December 14, 2012

Disabled daughter dies just hours after state takes her from mom


Marie Freyre was born with cerebral palsy and
fluid surrounding her brain. She suffered from
 life-threatening seizures.
[Family photo courtesy of Miami Herald]

Even after Marie Freyre died alone in a nursing home 250 miles from the family in North Tampa that loved her, Marie's mother had to fight to bring her home.

In March 2011, state child protection investigators took 14-year-old Marie from her mother, Doris Freyre, claiming Doris' own disabilities made it almost impossible for her to care for Marie, who suffered from seizures and severe cerebral palsy. But a Tampa judge signed an order that Marie be returned to her mother, with in-home nursing care around the clock.

Florida health care administrators refused to pay for it, although in-home care can be demonstrably cheaper than care in an institution. Child welfare workers ignored the order completely.

Two months later, Marie was strapped into an ambulance for a five-hour trip to a Miami Gardens nursing home, as her mother begged futilely to go with her.

Marie died 12 hours after she arrived.

"Since the state of Florida took custody of my daughter, I would like the state of Florida to bring me back my daughter," Freyre, 59, said at a May 9 court hearing, 12 days after her daughter died.

"They kidnapped my daughter. She was murdered," said Freyre. "And I want my daughter back."

The last days of Marie Freyre, chronicled in hundreds of pages of records reviewed by the Miami Herald, are a story of death by bureaucratic callousness and medical neglect. The episode sheds significant light on an ongoing dispute between Florida health care regulators and the U.S. Department of Justice. Though the state claims that the parents of severely disabled and medically fragile children have "choice" over where their children live and receive care, federal civil rights lawyers say Florida, by dint of a rigged funding system, has "systematically" force-fed sick children into nursing homes meant to care for adults — in violation of federal laws that prohibit discrimination against disabled people.

Civil rights lawyers are asking the state to allow a federal judge to oversee Florida's Medicaid program, which insures needy and disabled people. It pays as much as $506 a day to put a child like Marie in a nursing home, but refuses to cover lesser or similar amounts for in-home care.

Late Friday, state health regulators wrote their final letter to the Justice Department in response to a deadline. The state, they wrote, "is not in violation of any federal law" governing the medical care delivered to needy Floridians, and cannot "agree to the demand … that a federal court take over the management of Florida's Medicaid service-delivery system."

Without doubt, Marie Freyre was a fragile, sickly child. Born with cerebral palsy and fluid surrounding her brain, Marie had a shunt in her skull to drain the fluid and suffered from life-threatening seizures. One of her hips was permanently displaced, causing sometimes excruciating pain. Marie could smile, though she could not speak.

Doris Freyre — who worked at a family store in Puerto Rico before becoming disabled herself— cared for her daughter well for 14 years, and Marie had suffered no seizures in recent years, records show.

"Doris spent every day of 14 years of her life giving everything she had to Marie, guaranteeing that Marie lived as healthy and wonderful a life as God allowed her," said the family's Tampa lawyer, Peter Brudny.

But in March 2011, one of the family's in-home nurses reported several concerns about Doris Freyre's parenting of Marie to the Department of Children and Families, setting in motion a disastrous chain of events. Hillsborough Circuit Judge Vivian Corvo began a hearing on the case on March 30, 2011, by praising Freyre for her care of her daughter.

Corvo wanted to help Freyre — not punish her. The greatest challenge was Freyre's own health: Freyre suffers from six herniated discs, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome in her wrists.

"The doctor told me to do surgery," Freyre said in court. "I told him no, because I have to take care of my daughter."

Freyre had asked the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide her with 24-hour nursing aides. As it stood, Freyre had a gap between midnight and 7 a.m. where she needed help to reposition Marie and change her diapers. "It's not easy," Freyre told the judge. "I'm human."

But AHCA administrators refused to pay for the additional hours. Corvo wanted to know why. "This is a nonverbal child, with all of these issues," the judge said. "Why would this mother not qualify for 24-hour care?"

From the beginning, state child protection administrators wanted to send Marie to a nursing home. Freyre's attorney suggested such a move could kill her.

"With this type of child, when you institutionalize them," attorney Steve Zucker said, "they never do well. And I'm very concerned."

"Can the (state) do better than this?" he asked the judge.

At the end of the hearing, Corvo required child welfare administrators to do better. She wrote an order that Marie be returned to her mother, with additional nursing care through the night.

It was an order the state simply ignored.

Records show state child welfare workers disregarded Corvo's order that Hillsborough Kids, which was under contract with the DCF, pay for the extra nursing hours while caseworkers looked into additional dollars from Medicaid.

Two weeks later, the state Attorney General's Office and Hillsborough Kids appeared before a different judge, Emily Peacock. AHCA, which runs Medicaid, had refused again to pay for 24-hour care, a lawyer said. With no permanent solution in sight, the state said, a nursing home was the only option.

"The best placement for the child right now is a … nursing home where she can get that 24-hour supervision and care that she needs," said Angeline Attila, an assistant attorney general.

The new judge, who never asked why the state ignored a prior judge's order, agreed — though she granted Freyre the right to visit with her daughter all she wanted. But even that kindness proved meaningless.

A DCF review of Marie's death said the only nursing home willing to take her was Florida Club Care Center in Miami Gardens.

At first, the state Attorney General's Office, which was representing Hillsborough Kids, asked that the long trip be delayed so lawyers could seek permission from a judge to move Marie.

But they were under significant pressure to get Marie out of Tampa General Hospital, where she was placed after child protection workers took her into state care. Records show the hospital complained bitterly that it was losing money on her care. A hospital social worker, records say, "was adamant about the child leaving the hospital today."

So, at 11:30 a.m. April 25, 2011, workers at Tampa General Hospital loaded the teen onto a stretcher in a private ambulance — as her mother and grandfather begged them to stop. Even as caseworkers were packing Marie's belongings, her grandfather was frantically filing hand-written emergency motions in court to delay the trip, Brudny said.

Doris Freyre, case notes say, "stated that no one knows my child like me," and that Marie's dislocated hip would cause her great pain if she were strapped to a stretcher for hours. She added: "If something happens to my daughter I am holding all of you responsible for it."

Freyre had no car — and the private ambulance refused to allow her to join Marie — so Marie made the trip to Miami-Dade County alone.

Records show the two ambulance workers refused to take Marie's seizure drugs with them; under the company's policy, they were not allowed to administer medications in any case. According to a report detailing Tampa General Hospital's care of Marie, the hospital neglected to ensure she was properly hydrated before she left. During her five-hour ambulance ride, she was given no water or food.

A September 2011 investigation by AHCA of how Tampa General discharged Marie to the nursing home faulted the hospital for a number of violations, including failing to ensure the child had enough fluids and was properly medicated. The hospital's lack of "concern" for Marie, the report said, left her "in danger."

The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services placed the hospital under the status of "Immediate Jeopardy" following the review, the highest penalty under federal health regulations, said an AHCA spokeswoman. The following October, the federal agency removed the designation after Tampa General implemented a corrective action plan. AHCA also is seeking to fine the hospital $5,000 in the case, and a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 14.

Marie arrived in Miami Gardens the way she left Tampa: screaming. AHCA records for the next 12 hours mention only four notations in the nursing home file, and two of them document Marie "screaming."

By 5:40 a.m. April 27, 2011, Marie was described as having "labored" breathing. Five minutes later, she was unresponsive. The AHCA investigation concluded she had been given none of her life-sustaining anti-seizure drugs, required three times each day.

Marie was pronounced dead at 6:54 a.m. Cause of death: heart attack.

Two weeks later, on May 9, 2011, Doris Freyre appeared one last time before a judge in Tampa — Peacock, who declared herself "terribly sorry" for Freyre's loss.

"I don't accept your excuse," the mother replied. Freyre said she was in court to get her daughter's body back from the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner's Office. With no trust left for state officials, Freyre was seeking a private autopsy.

"It's the mother's position that the (state) had the child removed without proper authorization," said her attorney, Laguerra Champagne. "She objected to the child being physically removed from Hillsborough County and transported to Miami. No court hearing was held and, unfortunately, we're here today, dealing with a dead child instead of a living child."

Attila, the prosecutor who, weeks earlier, had fought so hard to get Marie to the nursing home, no longer wanted to discuss the matter. She told Peacock that a child welfare judge had no "jurisdiction" over a dead child and prosecutors would file a court motion saying so.

"Not to seem insensitive; I understand the mother is quite frustrated and I understand that she's grieving," Attila said, "but the information that she's providing to the court is moot at this point in time."

Despite Attila's protestations, Freyre had the last word.

"I had her for 14 years — cared (for) and loved her," Freyre said. "And you have her … in prison, in the hospital, without going out in the sun, without being with other people, in prison.

"Then, in (12) hours, you took her down to Miami and she died," Freyre added. "And I want the truth of this to come out. I want justice."

Marie's body remained in storage for nine months while the medical examiner's office completed its autopsy, and Freyre held a memorial with no body.

In the end, Marie's body was cremated in Tampa. Her ashes then were sent to Puerto Rico for a private family funeral.

Contact: Carol Marbin Miller
Source: Miami Herald/Illinois Review

Planned Parenthood lawsuit attempts to remove critical protections for women



"In its quest to move abortions into rural Wisconsin, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is challenging Wisconsin's new law which requires that a woman seeking an RU 486 abortion be seen 'in person' by the individual performing the abortion and that in-person administration of the RU 486 abortion pill take place," stated Barbara Lyons, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Planned Parenthood would rather expand its abortion empire by having women talk to an abortionist over a web cam. This is not good medicine and not good protection for women."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) guidelines for administration of RU 486 abortions call for a physical exam as step one prior to obtaining this type of abortion. The guidelines also recommend follow-up after 14 days to the abortion provider to ensure that the abortion is complete.

The FDA reports 14 maternal deaths and over 2,200 adverse incidents from use of RU 486 since 2000. Adverse incidents include 612 hospitalizations, 58 ectopic pregnancies, 339 blood transfusions, and 256 cases of infection.

"The two-drug RU 486 abortion process is neither simple nor without significant risk to women. The least we can do, as the State of Wisconsin has done, is to require that the woman be seen in person before these dangerous drugs are administered. We are confident that this law is clear in its intent and will be upheld," continued Lyons.

Source: ProLifeBlogs

Emergency Contraceptives Over the Counter - Safe or Sorry?



There has been much talk recently in "reproductive rights" circles about the over-the-counter (OTC) status of emergency contraceptives (EC's) and hormonal contraceptives, in general. Much of the debate has centered on a December 2011 decision by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius not to extend OTC status to Plan B One-Step, an emergency contraceptive, to girls less than 17 years of age. In defense of her decision, Secretary Sebelius stated, "the data provided as part of the actual use study and the label comprehension study are not sufficient to support making Plan B One-Step available to all girls 16 and younger, without talking to a health care professional."

Now, one year later, "reproductive rights" advocates such as RH Reality Check and Reproductive Health Technology Project are determined to push the Obama Administration for wider access to all emergency contraceptives to all women and girls of reproductive age, according to a Washington Times story. These advocates see prescriptions as "barriers to care" and claim that emergency contraceptives have been proven safe enough "to be on the shelf — right between the condoms and the pregnancy-test kits." (See President of Reproductive Health Technology Project Kirsten Moore's statement).

Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has recommended that prescription-only age restrictions for EC's be removed "to create true over the counter access to emergency contraception for all women." (Committee Opinion Number 542, November 2012, Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women). In their committee report, ACOG claims that making emergency contraception easily available to teens will not increase the incidence of risky sexual behavior or unintended pregnancy, and that physical examination is not needed prior to the prescription of contraceptives. However, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) refutes ACOG's findings.

AAPLOG addressed myriad problems with the decision to allow EC's over the counter. Most significantly, AAPLOG noted in a news release that abortion rates and unintended pregnancy rates in places with OTC status for EC's has not decreased (and, in fact, has increased in the UK), and since women will not need to be seen by a doctor before obtaining emergency contraceptives, they will bypass screening for STDs that they would normally receive at their doctor visits. AAPLOG also emphasizes the danger of easy access to EC's for male sexual predators who wish to cover up their abuse.

Likewise, the American College of Pediatricians notes in its December 3, 2012 press release that there is no association between wider access to emergency contraceptives and lower incidence of unintended pregnancy, and in fact, access to EC's is associated with a increased incidence of STD's. The American College of Pediatricians also says that despite arguments to the contrary, EC's are related to increased sexual activity among minors, "which is a risk factor for depression and suicide, poor school performance, more lifetime sexual partners, and an increased divorce rate."*

The American College of Pediatricians emphasizes the fact that the adolescent brain has not reached full maturity — a fact to which any parent or school teacher can attest — and, thus, teens need guidance in decision-making from parents. The College recommends the more responsible, common sense position that doctors "encourage good adolescent-parental communication, teach adolescent patients the benefits of delaying sexual activity until marriage, and teach them how to avoid premature/promiscuous consensual sex and situations resulting in coerced sex."

Protecting young women should be our foremost concern. Advocates of increased access to EC's for teens want to push children into making serious, adult decisions in the name of "removing barriers." As adults, it is our job to protect, not to endanger, children. If even a few of the concerns mentioned in relation to providing Plan B and other EC's over the counter are valid, then the proposal to provide them to all girls of reproductive age should be suspended indefinitely.

Contact: Anna Higgins
Source: FRCBlog

Illinois pharmacist ruling praised as conscience victory



Religious liberty advocates are hailing the end of a seven-year legal battle over the required provision of abortion drugs in Illinois pharmacies as a major triumph for conscience rights.

"This decision is a great victory for religious freedom," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented the pharmacists in the case for several years.

"The government shouldn't kick business owners out of the market just because it dislikes their religious beliefs," he said in a statement.

"Over seven years of litigation, there was never a shred of proof that a religious objection at a pharmacy harmed anyone," Rienzi explained. "These pharmacists do a wonderful job serving their communities, and the state's decision not to appeal lets them get back to that important work."

On Dec. 10, the Illinois Attorney General announced that it would not appeal a court decision upholding the conscience rights of pharmacists against a state mandate requiring the dispensation of abortion-inducing drugs.

After seven years in court, the decision secures a victory for two Illinois pharmacists and the pharmacies they run.

The case stems from a 2005 executive rule issued by then-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to require all pharmacists and pharmacies in the state to dispense Plan B, also known as the "morning after pill."

While it is commonly called "emergency contraception," the drug can cause an early abortion by ending the life of a newly created human embryo.

Pharmacists who did not comply with the rule were threatened with fines and the loss of professional licenses.  
 
The governor did not allow a religious exemption to the rule, saying that pharmacists who were morally opposed to the drug should find a different profession.

Several pharmacists and pharmacies that morally object to cooperating in the destruction of human life filed a lawsuit challenging the rule.

The suit argued that the rule violated state religious liberty laws, health care conscience protections and the religious freedom guarantees in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It charged that the rule unfairly discriminated against health care professionals seeking to contribute to society according to their principles by forcing them to choose between their constitutionally protected rights and their livelihood.
 
In April 2011, an Illinois trial court granted a permanent injunction blocking the rule from applying to the pharmacists. The court found no evidence that anyone had been harmed by a pharmacist's religious objections to providing the drugs. It also noted that the law allowed pharmacies to refuse to sell drugs for many other business reasons, but not religious ones.

A state appellate court affirmed the injunction in September 2012, finding that the rule amounted to "discrimination in licensing" against those with religious objections to early abortion drugs.
 
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, hailed the decision as "a tremendous victory."

Americans United for Life, which filed the original lawsuit in the case, noted that many individuals throughout the country face similar dilemmas due the Obama administration's recent federal mandate requiring employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, sterilization and early abortion drugs.
 
Yoest said that the victory in Illinois "has dramatic implications for all people of faith who object to being forced to throw aside their convictions to support an anti-life agenda."

Source: CNA

December 7, 2012

News Links for December 7th



Miracle baby born Thanksgiving Day at Chicago's Mt. Sinai (VIDEO)

US birth rate hits new low

Legal abortion has taken 400 women's lives

Survey: Most back contraception mandate

US Senate fails to ratify controversial UN disabilities treaty

Fiscal cliff imperils adoption tax credit

Birth control out of control?

Group that Exposes Planned Parenthood in Billboard Campaigns Joins Media Summit

Abortion Recovery InterNational Joins KnockTV's National Partners Program for Groundbreaking New TV Series: Surrender the Secret

ACOP: Emergency contraception should NOT be pre-prescribed to teens

Lila Rose spreading her US pro-life work to Europe

Judge rules that Archdiocese of New York's lawsuit against HHS mandate may proceed

MS abortuary still defying law

Minnesota breaks state law in paying for elective abortions

Florida: Family Planning Vs. Family Belonging

Pro-life centers vs. Baltimore

Pro-life laws' defeat 'doesn't make sense'

Should Patients Be Allowed to Die of Bed Sores?

Free Speech Trial of Pro-Life Advocates Begins in Jackson, Mississippi

Chinese pro-life activist calls for reform, international attention

Irish pro-lifers hold vigil against abortion legislation

Irish prelate cautions on rush toward legal abortion

In Britain, food & water withheld from ill babies

Sedated to Death Without Permission in UK

Rubio talks creation, homosexuality, abortion

Study shows Colombia's youth reject abortion, drug laws

Appeals court rules against abortion mandate



For the first time a federal appeals court has issued an order against the Obama administration's abortion/contraceptive mandate.

The one-page order Wednesday (Nov. 28) from a three-judge Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel prevents the government from forcing a Missouri business -- O'Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC -- to cover contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs in its employee health care plans as the appeals process is completed. The panel's temporary injunction came two months after a lower court tossed out the lawsuit.

It marks the fourth time this year that a federal court has issued an order or ruling against the mandate, which applies to businesses and religious organizations. There are about 40 cases nationwide seeking to overturn the mandate, which was implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after President Obama signed the landmark health care bill into law.

The lawsuit by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) says the mandate would force Frank O'Brien -- the business owner -- to violate his "religious beliefs and company policy." The mandate violates two federal laws as well as the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and free speech, the suit states. If the court does not intervene and O'Brien does not follow the mandate, he would face steep fines. O'Brien's company and its subsidiaries employ about 85 people.

"O'Brien is a Catholic who has the religious duty to conduct himself and his business in a manner consistent with the Catholic faith," ACLJ stated in an appeal to the Eighth Circuit. "Pursuant to these beliefs, O'Brien has 'established as company policy that [it] cannot pay for and provide coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, abortion or related education and counseling.'"

O'Brien's business operates a number of businesses that explore, mine and process refractory and ceramic raw materials, according to ACLJ.

"The order sends a message that the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government," said ACLJ attorney Francis Manion. "We have argued from the beginning that employers like Frank O'Brien must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government. We look forward to this case moving forward and securing the constitutional rights of our client."

The panel split 2-1 on the order, although all three judges were nominated by Republican presidents. The two justices in the majority were Raymond W. Gruender and Bobby E. Shepherd, each nominated by George W. Bush. Dissenting in the order was Morris Sheppard Arnold, who was nominated by George H.W. Bush.

The ACLJ suit involves a private business, but many of the 40 suits against the mandate involve religious organizations. Tyndale House Publishers, which publishes Bibles and Christian books, won in federal court in November when a judge issued a temporary injunction preventing it from being forced to follow the mandate.

Contact: Michael Foust
Source: Baptist Press

Pro-life leaders ask GOP to stand strong on abortion

Sen. John McCain speaks Sept. 24, 2012 on campaign finance at USC's Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy. Credit: Rosa Trieu-Neon Tommy (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Top pro-life advocates are calling on the Republican Party to maintain its pro-life stance despite calls from some to back off from the position in the wake of the presidential election.

"A real soldier doesn't stay on the defensive," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which works to promote pro-life candidates and policies. "You go out and state your best case."

"The folks that have taken the stand on this issue have taken it because we're talking about defending vulnerable human life," she told CNA on Nov. 30. "If it's not about that, it's not about anything."

Dannenfelser was one of several pro-life leaders who responded to suggestions by some Republicans, including Arizona senator John McCain, that the GOP should drop or mitigate its pro-life stance in order to broaden its appeal after losing the presidential election.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Nov. 25, the senator – who unsuccessfully ran for president against Barack Obama in 2008 – suggested that while "I can state my position on abortion," Republicans should "other than that, leave the issue alone when we are in the kind of economic situation and, frankly, national security situation that we're in."

When asked by host Chris Wallace whether his suggestion to "leave the issue alone" meant allowing "freedom of choice" to abort, McCain responded, "I would allow people to have those opinions and respect those opinions."

"I'm proud of my pro-life position and record, but if someone disagrees with me, I respect your views," he said.

Pro-life advocates immediately rejected such suggestions, arguing that the adamant support of life is both a winning battle and the right thing to do.

Dannenfelser pointed to the historic words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's loss on Election Day should not be attributed to his opposition to abortion, said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, and Brendan O'Morchoe, the organization's national field operations director.

In a Nov. 12 blog post on the group's website, Hawkins and O'Morchoe responded to pundits who were already blaming Romney's loss on his support of life.

They pointed to a FOX News exit poll from election night showing that 59 percent of voters supported legal abortion and only 36 percent opposed it.

These numbers do not reflect Gallup's recent poll showing that the majority of Americans are pro-life, they said. Rather, the low turnout shows that pro-lifers did not vote.

They suggested that Romney's relative silence on the subject hurt him at the ballot box, noting that while he said he would de-fund Planned Parenthood and sign pro-life legislation, he did not match the Democratic Party's heavy emphasis on the subject.

"If the Republican Party had made any effort to highlight President Obama's extreme pro-abortion record, we believe the results of this election would have been much different," they said.
 
The grim reality of resistance within both parties points to the realization that the pro-life movement must not rely on politicians in the nation's capital, they said. Rather, it must continue working to change the culture.
 
"Our mission of abolishing abortion in our lifetime still stands," they stated. "It will happen in our lifetime. Culture shapes politics, and our culture is becoming pro-life."

Contact: Michelle Bauman
Source: CNA

Studies from France, China Report Breast Cancer Risk Climbs with Number of Abortions



A French study on women with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancers, shows "the clearest dose effect of any (abortion-breast cancer) study." Professor Joel Brind (Baruch College, City University of New York)
 
"Communist China's one child per couple policy is at least partially responsible for its escalating breast cancer rates, according to at least two studies. Researchers expect an epidemic of 2.5 million cases of breast cancer by 2021 among women from the One Child Generation who will then be between the ages 55 and 69." (Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer)
 
Studies from France and China have reported that breast cancer risk climbs with number of abortions. Demonstrating a "dose effect" is considered an "important measure of credibility" for establishing a cause-effect relationship.
 
Click here to read more.

Contact: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Senseless Push for 'Emergency Contraception'


 
One physician doesn't think it's ethical for the American Academy of Pediatricians to urge all doctors to counsel underage girls and provide a prescription for the "morning-after" pill to keep in advance of intimacy.

For the most part, the prescriptions would be given to 13- to 16-year-old girls. Dr. Patricia Lee June is with a different organization, the American College of Pediatricians, which opposes the suggestion. She cites studies that reveal that the "morning-after" pill does not reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate.

She is also concerned that it increases early sexual activity and allows older men to prey on young girls.

"For girls in the 13- to 15-year age range, a high percentage of them are impregnated by men over age 20," Dr. June reports. "And being able to say hey, just take this pill and you won't get pregnant makes it much easier for them to coerce or seduce them."

And she notes another factor that has apparently been discarded: "The parent is not in the loop."

"Children's brains are not mature until the mid-20s," the doctor explains. "They can't make mature decisions, [so] the parents need to be involved."

As for the doctors who follow the Academy's suggestion, Dr. June tells OneNewsNow, "Let's just say their ethics are not the same as my ethics." But she believes a large number of pediatricians will ignore the recommendation because it simply "doesn't make good sense to them."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow.com

Why is the United Nations Foundation Bashing Pro-Life Advocates?

Life Legal Defense Foundation Responds to UN Supporting Abortion Promoters



The United Nations is singing Attorney General Eric Holder's praises, both inaccurately and inappropriately, via its United Nations Foundation blog, Reproductive Health Reality Check (also known as RH Reality Check). The blog is authored by Jessica Mason Pieklo, RH Reality Check, Senior Legal Analyst, who identifies herself online by the handle "Hegemommy," and confesses, "My feminism [is] not always on target, and my politics [are] not always appropriate. I sometimes behave badly." Pieklo's November 26 opinion piece on Holder confirms the blogger's self-admitted shortcomings.

Attorney Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, takes issue with Pieklo's misrepresentation of the facts. Cody has been championing the rights of women and the unborn for over twenty years. She offers the following response:

Why is the United Nations Foundation Bashing Pro-Life Advocates?

"Ms. Pieklo needs a reality check. Attorney General Eric Holder's record for prosecuting people under FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entry) is dismal. In fact, in Florida the charges against pro-life advocate Mary Susan Pine were dismissed and she was awarded damages.

"I would bet Ms. Pieklo attended a government university because her critical thinking skills seem lacking. Since when is a report by the National Abortion Federation (NAF) considered unbiased information about clinic violence? Not only are NAF's materials biased, they are false.

"Take for example the resource guide provided at the NAF training on FACE on August 25, 2010, in Portland, Oregon. The training materials included NAF's guide, 'Resource Guide: Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.' The guide materially misrepresents constitutionally protected speech and the constitutional rights of those who wish to express their views regarding abortion. Some examples of the misrepresentations in the resource guide are as follows:

"Page 8 contains a brief history and description of the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers, comprised of members from the US Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the FBI, as well as other federal agencies. Listed among their duties is the 'investigation and prosecution of incidents of abortion violence' and examination of 'criminal anti-abortion activities.' Yet, in the pages that follow, the resource guide labels legally permissible, constitutionally protected non-violent activity as threatening, violent, and intimidating and calls for the investigation and prosecution by the FBI and USDOJ of pro-life advocates who engage therein.
"On page 20, under 'Violence and Disruption Statistics' compiled by the NAF, picketing (an entirely lawful activity) is included as a 'disruption' and accounts for 6,361 of the 8,180 reported incidents.

"Page 15 includes a surreptitious insertion under the heading 'History of Clinic Violence.' The listing names 'the use of huge anti-abortion posters' and 'graphic signs,' engagement in 'campus campaigns,' and participation in 'boycotts against abortion providers.' The same discussion complains of 'anti-abortion extremists' dissemination of information over the internet and their initiation of lawsuits for 'alleged' freedom of speech violations. (It should be noted that many pro-life lawsuits have successfully proven freedom of speech violations.)

"On page 67 the resource guide states that the USDOJ encourages enforcement of the FACE Act by gathering evidence on 'leaflets or pamphlets' and 'signs' distributed and carried by pro-life advocates. The discussion goes on to advise that the USDOJ 'maintains a database of names, photos, license plates, etc. of anti-choice groups and individuals' and indicates they work 'proactively' with local law enforcement. Also included is a watch-list on pages 39-41 of website names and addresses of numerous non-violent pro-life organizations.

"Contrary to the impression given by the resource guide, none of the activities named are violent, nor are they unlawful. The attempt to label peaceful, legal speech activities as criminal activities is an old tactic, but fortunately a tactic which the First Amendment was created to prevent.

"Ms. Pieklo would rather see the free speech and other civil rights of life advocates oppressed than allow their message to be communicated to women entering clinics, because those messages promote true, actual, informed choice. I guess that means that in actuality, Ms. Pieklo seems to be the anti-choice radical."

Contact: Dana Cody
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation

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