His work attracted the anger of Chinese authorities.

Chen spent more than four years in prison and was subsequently placed under house arrest in September 2010. Both he and his family were held without formal charges, endured violent assaults and were refused medical treatment.

Chen's routine beatings “went on for a year and a half, all because the self-taught lawyer had sued the Chinese government to stop forced abortions in his village,” John B. Thompson of GQ wrote for the December issue.

In late April, Chen made international headlines by escaping from house arrest and reaching the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

He left the embassy for a hospital in Beijing on May 2, after being promised by Chinese authorities that he and his family would be secure. Shortly afterwards, however, he voiced fears for his safety and asked to come to the U.S. with his family for a period of peaceful rest. 

Although he felt “sorrowful” to leave his country, Chen believes that he will “inevitably return to China, standing tall.”

“I don’t think China can continue like this forever,” he told GQ.

Chen was offered a fellowship to study law and learn English at New York University’s law school and was ultimately allowed to travel to the United States with his family, arriving at Newark Liberty International Airport on May 19.

On Aug. 1, bipartisan leaders of U.S. Congress came together to meet with and offer their support of the Chen and his work in China.

While politicians “might not agree” about which rights he is fighting to protect, Chen told GQ that his work opposing China’s one-child policy is not only a fight to protect the “rights of unborn children” or of women, but of all people.

“Men have rights. The elderly have rights,” he said. “This is a human problem, a fundamental concept.”

Source: CNA

Support for teen emergency contraception access deemed 'foolish'


Doctors and pro-life advocates warn that the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation of emergency contraceptives for teenage girls promotes unwise and “risky behaviors."
 
“It is beyond belief that the AAP would make this statement which is not in the best interest of teens … but in fact encourages them to initiate sexual activity and to do more risky behaviors. It's very foolish,” Doctor Donna Harrison told CNA on Nov. 27.
 
A policy statement released Nov. 26 by the American Academy of Pediatrics aims to “encourage routine counseling and advance emergency-contraception prescription as 1 part of a public health strategy to reduce teen pregnancy.”
 
This recommendation is disconcerting to pro-life health care professionals because at least one method of emergency contraception, known as ulipristal or ella, can work by inducing abortion.
 
Harrison, who is the director of research and public policy for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stated that “ella clearly can end a pregnancy that's already implanted in the mother's womb – it is clearly capable of killing an unborn child.
 
“Pro-life doctors will not prescribe ella, as an issue of conscience,” she added.
 
Harrison also raised concern about the safety of teenage girls who take ella.
 
“Because ella is a drug like RU-486,” her organization is “very concerned about the misuse of this drug for abortions, and what we see with women who use RU-486 is hemorrhage and fatal bacterial infections.”
 
“And we know that ella has not been tested in young girls. The testing was just in women over 18, so we have no safety data about young girls using this powerful drug.”
 
The other major drug discussed by the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement is levonorgestrel, or Plan B.
 
According to Harrison, the descriptions from the manufacturer and the FDA both note that Plan B has “a mechanism of action that can also prevent the embryo implanting, so that also ends the life of an unborn child.”
 
Harrison pointed out that “contraception” is generally understood to work before fertilization, but that these “emergency contraceptives” can kill an embryo.
 
“That becomes a pro-life issue … are you willing to take the life of another human being? Drugs that work after fertilization we don't do, because we don't kill our second patient, who is the embryo-fetus who's conceived inside the mother.”
 
Population Research Institute president Steven Mosher raised similar concerns about the abortifacient nature of emergency contraception, as well as fears about conscience protection for Catholic physicians.
 
“The AAP statement nonetheless asserts that pediatricians have an ethical responsibility to 'inform/educate about availability and access to emergency-contraception services.' There is no ethical basis for this assertion which, if enforced, would violate the conscience of all Catholic and many Christian physicians,” Mosher wrote Nov. 27.
 
Giving emergency contraceptives to teenage girls has in studies been shown to not decrease pregnancies or sexual activity, according to Harrison. She also said that “it does lead to an increase” in sexually transmitted diseases.
 
“So to give underage girls, for an organization that claims it is interested in the health of young girls, is a really stupid thing to do.”
 
Harrison believes that the recommendation will end up encouraging “a lot of young girls to initiate sexual activity, and get into a sexually active relationship that they find later they can't back out of, and that's the stupidity.”
 
The American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations “would be devastating, from a public health perspective,” Leslee Unruh, founder of National Abstinence Clearinghouse, told CNA Nov. 28.
 
Rather than providing teens with pharmaceuticals, Unruh said teens should be taught about “the real meaning of love and intimacy and bonding.”
 
“Love is the better answer,” she said, “they will see chemicals aren't the answer.”
 
“I believe it would be devastating for young men and women who would go that route.”

Contact: Carl Bunderson
Source: CNA

A Pro-Life Lincoln?


This is the 149th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address.
 
An old man in Boston in the 1830s peeked out from his closed shutters at the horrible spectacle in the streets below. His house was locked up tight against the visit of that monster, the President of the United States. He had sent his family away, but the old man stayed behind to guard the estate, to protect the family silver. When the presidential carriage passed below, however, the old man saw the happy throng of his neighbors. He saw not a rough, savage backwoodsman, but a tall, spare, white-haired war hero, cloaked in dignity, and wrapped in goodwill. The old man couldn't help himself. He threw open the shutters and waved enthusiastically. He yelled out the window: Hurrah! Hurrah!
 
Graciously, President Andrew Jackson tipped his hat and bowed to Mr. Boston. Mr. Boston’s heart was the first of the many Old Hickory won that day. I am like Mr. Boston. I went to the local theater today to see Lincoln. I expected to hate it. I know the politics of the director and the producers of this film. And what could I expect of that British actor, Daniel Day-Lewis? But I fling open the shutters of my heart and I’m yelling: Hurrah! Hurrah! This is a wonderful movie. Go see it! Take your children (your teenage and above children.) View it as a family. Day-Lewis’s performance as Lincoln may be the best Lincoln we will ever see. He is wise and funny, sometimes crude, and yet elevated beyond the ken of normal men.
 
You will see here why his young secretaries, John Hay and John Nicolay, called Lincoln the Tycoon. Most Lincoln biographers treat his White House years as a burden, a trial. They deplore the fact that poor Mr. Lincoln was beset by an endless parade of office seekers and those wanting favors of every kind. Well, why didn’t Lincoln tell his shrewd and politically savvy Secretary of State William Seward to handle the appointments? Or why didn’t he summon Seward’s man Thurlow Weed down to Washington and let Weed handle all political patronage?
 
Because Lincoln knew that’s where the power was. He knew that this was how you learn what the American people are thinking, feeling. To have given those reins to another was to let that man drive the team. Not going to happen. Early in his administration, Lincoln had told Hay and Nicolay, I can’t afford to let Seward take the first trick. Wings clipped, but not too severely, Seward became Lincolns ally and then his best friend. Daniel Day-Lewis has rescued Abraham Lincoln from the embalmers. Sometimes I think I’m the tiredest man on earth, Lincoln said late in his term. Day-Lewis walks as if his feet hurt. His shoulders are hunched. He slumps in the saddle.
 
If you want a Napoleonic figure on horseback, call for Gen. George B. McClellan. That Young Napoleon had all the qualities of the Corsican conqueror except, of course, decision. And speed.
 
The movie covers only a few weeks at the end of Lincolns life. And yet it captures so much of the drama of the times Lincoln lived through. Did he shape events? He was quick to say no. I confess events have shaped me, he said. We know, though, that Lincoln was the central figure in Americas Civil War. Okay.
 
Does Hollywood mess up the history? Yes and no. They certainly get U.S. Grant wrong. They show Gen. Grant giving Lincoln political advice and dealing with the Confederate peace commissioners as a proconsul. That’s not Grant. That’s one of his greatest qualities. Unlike McClellan, who lectured Lincoln on his political responsibilities, Grant avoided all such. He was strictly subordinate to Lincolns authority at all times. But the movie certainly gets Grant right at Appomattox. And that’s the big thing. This is the Grant who orders his jubilant artillerists to cease firing their One Hundred Gun salute. The rebels are our countrymen once again, says Grant, determined not to allow a single gesture that might humiliate Lees defeated gray legions.
 
The story involves the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in a lame-duck session of the U.S. House of Representatives. January, 1865, was the first time the Constitution mentioned slavery as it abolished it forever. President Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment. There is no provision in the Constitution for a president to sign an amendment.
 
So why did he? Those on the right today who try to argue that Lincoln didn’t really care about slavery all that much will have to answer this question: Why therefore did he feel compelled to sign that instrument? Too bad the movie didn’t show Lincoln signing the amendment. Hollywood shows Sec. of State William Seward dealing with some low, shady characters. Are they some of Sewards Albany, New York, wire-pullers and backroom manipulators? Probably. Did Seward bribe Democratic House Members who had been defeated in the previous November election? Did he offer them federal jobs as a reward for voting for the Thirteenth Amendment?
 
I will quote the Great Emancipator himself: Damfino. I won’t spoil the ending by telling the reader what happens. Suffice it to say it is probably not news that the Thirteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution. What may be news is that every vote cast against the Thirteenth Amendment was cast by a Democrat.
 
How can I maintain that this is a pro-life Lincoln? He speaks of the sacrifice of his day as necessary for millions yet unborn. We know Lincoln thought the Civil War was being fought for a vast future. We know he looked to an America in the 1930s that would have 130 million people and he welcomed that quadrupling of our population. Would he have disapproved of abortion? We cannot say. He certainly did approve of women’s suffrage and said so. But he might well have been like Susan B. Anthony and the other early Suffragists who were for women’s rights and strongly pro-life.
 
Liberals today embrace Lincoln. Good for them. Let us rally around Lincoln. Lincoln said nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon. Are not unborn children so stamped? Lincoln spoke in parables. Even an ant knows when he has been wronged. Take from him the crumb of bread he has earned from his own labor and he will resist.
 
TIMEs Joe Klein tells us that ultrasound has made it impossible to deny the reality that that thing in the womb is a human being. Look at The Silent Scream. See that unborn child try to fend off the lethal probe. See as she struggles for her life. If the ant knows he is wronged, what would Lincoln say of that ultrasound homicide? Would he deny that reality?
 
Film critic Rex Reed panned Daniel Day-Lewis’s portrayal of Lincoln. He says it’s as wooden as George Washington’s teeth. Rex Reed knows no more of Lincoln than Ralph Reed does. And besides, Washington’s teeth were hippopotamus ivory. Rex Reed must have missed the scene where President Lincoln pardons a 16-year old soldier boy. The boy has been condemned to be shot for cowardice. He pauses, reflectively, and you know what Abraham is thinking: My son Willie would be 16 now, or nearly so. It moved me to tears. You’d have to have a wooden heart not to appreciate what Lincoln is feeling.
 
Daniel Day-Lewis, from Wales, has captured our Lincoln better than any other before him. This is doubtless fitting. It was a British biographer of Lincoln, after all, Lord Charnwood, who gave us this priceless insight a hundred years ago: The Union soldiers stopped calling the president Old Abe and Uncle Abe in the bloody autumn of 1862. That was after he’d issued his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Then, they began calling him Father Abraham. Now, with this triumphant film, we have a Father Abraham for all Americans to share. The Union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah.

Contact: Robert Morrison
Source: FRCBlog

2 Federal Courts Dismiss Lawsuits Against HHS Mandate

 
Two US district courts have dismissed lawsuits by the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the Diocese of Nashville, and other Catholic institutions against the HHS mandate.

“While I am disappointed in the ruling that our lawsuit cannot proceed at this time based on the very narrow argument that we allegedly have no real damages yet from the Health and Human Services mandate, I am very encouraged that it was ‘dismissed without prejudice,’” said Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh. “That means that we have every right to file again in the future.”

Bishop Zubik added:

We will now await in good faith the accommodation to religious freedom that the federal government has claimed it will offer. However, we must all be aware that no modification to the original HHS mandate in regard to religious freedom has yet been made.

Other courts have reached differing conclusions in the challenges to the HHS mandate, so this remains fluid. I do want to make clear, however, that we cannot and will not negotiate away our constitutional rights to religious freedom and religious expression.

Following a different federal court’s dismissal of its lawsuit, the Diocese of Nashville said in a statement that the ruling “does not foreclose the bringing of similar claims once the alleged administrative change to the mandate takes place.”

Source: CWN

November 28, 2012

Abortions decrease as people become more pro-life



Abortion numbers have dropped five percent -- the biggest one-year decrease in at least 10 years. An expert says abortion proponents are misinterpreting the significance of that figure.

What they are saying is it is due to better use of birth control during tough economic times. But Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Steven H. Aden tells OneNewsNow "the abortion industry talks out of both sides of its mouth" when it comes to figures like this.

Aden, Steven (ADF)"Previously, the industry said that abortion figures tend to rise during a recession because more people are aborting their babies to avoid the economic consequences of childbirth," he points out.

"But with this drop in abortions during the recession, they're saying it's because of better birth control."

But Aden says that is false as well. Studies show birth control does not correlate with abortions at all. He says "what it really shows is that America is truly becoming more pro-life and that more women are wisely choosing to give life to their unborn babies."

In addition, government figures continue to show abortions are much higher among minorities.

"It's not surprising that the abortion industry would see a rise in abortions in minority populations because historically they've always targeted minorities for abortion," he says.

"In fact, Planned Parenthood itself was based on the eugenic principles of Margaret Sanger, who believed that birth control and abortion should be available to reduce the numbers of so-called 'undesirables' in the population."

Contact: Charlie Butts   
Source: OneNewsNow.com

November 26, 2012

UN report on world population draws criticism from pro-life advocates

 
The world's population reached 7 billion on 31 October 2011. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas
 
"The State of World Population 2012," a new report by the United Nations Population Fund, has attracted criticism from pro-life advocates because of its emphasis on contraception as a human right.

The report calls upon nations to "promote family planning as a right, the exercise of which enables the attainment of a whole range of other rights."

"All human beings—regardless of age, sex, race or income—are equal in dignity and rights," the report adds. "Yet 222 million women in developing countries are unable to exercise the human right to voluntary family planning."

"The UN doesn't have the authority to declare contraception a human right, but particularly an agency of the UN doesn't have the right to declare something a human right; it debases the entire concept of human rights, to declare a commodity or a product a human right," said Wendy Wright of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.

Source: CWN

UNFPA’s dark view

 
UNFPA Logo

The new UN Population Fund report is riddled with problems which undercut its call for $8.1B a year for ever more contraception in developing countries. The evidence for this ambitious claim is so thin that it should not be hard for critics to refute it, but here are 11 problems that jumped off the very first pages:
 
1. The report is based upon the claim that there is a "huge unmet need for family planning." To the contrary, the term "unmet need" has been debunked by the very development experts who coined it. Particularly because the "huge" number–now claimed to be about 222 million–includes women who have specifically said they do not want the commodities.
 
2. The report says, "The power and means to determine the size of their families are scarce or inadequate." In fact, studies confirm that development experts have found family programs ineffective precisely because couples do not use contraception when are already using other means to freely decide the number and spacing of children.
 
3. The report claims contraception is an "intrinsic right," that is, a natural right that cannot be trumped by such rights as freedom of religion or conscience. Similarly, the executive director of UNFPA said in a letter to US UN ambassador Susan Rice last week that it was an "inalienable right." This claim asserts that condoms are somehow on par with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
 
4. The report claims that this right is affirmed in human rights treaties. This too is unsubstantiated.
 
5. The report emphasizes the "forces" of "negative social pressure" which prohibit the use of contraception. Translation: religion and culture. The author of the report is in fact an activist whose organization specifically seeks to change social mores to promote this agenda.
 
6. The report promotes the elimination of "child marriage," ostensibly any marriage under the age of 18, while at the same time promoting sex education for youth.  While forced child marriage is nearly universally opposed at the UN, the report does not make that distinction, and does not sufficiently account for the benefits of marriage, and particularly sex inside marriage for women at the age of consent.
 
7. The report claims that "studies have shown that investing in family planning helps reduce poverty, improve health…enable adolescents to finish schooling and increase labor force participation." In fact, studies also show that the opposite is true: schooling and better health care lead to lower fertility rates.
 
8.  Additionally, authors of the study that is cited, the 1977 Matlab, Bangladesh study, have noted that it is incorrect to say that family planning was the sole reason for better life outcomes such as higher wages. There were many other subsidies such as health care and housing which contributed to the study's results.
 
9.   The report claims that "where family planning supplies, information and services are widely available, abortion rates are lower." But the opposite has been shown to be true. In just one example, the CEDAW committee, which is by no means an opponent of widespread family planning and which has promoted abortion as a right over the years, has found just the opposite. In one instance, they admonished the government of France that where contraception rates rose among youth, unintended pregnancies and abortion rates also increased.
 
10. The bottom line of the report is the claim that nations which are struggling with the global economic downturn in their countries should pour another $8.1 billion dollars–every year–into already-well funded international family planning programs. This without any conclusive evidence that family planning programs reduce poverty or improve economies.
 
11. Most problematic of all, perhaps, is the troubling premise of the entire report, presented in its opening pages: "An unintended pregnancy can endanger a woman's health, undermine her opportunities to earn a living and trap her and her entire family in a cycle of poverty and exclusion."
 
Such a dark view of pregnancy–in which an innocent child, just because she is conceived unexpectedly, is a force for terrible evil– is radically out of step with the view of women all over the world who love their children, no matter whether they were expecting them or not.

Contact: Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
Source: Turtle Bay and Beyond

Still no explanation for Irish woman's death, as pressure mounts to end abortion ban

 

 
As Ireland awaits the results of an official inquiry into the death of Savita Halappanavar, staff members at the Galway hospital where she died report that they are "mystified" by her death and by the reports that she was denied an abortion.

Galway University Hospital staff members say that there is no record of a request for an abortion in the Halappanavar case. And the hospital's Catholic chaplain reports that doctors there were clearly committed to saving the life of any mother in a difficult pregnancy. "The only ethos I have ever witnessed in the labor unit of Galway hospital is that the mother's life always comes first," said Father David Cribbin.

The death of Savita Halappanavar has roused new calls for legal abortion in Ireland. The official panel investigating the incident is reportedly weighing its own recommendation that Ireland should end its ban on abortion. But the cause of the young woman's death has not yet been established.

Source: CWN

November 23, 2012

News Links for November 23rd

 

U.S. abortion rate fell 5 percent in 2009: CDC study

Baby, or your money back: fertility doctor mass produces, then sells embryos for $9,800

Assault of pro-life advocate leads to arrest of serial rapist


Is that new abortion study biased? You bet. But don't expect the media to tell you that.

Planned Parenthood sends woman to hospital after abortionist halts 2nd trimester abortion

In Ireland abortion case, pro-lifers warn against snap judgments

Doctor leading inquiry into Irish woman's death is supporter of legal abortion

Court Rules Against Hobby Lobby's Challenge To HHS Mandate

Pro-life Catholic approved as EU Commissioner despite opposition from leftist groups

Campaign seeks to repeal Uruguay abortion law

African women sue government clinics for coerced sterilizations

Heroic Media releases TV ad educating women about 'The Adoption Option'

New CDC study promotes the use of abortifacients to reduce abortion rates

Ireland: the story of “the woman who died because she wasn’t allowed an abortion” falls in shambles

 
Savita Halappanavar, a 17-week pregnant woman who died in a Galway hospital on Oct. 28.
Savita Halappanavar, a 17-week pregnant
woman who died in a Galway hospital on Oct. 28.

For the international abortion lobby, the whole story was just too convenient to be true: at the very moment when the Irish government is discussing controversial plans to liberalize abortion, a pregnant woman dies in an Irish hospital because she was denied an abortion that would have saved her life. "This is a Catholic country", the doctors callously told her, so there was no other solution for her than to die at age 31. Upon learning this, thousands of enraged citizens flock to "spontaneous" demonstrations all over the country, shouting their anger at the country's "retrograde legislation that puts the lives of young women at risk" and (of course!) against the Catholic Church and its nefarious influence in Irish politics.
 
But what are the facts?
 
Firstly, Ireland has one of the lowest rates of maternal mortality in the World. While in Ireland only 6 in 100.000 women die of complications related to pregnancy, in the UK the figure is 12 and in the US 21. In both countrie, abortion is legal (and one is tempted to wonder whether that is not one of the reason for many pregnancy related deaths).
 
Secondly, it now appears that the young woman did not at all die of a complication related to pregnancy. Her autopsy has revealed that she died of blood poisoning and E. coli ESBL, an antibiotic-resistant strain of the bacterium. E. coli ESBL has recently spread throughout the U.K., causing urinary tract infections which can develop into blood poisoning.
 
One again, the abortion lobby has erected a monument to its own disingenuity. Sometimes it would be good to simply get the facts before launching an emotional debate that could potentially cost the lives of many women and children…

Contact: J.C. von Krempach, J.D.
Source: Turtle Bay and Beyond


Hobby Lobby appealing refusal of HHS mandate injunction

 
David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby with his wife Barbara. Credit: Becket Fund.
David Green, founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby
with his wife Barbara. Credit: Becket Fund.
The retailer Hobby Lobby will appeal a federal court's refusal of its request for an injunction against a Health and Human Services rule that requires the Christian-owned business to cover abortion-causing drugs in its health insurance plans or face millions of dollars in fines.

"We disagree with this decision and we will immediately appeal it," said Kyle Duncan, General Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The religious freedom group is representing the Oklahoma City-based company, which is owned by Founder and CEO David Green and his family. Hobby Lobby's sister company Mardel, Inc. is also a plaintiff in the case.

Green and his family object to providing abortion-inducing drugs.

"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs. The Green family needs relief now and we will seek it immediately," Duncan said Nov. 19.

The case is the latest in the controversy over the Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring insurance coverage for sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. Its narrow religious exemption applies only to non-profit organizations which aim to spread religious values and which employ and serve primarily people of their religion.

Employees who violate the mandate risk fines of $100 per employee per day. Hobby Lobby, which employs over 13,000 full-time employees, said it faces a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1, 2013 if it ignores the law.

A lawyer for the federal government said the drugs do not cause abortions and the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them, the Associated Press reports.

U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton of the Western District of Oklahoma on Monday ruled that Hobby Lobby and Mardel "are not religious organizations." The judge also noted that the plaintiff's lawyers did not cite any case and the court did not find any case concluding that "secular, for-profit corporations" such as Hobby Lobby have "a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion." He said the mandate only "indirectly" burdens the Greens' religious beliefs.

Judge Heaton wrote that the court is "not unsympathetic" to the company's dilemma. He said the 2010 health care law's expansion of employer obligations has caused "concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners."

The question of whether restrictions on business corporations violate the religious freedom of their owners is one of "largely uncharted waters," he said.

Meanwhile, David Green said the legal action was necessary because of Hobby Lobby's dedication to God.

"It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," he said. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles."

Hobby Lobby has 500 stores in 41 states. It is the largest business to file a legal challenge against the HHS mandate. It is also the first business not owned by Catholics to do so.

The company is one of the few national retailers that continues to close its stores on Sunday "in order to allow our employees and customers more time for worship and family," its website says.

The mandate is causing significant anxiety among Catholic and other employers with religious and moral objections to providing the mandated coverage. It could affect many Catholic colleges, charities, health care systems and even some dioceses which must provide the coverage or face crippling fines.

There are currently 40 lawsuits with over 110 plaintiffs challenging the mandate.

While the Obama administration has proposed an accommodation to expand religious freedom protections, its details and effectiveness are still unclear. The administration has opposed congressional efforts to broaden the exemption and President Obama criticized Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for supporting a broader religious exemption.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Judge: Hobby Lobby must cover abortion drugs

 

A federal judge has ruled that Hobby Lobby and Mardel stores must cover abortion-causing drugs for their employees as required by the Obama administration because the companies -- despite having faith as a central element of their operations -- are not religious enough to warrant a court intervention.

Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Hobby Lobby and Mardel had argued that requiring them to pay for the drugs, which come under brand names such as Plan B and ella, would violate the faith of their owners, not to mention the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of religion. Judge Joe Heaton, nominated by President George W. Bush, disagreed, saying the law was not unconstitutional.

Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts store chain, while Mardel is a Christian bookstore chain. Both are owned by the Green family. The companies are self-insured, and their health care plans take effect Jan. 1. They had requested a temporary injunction.

"Churches and other religious organizations or religious corporations have been accorded protection under the free exercise clause," Heaton, of the U.S. District Court in western Oklahoma, wrote. "... However, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations. Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion ..."

The ruling Monday (Nov. 19) came three days after another federal judge reached a different conclusion in siding with Bible publisher Tyndale in its suit against what has become known as the abortion/contraceptive mandate. That judge also was nominated by Bush. Including the Tyndale case, three federal judges this year have ruled against the mandate. At least 40 lawsuits have been filed against the mandate. The Supreme Court eventually may get involved.

The Becket Fund says it will file an appeal on behalf of Hobby Lobby and Mardel.

"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund. "The Green family needs relief now and we will seek it immediately from the federal appeals court in Denver."

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

"These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith, and our family is now being forced to choose between following the laws of the land that we love or maintaining the religious beliefs that have made our business successful," David Green, Hobby Lobby's founder and CEO, said in September. "... We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate."

In his ruling, Heaton said Hobby Lobby and Mardel "do not have constitutional free exercise rights as corporations." He cited a Supreme Court case and said the "plain import is that there must be more than some burden on religious exercise. The burden must be substantial."

Green said religious liberty is at stake.

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

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

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press

New March for Life president plans increased youth appeal

 

After being named the president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, Jeanne F. Monahan says she plans to increase the annual pro-life march's appeal to young people.

Monahan said in a Nov. 20 interview with CNA that her "immediate goal is to do the best job possible to commemorate this somber 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which is rapidly hitting us here in January; to do what we can to make the rally very youth accessible and interesting and to make the March as fruitful as possible."

The fund organizes and runs the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., which will be held Jan. 25, 2013 on the National Mall.

Monahan, who was unanimously approved by the fund's board on Nov. 16, said her ultimate goal is to work herself "out of a job."

She sees her position as more than just running "the largest pro-life event in the world, but to be making a difference in terms of impacting a culture of life every single day, not only around the anniversary of Roe."

"My long term goal … is to utilize the education piece of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund."

Monahan joined the March for Life board in June "with every intention of staying" at her job with the Family Research Council, but when the organization's founder Nellie Gray died in August, Monahan was made the interim president.

Monahan previously served as director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, and before that worked in various capacities at the Department of Health and Human Services. She holds a Master of Theological Studies from Catholic University of America.

"Jeanne is a strong pro-life advocate who will continue the strong leadership of Nellie Gray and bring us closer to a culture of life," said Patrick E. Kelly, Chairman of the Board of Directors. "The Board and I are very much looking forward to working with Jeanne in this new, full-time capacity and are looking forward to our largest March in history this January."

She said that January's event will utilize jumbotrons and will be succinct, lasting roughly an hour. A handful of legislators will speak, and they will be "leaders on both sides of the political aisle who are pro-life."

Monahan also intends to have a celebrity speaker, as well as music that will be "interesting and engaging" for young people.

"One major goal I have … is to get all of the participants to do some kind of act of lobbying on the Hill while they're here; not only to peacefully protest, but to make an appointment with their legislators and to go and talk to them about the necessity of pro-life legislation, and to do so in a positive and compelling way."

The new president also wants to focus specifically on helping young people lobby their legislators.

"We'll do everything we can to engage media in a positive way and to raise as much awareness about the fact that abortion is the human rights issue of today," she said.

Monahan noted the Fund is launching a more "savvy" social media campaign by updating their Facebook page, better utilizing Twitter and reaching out to youth with new media.

Monahan sees a great deal of hope for the pro-life movement going forward, because "young people are overwhelmingly pro-life … they have their finger on the pulse that this truly does destroy a human life."

Asked about the future of the pro-life movement, she said that "one thing I think is critical moving forward is that we show abortion is bad for women … that we use truth and technology and science, all to our advantage. All we need to do with the abortion issue is bring it into the light."

She cited advances in ultrasound technology and understanding of fetal pain as factors which have enlightened young people about the truth behind abortion.

Monahan emphasized that she plans to "do everything I can to show the fallacy" of the slogans that abortion is a "so-called right for women and good for women's health."

"Abortion is not good for women, and obviously not good for the babies who aren't allowed a right to life."

As she looks ahead to January, Monahan gets "the sense that the way providence has played out, that this is going to be a very important year for the March for Life, for people peacefully protesting."

Contact: Carl Bunderson
Source: CNA/EWTN News

Tyndale gets court win against abortion mandate

 

A federal court has handed a leading Bible publisher a major victory over the Obama administration's abortion/contraceptive mandate, preventing its enforcement against the publisher and ruling the company is likely to succeed as the case proceeds.

A federal district court Friday (Nov. 16) issued a temporary injunction preventing the administration from requiring Tyndale House Publishers to cover contraceptives that can cause chemical abortions. The drugs often are called "emergency contraceptives" and can act after conception and implantation, and come under brand names such as Plan B and ella.

Obeying the mandate would force Tyndale to violate its religious beliefs, the publisher argued through its attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Judge Reggie B. Walton agreed.

"The contraceptive coverage mandate ... places the plaintiffs in the untenable position of choosing either to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage of the contraceptives at issue or to subject their business to the continual risk of the imposition of enormous penalties for its noncompliance," Walton wrote. "... Government action that creates such a Hobson's choice for the plaintiffs amply shows that the contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens the plaintiffs' religious exercise."

It is the third ruling this year against the mandate, which was implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after President Obama signed the 2010 health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The law itself does not include the mandate language, although it does give the federal government the power to decide what should and should not be covered under the law. Churches and religious conventions are exempt from the mandate, but many religious organizations are not.

Walton's ruling currently applies only to Tyndale but could have a much wider impact if Tyndale continues winning in court. Tyndale's new insurance plan year began Oct. 1 and it is self-insured -- meaning it would have been forced to pay for the controversial drugs.

There is "undoubtedly" a "public interest in ensuring that the rights secured under the First Amendment" are protected, Walton ruled. He used most of his 38-page opinion to show how the mandate violates a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Walton was nominated by President George W. Bush.

Matt Bowman, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, applauded the judge's ruling.

"Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the book that they publish," said Bowman, who took part in oral arguments before the judge. "The court has done the right thing in halting the mandate while our lawsuit moves forward. For the government to say that a Bible publisher is not religious is startling. It demonstrates how clearly the Obama administration is willing to disregard the Constitution's protection of religious freedom to achieve certain political purposes."

Although the Supreme Court upheld the health care law this summer, it did not address the issues in the Tyndale case. There have been 40 suits filed seeking to overturn the mandate, according to a tally by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Tyndale -- which has 260 full-time employees -- functions as a thoroughly Christian organization, the ADF 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 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)."

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press