Government Office to Investigate Planned Parenthood’s Use of Taxpayer Funds

 

A division of the federal government has accepted a request from lawmakers to investigate the nation's largest abortion seller and its affiliates to determine how they are using taxpayer dollars.

 

Four Republican lawmakers in February asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the use of money for Planned Parenthood and other organizations. More than 50 members of Congress signed the request.

 

Rep. Diane Black said she's pleased with the GAO's decision.

 

"This independent study of how much and for what purpose these dollars are allocated to all abortion providers is necessary for Congress to ensure accountability and oversight," the Tennessee lawmaker said. "I look forward to reviewing the results and ultimately, mobilizing the support needed to stop federal funding of abortion providers once and for all."

 

Planned Parenthood performed a record 333,964 abortions last year — and nearly 1 million in the past three years.

 

"At the same time, they also received more federal taxpayer dollars than ever before — a record $542 million, an 11-percent increase over the last two years," said Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, also one of the four. "Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions clearly benefit from Uncle Sam, but there's no accounting to prove how they actually use that money. This GAO report would shine a light on how our tax dollars are being spent."

 

Reps. Pete Olson, from Texas, and Chris Smith, from New Jersey, also spearheaded the request.

 

The GAO's announcement comes just two weeks after Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast settled charges of fraudulently overbilling the Medicaid program in Texas.

 

"American taxpayers deserve to know if their hard-earned money is being funneled to groups that are abusing it," said Michael Norton, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). "The GAO is right to investigate the stream of tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood and other specific organizations."

 

Reports suggest that the abortion seller owes millions.

 

"Audits and other reviews of Planned Parenthood affiliates' financial data and practices — as well as 45 audits of state family planning programs and one audit of a family planning organization — found more than $108 million in waste, abuse and potential fraud," Norton explained. "Taxpayer money is only supposed to be used responsibly and for the common good."

 

Contact: Bethany Monk, Source: CitizenLink

Rep. Aaron Schock: Defunding "Wouldn't Necessarily Stop The Affordable Care Act"

 

At a town hall meeting Monday, Illinois Republican congressman Aaron Schock said the effort to defund Obamacare, "wouldn't necessarily stop the Affordable Care Act from being implemented".

 

Currently Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are leading an effort in the Senate, joined by some 100 members of the House of Representatives, to vow not to vote for any continuing resolution or other appropriations bill that contains funding for Obamacare.

 

Congressman Schock said, "Operationally the Affordable Care Act benefits are not actually part of the discretionary line items of our budget. There is money in there for implementation for HHS, that we have access to but in terms of the big behemoth of the federal exchanges and so on that's not in the budget."

 

That statement by congressman Schock is in contradiction to what Senators Lee and Cruz are saying, as well as Heritage Action, which says Obamacare's mandatory spending can be held up in the continuing resolution, which will fund the government after September 30th.

 

Speaking about the fear some Republicans have in Washington about the prospects of President Obama and/or Harry Reid shutting down the government over the defunding of Obamacare congressman Schock said, "I'm not convinced that after a month of a government shutdown, when our seniors don't get their Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the troops don't get paid, that my position would be a sustainable position. At the end of the day this is all a public opinion battle. A better strategy is to expose the law."

 

View Rep. Aaron Schock video here: http://youtu.be/gy04q3-3NWU

 

Contact: Ulysses Arn, Source: Illinois Review

64 lawsuits pending against HHS mandate

 

Surveying the legal landscape surrounding the HHS mandate, the National Law Journal finds that "there are approximately 64 challenges to the contraceptive coverage requirement pending. Of those, 36 were filed by for-profit companies. The remaining number have been brought by religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations."

 

The article reviews conflicting decisions at the US appeals court level, as well as a recent appellate court decision against Liberty University, which has lodged a more general objection to being compelled to provide any health insurance. The university's case, according to the National Law Journal, "is definitely headed to the Supreme Court after a remand by the justices in June 2012."

 

Source: Catholic World News

Explaining Abortion to Children

 

I once spoke at a Catholic parish on behalf of the cause–the pro-life cause, that is. I chose my words carefully, as I always do. Uncompromising and compassionate is the tone I strove for, because that's the way I feel.

 

After Mass, a woman approached me, balancing a toddler astride one hip and holding a slightly older child by the hand.

 

"I really liked your talk," she began, and as her voice trailed off, I could sense a "but" hanging in the air.

 

Sure enough.

 

"But," she continued, glancing at her children, "I just don't like my kids hearing about abortion, I try to protect them from things like that, and I'd hope that when I brought them to Mass, I wouldn't be put in this situation."

 

Before I could answer, she rushed on: "See, we're expecting another baby, and they're so excited. It upsets them to know that some people don't want their babies."

 

And it should. I understand this woman's concerns because I've lived with it myself for many years. I, too, protected my children from knowledge about that horrific thing called abortion for as long as possible, but when my oldest finally asked me about it directly, it turned out he was just looking for confirmation of information he'd heard elsewhere.

 

Although legal abortion is a quarter-century old and is performed with horrifying frequency, it's still something we feel children shouldn't know about.

 

Our squeamishness about explaining it to children should tell us something. The reason we protect them from knowledge about abortion is not only because of what it is, but also of how we sense this reality will affect children and their self-understanding.

 

After all, remember how we teach children about pregnancy and childbirth? When small children ask, "Where did I come from?" we usually answer something like:

 

"Mommy and Daddy made you with God's help. At first you were very small and you lived in Mommy's stomach. For nine months you grew and grew. You didn't look like a baby at the very first, but it was still you. Mommy could feel you kick and move, and sometimes we'd even talk to you through Mom's tummy. Finally, you came out so we could hold you in our arms and love you right here and right now."

 

Notice who the center of that conversation is? Not "a pregnancy." Not "a fetus," and not even just any old baby, but a very special "YOU!" When we tell children about the beginning of life, we make it clear that their lives began long before they were born. Their identities as a unique "you" were established from the very beginning.

 

So, when children hear about what abortion is, they are horrified, not just by the thought of babies being killed–and what other way is there to explain it–but also by fears about the solidity of their own existence. Almost every child wonders at some point, rationally or irrationally, if he or she was adopted. Are we raising a generation of children who will now be nagged by fears that their lives were in danger when they were in the womb?

 

Yes, abortion is disturbing to children, and once again, we should learn something from our little ones.

 

When we explain anything to children, we have to put it in simple terms, accessible to them through their own experience of the world. So when we answer the question, "What's abortion?" we are forced to say it like it is, because none of the euphemisms would make any sense to them.

 

It makes it impossible to ignore what abortion is really about–killing real babies as unique and as precious as those little ones who asked that troubling question with trusting, yet worded eyes. Perhaps in forming the answer, we'll be moved to resolve that, through our prayer and our support for pregnant women in need, a few more of those precious eyes might be given the chance to open and wonder in the beauty that is God's gift of life.

 

Reprinted with permission of Our Sunday Visitor.

 

Editor's note. This story from the July 8, 1998, National Right to Life News is our latest installment in the year-long "Roe at 40" where we bring you a sample of the best stories that have appeared in NRL News going all the way back to 1973. My guess is you will quickly understand why this story is among my favorites.

 

Contact: Amy Welborn, Source National Right to Life

336 million forced abortions are enough: Littlejohn files UN complaint over China’s one-child policy

Human rights activist Reggie Littlejohn has filed a complaint with the UN body that oversees women's rights, asking that it crack down on China's one-child policy and its totalitarian regime of forced abortion, gendercide, and human trafficking.

 

Women's Rights Without Frontiers, of which she is president, filed a "Complaint Concerning Coercive Population Control" with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) today.

 

Reggie Littlejohn

 

The document cites the "Agreed Conclusions" from the UNCSW's recent meeting in March, in which the world body vowed to "condemn and take action to prevent violence against women and girls in health-care settings, including...forced medical procedures," specifically including "forced sterilization, forced abortion, and forced use of contraceptives."

 

"The Chinese government," Littlejohn wrote, "is the major perpetrator in the world of 'forced medical procedures' of the kind set forth in the UNCSW Agreed Conclusions."

 

China, which boasts of preventing 400 million births since instituting the coercive population control policy in 1979, continues to forcibly sterilize women who have had one child (or in rare cases, two), and to abort any children beyond the government-prescribed limit, in defiance of international human rights norms.

 

Littlejohn recounts 13 incidents since the beginning of this year alone, including:

 

• In February, Family Planning officials ran over a 13-month-old child, the family's third, after getting into an argument with the family;

 

• In March, 42-year-old Yang Yuzhi committed suicide after enduring two forced sterilizations that went wrong, leaving her in excruciating pain;

 

• On May 23, 26-year-old pregnant mother Zhang Yinping died after a forced abortion that occurred six months into her pregnancy;

 

• Just two days later, a 22-year-old woman gave birth to "Baby 59" and "accidentally" flushed the child down the toilet. The fact that the single mother did not have a birth permit is believed to have played a role in the "accident"; and

 

• In July, Family Planning officials reportedly broke one of Li Fengfei's teeth, forced her to give "consent" to a forced abortion, and left her in critical condition after her abortion at 18 weeks.

 

"Forced abortion is official government rape," Littlejohn wrote.

 

She added that, due to the sexual imbalance created through sex-selective abortions that favor male children, China ranks as a Tier-3 nation on the State Department's Trafficking in Persons or TIP Report.

 

In addition to demanding that Beijing answer for its population policies, Littlejohn asked the world body to investigate its own UN Population Fund (UNFPA) for complicity in the one-child policy.

 

The complaint reads in full:

 

Women's Rights Without Frontiers today lodged the following "Complaint Concerning Coercive Population Control" with the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women:

 

To the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW):

 

I am the founder and president of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, a non-profit, non-partisan international coalition to combat forced abortion, gendercide and sexual slavery in China. I write to complain about coercive family planning in China.

 

As you know, WRWF has submitted Complaints for the past two years. While the UNCSW acknowledged receipt of these Complaints, China has never responded to them. We believe that, given the international outrage generated by forced abortion and gendercide in China, it behooves China to respond to our official Complaints.

 

UNCSW's "Agreed Conclusion" Condemns Coercive Family Planning

 

The UNCSW's topic for this year was "Elimination and Prevention of All Forms of Violence Against Women and Girls." There is no greater violence against women than forced abortion, up to the ninth month of pregnancy. As demonstrated in the cases set forth below, the women themselves sometimes die as a result of these violent procedures. There is no greater violence against girls than gendercide, which has claimed up to 200 million lives of girls selected for abortion solely because they are girls.

 

Women's Rights Without Frontiers was honored to make four presentations about forced abortion and gendercide in China at the UNCSW in March of this year. At three of them, we screened the "It's a Girl" film, the authoritative documentary about gendercide in India and China. While WRWF does not support all the "Agreed Conclusions" that came out of the UNCSW 2013, we do commend the following language:

 

34. The Commission urges government, at all levels, and as appropriate, with the relevant entities of the United Nations system, international and regional organizations . . . to take the following actions:

 

...(aaa) Condemn and take action to prevent violence against women and girls in health-care settings, including . . . forced medical procedures, or those conducted without informed consent, and which may be irreversible, such as forced hysterectomy, forced caesarean section, forced sterilization, forced abortion, and forced use of contraceptives . . .[1]

 

These Agreed Conclusions represent the acknowledgement that forced medical procedures are a form of violence against women and call for an international condemnation of such procedures. WRWF feels that the voices of hundreds of millions of suffering Chinese women and girls were heard by the UNCSW, and for this we are grateful.

 

At the same time, these Agreed Conclusions are but the first step to end this form of gender violence. While the Agreed Conclusions condemn coercive family planning in the form of forced medical procedures, they take no stand on gendercide, the sex-selective abortion, abandonment and fatal neglect of baby girls. If the UNCSW stands for women's rights, it must take a stand against the selective abortion of up to 200 million baby girls.

 

The Chinese government, moreover, is the major perpetrator in the world of "forced medical procedures" of the kind set forth in the UNCSW Agreed Conclusions. The UNCSW should put teeth into its Agreed Conclusions by presenting this Complaint to the Chinese government and requiring a response.

 

WRWF Calls for an Investigation of UNFPA

 

The UNCSW, moreover, should follow its own advice to "condemn and take action to prevent violence against women . . ." by thoroughly investigating the activities of the UNFPA in China. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell found the UNFPA to be complicit with coercive family planning in China. WRWF believes that any independent investigation of the UNFPA's current practices would arrive at the same conclusion.

 

The UNCSW would not be the first to undertake such an investigation. In a striking blow against China's One Child Policy, the European Parliament passed a resolution strongly condemning forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China and globally, citing Feng Jianmei, who was forcibly aborted at seven months in June, 2012. Specifically, the resolution, 2012/2712 (RSP) "strongly condemns the decision to force Ms. Feng to have an abortion and condemns the practice of forced abortions and sterilizations globally, especially in the context of the one-child policy." The resolution further states that "the EU has provided, and still provides, funds for organizations involved in family planning policies in China," and "urges the Commission to ensure that its funding of projects does not breach" the European Parliament's commitment against coercive population control.

 

It is significant that the European Parliament has acknowledged that it provides funding for family planning in China and has urged the Commission to ensure that this funding is not associated with coercion.  For decades, the UNFPA has worked hand in hand with the Chinese population control machine, which is coercive.  We have no doubt that any unbiased investigation by the European Parliament, the United Nations, or any other governmental body will reveal that UNFPA is complicit with coercive family planning in China. The UNCSW should likewise undertake such an investigation.

 

The One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth.

 

It is China's war on women. Any discussion of women's rights, or human rights, would be a charade if forced abortion in China is not front and center. It does not matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on this issue. No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice. Here is a video in which former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, strongly condemns coercive family planning in China. http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=hillary_clinton

 

This violence became increasingly evident in the past year, giving rise to both international and domestic criticism of the One Child Policy. We had hoped that when President Xi Jinping succeeded former President Hu Jintao, we would see reform of violent family planning practices. Unfortunately, such has not been the case.

 

To the contrary, just this year there has been much suffering caused by the One Child Policy.  We are aware that the cases that make it to the West are just the tip of the iceberg.  For every family that posts their experience of heartbreak on the internet, there are thousands or millions that suffer silently. Every month has brought a fresh atrocity:

 

• On January 14, 2013, Wang Xia, the Chair of the National Population and Family Planning Commission, stated that China "must unwaveringly adhere to the One Child Policy as a national policy to stabilize the low birth rate as the primary task."  See, "Chinese Official Plans to Keep the One Child Policy, Says Maintaining Low Birth Rate is a Priority." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=904

 

• On February 4, 2013, Family Planning Officials got into an argument with a couple who had three children.  In the tussle that followed, these Officials ran over the couple's thirteen month old baby with their car, killing him.  See, "Father's Interview about baby crushed to death during One Child Policy enforcement confirms violent coercion." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=938

 

• On March 14, 2013, it was reported that Yang Yuzhi hung herself in the Family Planning Office of Beizhanglou Village, Taikang County, Henan Province.  Forcibly sterilized twice, she had for years suffered chronic pain from these traumatic procedures.  Her medication drained the family finances, so she regularly petitioned the Family Planning Office for compensation, to no avail.  Yang's death also emphasizes the absence of the rule of law in China.  She died while petitioning for justice.  See, "Woman's death by hanging at Family Planning Office – Suicide or Something Else?  [Warning, Graphic Photo]," http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=986

 

• On March 19, 2013, in Dabancheng Village, Hubei Province, a mother of two died after a forced sterilization, which took place against a doctor's orders.  See, "Woman dies after forced sterilization." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1010

 

• Also in March, the Health Ministry reported that since the Chinese Communist Party started implementing coercive population control measure, doctors have performed 336 million abortions, 196 million sterilizations, and 403 millionn insertions of intrauterine devices.  See, "Data reveal scale of China abortions."http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/6724580a-8d64-11e2-82d2-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2VVYauyQb

 

• On April 24, 2013, Congressman Chris Smith and Women's Rights Without Frontiers attempted to deliver to the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC 200,000 signatures on petitions against forced abortion and gendercide in China.  The Embassy would not open its door to accept the signatures, but rather refused them.  See, "Chinese Embassy refuses petition on gendercide, forced abortion in China."  http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1109

 

• On April 25, 2013, the relatives of blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng received death threats.  Chen's nephew, Chen Kegui, had acute appendicitis, for which he was not allowed out of the prison for possible surgery.  Kegui had been detained in 2012 for defending himself with a kitchen knife when government thugs attacked him and his family upon the discovery that Chen Guangcheng had escaped.  See, "Blind activist Chen Guangcheng's relatives receive death threats." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1058

 

• On May 15, 2013, in Xinyi City, Jiangsu Province, more than 20 Family Planning Officials beat a farmer almost to death, because he and his wife have three children.  Zhang Futao suffered severe head injuries and is in critical condition from the beating.  According to the family, he has a fractured skull and a brain hemorrhage. His three children are ages 12, 6 and 4.  See, "Family Planning Officials Fracture Skull of Family of Three." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1136

 

• On May 25, 2013, a woman from Yuyue Town, Hubei Province, died after a forced abortion.  She was six months' pregnant. See, "Woman dies of forced abortion, six months pregnant." http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1141

 

• On May 29, 2013, it was reported that a 22 year old woman flushed her newborn baby boy down a toilet.  We believe that this desperate act was not unrelated to the fact that she was 22 years old, unmarried, and without a birth permit.  See, "Flushed down toilet, Chinese baby survives." http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/world/asia/china-baby-rescue

 

• On June 1, 2013, a woman from Yuyue City in Hubei Province, was forcibly aborted at six months of pregnancy. She died of a hemorrhage. This case was reported briefly in Chinese on a micro-blog, which posting was quickly removed.http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1141

 

• On June 3, 2013, the China Daily reported that a city in central China is considering the implementation of a new law that would fine unwed mothers up to three times their annual income.  This law would likely increase the incidence of forced abortions for those women who could not afford to pay such a steep fine on an emergency basis.  See, "New law would fine unmarried mothers." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2013-06/03/content_16558001.htm

 

• On July 9, 2013, Li Fengfei, of Bijie City, Guizhou Province was forcibly aborted at nearly 18 weeks of pregnancy. Family Planning Officials beat her breaking one of her teeth, forced her fingerprint onto the consent form for an abortion, and injected her with potentially lethal dosages of abortion-inducing drugs. She was last seen in the hospital in critical condition. Original Chinese source:http://www.chinaaid.net/2013/07/blog-post_1312.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chinaaid%2FdpAY+%28对华援助协会%29

 

China's One Child Policy Causes Sexual Slavery

 

The State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons or TIP Report recently downgraded China to a Tier 3 nation – a status it now shares with Iran, Sudan and North Korea. Tier 3 nations may be subject to sanctions, if approved by the U.S. President. http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/

 

The TIP Report discusses how China's One Child Policy, combined with son preference, has caused a gender imbalance that is driving human trafficking and sexual slavery, not only within China but from the surrounding countries as well. The Report lists the many nations from which women and girls are trafficked into China: "Women and children from neighboring Asian countries, including Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Singapore, Mongolia, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), as well as from Russia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, are reportedly trafficked to China for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor."

 

The TIP Report finds that, despite the prevalence of human trafficking and sexual slavery, the Chinese government's efforts at prevention fall below minimum standards. In fact, the Report finds that many state-run institutions were complicit in the trafficking: " . . . The Chinese government did not demonstrate significant efforts to comprehensively prohibit and punish all forms of trafficking and to prosecute traffickers. The government continued to perpetuate human trafficking in at least 320 state-run institutions, while helping victims of human trafficking in only seven."

 

The TIP Report further criticizes the Chinese government for failing to "address the effects its birth limitation policy had in creating a gender imbalance and fuelingtrafficking, particularly through bride trafficking and forced marriage."

 

Forced Abortion in China: Study finds Correlation with Low Birth Weight, Increased Chance of Death in Subsequent Pregnancies

 

A dissertation submitted to the University of Hong Kong found that children in China are more likely to face serious health complications, including death, if their mothers have had multiple induced abortions. The study concluded that having more than one abortion increases the risk of low birth weight in subsequent pregnancies. Indeed, women who have had three or more induced abortions are at five times the risk of preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy.

 

The study, conducted by Cui Limin, explained that nearly two thirds of neonatal deaths are related to low birth weight. For children surviving infancy, LBW increases the risk of neuron-developmental problems, respiratory tract infections, and behavioral problems.[2] According to the study, those with very LBW suffer from conditions including cerebral palsy, blindness, impaired hearing and learning disabilities. Besides harming the child, these health problems put extra financial strain on parents, the study noted.

 

Women in China are forced into induced-labor abortions, up to the ninth month of pregnancy. This is a violation of women's rights of the first degree. We are now learning that these forced abortions also put their future children at risk for respiratory complications, cerebral palsy, and even death related to low birth weight. They also may damage a woman's future reproductive and general health. This is a violation of the women's rights and the rights of their future children.  Forced abortion must be stopped, and families should be compensated if their children experience health problems caused by previous induced labor forced abortions.

 

According to the study, 14.37 million induced abortions were performed in 2012 – one quarter of the abortions in the world — many of which were repeat abortions. The study credited the One-Child Policy as "one of the most important factors for the increased induced abortion rate," and cited the prevalence of forced and sex-selective abortions in China.

 

On April 24, 2013, Congressman Chris Smith, "It's a Girl" film director Evan Grae Davis and I attempted to deliver these petition signatures to the Chinese Embassy in Washington D.C. The Embassy refused to accept the signatures. This refusal is symbolic of the way that the Chinese Communist Party turns a deaf ear to all those who criticize its human rights record. They may have refused to accept our petition, but they will not silence the growing international outcry against this brutal crime against humanity. http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=1109

 

Forced Abortion Is Official Government Rape

 

The Chinese forced abortion policy is systematic, institutionalized violence against women. Because of the sheer numbers involved, it is the most massive women's rights issue in the world today, and it must be stopped.

 

I hope to work with you to help end this extremely serious violation of the rights of women and girls in China. Please feel free to contact me should you require any further information.

 

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

 

Very truly yours,

 

Reggie Littlejohn, President

 

Women's Rights Without Frontiers

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org

 

Stop Forced Abortion – China's War on Women! Video (4 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuBcJUsjY

 

[1] Agreed conclusions on the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls, UNCSW 2013, pp. 5, 14.http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw57/CSW57_Agreed_Conclusions_%28CSW_report_excerpt%29.pdf

 

 

[2] Read the Study: The Effect of Induced Abortion on the Risk of Low Birth Weight, Cui Limin http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/183648/1/FullText.pdf?accept=1

 

Contact: Ben Johnson, Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Cutting-edge technology meets the pro-life movement: New Save the Storks buses set a new standard

 

A massage chair? iPad-controlled music and lighting? Sonograms that are sent directly and automatically to a physician? These are just a few of the jaw-dropping features that Joe Baker of Save the Storks excitedly enumerated during a casual phone conversation last week. When I asked him what was so special about the new Stork bus, I wasn't prepared for his answer.

 

In the past, the pro-life movement has sometimes lagged behind up-to-date marketing, technology, and outreach technologies. Save the Storks, along with other impressive technological endeavors like the iIncarnate app and Online for Life, has firmly and definitively put that stigma to rest. The newly-released video below explains how the pro-life movement, affected by technology, is changing.

 

Joe explained how the Stork buses, which are a specially-designed and fuel-efficient version of the Mercedez Sprinter with a diesel engine, are created from the inside-out specifically with a pregnant woman's comfort in mind. (As a pregnant woman living in a world that is not usually designed for our convenience, I can vouch for how great this is.) "The vehicle is designed to be atmosphere controlled," he said. "It blocks out sound, and on the iPad we check the girls in on, we can change the temperature and lighting, the music playing, everything. We can even turn on the girl's massage chair."

 

The sonogram system in the Stork buses is also state-of-the-art. They are emailed automatically to a cooperating physician who will review them promptly. "If there's something wrong with the baby," Joe says for example, "then it gets reviewed and addressed right away."

 

Stork-LogoStork buses are very different from typical, traditional "sonogram RVs," which are overly large, often not in compliance with zoning restrictions (making it difficult to maneuver and operate in the crowded urban areas where abortion mills tend to be situated), and carry many features that are unnecessary and non-conducive to the needs of a mobile pregnancy clinic.

 

The Stork bus is much smaller, sleek, and designed to carry solely what is needed to carry out sonogram and counseling services needed.

 

Save the Storks partners their buses with nationally-known pregnancy centers, and their goal is to eventually have a bus in every major city.

 

Contact: Lauren Enriquez, Source National Right to Life News

Judge: Asking doctors to have admitting privileges does ‘irreparable harm’ to women seeking abortion

 

The federal judge who blocked enforcement of Wisconsin's new abortion safety regulations last month has given himself one more week to make a decision on whether to extend the hold until November, when Planned Parenthood's lawsuit seeking to overturn the law goes to trial.

 

Planned Parenthood sued in July to overturn the law, which requires abortionists to maintain admitting privileges at local hospitals in case women are injured during botched abortions.

 

The abortion giant says the requirement would force two of the state's abortion centers to close, because their abortionists don't have admitting privileges, placing an undue burden on women who would have to drive further to get an abortion.

 

Judge William Conley, who was appointed by President Obama, granted Planned Parenthood's request for a temporary injunction against the bill on July 9, saying that he saw no medically justifiable reason for the restriction.

 

"The record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," Conley wrote in his decision. "The current system already handles efficiently the very low percentage of women seeking abortions with serious complications."

 

The judge was sympathetic to Planned Parenthood's complaint that one clinic would have had to cancel 30 abortions in the week after the law was signed, with additional cancellations needed at other abortion facilities.

 

"There will almost certainly be irreparable harm to those women who will be foreclosed from having an abortion," he wrote while granting the injunction, "because of the undue burden of travel or the late stage of pregnancy, as well as facing increasing health risks caused by delay."

 

"Since the state has failed to date to demonstrate any benefit to maternal health of imposing this restriction, there is no meaningful counterweight recognized by the United States Supreme Court to justify the act's immediate enforcement," he said.

 

Conley said he intends to make a decision about whether to extend the injunction through the November trial within the week.

 

Contact: Kirsten Andersen, Source: LifeSiteNews.com

'Miracle baby' born to pro-life congresswoman

 

A pro-life U.S. congresswoman refused to terminate her pregnancy when doctors diagnosed her unborn child with a condition that was "incompatible with life." Now she has given birth to a daughter who is surviving, and the newborn is being celebrated in headlines across the nation as a "miracle baby."

 

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R.-Wash., announced in June that her baby had been diagnosed with Potter's Sequence, which prevents the child's kidneys from developing properly and causes an absence of amniotic fluid, which is crucial for lung development.

 

"Multiple doctors explained that based on medical evidence her condition was incompatible with life and that, if she survived to term, she would be unable to breathe and live only moments after birth," Herrera Beutler wrote on her Facebook page July 29.

 

"We were also told that dialysis or transplant were not possible. The options we were offered were termination or 'expectant management,' that is, waiting for her to die," the congresswoman said. "Instead, we chose to pray earnestly for a miracle."

 

In that same Facebook post, Herrera Beutler announced that her daughter, Abigail Rose Beutler, was born July 15 at only 28 weeks gestation and weighed 2 pounds and 12 ounces but is doing well two weeks later.

 

Herrera Beutler explained that a group of "courageous and hopeful doctors" at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore were willing to inject saline into the womb every week to give the girl's lungs a chance to develop.

 

"With each infusion, we watched via ultrasound as Abigail responded to the fluid by moving, swallowing and 'practice breathing,'" Herrera Beutler wrote. "The initial lack of fluid in the womb caused pressure on her head and chest, but over the course of the treatment we were able to watch them return to their proper size and shape.

 

"Her feet, which were clubbed in early ultrasounds, straightened. There was no way to know if this treatment would be effective or to track lung development, but with hearts full of hope, we put our trust in the Lord and continued to pray for a miracle," she wrote.

 

After five weeks of infusions, the baby was born prematurely in Portland, Ore. The doctors, Herrera Beutler said, were prepared for the worst, "but immediately after she was born, she drew a breath and cried!"

 

Abigail's lungs had developed well for a baby born so early, and the infusions had stopped the Potter's Sequence. But no local hospital was prepared to perform peritoneal dialysis, which was needed for her lack of kidney function, on a baby so small.

 

Though Johns Hopkins could do it, the trip would be too far, Herrera Beutler said. A team of doctors at a Stanford University hospital was willing to try, and at 16 hours old the baby traveled to California.

 

Now on dialysis, Abigail is "active, stable and breathing on her own," the congresswoman said. Doctors believe she may be the first child to have survived her specific condition.

 

"Although Abigail will need ongoing care after she comes home, we have every expectation that she will lead a full and healthy life," Herrera Beutler wrote. "... We are grateful to the thousands who joined us in praying for a miracle. But most of all, we are grateful to God for answering those prayers."

 

Herrera Beutler, 34, is in her second term in Congress, and National Journal included her on its list of "The Top 25 Most Influential Washington Women Under 35," according to Fox News Latino. She was named to MSNBC's "Top 10 Latino Politicians to Watch," and she is chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues.

 

Compiled by Baptist Press assistant editor Erin Roach.

IRS Harassment of Pro-Life Groups Continues Despite Claims to Contrary

Thomas More Society Reveals Ongoing IRS Misbehavior and Religious Liberty Violations

 

 

Today, the Thomas More Society has submitted an updated second memorandum to Congressman Aaron Schock (IL-18) of the House Committee on Ways and Means, detailing additional evidence of continued IRS targeting of pro-life organizations. Despite claims by the Obama Administration that the harassment has ceased, the Society produced over 250 pages of documentation showing that the federal government is still interrogating pro-life groups beyond the scope of its legal authority, infringing upon these organizations' First Amendment rights of assembly, free speech, and religious liberty.

 

"Despite claims to the contrary, the IRS continues to target and harass pro-life and conservative charities, illegally questioning their religious activities and withholding their tax exemptions," said Peter Breen vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society. "We have now produced irrefutable evidence of six clients whose First Amendment rights were trampled upon by the IRS because of their position upholding the sanctity of life. Even after public disclosure of this wrongdoing, the Obama Administration's IRS has refused to cease its illegal activity. We will continue to aid Congress in its investigation until those responsible are brought to justice and the IRS is made to respect every American's constitutional rights."

 

Since the Thomas More Society disclosed evidence in May showing IRS harassment of three pro-life groups, the Society has been contacted by numerous additional organizations seeking legal counsel related to IRS issues. Three of these entities, Cherish Life Ministries, LIFE Group, and Emerald Coast Coalition for Life are highlighted in today's memorandum as having experienced illegal targeting by the IRS.

 

The memo details the recent experience of several pro-life organizations applying for 501(c)(3) charitable recognition and reveals blatant bias on the part of the IRS agents assigned to process those applications. Repeatedly these pro-life groups were harassed with questions about time spent in prayer at abortion facilities and told that they must educate and advocate on abortion from both sides of the issue. Two groups were also falsely denied their tax exemption status by IRS agent Mrs. R. Medley who claimed they didn't qualify under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. All three groups' tax exemptions were delayed 13-16 months with IRS supervisors, including Lois Lerner, singling out their applications for further review by an "exemption organization specialist." While Thomas More Society attorneys have intervened and secured relief for two of these three organizations, one organization -- Emerald Coast Coalition for Life -- still remains in limbo.

 

The Society has now presented Congressman Schock and the Committee with compelling documentation of six different groups which have experienced viewpoint-biased discrimination by the IRS, dating back to 2009 and involving multiple IRS offices and agents, including those in El Monte, California; Chicago, Illinois; and Cincinnati, Ohio.

 

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, Source: Thomas More Society

Federal Pro-Life Measure Moves Forward

 

A group of lawmakers this week approved a bill that would limit funding to global health programs that perform abortions. Federal funds would only be allocated to voluntary family planning projects that offer or provide referrals to those with a "broad range of family planning methods and services."

 

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee approved the legislation Wednesday. A House vote has not been scheduled.

 

"(These measures are) critical to protecting the conscience rights of pro-life taxpayers and also advance a pro-life human rights agenda," said Mallory Quigley, communications director for Susan B. Anthony List.

 

The bill contains two pro-life choices, which are not currently in law:

 

•The Mexico City Policy draws a distinct separation between abortion and family planning. It only funds foreign nongovernmental organizations that do not promote of perform abortions. The policy was in effect under presidents George W. Bush, George W.H. Bush and Ronald Reagan. President Obama rescinded it.

 

•De-funding the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA). The organization has a history of working with the Chinese Population Control Program.

 

"Under President Obama, we have sent nearly 200 million U.S. taxpayer dollars per year to the UNFPA, which is linked to China's coercive One-Child policy," Quigley told CitizenLink. "This makes us complicit in the deaths of unborn children and the brutalization of women and even sabotages the efforts of human rights activists fighting to end this horrible policy. Women in China and around the world deserve better from us."

  

By Bethany Monk (CitizenLink.com)

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