Fetuses may feel pain as early as 20 weeks, doctor clarifies

 

An Italian doctor has clarified that fetuses may be capable of feeling pain and pleasure as early as 20 weeks after their conception, after a June 19 article in Time may have led some to believe otherwise.

 

The Time article quoted a paper co-authored by Carlo Bellieni, from the department of pediatrics, obstetrics and reproductive medicine at the University Hospital of Siena, which says there is "consistent evidence of the possibility for the fetus to experience pain in the third trimester, and this evidence is weaker before this date and null in the first half of pregnancy."

 

Time used this quote to characterize Bellieni as having reported that "while it was difficult to truly determine when the first feelings of pain emerged, such sensations likely begin in the third trimester."

 

"But this can look like I said that the fetus doesn't feel pain in the second trimester at all," Bellieni told CNA June 24.

 

While acknowledging that his paper was correctly quoted by Time, he added that "saying 'this evidence is weaker' does not mean that it is absent."

 

"In fact, I pointed out that evidence of fetal pain is 'null in the first half of pregnancy'" – meaning that after 20 weeks, there is evidence that fetuses can experience pain.

 

That fetuses "can feel pain in their twentieth … week can't be excluded," Bellieni said.

 

While "we don't know exactly when pain sensations begin," it is as early as 20, and as late as 24 weeks.

 

Bellieni has also written that "painful stimuli can arrive to the brain at 20-22 weeks of gestation.

 

"We need more research, because there is not so much out there," he emphasized.

 

The doctor believes this is due to a "lack of interest," adding that "we have the moral obligation" since fetal surgery is possible.

 

"Fetal surgery has greater possibility of success the bigger the fetus is, but studies show surgery is possible in the first half of the pregnancy."

 

"Most of fetal pain research has been made on babies who are outside the womb and have been born, but are premature," he added.

 

The Time article was written against the background over debate around the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which was passed in the House June 18.

 

The bill would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, stating that "there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier."

 

Though the bill has passed the House, it must still pass the Senate, and the White House has suggested that if it arrives on President Obama's desk he will veto it.

 

The administration stated that the bill "shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution."

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the legislation, argued in a June 13 statement that "knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be."

 

"This is not who we are," he said.

 

Source: CNA Daily News

Baptists, Catholics join to fight abortion mandate; ERLC, USCCB leaders write Congress

 

The United States' two largest religious denominations have joined forces in an effort to protect freedom of conscience as full enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion/contraception mandate nears.

 

The leading religious freedom spokesmen for Southern Baptists and American Roman Catholics -- Russell D. Moore and William Lori, respectively -- urged Congress in a letter Friday (June 21) to pass legislation designed to bolster conscience protections in health care. The letter from Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and Lori, archbishop of Baltimore and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' ad hoc committee for religious liberty, went to all members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

 

The proposal for which they sought support -- the Health Care Conscience Rights Act, H.R. 940 in the House and S. 1204 in the Senate -- addresses health care generally, but Moore and Lori cited the abortion/contraception mandate as the most immediate challenge to religious freedom in that arena.

 

The mandate, part of regulations implementing the 2010 health-care reform law, requires nearly all employers to carry insurance plans that cover drugs defined by the federal government as contraceptives, even if they can cause chemical abortions. Among those state-defined contraceptives are Plan B and other "morning-after" pills, which can prevent implantation of tiny embryos, and "ella," which, in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486, can act even after implantation to end the life of a child. The rule mandates plans to underwrite sterilization for women and related "education and counseling."

 

The abortion/contraception requirement is the target of more than 60 federal lawsuits and will be implemented for Christian institutions and other non-profit organizations beginning Aug. 1. It will take effect when each organization's health plan begins a new year. The mandate's start-up date for for-profit organizations was Aug. 1 of 2012.

 

While acknowledging Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics differ theologically, Moore and Lori said in their letter they are united in believing legislative action is needed to protect freedom of conscience.

 

"[M]any people are being forced -- and many others will soon be forced -- to either follow what the government compels or suffer" for their beliefs, they wrote. Southern Baptists and Catholics both "value God's gift of procreation," Moore and Lori told senators and representatives, and they also agree regarding the mandate:

 

-- "[I]t is wrong to promote drugs and devices that destroy a newly conceived human life at any stage. . . .

 

-- "[U]nmarried minors must not be subject to government-mandated 'counseling' on sex and birth control without their parents' knowledge or over their objections....

 

-- "[T]he religious beliefs of our faith communities and others must not be suppressed or ignored by a government supposedly committed to protect the religious freedom of all."

 

They also cited the need to protect the conscience rights of medical workers, who increasingly face pressure to assist in "the destruction of innocent life."

 

Regarding the letter, Moore said, "We will not stand by as deeply held beliefs are being trampled by the federal government."

 

There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest non-Catholic denomination with about 15.8 million members in more than 46,000 churches.

 

While the USCCB opposes coverage of all contraceptives, the ERLC's objection is to contraceptives that can cause abortions.

 

The abortion/contraception mandate, also known as the HHS mandate because of its issuance by the Department of Health and Human Services, gives those who object to it, the ERLC says, three options, all unacceptable: (1) violate their consciences by obeying it; (2) violate the law, which could produce hefty fines; or (3) stop providing health coverage, which could force workers to purchase insurance with provisions they object to and possibly open the employers up to penalties.

 

At a Capitol Hill briefing June 21 Barrett Duke, ERLC vice president for public policy and research, said the federal government "is basically putting us in a position where we have to decide whether ... to obey God or to obey our government."

 

"Southern Baptists are determined to obey God, and we are standing with Catholics on this because this isn't only a Catholic issue," Duke said. "This is a Southern Baptist issue; this is an evangelical issue; this is a faith issue."

 

While the "offense is abortion-causing drugs," he said, the "real issue here is religious freedom, and that's what we believe is at stake right now."

 

Duke joined other pro-life and religious liberty advocates in providing background to staffers for senators and representatives regarding the Health Care Conscience Rights Act.

 

The bill amends the health care reform law to protect Americans from having to purchase or provide insurance that includes coverage of abortion or another service to which they object on "moral or religious" grounds. It also bars discrimination by the government against health care workers or institutions refusing to participate in abortions.

 

The House bill, introduced by Rep. Diane Black, R.-Tenn., in March, has 177 cosponsors. Sens. Deb Fischer, R.-Neb., and Tom Coburn, R.-Okla., introduced the Senate version the same week Moore and Lori sent their letter to Congress.

 

Of the 61 lawsuits that have been filed against the abortion/contraception mandate, 32 are by for-profits. Included are Christian publisher Tyndale House, Christian-owned Hobby Lobby and businesses owned by Catholics, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Courts have granted injunctions to 20 for-profit corporations blocking enforcement of the mandate, but have refused to provide such relief to Hobby Lobby and six others. No action has been taken in five for-profit lawsuits.

 

On June 18 Geneva College, a Christian school in western Pennsylvania, became the first non-profit to receive such relief from a court. Courts have dismissed 18 of the non-profit lawsuits, citing procedural issues.

 

The Obama administration proposed a rule change in February to address conscience objections to the abortion/contraception mandate. Religious liberty advocates said it appears to protect churches and church ministries, but not religious institutions and individuals.

 

The ERLC has signed onto five briefs defending the religious freedom of entities challenging the mandate at the appeals court level.

 

Contact: Tom Strode, Source: Baptist Press

High Court to weigh abortion clinic buffers

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of a Massachusetts law that restricts pro-life advocates from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic.

 

A federal appeals court in January upheld the abortion clinic buffer zone law, saying it protected the rights of patients while also ensuring pro-life advocates could exercise their First Amendment rights.

 

An attorney for the seven Massachusetts residents challenging the 2007 law, though, said it's nearly impossible for pro-life advocates to speak with women entering a clinic from such a distance.

 

Life Legal Defense Foundation, which filed a friend of the court brief arguing the buffer zone is unconstitutional, said it was "delighted that the Court is going to weigh in on this clear case of viewpoint discrimination."

 

"Activists who make disturbances at military funerals, animal rights protests, and 'occupy' demonstrations are not bound by the sort of restrictions applied to peaceful pro-life witnesses who invite women to learn about abortion alternatives," Dana Cody, the foundation's executive director, said after the Supreme Court reported June 24 it would hear the case. "It's a true double standard and an unbelievable violation of First Amendment rights."

 

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in its decision, compared pro-life speech to sexually-oriented businesses by saying just as adult bookstores and theaters have harmful "secondary effects" that allow cities to impose special zoning restrictions, pro-life sidewalk counseling and picketing have harmful "secondary effects."

 

"In fact, what governments most fear about pro-life speech is not any 'secondary effect,'" Cody said in a news release. "It is that women heading into clinics are hearing the truth about abortion."

 

Cody noted that San Francisco, Chicago and other cities also have imposed similar laws to restrict pro-life speech and should take notice that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

 

"We are optimistic that the court will not only strike down the Massachusetts law but also revisit some of its own prior precedents that have led lower courts to believe that, as a matter of law, pro-life speech is less deserving of protection," Cody said.

 

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office has defended the law, said in a statement, according to Boston.com, "The Massachusetts buffer zone law strikes the appropriate balance to ensure a woman's right to safe access to health care facilities while preserving First Amendment rights. We look forward to defending this vitally important legislation before the Supreme Court."

 

Oral arguments in the case, McCullen v. Coakley, are expected next year.

 

Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Erin Roach

Siri to Prevent Suicide–But Not “Death With Dignity”

 

So Apple is putting a suicide prevention function into Siri, the "personal assistant" installed in the i-phone. From the ABC story:

 

Apple's snarky assistant has been updated with a helpful, serious feature. Siri will now respond to suicidal statements with useful suicide prevention information. Prior to this week if you had told Siri "I want to kill myself" or "I want to jump off a bridge," the service would either search the web or worse search for the nearest bridge. Now, Apple has directed the assistant to immediately return the phone number of the Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

 

"If you are thinking about suicide, you may want to speak with someone at the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline," the service says aloud in response to "I want to kill myself." Siri then asks if you would like to call the number. If you don't respond for a short period of time, it automatically returns a list of local suicide prevention centers. Click on the results and it will show you them on a map.

 

Great. Except, I hear, that assisted suicide advocates have insisted that Apple ensure that Siri's GPS function first determine whether the user is in Oregon, Washington, or Vermont. If so, she will ask whether the phone user has cancer or some other terminal illness. If the answer is yes, Siri won't refer to prevention resources but instead assure users that they aren't really suicidal but merely contemplating "death with dignity."

 

Editor's note. This appears on Wesley's great blog Secondhand Smoke

 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, Source: National Right to Life

Chinese city forces all women of child-bearing age to be fitted with IUDs or sterilized

A notice posted in Huizhou offers

incentives to women to be fitted

with an IUD or be sterilized.

 

The Chinese government has given notice to citizens of the city Huizhou that all women of childbearing age must be fitted with Intrauterine Devices (IUDs) or be permanently sterilized via tubal ligations.

 

Women who are currently in compliance with the one child policy must be fitted with IUDs. However, women who are in violation of the population control law with two children must present themselves for tubal ligations.

 

The government is using both monetary rewards and threats that women will lose access to government-run social services in order to coerce women into submitting themselves for the temporary and permanent sterilizations.

 

A notice posted in Huizhou offers incentives to women to be fitted with an IUD or be sterilized.

 

Women not in compliance with the mandate, and therefore not possessing a certificate of compliance, will not be able to enroll their children in school, receive social security benefits, or have access to government services. Hospitals will not issue relevant certifications without proof of IUD insertion or sterilization.

 

Furthermore, when registering for a household registration in Huizhou for a newborn, the mother must first present a certificate that she has been fitted with an IUD.

 

Some speculate the heightened population control measures are due to regional birth rates that are too high and low abortion and sterilization rates.

 

Those who do comply within a certain timeframe are promised rewards commensurate with their form of compliance.

 

For example, in the Lilin Township, couples one with child and an IUD-fitted mother will receive 300 yuan (roughly $50 U.S.).

 

In the same township, couples who legally have two children and who have been sterilized will warrant a 2,000 yuan reward ($326 U.S.).

 

Couples who have legally had two daughters are enticed with the promise of 10,000 yuan, or $1,630, for being sterilized.

 

Other local township governments are offering different rewards, which has raised suspicions that neighborhood communities and city departments are embezzling reward money.

 

There are reports that these measures are underway in other provinces, as well.

 

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Hey, Mr. President, what about that one-child policy in China?

 

Recently there was a focus on a family-planning policy in Myanmar while the more restrictive policy in China went largely ignored.

 

Brian Lee of All Girls Allowed tells OneNewsNow the policy zeros in on one population group in Myanmar.

 

"Myanmar has a two-child policy that restricts the Rohingya people, who are a Muslim people group, to two children," Lee explains.

 

A senior government official recently expressed support for the people, saying the one-child policy helps women who are very poor and uneducated, and who find it difficult to take care of their children.

 

Myanmar, also known as Burma, is located in Southeast Asia.

 

The president of the country visited the White House in May and met with President Obama, who expressed concern over violence in Myanmar directed at Muslim communities.

 

"And yet when President Obama met with President Xi Jinping of China," says Lee, "he had no condemnation about human rights despite the fact that China has had a one-child policy, which is more brutal and more ruthless, for over 30 years."

 

Lee says Myanmar's two-child policy, directed at a religious minority locked into poverty, is a clear human rights violation.

 

Yet the United Nations has remained silent over forced abortion and sterilization in China, and Obama did not mention it in direct talks with the government.

 

Lee stresses the world can no longer turn a blind eye to China's human rights practices.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Obama administration halts appeal on Plan B

 

One version of the "morning-after" pill now is available to girls of all ages.

 

The Obama administration informed a federal judge June 10 that it would end its appeal of his ruling that struck down age restrictions for a drug that has the potential to cause abortions. Its action means even pre-teen girls may purchase the drug over the counter.

 

The decision involves Plan B One-Step, a brand of the "morning-after" pill, which also is known as emergency contraception. The drug, however, has a secondary mechanism that can cause an abortion.

 

Plan B One-Step and other "morning-after" pills can restrict ovulation in a female or prevent fertilization, but they also can block implantation of the early embryo in the uterine wall. The latter effect causes an abortion.

 

Once the Food and Drug Administration approves Plan B One-Step for unrestricted sale, companies manufacturing one-step generic pills -- such as Next Choice One Dose -- are expected to apply for FDA approval, according to The New York Times.

 

Pro-lifers decried the Obama administration decision while abortion rights advocates applauded.

 

The action "is a clear example of the administration's willingness to put politics ahead of the health and safety of girls," said Anna Higgins, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council. "We are disappointed that this administration has once again sided with its political allies and ignored the safety of girls and the rights of parents."

 

In 2011, Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, established 17 years old as the minimum age for a female to purchase Plan B One-Step. Even when the FDA lowered that age limit to 15 in April, it was insufficient for federal judge Edward Korman, who had ordered sale of the pill without a prescription or age restriction.

 

The "morning-after" pill is basically a heavier dose of birth control pills that include one-step versions -- such as Plan B One-Step and Next Choice One Dose -- and two-step versions such as Plan B and Next Choice. The Obama administration has not agreed to lift the age restriction on two-step methods because of concern girls may not be able to use them safely, The Times reported.

 

The one-step version must be taken in a single dose within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. Under the two-part regimen, a woman takes a pill within 72 hours and another dose 12 hours later.

 

Contact: Tom Strode, Source: Baptist Press

Coming to a Vending Machine near You - The Morning-after Pill?

 

Last week, the President threw America's parents and their daughters under a bus. And I'm hopping mad about it—and not just because I have a young daughter of my own.

 

First, a little history: In 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled the Food and Drug Administration's request to make the "Plan B One-Step" drug available to all women and girls without a prescription, no matter their age. Plan B is a so-called emergency contraception drug that its maker admits could "inhibit implantation" of a fertilized egg in the womb. Sebelius agreed with the decision to distribute the drug—but insisted girls must be at least fifteen to purchase Plan B One-Step.

 

Well, that proved too much for federal judge Edward Korman (who is a Reagan appointee, by the way). In a decision that dripped with contempt for those concerned about the impact of the drug on young girls, Korman removed ALL age restrictions on the sale of the drug. He claimed they were "politically motivated" and "scientifically unjustified." And to add insult to what will surely be many injuries to America's daughters, the Obama administration has just announced that it will not appeal the judge's ruling.

 

Now, if you're like me, you were somewhere between depressed and outraged in hearing this. My 14-year-old daughter can't go on a field trip without my permission, but soon she'll be able to legally buy the morning-after pill without my knowing anything about it. Even 11- and 12-year-old girls will be able to pick up Plan B along with their candy bars and lip gloss at the neighborhood drug store.

 

What's next? Selling abortion drugs in junior high vending machines? ("No way!" you say? Well, they're already in college vending machines. But maybe I'd better not give them any ideas.)

 

Even President Obama, the most abortion-minded president we've ever had, said that there ought to be an age limit on this Plan B. As he noted in 2011, the reason Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius insisted on an age limit was because "she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going to a drugstore should be able . . . to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could have an adverse effect."

 

But if the President knows this drug is potentially dangerous, why did he abandon the fight to protect our daughters? Frankly, I've known ten-year-olds who haven't mastered the art of putting the lid back on a tube of toothpaste. And yet Judge Korman and President Obama are going to trust these kids to carefully read the instructions on a potentially dangerous drug, and take it properly? Are they kidding?

 

Plan B will have another destructive impact—and this, too, will harm our daughters. By law, children and younger teenagers cannot consent to sex; if they're pregnant, it's a case of statutory rape—or worse, violent rape. Making Plan B available to young girls gives sexual predators another way to hide what they've done from their victims' parents and doctors—and the police.

 

The sad reality is that even if there were an age restriction, teens would do what they already do with the purchase of alcohol: Get somebody older to buy the drugs for them. But we ought to be angry at what an arrogant federal government is teaching our kids. The law is a moral teacher, and it's teaching kids that parents are irrelevant.

 

You and I live in a time when government is actively undermining the family. We need to fight back. Congress can pass a law insisting that no child under eighteen be allowed access to this drug, and that it be sold only with a doctor's prescription. Please urge your congressman to sponsor a bill to get this done.

 

Contact: Eric Metaxas, Source: BreakPoint

Obama threatens veto as fetal pain bill passes House

 

Despite passing the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy faces an uncertain future as President Obama's administration has suggested that he will veto it.

 

"(S)cience is on our side," Representative Marsha Blackburn, (R- Tenn.) told MSNBC in an interview.

 

Blackburn joined other pro-life representatives, including Michelle Bachmann (R- Minn.) and Virginia Foxx (R- N.C.) in defending the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions 20 weeks into a pregnancy and later, based on science indicating that unborn children can feel pain by this point. Exceptions in cases of rape, incest or a risk to the mother's life were included in the final House version of the legislation.

 

The House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 232-293 on June 18, following its passage by the House Judiciary Committee. The legislation will now advance to the Senate, where opponents have vowed to fight it.

 

The Obama Administration has said that should the legislation gain the approval of both the House and Senate, the president's "senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill."

 

A statement of administration policy criticized the bill, saying that it "would unacceptably restrict women's health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman's right to choose."

 

The statement alleged that the legislation "is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution."

 

It is unclear how the Supreme Court would react to the pro-life legislation were it to be challenged as a violation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Pro-life advocates pointed to polls showing that the majority of Americans support restricting late-term abortions.

 

"May we in humility confront this national sin and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation," said Rep. Foxx.

 

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the legislation, argued in a June 13 statement that "(k)nowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be."

 

"This is not who we are," he said.

 

Pro-life advocates have attempted to gain support for the bill's cause, using the hashtag #theyfeelpain on Twitter.

 

Despite the pledged opposition from the Senate and White House, supporters are confident that the American people are becoming more aware of the reality of abortion.

 

Last year, a similar piece of legislation that would have applied only to the District of Columbia failed to pass the House of Representatives.

 

"The tide of the American conscience will only continue to shift toward life and away from dismembering unborn babies in the womb," said Rep. Franks in a June 18 tweet.

 

Source: CNA Daily News

Most Women Denied Abortions Have No Regrets, According to Study

Diana Greene Foster

 

"Gina" found herself pregnant and unmarried.

 

When she went to the local abortion center, the ultrasound showed she was at 23 weeks, too far along for a legal abortion. Just a few weeks later she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl.  Now Gina says her daughter is "more than my best friend, more than the love of my life.  She is just my whole world."

 

Gina's story is consistent with the results of a study conducted by Diana Greene Foster, a demographer and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco. Researchers interviewed 200 women who had been turned down for an abortion. Ninety-five percent said they had no regrets about having the baby.

 

Carrie Gordon Earll, CitizenLink's senior director for issues analysis, said pro-abortion activists often tell women that having their babies will ruin their lives, but that's just not true.

 

"For too many women, abortion seems like the only choice," she said. "But when they get to the other side, and they have the baby, they find that those circumstances may still be challenging — but the reality of the baby in your arms trumps the problems that you see when you're looking at and considering abortion."

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 

Learn more about Foster's study.

 

Read "What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions?"

 

Read "What the Bible Says about the Beginning of Life."

 

Contact: Kim Trobee, Source: CitizenLink

U.S. House votes Tuesday on late abortion ban -- CALL TODAY!

 

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill to protect unborn children nationwide during the last four months of pregnancy, when they are capable of experiencing excruciating pain when they are aborted.

 

The bill is the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797), which is based on a model bill written by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which has already been enacted in nine states.  H.R. 1797 would extend the life-saving policy to the entire nation, protecting unborn children of 20 weeks fetal age or later.

 

This is the most important pro-life bill to be considered by the U.S. House since the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which was enacted ten years ago.

 

Time is short -- too short to depend on emails or letters.  Instead, please immediately telephone the office of your representative in the U.S. House.  Urge him or her to vote in favor of the ban on late abortions, H.R. 1797.

 

It's easy, and just takes a few minutes. Insert your zip code into the "Take Action" box after clicking the link below -- you will be shown the phone number of your representative, along with suggested quick points you can make to the representative's staff person during your call.  If you get a busy signal or a recording, please keep trying.

 

You will also be given the option of sending a short email message to NRLC to report on the position of your representative, after your call.  This is optional, but it will assist NRLC's efforts to win passage of this bill.

 

Follow this link to Take Action!

 

http://capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/alert/?alertid=62728636&queueid=9670081506

Undercover call: 'Girl' calls Planned Parenthood, reports statutory rape

 

An undercover telephone call to a New Mexico Planned Parenthood suggests it may have failed to report a statutory rape.

 

Over the past decade pro-life groups Life Dynamics and Live Action have conducted undercover probes revealing that Planned Parenthood abortion clinics were willing to arrange for abortions for underage girls without reporting an older person who impregnated them. Those investigations caused a ruckus, but no action was taken.

 

Recently, an undercover woman posed as a child and called Albuquerque Planned Parenthood:

 

PP WORKER:Thanks for calling Planned Parenthood. This is Brandy. How may I help you?

 

CALLER: Hi, umm, I need to schedule an abortion.

 

PP WORKER: And are you making this appointment for yourself?

 

CALLER:Yes.

 

PP WORKER:How old are you?

 

CALLER:I'm 14.

 

The appointment was scheduled but the undercover caller made another phone call and talked to another clinic worker making sure her parents wouldn't be told. Plus, she advised the clinic worker that her boyfriend was 21 and wanted to be certain he would be safe:

 

CALLER:Will he get in trouble?

 

PP WORKER:That's what you and your doctor would have to discuss. I mean, it would just depend on like, the state law that we would have to report. They probably won't, but it's something that we see often. You're certainly not the first one.

 

The investigation was done by Project Defending Life.

 

Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue says the calls reveal willingness to cover up a crime against a child who is unable to legally consent. She urges authorities to take action.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Pro-abortion Pelosi asked 'simple' question about the unborn: 'What's the difference?'

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was visibly unhappy at a press conference Thursday when she was asked to explain how abortions performed at approximately five months differ from the grisly murders committed by Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

 

At the press conference, Pelosi had commented on a Republican bill that would ban abortions at 20 weeks when she called on John McCormack, a reporter for conservative magazine The Weekly Standard.

 

"What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?" McCormack asked the congresswoman. 

 

"You're probably enjoying that question a lot," Pelosi replied. "I can see you savoring it."

 

The congresswoman, who is infamously pro-abortion, then preached at the reporter that she is a mother of five children, then she brought religion into the topic.

 

"As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this," Pelosi said. "I don't think it should have anything to do with politics and that's where you're taking it, and I'm not going there."

 

What did Pelosi mean by "sacred ground?"

 

Marjorie Dannenfelser of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List feels Pelosi was saying abortion is sacred and that is what she is protecting as a Catholic.

 

"I'm actually myself a practicing Catholic and I guess I would say that the church has taught for a very long time that life is sacred," says Dannenfelser. "And she's out there trying to protect that abortion ground, and really is more happy to protect the institution of abortion than she is the individuals who are suffering from it."

The exchange was picked up by the Drudge Report and other online media outlets. On National Review Online, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote that Pelosi claimed the bill would ban abortion, which he pointed out is untrue.

 

"McCormack, note, did not bring religion into the question," Ponnuru wrote. "He asked her to justify her position on a question of public policy. She chose not to try."

 

In the press conference, Pelosi moved on to another question. But the reporter still got in the last word: "It was a simple question," McCormack told her. "You didn't answer."

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Government Approves Plan B for Children

 

The Justice Department (DOJ) decided Monday to comply with a judge's ruling that allows anyone to buy a drug that may cause early abortions. The ruling says no one needs a prescription and minors do not require parental notification or consent to purchase the drug.

 

The drug, marketed as Plan B and also referred to as the "morning after pill," contains high levels of hormones, which have not been tested on pre-teens and teenage girls. The Obama administration previously argued that age limits were "common sense" for those wanting to buy Plan B without prescriptions. Plan B activist groups claim, however, that unrestricted access to the drug is a form of "reproductive justice."

 

"The DOJ's decision comes at the same time a bill is pending in the U.S. Senate to prohibit the sale of some cough syrups to minors due to fear of abuse," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of issue analysis for CitizenLink. "So, teenage girls can be trusted with a powerful hormone drug available over the counter without medical supervision but not with cough syrup. This is yet another example of the politics of abortion above common sense." 

 

A district judge in April ordered the Obama Administration to drop its age requirement for buying Plan B. The Obama administration announced its appeal of the order in May, then reversed course.

 

"President Obama has yet again sided with Planned Parenthood, his favorite political ally and the single largest distributor of Plan B drugs — drugs that can destroy a life," said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Litigation Counsel Catherine Glenn Foster. "Whatever guides this administration in its decisions, it is apparently not the health and well-being of our daughters and granddaughters. The administration's decision is nothing short of shameful."

 

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved over-the-counter access to Plan B for women 18 and older, according to court documents. Those under 18 were required to have a prescription. The FDA was later ordered to make it available without a prescription to 17-year-olds.

 

"It is irresponsible to advocate over-the-counter use of these high-potency drugs, which would make them available to anyone — including those predators who exploit young girls," said Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute. "Mark my words, it will not be long before we see girls and women forced to purchase Plan B for their abuser to keep them and others enslaved. This is a pimp, predator and pedophile's dream — unlimited access to Plan B."

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

Read the district court opinion in Tummino v. Hamburg.

 

Contact: Bethany Monk, Source CitizenLink

Planned Parenthood Attacks Pro-Life Event - Hits National Media

 

Project Wildfire's initial pro-life event garnered national media coverage (see links below) showing America how vicious Planned Parenthood is to those whose choice is not to agree. It got significant national attention and trended #1 on twitter for 14 hours. According to twitter over "30,000 people used the hash-tag #ExposePP (our event tag) that day," due in a large part to the attack by PP and its army of supporters. Their coordinated effort to "HIJACK" "#ExposePP" may have backfired, as many pro-choice people were appalled at the viciousness of the attack:

 

"C'mon people. What are you doing? I am pro-choice and you are embarrassing me with these insults and personal attacks. Maybe I'm on the wrong side!" -- Carol Spencer

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/04/wisconsin-anti-abortion-activist-reportedly-sees-online-campaign-turned-into/

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/cheats/2013/06/03/liberal-groups-overtake-exposepp.html

 

The groups next event "PROJECT WILDFIRE - #ExposePP" is scheduled for Sunday June 16. This is an online event similar to the #Gosnell tweet-fest, which resulted in the media covering the Kermit Gosnell trial. It will be from 8am - 8pm

 

http://www.facebook.com/events/614089885269275/?notif_t=plan_user_joined

 

A month ago this pro-life event started and was named: PROJECT WILDFIRE with the Twitter "Hash-Tag" -- #exposePP, with the intent to discuss FACTS unfavorable to PP. As reported by philanthropy.com, Planned Parenthood "employs an outside firm to monitor every tweet, and then targets people who disagree."

 

On May 31 they quickly swooped in on the June 1 Facebook event at 11pm Friday night. The event page was bombarded with filthy language and porn pictures. These pro-abortion zealots, sent by Planned Parenthood, announced their intent to "Hijack" #Expose PP, and by 1am it was the #1 thing trending on twitter.

 

Many pro-life people, including those with Project Wildfire, began to respond and started the event 8 hours early. For the entire day, #ExposePP remained in the top 5 trends on twitter, with PP fans bragging about the "hijacking" and pro-life people calmly speaking FACTS. This twitter war started because PP is so determined to silence anyone who dares to stand in opposition to their pro-choice agenda.

 

Considering this was the NUMBER ONE trend on twitter Saturday and with the Gosnell issue in the public eye, this event seems clearly worthy of coverage.

 

Conatct: Cary Bogue, Source: Project Wildfire

Woman Sues Over Forced, Botched Abortion

 

Caution: Graphic subject matter.

 

A woman filed suit Friday against a West Virginia abortionist claiming he forced her to proceed and then left part of her preborn baby inside her womb, according to court documents.

 

Itai Gravely, 26, went to the Women's Health Center (WHC) of West Virginia in April. She was told she was 11 weeks pregnant and was persuaded to proceed with an abortion. According to court documents, she was  given both an oral sedative and intravenous sedation before abortionist Rodney Lee Stephens began.

 

During the abortion, Gravely complained of severe pain, court documents state. She immediately and repeatedly told Stephens and those who were assisting him to stop. They did not, according to the legal complaint, and physically restrained Gravely.

 

"A woman's life is more important than an abortionist's bottom line," said Jeremy Dys, an ADF attorney representing the Gravely. "What Stephens and Women's Health Center did to Itai is beyond the pale. She has been exposed to extraordinary cruelty, and her life was put in jeopardy."

 

Gravely went home shortly after the abortion, and was still in immense pain. The next day, she was transported to Charleston Area Medical Center—Women's and Children's Hospital (CAMC). Physicians conducted an ultrasound and found parts of the preborn baby—including his or her skull — had been left in Gravely's uterus. They were able to remove it and other remaining parts.

 

Dr. Byron Calhoun, the medical expert who examined Gravely's complaint and medical records, said Stephens and the WHC were negligent. They violated standards of care "by failing to account for the fetal skull following Ms. Gravely's surgical abortion… (F)etal parts…, if retained, could lead to serious injury or even death."

 

Meanwhile, the country's largest abortion seller continues to put women and children in danger.

 

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging an Alabama law designed to raise the standard of care at abortion centers in the state.  The law requires abortionists  to have staff privileges at a local hospital. The law is set to take effect next month.

 

"Abortionists should be held to the same health and safety standards as all other medical facilities," said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Maddox. "It's not too much to expect that abortionists meet basic standards to protect women's health."

 

In addition, an appeals court heard arguments also on Tuesday in a case involving a Planned Parenthood lawsuit fighting an Arizona bill prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.

 

The American people should not have to support this, said ADF Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton.

 

"Our tax dollars should not fund abortionists who are irresponsible and only promote their own self-interest and bottom line."

 

Support Pro-Life Resolution in U.S. Senate

 

On May 6, 2013, Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) introduced a resolution calling on Congress and state governments to investigate abortion industry practices that allow illegal activities as well as dangerous and unsanitary conditions. Lee wants Congress to hold hearings on topics including the number of post-viability abortions in the U.S. and how many babies are born alive.

 

Please contact your two U.S. Senators and ask them to support the Lee resolution and Congressional hearings into the abortion industry.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

Read the complaint in Gravely v. Stephens.

 

Read Dr. Calhoun's statement regarding Stephens.

 

Read Dr. Calhoun's statement regarding WHC of West Virginia.

 

Source: CitizenLink

Susan G. Komen cancels 2014 Chicago "Race for the Cure"

 

CHICAGO - There will be no 2014 Susan G. Komen Walk in Chicago to raise funds for fighting breast cancer.

 

The group, which dealt with weeks of negative publicity last year over its affiliation and contributions to Planned Parenthood, is canceling half of its three-day walks in major cities throughout the country, reportedly due to lack of participation. To date, the walks were the group's largest fundraiser.

 

Though the foundation initially attempted to defund Planned Parenthood last year, it caved to pro-abortion advocates' pressure and renewed its grants to the abortion provider. Komen refuses to acknowledge numerous studies that tie breast cancer to abortion.

 

Chicago's 2013 Race for the Cure was held May 12, honoring the late Chicago First Lady Maggie C. Daley, a victim of breast cancer. Another Chicago area Race for the Cure is scheduled for September 2013 and will be held at Lombard's Yorktown Mall.

 

Komen says they are dropping next year's walks in Washington DC, San Francisco, Arizona, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland and Tampa Bay. Walks will continue in Komen's homebase of Dallas-Ft. Worth, as well as Atlanta, Michigan, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

 

Source: Illinois Review

Marathon runner’s shock: she’s pregnant and in labor with miracle baby

 

Contact: Johanna Dasteel, Source: LifeSiteNews.com

 

A 33-year-old Minnesota marathon runner found herself racing to the delivery room rather than the finish line on Monday. Crippled with back pain after a 10-mile training run on Sunday, Trish Staine thought she had suffered an injury. Doctors found, however, that she was in labor.

 

 

That came as a shock to her. She didn't know she was pregnant.

 

After spending more than 24 hours suffering debilitating back pain, all the while going about regular activities such as attending her son's basketball game and her daughter's short play, Staine finally decided she needed to go to the hospital.

 

"I felt like I was dying. I didn't know what was going on," she said.

 

Staine's husband, John, was not at home with Trish when she decided she needed to see a doctor, so he called for an ambulance that took her to the emergency room. Upon examination, the doctors stunned the couple with news of a fetal heartbeat.

 

"I said, `No, no, that's impossible,'" said Staine.

 

During Staine's nearly eight-month pregnancy, she didn't gain weight and never felt her baby move.

 

In fact, her husband observed that it seemed she was losing weight during her marathon training, with her face visibly thinning out.

 

Even more bewildering was the fact that her husband had previously undergone a vasectomy for sterilization.

 

"He's still in shock," Staine said of her husband, John. "Everybody is teasing him."

 

According to WebMD.com, 1 in 100 vasectomies fail within five years, allowing pregnancy.

 

Within what seemed, to Staine, only a matter of minutes after finding out she was pregnant, she was face to face with her daughter.

 

At 3:25 pm on Monday, she had given birth to a 6 pound, 6 ounce, 18.9 inch-long baby girl.

 

The couple named her Mira, short for Miracle.

 

Mira was born five weeks premature,and will remain under observation at the hospital.

 

Doctors predict she will be home with her family some time next week.

 

Trish and John have five other children, ranging 7 to 20 in age. Trish is stepmother to John's three oldest children.

 

The couple also have two additional foster children and run a transitional foster-care program for young men called the Genesis Project.

 

Trish still plans on running in Grandma's Marathon, the half-marathon she had been training for when her labor began on Sunday. It takes place on June 22nd.

 

This time, her newborn baby girl will be waiting to see her after she crosses the finish line.

Cardinal Dolan: Cuomo’s bill could open door to forced abortions

 

Contact: Ben Johnson, Source: LifeSiteNews.com

 

New York's Catholic leadership and Senate Republicans have resolved that the abortion expansion measures proposed by Governor Andrew Cuomo this week will not pass.

 

Cardinal Timothy Dolan has stepped up opposition to the bill, which he says will go far beyond "codifying" the provisions of Roe v. Wade, as Gov. Cuomo has said it would do, to a radical expansion of abortion in the Empire State.

 

On Tuesday, Cardinal Dolan stated: "This legislation would add a broad and undefined 'health' exception for late-term abortion and would repeal the portion of the penal law that governs abortion policy, opening the door for non-doctors to perform abortions and potentially decriminalizing even forced or coerced abortions."

 

Earlier today, he reiterated that the New York State Catholic Conference supports nine of the 10 provisions of Cuomo's "Women's Equality Act," which focus on things like stemming human trafficking and domestic violence.

 

"Sadly, the tenth is, literally, 'a killer,' as it increases access to abortion," he said. "In a state where 40% of babies are aborted – and, in some areas, 60% of babies of Latino or African American blood – we hardly need to further the abortion license."

 

"Can't we work together to help pregnant women in trouble with more lifegiving alternatives?" he asked.

 

Cardinal Dolan's remarks on the bill today were coupled with a statement supporting a national proposal granting amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants.

 

His opposition to the abortion expansion bill was the second issue mentioned.

 

He had previously called the Women's Equality Act's conscience clause "vague and insufficient."

 

New York Senate Republicans agree the abortion expansion is unwise and unnecessary.

 

Scott Reif, a spokesman for GOP State Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos, has said the Republicans "will not consent to bringing that measure to the floor." Republicans, too, support the rest of the bill's nine measures.

 

But Governor Cuomo retorted that the pro-abortion and feminist groups involved in drafting his legislation will not allow the bill to be broken into separate parts.

 

"The coalition has been united in wanting all 10 to pass," he said.

 

In his announcement on Tuesday, Cuomo said of the legislation, "I see it almost as a bill of rights."

Super Bowl champ Matt Birk skips meeting with Obama over ‘God bless Planned Parenthood’ remark

 

Contact:  John Jalsevac, Source: LifeSiteNews.com

 

For many athletes the chance to meet the president of the United States of America is a once-in-a-lifetime, never-to-be-missed opportunity. But not for Ravens Super Bowl champ Matt Birk.

 

Birk, who earned his Super Bowl ring earlier this year as a center with the Baltimore Ravens, told KFAN-FM this morning that he decided to skip a meet-and-greet with President Obama over the president's support for Planned Parenthood.

 

"About five or six weeks ago, our president made a comment in a speech and he said, 'God bless Planned Parenthood,'" Birk told the radio station. "Planned Parenthood performs about 330,000 abortions a year. I am Catholic, I am active in the pro-life movement, and I just felt like I couldn't deal with that."

 

The football star said that while he has "great respect for the office of the president," he "couldn't endorse" the president's support for the country's top abortion organization "in any way."

 

"I'm very confused by [the president's] statement," said Birk. "For God to bless a place where they're ending 330,000 lives a year? I just chose not to attend."

 

Obama made the "God bless Planned Parenthood remark" at the conclusion of his speech to a Planned Parenthood conference in April. The speech put Obama in the books as the first sitting president to address the abortion organization.

 

Most of the rest of Birk's teammates met with the president at the White House yesterday.

 

This is not the first time that Birk has been outspoken on social issues, standing up for traditional values.

 

In a previous interview he described holding his daughter for the first time. "It was unbelievable the love that I felt for her," he said, "and any parent knows exactly what I'm talking about. At that point, you know it's not a choice. Life is a gift that's given to us. We are supposed to accept it. It's not our choice whether we decide a baby lives or not."

 

He told Catholic Review that participating in the March for Life in Washington is "one of the coolest things I've done."

 

"It seems like our society and media want to push pro-lifers to the side and hope that we would shut our mouths and go away quietly," he added. "Let's not do that."

 

Last October Matt Birk made headlines when he weighed in on the gay marriage debate, defending traditional marriage.

 

"My hope is that, by adding my voice to this discussion, I encourage the majority of Americans who do agree that it's not the state's place to redefine marriage to speak up with truth and respect," he said at the time. "Bonding one man and one woman together through marriage helps connect both moms and dads to their kids; that's why the state cares about marriage in the first place. Society should always be looking for ways to strengthen marriage, rather than redefine it."

 

He also addressed his pro-life views in an interview with The National Catholic Register, saying:

 

You may not be able to save thousands of lives on your own, but the one life you can save today does mean a lot.

 

Whether it's teaching our own children to be pro-life, contacting our elected representatives or working at crisis-pregnancy centers, we can all do something. These examples are in addition to prayer, which everyone can do and which everyone should do. Prayer is the basis of any good action. Each little effort helps to bring about a culture of life, a culture in which children are appreciated rather than disposed of.

 

I spoke at a pro-life rally in Maryland a couple years ago, and it was a life-changing experience. I heard other speakers, including women who deeply regretted their own abortions. Their work, carried out through the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, was very persuasive. It wasn't just a theoretical discussion; it was real women who had experienced the trauma of losing a child through abortion. They wanted to prevent other women from going through that same thing.

 

If people were told the truth about abortion, no one would ever seek out the procedure. We hear about "choice" and "reproductive rights," but no one is ever told by an abortionist, "I will kill your baby by ripping off its arms and legs." The women from Silent No More let people know the facts so that better decisions will be made. It's very admirable work.