The dangerous ‘help’ of assisted suicide

Editor's note. This first appeared in the New Jersey Star Ledger.  Diane Coleman is a lawyer and the founder and president of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet.

 

Diane Coleman

 

Proponents of legal assisted suicide for the terminally ill frequently claim that the opposing views of disability organizations aren't relevant.

 

Nevertheless, although people with disabilities aren't usually terminally ill, the terminally ill are almost always disabled. This is one of many reasons our perspective may offer some insights on this complex issue.

 

People with disabilities and chronic conditions live on the front lines of the health care system that serves (and, sadly, often underserves) dying people. One might view us as the "canaries in the coal mine," alerting others to dangers we see first.

 

Assisted suicide advocates paint themselves as "compassionate progressives," fighting for freedom against the religious right. That simplistic script ignores inconvenient truths that are all too familiar to disability advocates, such as:

 

• Predictions that someone will die in six months are often wrong;

 

• People who want to die usually have treatable depression and/or need better palliative care;

 

• Pressures to cut health care costs in the current political climate make this the wrong time to add doctor-prescribed suicide to the "treatment" options;

 

• Abuse of elders and people with disabilities is a growing but often undetected problem, making coercion virtually impossible to identify or prevent.

 

It's not the proponents' good intentions but the language of assisted suicide laws that legislators need to consider.

 

As one of countless disabled people who's survived a terminal prediction, I can't help but become concerned when the accuracy of a terminal prognosis determines whether someone gets suicide assistance rather than prevention.

 

The Oregon reports themselves show that non-terminal people are getting lethal prescriptions. One of the many things the reports hide is how many lived longer than six months. But we do know that those people were disabled and not terminal when they sought their lethal prescription.

 

Proponents also claim that safeguards to ensure it's voluntary are working. How would they know? The Oregon reports only tell us what the prescribing doctors indicated were the patients' reasons for wanting assisted suicide by checking off one or more of seven reasons on a multiple choice state government form. One of the reasons is feelings of being a burden on others, checked in 39 percent of the cases. But there's no requirement that home care options that could relieve the burden on family caregivers must be disclosed, much less offered or funded.

 

Elder abuse is notoriously undetected and underreported. Sure, some people are safe, but with more than 175,000 estimated reported and unreported elder abuse cases in New Jersey annually, many are not.

 

The two witnesses who attest to the absence of coercion don't actually have to know the person, although one can be an heir. Nothing in the law would stop a family member from urging someone to "choose" assisted suicide. Once the lethal drugs are in the home, with no witness required, the drugs could be administered with or without consent. Who would know?

 

When we're talking about changing public policy that impacts the health care system we all depend on, and the real world of families that are not necessarily all loving and supportive, legislators have an obligation to think of everyone, not just those who are safe from the very real risks posed by assisted suicide legislation.

 

Diane Coleman is president and CEO of Not Dead Yet. This first appeared in the New Jersey Star Ledger then National Right to Life News.

‘March on the Media’: Live Action organizing protests demanding unbiased reporting on abortion

Live Action President Lila Rose

 

Citing a dire need for honest reporting, pro-life powerhouse Live Action is launching a "March on the Media" campaign targeting ABC, CBS and NBC, the three largest American news networks.

 

"Like it or not, the major news networks have huge influence in our country," said Live Action President Lila Rose.  "Millions of Americans get a sense of the world through national filters like ABC, CBS, and NBC.  So it's inexcusable when these networks, in whom so much public trust is invested, refuse to report the facts on one of the most pressing human rights issues of our time."

 

"A change is long overdue for our big news distributors," said Live Action President Lila Rose. "It's time for these networks to end their blackout of the truth on abortion – how it irreparably harms women, babies, and society."

 

Rose says her group plans to call attention to how the media reports on the abortion issue via a petition drive, a website (lifemarchonmedia.com), and open letters to the networks. All of that will culminate in a number of rallies to be held outside major media outlet headquarters, soon to be announced.

 

"ABC consistently flinches in the face of the ultimate human rights abuse – abortion," reads one open letter.  "The public expects you to impart knowledge, to tackle hard truths, and to bring us to terms with our own biases. Yet your network and others sedulously censor and suppress the news on this vital issue, to the detriment of the public and to your own discredit."

 

Rose's organization is showcasing a slew of reports by the Media Research Center (MRC) on what they say is selective and biased reporting of the abortion issue.  In particular, the group highlights the contrast between the near-media blackout surrounding the murder conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell and the wall-to-wall coverage of State Senator Wendy Davis's filibuster against newly-passed abortion regulations in Texas.

 

According to MRC, the major networks devoted three times more coverage over 19 days to Davis's failed political theatrics than they did to the 58-day Gosnell trial, during which jurors heard graphic and disturbing testimony about the brutal killings of infants born alive after botched abortions.

 

"The media has flinched from the reality of abortion for decades," Rose said, "but the degree to which they mischaracterize and whitewash this issue has become egregious lately.  How can you go on about a senator's sneakers and completely ignore the reason you're talking about those shoes in the first place: because she's championing a procedure that literally tears helpless children to pieces and puts women's lives and health in extreme danger?"

 

Rose says she wants to point the media in a new direction.  "A change is long overdue for our big news distributors," she said.  "It's time for these networks to end their blackout of the truth on abortion – how it irreparably harms women, babies, and society."

 

"The abortion-friendly reporters and executives in New York and Washington will not come to terms with this fact unless we bring it to their door," Rose said.  "So that's what we're doing."

 

By Kirsten Andersen (LifeSiteNews.com)

The End of “Surgical” Abortion?

Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.

 

Visit the website for Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, and look for "surgical abortion" in the "Abortion" section of their "Health Services and Information" heading. You won't find it.

 

Oh, it's not that they don't do surgical abortions. They do, to the tune of tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands a year. (The remainder of their 330,000 abortions are chemical—e.g., RU-486—abortions.)

 

But unless you are watching very carefully, you would miss that, like a lot of others in the abortion industry, PPFA uses the term "surgical abortions" less and less frequently.

 

The aim of the abortion establishment obviously isn't to limit abortion but the exact opposite: to vastly expand the number of clinics, add to the ranks of abortionists, and fatten their bottom line.

 

De-emphasizing surgical abortions allows the abortion industry to promote a new product—chemical abortions—that is intended to make abortion seem a matter of "simply" taking a couple of pills. This has expanded the pool of doctors willing to perform abortions and resulted in new women considering abortions at the same time cutting costs.

 

And then there is the capacity to decentralize abortion, to move it beyond the giant metropolitan abortion mills. Chemical abortions that employ drugs like RU-486 and prostaglandins like misoprostol don't require the special equipment, special surgical training, or additional space for operating, recovery rooms, etc. (1)

 

By contrast, modern computer technology can turn even the smallest storefront center in the most isolated town into an abortion clinic. Abortion pills are dispensed remotely by an abortionist on the other end of a web-cam back at a big city mega-clinic.

 

The risks for women are tremendous, but the chemical route offers even small time clinic operators the chance at what seems like easy money.

 

The landscape has changed so quickly that bioethicists like Arthur Caplan asked in a recent column "Are Surgical Abortions Becoming 'Old Technology'?" (Medscape, 6/5/13).

 

The number of chemical abortions performed in the United States has grown steadily since the government approved RU-486 for sale in September 2000. As of 2008 chemical abortions comprised around 15-16% of all abortions—and were growing. Chemical abortions increase profits and abortion "providers" and realize one of the abortion industry's most important objectives: reach so-called "underserved populations."

 

But the remainder of these are still surgical abortions. While that number will continue to decline as a percentage of all abortions, surgical abortions will continue to represent the majority of abortions done in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

 

Certain women are allergic to the powerful chemical abortifacients or have conditions that make their use a particular personal risk. Other women simply want to get the abortion over with and don't want to endure the ardor of days or weeks of cramping, pain, or bleeding. Yet others show up at the clinic at a later gestational age where abortionists don't feel the drugs would be effective (though there are researchers experimenting with the use chemical methods in the second and even third trimesters).

 

But there are other reasons the term "surgical abortion" is disappearing.

 

For one reason, women (like men) find the idea of surgery intimidating. In the abortion context, they do not like the cutting, the scraping, the anesthesia, the possibility of injury. The elimination of all this was a selling point for chemical abortions which helped ease the way for acceptance. (2)

 

Clinics are obviously trying to address and assuage these fears. On the one hand they explicitly try to argue in their descriptions of the procedures that "no cutting is involved" (Aaron's Women's Clinic, Houston TX). Or they can say that in a vacuum aspiration "There is NO cutting or scraping of the uterus" (Northside Women's Clinic, Atlanta, GA).

 

The South Jersey Women's Center still calls these surgical abortions (which they are), but tries to distinguish these from ordinary surgical procedures. "No cutting or incision is necessary and the procedure takes only 5 to 7 minutes."

 

Planned Parenthood avoids the term "surgical" and tries to call these "In-Clinic Abortion Procedures."

 

New York OB/GYN AssociatesTM classifies these as "Non-Surgical Abortions" because they "do not involve any scraping or scaring of the uterus." They say that "There is no cutting during an Aspiration Abortion." They maintain that "There is no scraping, no scaring and no damage to the uterine wall."

 

Both the chemical and aspiration methods they advertise "are designed to naturally release a woman's pregnancy in a gentle and safe way, which does not cause damage."

 

However there is more to this than just calming fears and apprehensions. The abortion industry has found it increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to perform abortions or to add abortion to their practices. By re-defining the abortion procedure as "non-surgical," this opens up the performance of abortion to a whole new set of medical practitioners.

 

It is not a coincidence that in the last year we have seen both the appearance of a study and a push in the California legislature claiming that nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants can perform suction aspiration abortions as well as doctors (NRL News Today, 2/20/13 and 5/29/13). It is notable the California bill specifically tried to redefine these as "non-surgical" abortions. (3)

 

If the suction or vacuum aspiration abortion is reclassified as a "non-surgical" abortion, it gives clinics offering just chemical or aspiration abortions the opening to argue that they are not technically "ambulatory surgical centers" and hence are not covered under many of the new state laws regulating clinics.

 

It is interesting that in the recent discussion over proposed clinic regulations in Texas, Barbara Levy, vice president of health policy for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists specifically tried to tell a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman that abortions were "minimally invasive" procedures that didn't involve surgical cutting (Austin American-Statesman, 7/8/13).

 

"We call these procedures, not surgeries," Levy told the Austin American-Statesman. "I don't even think it's appropriate to talk about [abortion] as a surgical procedure."

 

But this is only a difference in language, not in procedure. Whatever the label, the abortion is deadly for the child and poses certain risks for the mother. In fact, her risk could be greater if done by a less trained, less experienced medical practitioner.

 

Promoters of the idea that these are "non-surgical" try to employ the rationale that because they do not cut tissue to enter the woman's body but enter through the birth canal, these are somehow, strictly speaking, not surgery.

 

This not only misrepresents the basic nature and the level of the invasiveness of the standard aspiration abortion (and the involved risk), but totally ignores what happens to the child's body.

 

To enter the woman's uterus, the abortionists must first open or dilate her cervix. This can be done mechanically with a metal or plastic rod that is bent and tapered at one end that is inserted into the cervical opening and is pushed forward to widen the opening. A gripping tool called a tenaculum may be used to hold the cervix in place while the abortionist manipulates the dilator.

 

Once sufficiently widened, the abortionist inserts a plastic tube called a cannula with an open angled or notched end. Suction is applied and this dragged across inside of the mother's uterus, where it grabs and vacuums in parts of the baby and surrounding tissue, drawing everything into a collection bottle, the contents of which can be released and examined later to ensure completion of the procedure.

 

It is a violent end for the baby, and the idea that there is "no cutting" involved in this process as the child is ripped apart limb from limb is ludicrous.

 

Furthermore, the mother's cervix or uterus can be perforated by forceful, misdirected manipulation of the dilator or cannula.

 

Contrary to the reassurances of the clinics, there may indeed be further "cutting and scraping." The National Abortion Federation's 2009 abortion manual, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy, says nearly 50% of abortionists in North America determine "completeness" of the abortion by using a sharp curette (a loop shaped steel knife) to check for any remaining tissue in the uterus, which is then followed by a second suctioning.

 

Such abortions are not "gentle" or simple. To reduce (but not eliminate) risk, they require skilled, trained operators who know how to perform basic surgical techniques. A woman in the hands of an unskilled operator can bleed to death or contract a dangerous infection from missed, retained tissue.

 

The effort to drop "surgical" from the abortion catalogue may serve the interests of the abortion industry, but it will not make these safer for moms or any less deadly for their babies.

 

Footnotes:

 

(1) That is, unless things go wrong, which they often do – but then those become problems for the doctors at the local ER.

 

(2) When the chemical method fails, which it frequently does, this often means women end up undergoing surgery nonetheless

 

(3) It should be noted that there were, in fact, more complications in the non-physician group than among the physicians, but this conclusion was downplayed by the researchers).

 

By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., NRL-ETF Director of Education & Research, NRLC

Parental involvement could help guide policy makers

 

Even though the Department of Health and Human Services has announced funding for abstinence education, the amount remains woefully short of what is needed for effective training.

 

Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says for the past two or three years the House has provided a budget that would offer parity between comprehensive sex ed and abstinence education funding.

 

"But by the time it gets to signing it into law, we lose most of that parity and we're back to a 16-1 disparity," she adds.

 

She thinks this 16-1 disparity problem could be solved quickly if parents would contact their elected officials.

 

"If policy makers would just examine for themselves what our programs teach, look at the research of how our programs help young people and then listen to parents who are also voters and their constituents, I think this problem would be solved in an instant," she tells OneNewsNow.

 

The grant program for abstinence education provides only $5 million dollars annually, which funds just eight programs across the nation.

 

Contact: Bob Kellogg (OneNewsNow.com)

Judge grants stay for Hobby Lobby

 

Hobby Lobby has won further relief from a massive penalty as it challenges the Obama administration's abortion/contraception mandate.

 

A federal judge in Oklahoma City granted a preliminary injunction to Hobby Lobby Friday (July 19), sparing the popular arts and crafts chain from a penalty that could have reached $1.3 million a day. The order bars enforcement while the case proceeds challenging a controversial rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that requires employers to pay for coverage of contraceptives, including ones that can cause abortions.

 

Religious freedom advocates applauded the order.

 

"There's a long way to go, but this is good news for freedom of conscience," said Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). "The HHS mandate is an egregious burden on the free exercise of religious convictions, and a vast coalition of us stands against it, and for liberty."

 

Kyle Duncan, general counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "The tide has turned against the HHS mandate." The Becket Fund is representing Hobby Lobby in the case.

 

Hobby Lobby, which has more than 550 stores in the United States, and Mardel, a sister Christian bookstore chain, filed suit last year against the rule implementing the 2010 health care reform law. Members of the Green family -- evangelical Christians who own Hobby Lobby and Mardel -- do not oppose all contraceptive methods, only those that have abortion-causing qualities. They have said they will not obey the mandate.

 

The federally approved drugs in question include Plan B and other "morning-after" pills with a secondary, post-fertilization mechanism that can cause an abortion by preventing implantation of embryos. The mandate also covers "ella," which in a fashion similar to the abortion drug RU 486, can act even after implantation to end the life of the child.

 

After federal judge Joe Heaton granted the injunction July 19, Hobby Lobby President Steve Green explained his company's position.

 

"This case is about life; our deeply held conviction is that life begins with conception. To offer prescriptions that take life is just not an option," he said, according to The Daily Oklahoman.

 

In his opinion Heaton said, according to the Becket Fund, "There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved."

 

He disagreed, however, with an opinion by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that religious freedom protections extend to for-profit corporations, describing it as an "exotic definition of personhood," The Oklahoman reported.

 

Heaton originally refused to grant a preliminary injunction, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals June 27 reversed his decision and instructed him to reconsider. The appeals court said Hobby Lobby and Mardel had demonstrated they probably would prevail in showing that the mandate infringes on their religious freedom.

 

The next day, Heaton issued a temporary restraining order preventing the mandate from going into effect July 1 and sparing the retail chains from the penalty.

 

The Obama administration's final rule on the abortion/contraception mandate does not provide a religious liberty accommodation to for-profit companies such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel. Religious liberty advocates said it also fails to remedy the conscience problems for non-profit organizations that object.

 

More than 60 federal lawsuits have been filed against the abortion/contraception mandate. Courts have granted injunctions to 23 for-profit corporations and refused to issue injunctions or restraining orders for seven companies, according to the Becket Fund. No action has been taken in four lawsuits by for-profit companies.

 

The ERLC and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lead a coalition of diverse religious organizations that have urged the Obama administration to protect freedom of conscience under the mandate.

 

Hobby Lobby seeks to honor God "by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles," according to its statement of purpose. Its stores are closed on Sundays. The Oklahoma City-based chain contributes to Christian organizations selected by the Green family that seek "to share the Good News of Jesus Christ to all the world," according to its website.

 

The case is Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.

 

Compiled by Tom Strode, Washington bureau chief for Baptist Press.

Off-Label Abortion Pills being Sold at Flea Markets

When many people think of abortion pills, they think of RU-486, the abortion drug developed in France in the 1980s and sold in the U.S. since 2000. But there is another drug, misoprostol, a prostaglandin normally used in conjunction with RU-486, that is being increasingly promoted and used by itself as a standalone abortifacient.

And word is that misoprostol is now being sold at border town flea markets in Texas.

After all these years, many people do not know that "RU-486" is actually a two-drug abortion technique. RU-486 (generic name mifepristone) is a drug that causes a baby's life support system to shut down, essentially starving the child to death. But to complete the abortion, another drug, a prostaglandin is used, to stimulate powerful uterine contractions to expel the tiny corpse.

Somewhere along the line, someone figured out that a pregnant woman could try skipping the RU-486 and just take the prostaglandin, initiating a violent labor that forcefully aborts the child. But it is a much riskier proposition than most women know—for both the child and herself—which we will detail later in this story.

Why do it then? For two reasons. First, because it is considerably cheaper than RU-486. Second, misoprostol has legitimate medical uses and is therefore easier to obtain.

RU-486 pills have been priced at about $90 a pill while misoprostol costs only maybe a couple of dollars a pill. Available on the black market for $10 a pill, misoprostol is still a bargain over the higher priced mifepristone. And while RU-486, in the U.S., is only available directly from the distributor, misoprostol is sold at regular pharmacies all across the country.

Unlike RU-486, which is only officially marketed as an abortifacient, misoprostol, under the trade name Cytotec, is a mainstream drug with a genuinely therapeutic application. It helps those have to regularly take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to stave off gastric ulcers.

Searle, the manufacturer of Cytotec, has specifically said that it does not want its drug used for abortion, and instructions sent out with bottle specifically indicate that it is not to be used by pregnant women. However once a prescription is filled by the pharmacy or a shipment is sent to a doctor's office, there is little control over how it is used. And it does not help matters that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically mandated its use in tandem with RU-486 when approving that drug in September of 2000.

Which is long way of explaining exactly how we got to the situation where misoprostol is being sold in Texas flea markets.

Bloomberg News, in a July 11, 2013, article, reports that though the misoprostol pills are not officially advertised or on display, they can be obtained at open air flea markets like the one Bloomberg visited outside McAllen, Texas, a city of about 133,000 near the southern tip of Texas, just across the border from Mexico.

It is unclear what prompted Bloomberg to investigate the flea market abortifacient sales. But the story is built on the basis of what the news service identifies as interviews with "a dozen area residents and doctors" against the backdrop of recent legislative battles in Texas over abortion and state funding of "family planning" groups (like abortion giant Planned Parenthood).

Bloomberg tries to argue that if the state, through its laws, "makes legal abortion unavailable in Texas, more women may turn to markets such as the one near McAllen…"

It is worth noting, though, that the primary incentive for women going the black market route seems to have been cost, rather than availability. There is an abortion clinic there in McAllen, and a long-time abortionist there was one of those interviewed for the story.

At the "nearest legal provider"–which would seem to be that McAllen clinic– a "pharmaceutical" abortion costs $550. Erlinda Dasquez, a 29-year-old mother of four, got and took some of the pills she bought from a woman who had smuggled some pills across the border. Interviewed for the article, Dasquez told Bloomberg that three years ago she paid $40 for four pills she got in a clear plastic bag from the woman who sold them to her out of her living room.

According to Bloomberg, though abortion is illegal in Mexico (at least outside the capitol, Mexico City), pharmacies on the Mexican side of the border can legally sell misoprostol without a prescription. So the supply is relatively easy to come by if someone can bring them across the border.

Women who don't want to cross the border themselves now can simply go to the flea market. The pills aren't sitting out on the tables, but people told Bloomberg that all one has to do is ask.

Dasquez says she knows 12 to 20 people have gotten the pills, including a cousin she said "went to the flea market a few months ago." These abortions are described as "clandestino."

COMPLICATIONS

These pills, used alone, often don't work. Consequently, the woman buys more pills, pursues more expensive surgical abortions, or gives birth later to a child that could have had his or her development impaired by the arduous but unsuccessful process.

In our June and July 1998 issues of NRL News, we wrote on studies of babies with disabilities born in Brazil after unsuccessful misoprostol abortion attempts. There are sometimes children born months later with missing or webbed toes, fingers, clubbed feet, partial facial paralysis or other developmental malformations. There are more difficulties which we discuss in a moment

The drug can initiate a lengthy period of bleeding. Dasquez told Bloomberg she bled for at least a month. William West, the abortionist at Whole Women's Health in McAllen, told Bloomberg that he sees patients daily who have taken the black-market abortion drugs, many of them bleeding or still pregnant.

Instructions given at the Mexican pharmacy are scant; Bloomberg recounts the man behind the counter telling the woman to take two pills orally and one vaginally, followed by two pills every hour "until something happens." It is unclear what sort of directions and warnings are given to women at the flea markets.

The most recent official FDA label for Cytotec (11/2012), states that the drug "should be taken only according to the directions given by a physician" and indicates that "caution should be employed" when administering Cytotec to patients with pre-existing cardio-vascular disease. In addition to repeated warnings that it is not to be used by pregnant women because of its abortifacient effects, the FDA notes that misoprostol has been associated with uterine ruptures when used for abortion beyond the eighth week of pregnancy.

The label also reminds people that the drug falls in the FDA's Pregnancy Category X (meaning that because of studies showing risk to the baby, the FDA has determined that risks clearly outweigh the benefits of the pregnant woman's use) and says that "Congenital anomalies sometimes associated with fetal death have been reported subsequent to the unsuccessful use of misoprostol as an abortifacient…"

Given the abortion industry's energetic, all-out push of chemical abortifacients, this is not the first time we have heard of the black market sale of these drugs, nor is it likely to be the last. In September of 2000, NRL News reported on a story appearing in the August 30- September 5, 2000, edition of the Village Voice indicating that a sizeable black market had grown up, especially in New York City's Latino community, around Cytotec.

Often referred to as "the star pill" on the streets because of its five-sided shape, the drug had put a number of women into hospital emergency rooms hemorrhaging or dealing with the effects of an incomplete abortion, the Village Voice reported.

"Women on Waves," the notorious people associated with the "abortion ship" that anchored off the coasts of Ireland, Portugal, and Poland in the early 2000s, have in recent years been promoting abortion hotlines where "Women with unwanted pregnancies who need help can get information about the best use of misoprostol for a safe abortion." Many, if not most of these campaigns, are in countries where abortion is not legal.

With the abortion industry nearly always soft-pedaling the risks, women are led to believe that these pills are safe and easy to use, that anyone can just pick up a couple of spare pills from a friend or that they could be purchased at the back of the booth at the flea market.

Nothing could be further from the truth. These pills are dangerous for both the mother and the child. Women picking up these pills at their local flea markets may end up getting a lot more than they bargained for.

Contacdt: Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., Source: National Right to Life

Major news outlets' rejection of pro-life ad 'not surprising'

Pro-life group Heroic Media is disappointed after several national newspapers refused to run, and labeled "too controversial," an ad featuring a model of a 20-week old fetus held in a hand.

Both the Los Angeles Times and USA Today refused to run the advertisement altogether, while the Chicago Tribune settled for a revised version, with a different picture of a live 20-week old baby en utero.

"It strikes me as ironic that a medically accurate fetal model was too controversial, when the actual babies being aborted are living humans with blood pulsing through their veins," Marissa Cope, marketing and research director at Heroic Media, a pro-life apostolate, told CNA  July 12.

Major newspapers that ran the original advertisement included the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Some papers ran the ad with the stipulation that the wording "made it clear that it was a paid advertisement," Cope said.

Cope called the rejections "disappointing, but not surprising."

The goal of the advertisement was to raise awareness of a baby's development at 20 weeks gestation. Congress is currently considering a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks, when an unborn child can likely feel pain.

There is evidence that fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks, and they certainly can by 24 weeks.

On June 18, the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

It states, "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."

A similar bill was passed in the Texas House July 9, and is due to be considered by the state Senate.

Cope said, "we know that the public is uncomfortable with giving a face to the children being aborted at 20 weeks. The reality of abortion is unspeakable – devastating; and that's the problem we're trying to address."

Heroic Media has also ran a successful series of television ads encouraging women with unwanted pregnancies to give their child up for adoption, rather than aborting him or her.

The ads generated hundreds of contacts to Heroic Media's partner, Bethany Christian Services, which provides adoption counseling and resources.

Cope said Heroic Media's purpose is to help women in crisis pregnancies and to propose alternatives to abortion, and that they will continue to spread their message despite the resistance they face.

"We're grateful for our supporters who enable us to use media to save lives and change hearts and minds across the country, everyday."

Source: CNA

Proof: Abortion industry targets minorities

Statistics from the federal government now prove something that pro-lifers have contended – and the abortion industry has denied – for years: minorities are targeted by abortions.

The numbers come from the CDC Abortion Surveillance report (PDF - published in November) showing that 63 percent of abortions terminate the lives of black or Hispanic babies. It also revealed the presence of multiple abortuaries in many super-minority populated areas.

OneNewsNow turned to Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, who has been watching the situation for years. "That just tracks what we found in our research that we've done before; and that is that the American abortion industry targets the minority community. They've been doing this since Day 1," he offers.

The Life Dynamics work took a look at zip codes where abortion clinics are located and found they are largely in or near minority neighborhoods. According to Crutcher that confirms that the underlying purpose of the abortion industry is eugenics.

"In our documentary, MAAFA21, we fully documented that the real motivation behind the legalization of abortion was to eliminate what these people would describe as 'dysgenic groups' – groups of people they don't want reproducing and having children," he says. "And of course, to no one's surprise these are generally blacks and Hispanics."

Crutcher says it is difficult to get the word out on these findings because the secular media seems wedded to the abortion industry "and won't recognize that it's a eugenics campaign in which minorities are targeted for extinction."

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

Former Gosnell clinic worker seeks help from pro-life organization

Abby Johnson

A former Planned Parenthood worker and her pro-life organization are reaching out to a former abortion worker for convicted abortionist Kermit Gosnell. 

Abby Johnson, who once managed a Planned Parenthood, founded And Then There Were None to reach out to abortion clinic workers who want to leave the industry.

What might be the biggest challenge for abortion workers who leave the industry, renounce that work, and seek restoration and a relationship with Christ?

 

According to Johnson, the Gosnell employee contacted her organization after authorities arrested her, though by then the woman said she was at peace.  

"And that really told us something," says Johnson, "because we knew that she had been participating in this evil for a long time, and at that point she realized that she had been participating in evil as well."

Gosnell is serving three life sentences for killing babies born alive during abortions, as well as federal drug sentences, and several of his employees have also been sentenced.

Johnson announced the contact in an email to supporters, and LifeSiteNews.com. reported the incident in a July 16 story on its website.

The former employee is a Christian and Johnson's organization is now helping her on a path toward forgiveness.

"She's actually going to be attending one of our healing retreats that our ministry puts on," says Johnson, "so we're excited that she'll be part of that."

In the email, Johnson wrote that the ex-abortion employee is eager to share her pro-life story, "and I can tell you that it is a beautiful story of redemption."

Johnson established her ministry in 2012. In that short time, she says dozens of abortion workers have received spiritual, legal and financial help from the group.

In May, And Then There Were None held its first-ever Leave the Abortion Industry Day and welcomed five workers who left their jobs. 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

High levels of pro-life state legislation passed so far this year

The progress of pro-life legislation at the state level this year has made the 2013 the second-best year on record for the number of abortion-regulating laws that have passed by mid-year.

State legislators enacted 43 provisions restricting abortion in the first half of 2013, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which support legalized abortion. The group said in a July 8 analysis that this number is up slightly from the same period in 2012 when 39 provisions were enacted, but down from an all-time high of 80 recorded in 2011.

Debate over abortion regulation has made headlines in 2013 due partly to the trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted on charges including malpractice and the murder of babies who were born alive following failed abortions in his clinic.

Arkansas legislators in March overrode a Democratic governor's veto of a bill that bars most abortion after 12 weeks into pregnancy, on the basis that that is the time when a fetal heartbeat can first be identified through an abdominal ultrasound.

Also in March, North Dakota legislators passed three pro-life bills. One bill bans abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected. It will take effect in August if it withstands legal challenges. Another bill bans abortions that target the unborn child on the basis of his or her sex or genetic abnormalities.

A third North Dakota bill requires any abortionist in the state to have admitting and staff privileges at a nearby hospital that allows abortions to take place in its facilities.

Alabama enacted similar requirements. Seven states now have these laws, though two states face legal challenges over them.

Alabama now requires surgical abortion clinics to have the same standards of care as ambulatory surgical centers, joining 25 other states with similar laws.

 

Indiana in 2013 extended these standards to clinics that perform medication-based abortions.

Four states – Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana and Mississippi – enacted laws barring the remote "telemedicine" dispensing of abortion medication. Twelve states now have similar legislation.

The Arkansas and Pennsylvania legislatures voted to limit abortion coverage in the health insurance exchanges created by the 2010 federal health care legislation, bringing the total of these state laws to 22.

A new Indiana law requires a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound, while Ohio now requires a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an external exam to determine whether a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Kansas and Montana have passed laws protecting physicians from lawsuits stemming from claims that their acts or omissions contributed to a mother not aborting a child with disabilities.

The state of Ohio has barred public hospitals from making transfer agreements with abortion clinics, including emergency situations. The provision could mean that women suffering complications during abortions will face more difficulty receiving treatment.

The number of pro-life bills passed in the first half of 2013 was bolstered on Friday, July 12, when the Texas Senate passed a bill barring most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and increasing standards for abortion clinics.

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Gov. Perry Signs Texas Pro-Life Bill

Despite sometimes fierce and contentious opposition from abortion activists, Gov. Rick Perry signed significant legislation today that will protect the lives of women and preborn babies.

The law prohibits abortions after 20 weeks, when preborn babies begin to feel pain. It also requires abortionists to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications, and to have hospital admitting privileges no farther than 30 miles away.

"This is an important day for those who support life and for those who support the health of Texas women," Perry said. "In signing House Bill 2, we celebrate and further cement the foundation on which the culture of life in Texas is built."

It wasn't an easy road, but Texas lawmakers didn't let protesters deter them.

Sen. Wendy Davis last month tried to block a similar bill with a filibuster. She was stopped for veering off topic. Then, more than 400 abortion activists interrupted the proceedings, which prevented lawmakers from voting before the midnight deadline.

Perry then announced the second special session, which began July 1.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser called the law a "life-saving victory."  

It also sheds light on the need for such legislation at the federal level.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last month. The legislation would ban abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But it's unlikely that Senate leadership will ever bring it to the floor.

"Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans support protecting babies and women late in pregnancy," Dannenfelser said. "Senate Majority Leader Reid should bring this to the floor for a vote. If he and his Senate colleagues stand with the American people against the barbarism of late-term abortion, they have nothing to fear from a Senate vote. Conversely, remaining silent on this — especially in the aftermath of Kermit Gosnell and — other abortion clinic horrors — would be both a moral and political mistake."

We cannot let the abortion industry "police itself," said Americans United for Life (AUL) President Charmaine Yoest.

"States like Texas will save lives by insisting that high standards be followed," Yoest explained. "This should be an area of bipartisan agreement."

Dannenfelser agrees.

"Real lives are at stake," she said. "Washington, as well as the abortion lobby, must not be allowed to ignore the women and babies suffering barbaric late-term abortions nationwide."

Contact: Bethany Monk, Source: CitizenLink

Where charities stand on life

 

Caution: This story contains information that some may find offensive.

 

Some notable charities have aligned with Planned Parenthood on issues related to life and religious freedom.

 

The March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society and the Spina Bifida Association are listed in a recent white paper in joining Planned Parenthood against the Blunt Amendment, which would have provided some protections against ObamaCare mandates. Easter Seals also opposed it.

 

Rita Diller of STOPP International tells OneNewsNow three of the four charities have a history of anti-life policies or have funded life-destroying research.

 

"The March of Dimes has historically funded research that has led to the eradication by abortion of an entire class of people -- those with genetic abnormalities," she reports. "It's a eugenic organization. Much of its research has enabled search-and-destroy missions on pre-born children."

 

Diller goes on to describe one of the organization's research projects.

 

"March of Dimes funded experiments where Doctor Peter Adam actually delivered babies alive by hysterotomy, then severed their heads and kept those heads artificially alive for experimentation in his brain fuel metabolism research," the pro-lifer details. "These babies were between three to five months gestation."

 

That research was co-funded by the National Institutes of Health, an organization that has co-funded with Planned Parenthood in clinical trials.

 

Diller's complete report is available on the STOPP International website, and the American Life League has released a list of charitable organizations and their positions on the life issues.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, Source: OneNewsNow.com

How will Abortion Advocates Respond to Yesterdays' Illinois Supreme Court Decision?

 

In the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to uphold the right of parents to be notified if their underage child seeks an abortion, the question is: How will the abortion industry react?

 

"We are disappointed by the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995," said Carol Brite, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois. "While we believe the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act puts the health and safety of teens at unnecessary risk, Planned Parenthood of Illinois is committed to doing everything we can to make this new process as easy as possible for teens if the law goes into effect."

 

Other abortion groups such as Personal PAC, which endorses and financially supports legislators and judges concurs. In 2012, Personal PAC endorsed 49 of the 118 Illinois House members and 32 of the 59 Illinois Senate members, as well as Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis.

 

Abortion proponents such as Planned Parenthood, Personal PAC and others could respond to Thursday's decision in various ways, including, 1.) Attempting to repeal the 1995 Parental Notification Act in the Illinois General Assembly, 2.) Appealing the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or 3.) Accepting the decision and finding ways to work around the notficiation process.

 

Given Democrat super majorities in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly, and Democrat control of the Executive Branch, it would seem that option #2 might be the path of least resistance for the pro-abortion side.

 

For those unfamiliar with the legislative history, the Parental Notification Act passed the Illinois General Assembly during the only two years (1995-1996) that Republicans held the majority in both legislative chambers. Since that time, no substantial anti-abortion legislation has made its way past the Illinois House floor under the leadership of Democrat House Speaker Mike Madigan, except for the 2005 Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which was amended to specifically say it would not deter abortions in Illinois.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed parental notification for minors before abortion, leaving the decision whether or not to enact to individual states.

 

In the Illinois Supreme Court's statement, Justice Bob Thomas differed in one aspect of the Court's lead opinion by writing in his concurrence that he believed the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention refused to recognize the right to abortion, a position Attorney General Lisa Madigan conceded to the ACLU.

 

In sum, I believe that delegates to the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention refused to recognize a right to abortion in drafting our 1970 constitution, and that is how I would construe our due process clause. Given the clear intent of the drafters of our 1970 constitution, I would reject the lockstep approach that the lead opinion employs in construing the language of our due process clause to mean the same as the federal due process clause on the subject of abortion. In the end, however, we are in unanimous agreement that the Illinois due process clause does not render the Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1995 unconstitutional. I believe we also wind up in the same place in the event that Casey and Roe are ever overruled. If that were to happen, the lead opinion's approach would simply revert the meaning of our due process clause to the pre-Roe interpretation and the matter of abortion regulation (i.e., whether to regulate or prohibit it) would be left for the legislative process. Although it may seem to be an academic point, then, to conclude, as I do, that the Illinois Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, it is our solemn obligation to discern and effectuate the true intent of the drafters of our state constitution on this matter.

 

The Illinois Supreme Court's opinion is available HERE.

 

Source: Illinois Review

Ireland legalizes abortion

 

In the early hours of July 12, following a marathon debate, the Irish parliament voted 127-31 in favor of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, which legalizes abortion in some circumstances, including when the mother says she is suicidal.

 

Only five members of the majority Fine Gael party broke ranks with Prime Minister Enda Kelly, who did not permit a conscience vote on the issue. In doing so, the five were automatically expelled from the party. One of the five, Lucinda Creighton, 33, resigned from her post as Ireland's European affairs minister. "I think compromise is essential to any coalition," she said. "I feel we've compromised on economic issues, social policy, and so on. But when it comes to something that is a matter of life and death, at least as far as I'm concerned it is, I think it's not really possible to compromise." In addition, Sin

 

Source: Catholic World News

Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act will finally go into effect

 

Illinois' long-delayed Parental Notice of Abortion Act will finally go into effect within a matter of days thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court's unanimous ruling this morning that the law does not violate the Illinois Constitution. Under the Illinois law, passed in 1995 but never ruled enforceable until now, a parent or guardian must be notified at least 48 hours before an unemancipated child under the age of 18 undergoes an abortion.

 

"This is a huge victory for the rights of parents not only in Illinois but in all midwestern states," said Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society.

 

The Supreme Court's decision represents the successful culmination of an almost nine-year effort by the Society's special counsel, constitutional scholar Paul Linton, to have the law enforced.  Linton met with Illinois pro-life leaders at the end of 2004 to develop a strategy for reviving the parental notice law, which had languished in legal limbo for many years because the Illinois Supreme Court refused, in 1995, to adopt a needed rule for confidential "bypass" hearings and expedited appeals for minor girls who were either deemed "mature" or made credible claims of family abuse.

 

For lack of that rule, federal courts held the law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement in February 1996. Linton and several pro-life leaders enlisted the assistance of then-DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett to assist the effort.  In 2006, both Birkett and the Society petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the needed procedural rule. Shortly after, the Supreme Court adopted the rule needed to put the law into effect.

 

But the ACLU renewed its fight against the law, despite the new rule, on other federal constitutional grounds.  The Thomas More Society was involved in the litigation due to the efforts of Peter Breen, then its Executive Director and Legal Counsel, who recruited two downstate State's Attorneys to intervene in the case to ensure a vigorous defense for the law in the state and federal courts.  The ACLU ultimately lost their final federal challenge before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in July 2009.  Yet, a day before the parental notice law was to go into effect in late 2009, the ACLU filed a new state court lawsuit, claiming the statute violated the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 

 

The state trial court rejected ACLU's state court suit, but the Appellate Court reversed and sent the case back down to the trial court for further proceedings. Both the Attorney General and Thomas More Society then filed petitions for review by the Illinois Supreme Court. Both petitions were granted in November 2011. The Society's special counsel, Paul Linton, author of a widely acclaimed legal treatise, Abortion Under State Constitutions (Car. Acad. Press, 2d ed. 2012), authored the Society's "friend-of-the-court" brief on behalf of over twenty Illinois State's Attorneys in defending parental notice. Linton also orally argued in defense of the law before the Supreme Court on behalf of the two State's Attorneys who had attempted to intervene in the case to bolster defense of the law.

 

The ACLU's repeated challenges to the constitutionality of the Illinois parental notice law had resulted in Illinois becoming a "fugitive" abortion state – a "dumping ground" for out-of-state minors' abortions.  Until now, Illinois was the only midwestern state without a parental notice or consent law in effect. This allowed thousands of abortions to be performed in Illinois on non-resident minors who crossed state lines, often accompanied by the adults who impregnated them, to evade their own state's parental notice or consent laws.

 

Source: Illinois Review

Pro-life bill passes Texas House

 

The Texas House approved its version of a bill on Wednesday (July 10) that would forbid most abortions beyond 20 weeks, require ambulatory clinic standards for abortion facilities and require abortion doctors to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of their practices.

 

House Bill 2 now goes to the Texas Senate, which could vote on the Senate version, SB 1, as early as Friday. House Republicans, who have largely championed the bill, staved off attempts to amend it.

 

Time ran out during the first special called session of the legislature on June 25 following a 10-hour Democrat-led filibuster and then procedural questions from opponents that aimed to derail a vote as well as crowd noise from abortion-rights protestors. That same week, Gov. Rick Perry, who has said he would sign the legislation, announced a second special session to take up the matter again.

 

Opponents have acknowledged it would be difficult to stop the heavily GOP Texas legislature from prevailing the second time. One Democrat, Sen. Eddie Lucio of Brownsville, voted for the bill in the first session and gave an impassioned plea during the filibuster to his Democrat colleague Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth, who gained international headlines for her stand against the bill. Lucio is a Senate co-sponsor of SB 1.

 

Pro-choice advocates have charged that the ambulatory care requirements would cause 36 of the 42 Texas abortion clinics to close their doors, while pro-lifers have argued the same standards should apply to abortion that apply to other surgical procedures.

 

According to the Associated Press, lawmakers spent more than 10 hours on Tuesday debating the bill as pro-life and pro-choice activists tried to make their voices heard on the Capitol grounds and one day after an estimated 2,000 pro-life activists rallied in support of the legislation amid heckles from opponents.

 

During Monday's rally, the slate of speakers, led by former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee, hit a common theme -- the inherent value of human life -- with several speakers making a point to state their Christian love for pro-choice activists, clad in orange, on the fringes of the crowd.

 

Huckabee followed Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is expected to seek the governor's office after Gov. Rick Perry, a fellow Republican, announced earlier in the day he would not seek another term.

 

Southern Baptists on the platform included Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, and Steve Washburn, pastor of First Baptist Church in Pflugerville, both of whom prayed, and First Baptist Church of Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress, who kicked off the rally with a fiery speech characterizing the abortion debate as being between "light and darkness, good and evil, the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan."

 

Richards, who closed the rally in prayer, reminded the crowd that more than 2,400 SBTC churches stand with them in upholding the sanctity of human life as part of their confession of faith.

 

Huckabee, in his keynote address, said "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not ordained by a government document but by God. He framed the abortion debate in the context of the Holocaust and slavery. The foundation for both lay in the poisonous concept that one person or group is better than another.

 

Contact: Jerry Pierce, Source: Baptist Press

Wisconsin Gov. Signs Pro-Life Bill into Law

 

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill into law Friday requiring that women seeking abortions be given the opportunity to see their preborn babies via ultrasound. Senate Bill 206, or Sonya's Law, also requires that an abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion facility.

 

"Sonya's Law will empower women to make truly informed decisions regarding how they will proceed with their pregnancies and will protect the lives of women who experience complications after their abortions," said Wisconsin Right to Life Legislative Director Susan Armacost.

 

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services announced plans to file suit against the law.

 

This announcement is no surprise to anyone, Armacost said.

 

"It appears that the court challenge will focus on the hospital admitting privileges," she explained. "Apparently, Wisconsin's abortion clinics don't believe their abortionists need to have hospital privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of their clinic — or anywhere at all.

 

Laws requiring hospital admitted privileges have been enacted in North Dakota, Alabama and Mississippi, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization.

 

Currently, when a woman in Wisconsin experiences life-threatening complications after an abortion, the abortion seller sends to her a hospital alone. She must then explain her medical issues to the emergency room staff.

 

"The abortionist who performed the abortion is nowhere to be seen," Armacost explained.  "This deplorable situation must change."     

 

Contact: Bethank Monk, Source CitizenLink

Face of Abortion Exhibition Returns to Chicagoland

 

Pro-Life Action League's Graphic "Face the Truth Tour" Reminds Public Abortion is Infanticide

 

With the national horror over abortionist Kermit Gosnell's conviction for murdering babies still fresh in the public mind, a new bill banning late-term abortion having just passed in Congress, and a dramatic confrontation over abortion legislation boiling in Texas, the Pro-Life Action League hits the streets of Chicagoland to remind the public what abortion is really all about. From July 12 through July 20, Face the Truth Tours will appear at busy intersections throughout Chicago and the suburbs, with pro-life advocates displaying large posters that accurately depict the graphic reality of abortion, juxtaposed with beautiful pictures of living children, both born and unborn.

 

One significant stop on the Face the Truth Tour will be the Saturday, July 13, visit to the controversial Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Aurora. The clinic has generated continued opposition from residents, churches and area pro-life groups, since its embattled opening in October 2007. It was the largest abortion facility in the country at the time and remains the subject of ongoing protests and lawsuits.

 

Two days of the Face the Truth Tour will be devoted to downtown Chicago, with graphic displays at Daley Plaza, Ogilvie Transportation Center, Union Station, Lake Shore Drive, the Art Institute and along overpasses on the Kennedy Expressway.

 

The schedule of communities the Face the Truth Tour will visit follows. Time and location details are available at prolifeaction.org/truth/tours.php.

 

• Friday, July 12: Joliet/Shorewood

• Saturday, July 13: Aurora/Naperville

• Monday, July 15 & Tuesday, July 16: Downtown Chicago

• Wednesday, July 17: Melrose Park/Westchester/Westmont

• Thursday, July 18: Lake Zurich/Palatine/Arlington Heights

• Friday, July 19: Chicago South Side/Burbank

• Saturday, July 20: Lincolnwood/Evanston

 

Though the Face the Truth Tour always meets with some opposition, the goal is not to offend or to shock, but rather to raise awareness and change attitudes. The Face the Truth Tour allows people to confront the horrible injustice of abortion with their own eyes—and when they do, they are more likely to take action to prevent that injustice, even if they resent having to see it.

 

"It's true that these pictures of bloody, broken, aborted babies are disturbing," explained Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League. "They should be disturbing, because abortion itself is disturbing," he continued, "This is the reality of what abortion does to unborn children. This is not some harmless, inconsequential surgery. It's violent and it's ugly."

 

The Pro-Life Action League has coordinated Face the Truth Tours for over a dozen years, and last year's event encountered some first-time obstacles, including a temperature of 102° on the first day. The Westchester police had city workers remove the tour's "Warning: Graphic Abortion Photos Ahead" signs that allow drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to detour around the display. In Chicago's 34th Ward "Special Services Area" officers—not to be confused with Chicago police officers—attempted to shut down the display, insisting that a permit was required from Alderman Carrie Austin for any protest activity

 

Despite the occasional challenges and objections, Scheidler was ready with the reason why the Pro-Life Action League will continue organizing these public education tours. "The Face the Truth Tours work. Every year people stop to thank us for sharing the reality of abortion because it caused them to reconsider a planned abortion or begin the healing process from a past abortion," said Scheidler. He added, "Last year a woman came up to us and said that she had an abortion 12 years ago, and that at the time, she felt she had no choice. She told us, 'I keep looking at your picture, and I can't believe I did that to my baby…nobody told me it was a baby.'"

 

To learn more about Face the Truth Tours and the life-saving work of the Pro-Life Action League, view the two-minute Face the Truth video at: youtu.be/-UT5zSsHxA8o or read more at prolifeaction.org/truth.

 

Source: Pro-Life Action League

Boston Men's HIV Cure is a Victory for Adult Stem Cell Research

 

The news of two men supposedly being cured from HIV (only the 3rd and 4th people ever to be cured) is cause for celebration for those promoting ethical adult stem cells, and provides motivation to increase adult stem cell research. As reported at the International AIDS Society meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the two men, now known as the "Boston patients", received bone marrow adult stem cell transplants as part of their treatment for lymphoma.

 

Their doctors believe that the adult stem cell therapy (via graft-versus-host reaction) combined with continued anti-retroviral drugs during the transplant period eliminated virus-containing cells in the men's bodies. Their adult stem cell transplants were 3 and 5 years ago, but now the men have been off of their anti-retroviral drug therapy for several weeks, and continue to show no signs of viral DNA or RNA in their blood. It will probably be two years before scientists feel more secure in labeling the men "cured".

 

Their treatment was different from the "Berlin patient", Timothy Brown, who appears to have been cured of HIV after an adult stem cell transplant in 2007. Brown, the first person apparently cured of HIV, received an adult stem cell transplant specifically from a donor whose cells carried the HIV-resistant CCR5-Δ32 gene. Recently news broke of a baby who was born with HIV but who is now apparently HIV-free, due to anti-retroviral drug treatment. Prevention is of course better, and in fact there was a recent celebration of the one-millionth baby born without HIV, as a result of the PEPFAR program started under President Bush.

 

The technique used for the two new patients apparently cured of HIV opens up a larger potential donor pool for adult stem cell transplants, though this is still a risky treatment procedure that will need refinement, and this is not a suitable treatment option for every HIV patient. Still, this is another encouraging example of the usefulness of ethical adult stem cells.

 

You can view the video on this here.

 

Written by Andrew Mullins, Source: FRCBlog

Continued major problems in HHS mandate’s ‘final rule’

 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has conducted an initial analysis of the Obama administration's 110-page final rule for the implementation of the HHS mandate.

 

"We will have more to say," said Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, USCCB president. "At this point, however, our study has not discovered any new change that eliminates the need to continue defending our rights in Congress and the courts."

 

Cardinal Dolan said in a statement that the USCCB continued to find "problems with the 'religious employer' exemption" and "problems with the lack of any exemption or 'accommodation' for individuals and for-profit businesses":

 

There have been no changes in those areas since the proposed rule of February. At that time, we made clear that all but one of the problems we originally identified with the definition of "religious employer" remained in place, and that the proposed rule actually made matters more troubling by preventing dioceses and other exempt employers from extending their coverage to the employees of service ministries that are not exempt. We also made clear in February that the proposed rule, like earlier versions, made no provision at all for individuals and for-profit businesses. Because the final rule remains the same in these areas, so do our concerns.

 

Regarding "the 'accommodation' for religious charities, schools, and hospitals, the overall structure remains the same as under the proposed rule," Cardinal Dolan added. "There are, however, some relatively small changes to the 'accommodation' that will take more time to evaluate. But even now, it is clear that the final rule does at least three things differently from the proposed rule":

 

For insured plans, the proposed rule would have established separate insurance policies for coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients; but the final rule does not.Now, there is only one policy, and it is the one sponsored by the Catholic employer. The objectionable items will still be paid for by virtue of the fact that an employee belongs to the Catholic employer's plan, but these amounts are described as "payments" rather than "coverage."

 

Also regarding insured plans, the final rule proposes to segregate funds in a way not specified in the proposed rule. This seems intended to strengthen the claim that objectionable items will not ultimately be paid by the employer's premium dollars. But it is unclear whether the proposal succeeds in identifying a source of funds that is genuinely separate from the objecting employer, and if so, whether it is workable to draw from that separate source.

 

Regarding self-insured plans, the proposed rule described three alternative roles for the third-party administrator in securing coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. The final rule selects the alternative that treats the employer's very act of objecting to coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients as the legal authorization for a third-party administrator to secure the objectionable coverage. In our comments to HHS on the proposed rule, we identified this alternative as the most objectionable of the three.

 

The USCCB statement was released in the afternoon of July 3, as the nation prepared for a long holiday weekend.

 

Source: CWN