Pro-abortion site tells post-abortive women: Be true to your feelings, unless you feel shame

Brittany DeJesus

 

Tuesday night's episode of the hit MTV show 16 and Pregnant features the testimony of a young post-abortive mom whose sister found herself in an unplanned pregnancy around the same time but chose life for her daughter. Brittany DeJesus suffered the traumatic consequences of an abortion over a year ago and still has difficulty dealing with her experience. Her younger sister Brianna tries to console Brittany by telling her to remember "why she did it," but Brittany seems to find little consolation in the memory.

 

Ironically, the abortion rights website RH Reality Check notes Brittany's openness about her abortion experience as a boon to the pro-abortion movement, citing the belief that openness about abortion will eliminate the stigma:

 

"Sometimes those of us who find ourselves facing one really do want an abortion. [Editor's note. Presumably the RH Reality Check writer meant to write something like '"Sometimes we do find ourselves facing someone who really does want an abortion."]  Winning the moral, cultural, and political debate surrounding abortion rights means that we must not give the other side the upper hand on any aspect. Suggesting that nobody wants an abortion or that nobody should be willing and happy to talk about her experience reinforces the idea that it is shameful – and it gives the other side the moral advantage."

 

Both the pro-life and, more recently, pro-abortion camps recommend speaking out about the effect that abortion has had on individual women who have experienced it; however, each side has a very different reason for promoting this openness.

 

As the RH Reality Check writer Katie Stack explains, abortion advocates should speak out about their abortion experiences in a certain way, so that their testimonies might make a political impact. Women should be true to their feelings regarding the abortion — unless those feelings include shame (which happens to be a common emotion that post-abortive women experience, as evidenced by an arsenal of testimonies collected by the Silent No More Awareness Campaign). Stack said:

 

"On the one hand, I have urged women to remain true to their own feelings. On the other, I have understood that the tone of our narratives could hold political consequences. For so long the rhetoric of the pro-choice Democrat's position has focused on 'safe, legal and rare' – with the 'rare' reinforcing the idea that abortion, though permissible, should be shameful and undesirable."

 

Shame, according to the pro-abortion movement, is a fabrication of pro-lifers who, according to Stack, wish to stigmatize abortion with their so-called "war on women," and a post-abortive woman who experiences shame is the victim of pro-life manipulation. The abortion rights community does not acknowledge the feeling of shame as a natural consequence of a mother choosing to end the life of a child entrusted to her protection. However, it is basic psychology to affirm whatever emotions a suffering individual is experiencing, regardless of how beneficial the sharing of those emotions will be towards a political agenda that seeks to enshrine abortion as a good and a right.

 

On the other hand, by and large, the pro-life community encourages an honest expression of post-abortive emotions –whatever those may be — as a path to healing and renewal after the tragedy of abortion. Shame is not thrust upon women who have suffered from abortion by any upstanding abortion healing organization. Lana Sanders, founder of the post-abortive healing organization Beauty for Ashes, encapsulates the Christian, pro-life view of shame in relation to abortion recovery, saying:

 

Just as when we first received Christ as our Savior, walking out from under the cloud of guilt and shame that had attached itself to us, reveals a new freedom. The ability to walk a new path, unhindered by past hurts and sin, allows us to embrace the love of God in a new way, perhaps never before experienced. The desire to serve Him and be obedient to His word takes on new meaning and new life within.

 

II Corinthians 5:17 – "therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old has gone, the new has come!"

 

Shame is not something attached to post-abortive women by the pro-life community; it is a natural response for many women to the effects of abortion on their psyche. The pro-life community invites women to face their shame and guilt as a means of relinquishing them, rather than being held in bondage to them. There is no political motivation behind the post-abortive healing ministries of the pro-life movement.

 

The same, clearly, cannot be said about abortion advocates who encourage women to openly discuss their abortion experiences.

 

Editor's note. Lauren Enriquez has worked for great organizations such as Texas Right to Life and Students for Life of America. This appeared at liveactionnews.org

 

By Lauren Enriquez, Source: NRLC News

More attention on the ObamaCare “train wreck”

 

Each day a few more pieces of the ObamaCare health insurance exchange puzzle are found in the box or underneath the couch or broken in half. A headline in a story appearing in the (very sympathetic) POLITICO catches the reader up: "Shutdown over, Congress turns to Obamacare 'train wreck.'"

 

Over the last two weeks, we already discussed some of the myriad of problems that go way beyond what was piously dismissed as "glitches": sticker shock (the same or lesser coverage will cost two or three times as much); the lowest price plans have gigantic deductibles; the obvious…misstatement… that people can keep their health plans, if they like them; the preposterous over-promising; and the simple fact that the meltdown was not primarily or even largely a function of demand—it was the system undergirding healthgov.org

 

Today we learn about not so much new flaws as an elaboration on some old ones and a few that are getting more attention. For example, as Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) told POLITICO, "The databases that store sensitive medical and financial information aren't secure. [Over the next couple of months, because the potential for fraud is virtually limitless, there likely will be a flood of stories about consumers being ripped off.] "Worse still, these same individuals will be slapped with a penalty tax for being uninsured."

 

Which doesn't change the basic dilemma: people are still finding it near impossible to sign on, much less navigate healthgov.org. The irony is that in order to keep the public from panicking, everything the Obama administration has done to date is to remind "visitors" that many/most people can obtain insurance subsidies. But as the Washington Post reported this morning, trying to determine eligibility for subsidies is a nightmare.

 

Borrowing from Jim Geraghty over at National Review Online, quoting from other publications…

 

"Vermont has had 631 people sign up for insurance through its state-run Obamacare exchange as of Tuesday morning."

 

"According to a Washington Post report Wednesday morning, 59-year-old Janice Baker officially became the first confirmed enrollee in the Delaware Obamacare exchange that opened."

 

"A Wisconsin Reporter review of the insurers in Wisconsin's federally controlled Health Insurance Marketplace seems to confirm what the state Office of the Commissioner of Insurance told the MacIver News Service earlier this week: There has been "minimal participation" in the exchange to date. OCI estimated the number of people signed up was fewer than 50."

 

And, as the Washington Post noted today, "Hawaii's health insurance marketplace under President Barack Obama's federal health care overhaul began offering plans for sale on Tuesday, more than two weeks after the start of open enrollment."

 

And, as reminder of what we wrote earlier in the week, there was an incredible 88% drop in visitors between October 1 and October 13! While that is stunning enough, in the first week less than half of 1% of the visitors successfully enrolled, according to the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin.

 

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Told her baby would not be born alive, woman chemically aborts, but baby survives

Newly-born baby in an incubator and DISTRESSED … Rebeka Tjombe

 

WHAT a story out of the Namibian newspaper in Southwest Africa. Under the headline "Miracle baby survives abortion," we learn from Clemans Miyanicwe that doctors told Rebeka Vandueruru Tjombe that her unborn baby could not survive and "ordered the mother to take abortion pills." (What kind of pills is never described.)

 

The husband, Jephta Mooka Kaevara, told Miyanicwe that his wife texted him with the bad news and he went to the hospital where, he alleges, the doctor refused to tell him about his wife's condition.

 

"We were given a prescription to buy tablets to abort the pregnancy as the doctor had said there was no hope that the baby would be born alive," Kaevara told The Namibian Tuesday. Since the hospital pharmacy had run out, Kaevara bought the tablets from a pharmacy.

 

But after his wife took the pills, the baby was born alive, weighing about 3 1/3rd pounds. The baby is on a life-support system in the hospital maternity ward. "The mother will be discharged today because the hospital does not admit patients who have a place to stay in Windhoek [the capital city of Namibia]," according to reporter Miyanicwe.

 

"Why did the doctor tell me that there was no possibility of the baby surviving? Why did he make my wife try to abort the pregnancy?" Kaevara told The Namibian, adding the couple felt "betrayed" by the doctors.

 

"We trusted these people but look at what they have done," the mother said. "They made a wrong diagnosis. I did not receive any counseling from nurses or an apology from the doctor after what happened. I am suffering," Tjombe said.

 

There was evidently a lot more drama than the brief story details. It began with a sentence it does not elaborate on further:

 

"THE spirit of Florence Nightingale to save a life inspired a Windhoek nurse to run from one building to another with a baby on an oxygen mask meant for an adult on Tuesday."

 

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

Appeal filed in Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Aurora, Illinois

 

The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, filed their notice of appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court, Second Judicial District, challenging the dismissal of its 2008 lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of Illinois, its affiliates or alter ego's, including an entity named, "Gemini Office Development, LLC" (whose acronym conveys a blasphemous insult to people of religious faith – "G.O.D.").

 

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of neighbors of the facility as well as an association of Fox Valley Families opposed to Planned Parenthood's disregard for Aurora's laws, alleges that the nation's largest abortion provider misled and lied to Aurora zoning and building officials in 2006 and 2007 to get permission to build its mega-clinic, and since then purports to operate a non-profit business at a site explicitly reserved for for-profit businesses – thereby also betraying its express representations and commitments to the Illinois Finance Authority, which provided some $8 million in financing at taxpayer expense on condition that the massive new building be operated exclusively for non-profit, charitable purposes.

 

The lawsuit, which the trial court dismissed late last August asserted that Planned Parenthood, having faced opposition from contractors and residents during construction of other abortion facilities around the U.S., decided to conceal its identity in construction of its new Aurora facility, which was built in 2007.  Thus Planned Parenthood hid behind "G.O.D." in seeking and securing its zoning and building permits.  Also, it claimed to be building a "medical office building," to be occupied by as yet unidentified tenants such as physicians' offices, dentists' offices, or pharmacy retailers, whose offices would be built out to suit these as yet unknown tenants' specifications. But the truth that this would be a massive abortion facility and political headquarters for Planned Parenthood in Illinois (with space for community organizing and education and lobbying efforts) was never disclosed – so far as the record shows – to Aurora's officials.  Only when the Chicago Tribune broke the story about Planned Parenthood's involvement in July, 2007, was the truth publicly known.  A great public outcry ensured, with over 1,000 demonstrators protesting at the site, and hundreds of opponents lining up to testify at late night City Council meetings. Under the Aurora zoning ordinance, Planned Parenthood's proposed true non-profit land use was classified as a "special" use, requiring special notice to neighbors and then a public hearing. Pursuant to a later zoning amendment, Planned Parenthood's non-profit use was "prohibited" at its chosen site, which was a "business development" zone wholly restricted to for-profit businesses.

 

But Aurora's Mayor intervened before the City Council took any action, calling on supposed "experts" who rendered reports that grossly misstated the applicable zoning and related laws, on the basis of which the Mayor directed that permits be issued – despite the clear violations of law.

 

Planned Parenthood's non-profit abortion facility and political headquarters for pushing the Illinois "reproductive rights" agenda was anything but a proper, permitted, cookie-cutter "medical office building" for doctors and dentist tenants.  No hearing was ever held, either before Aurora officials or in court.  Plaintiffs were denied the right to take depositions of Aurora officials, some of whom had even admitted years ago (before the Mayor imposed a "gag order" on city workers) that the zoning law actually prohibited Planned Parenthood's land use.

 

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs' lawsuit, litigated for many years on a variety of legal issues, was dismissed on August 29, 2013, on a narrow legal ground.  Judge Fullerton ruled that Aurora's decision to allow Planned Parenthood to operate was a "legislative" decision and thus largely insulated from judicial review. But the City's decisions to let the facility open for business were all made by executive officials (Zoning & Building Commissioners and the Mayor), whereas the city's legislative body – the Aurora City Council – never took any action on the matter except to hear objections voiced by thousands of Aurora citizens at late night hearings in late summer and autumn, 2007.  According to settled Illinois law, judicial review in such a case should have been substantial and extensive, not de minimis or rubber-stamped.  Thus the plaintiffs fully anticipate that their appeal will prove successful, and that justice – albeit delayed – will not be denied!  Planned Parenthood's facility has been operating in blatant violation of law, making it a legal nuisance, the remedy for which is "abatement." That means that the facility must be dismantled or sold as a legitimate for-profit medical office facility.

 

The plaintiffs believe the issues in the case are significant because Planned Parenthood's alleged deceptions prevented anyone in the City of Aurora (officials or residents) from participating meaningfully in the zoning process required by Aurora ordinance.  The zoning ordinance gives Aurora officials and citizens the duty and right, respectively, to evaluate the lawfulness and desirability of new businesses in the community, including any abortion business.  Planned Parenthood's deceitful behavior prevented that evaluation from taking place. Planned Parenthood's conduct was especially obnoxious because, at the same time it was engaging in a prolonged campaign of lying to the Aurora community, it applied for and received (in its own name since such benefits are available only to non-profits) $8 million in proceeds from tax free bonds from the Illinois Finance Authority, to build its facility.  Thus, the plaintiffs argue, not only did Planned Parenthood slap Aurora residents in the face with its deceptions, it did so at their expense!  It is to rectify such injustices that the lawsuit was filed, and now will be appealed.

 

Source: Illinois Review

ObamaCare is unclear regarding the unborn

 

A pro-life expert has found irony on the life issue in Obamacare.

 

Some of the Obamacare exchanges actually recognize an unborn baby as a human being, which is contrary to the philosophy of the Obama administration.

 

Susan Muskett of the National Right to Life Committee sums it up.

 

"It's ironic that some exchanges are counting unborn children for certain purposes when the entire Obamacare law is structured to increase access to abortion," she says.

 

In fact, as OneNewsNow has previously reported, there is a hidden charge in many of the exchanges, which will help finance abortions. Most people don't know that, although the administration promised consumers would get a clear indication of what is covered and what is not.

 

"Twenty-three states have passed laws restricting abortion coverage in exchange plans, but 27 states have not done so," Muskett explains. "And consumers are finding that when they go to some of these exchanges, they're having a very difficult time determining what plans cover abortion and which don't, and we know that is so important to the American people."

 

Abortion is the issue that almost stopped Obamacare from being enacted. Congressman Chris Smith has introduced the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act that would require the exchanges to specify whether they do or do not cover abortion, and Muskett is encouraging people to lobby their members of Congress to get it passed.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

Pro-lifers to Speaker Boehner: Protect Conscience Rights

 

Pro-life leaders from across the country sent a letter Friday to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to take a stand for the conscience rights of all Americans.

 

Signed into law in March 2010, the so-called Affordable Care Act requires larger companies to offer health insurance to those who work 30 or more hours a week. The law's implementation will also mean taxpayers will be forced to contribute to an "abortion surcharge."

 

Mallory Quigley, communications director for Susan B. Anthony List, said Obamacare is the largest expansion of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.

 

"From the beginning of this health care debate, pro-lifers have had great cause for concern," Quigley explained. "Not only does Obamacare force taxpayers to subsidize health care plans that cover abortion on demand, there are not sufficient provisions to protect the rights of employers, health care workers, and other individuals."

 

Life advocates, representing more than 40 groups, asked the lawmaker to protect people from being forced pay for abortions — specifically, in any deals he makes with the White House regarding funding the government. They urge Boehner to include provisions of the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (HCCRA). Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee spearheaded the introduction of H.R. 940 in March.

 

Without the provisions in H.R. 940, the letter states, millions of Americans will be "unknowingly enrolled in health care plans that include elective abortion coverage"; these plans with charge enrollees an "abortion surcharge" of at least $1 a month.

 

"Regulations further contain a 'secrecy clause' to conceal the existence of the 'abortion surcharge' until the moment of enrollment," the letter continues. "This surcharge is only disclosed in the fine print, without itemization in the monthly premium, and is never disclosed again."

 

Advocates also mention the dangers of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, a provision of the health care law. The mandate requires most businesses and nonprofits to offer potential abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans.

 

"Without relief," the letter continues, "these organizations will face up to millions of dollars in fines for conscientiously refusing to pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization."

 

More than 70 lawsuits against the mandate are in play.

 

HCCRA will protect Americans' most basic rights, said Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, a Nebraska lawmaker, who introduced the bill with Black and Rep. John Fleming, M.D., of Louisiana.

 

"The bill simply restores the basic rights in health care that were widely accepted before the new health care law."

 

Contact: Bethany Monk, CitizenLink

New Research shows unborn child can anticipate own movements in the womb

 

Using remarkable technology to eavesdrop on the unborn child, it seems as if every day in every way we find that he or she is a remarkable human being. One study builds on another on another, and so forth, showing ever-greater complexity.

 

Using 4-dimensional ultrasound, a few months ago researchers from Durham and Lancaster Universities published a study of 15 healthy unborn babies that showed how the child's facial expressions develop and become more complex as the baby grows. On the scans you can see recognizable facial expressions including what can only be described as a smile, followed by even more complex multi-dimensional expressions.

 

 

Researchers interpreted the behavior as babies "practicing" facial expressions. The article was published in the academic journal, PLOS ONE.

 

Just this past week, publishing in the journal "Developmental Psychobiology," researchers found that that babies get better at anticipating their own movements as they enter the later stages of gestation. Put another way, "For the first time, psychologists discovered that foetuses were able to predict, rather than react to, their own hand movements towards their mouths as they entered the later stages of gestation compared to earlier in a pregnancy," according to Carolyn Buchanan.

 

Here's how Buchanan summarized the way the way "psychologists at Durham and Lancaster Universities tracked movements in a total of 60 scans of 15 healthy fetuses (8 girls and 7 boys) at monthly intervals between 24 weeks and 36 weeks gestation."

 

"In the early stages of gestation, fetuses were more likely to touch the upper part and sides of their heads. But as the fetuses matured, they began to increasingly touch the lower, more sensitive, part of their faces including their mouths.

 

"And by 36 weeks a significantly higher proportion of fetuses were seen opening their mouths before touching them. Researchers say this suggests that in later stages of pregnancy, the babies were able to anticipate that their hands were about to touch their mouths, rather than just reacting to the touch."

 

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

New data on why women have abortions is both illuminating and ambiguous

 

The reasons women have abortions are not simple and thus can be difficult to study and/or categorize. That's one reason why the two most recent previous studies on abortion reasons, from the Guttmacher Institute, date from 2005 and 1988.

 

Now, though, the same team from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) that brought us the "Turnaway" study, has used the same data set to lay out the reasons the nearly one thousand women in their study had abortions. While their data set included more women with advanced pregnancies and reasons did not always fit into clear categories, the results are revealing nonetheless.

 

The article, "Understanding why women seek abortions in the U.S.," was published in the July 5, 2013, edition of BMC Women's Health and can be freely accessed.

 

As noted above the authors, M. Antonia Biggs, Heather Gould, and Diana Greene Foster, all participated in the "Turnaway" study. They are part of the Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIR) project at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the notorious abortion research center from the west coast.

 

Biggs and her fellow researchers began the "Turnaway" study in 2008. They were specifically looking to contrast the consequences of those who received abortions versus those who were "denied" abortions. Women were "denied" either because available abortionists were not trained or facilities were not equipped to handle those women presenting at those particular gestations, or because state law, for some reason, prohibited abortions at a particular stage.

 

We discussed this study in a five-part series National Right to Life News Today ran back in January. (Part Five, with links to four previous articles, can be found here.)

 

The UCSF team took data from the same set of 956 women, 273 who received first trimester abortions, 452 who obtained abortions just under the gestational limits, and 231 who sought but did not receive abortions. They asked them two open ended questions: the first about why they sought an abortion, and, second, what their main was reason behind the request. (Two women out of the 956 in the study did not answer questions on the reasons for their abortions.)

 

The findings are both illuminating and ambiguous. Women rarely gave a single reason and often gave additional, maybe even different reasons when pressed as to their main reason. Researchers attempted to gather these into basic themes or categories, but some of these were harder to categorize than others.

 

For example, one 19 year old gave the following list: "I already have one baby, money wise, my relationship with the father of my first baby, relationship with my mom, school." Another woman, 27 years old, said "My relationship is newer and we wanted to wait. I don't have a job, I have some debt, I want to finish school and I honestly am not in the physical shape that would want to be to start out a pregnancy."

 

These cover the gamut–financial, relationship, school, and, in the way that some count it, even maternal health.

 

Essentially, the study authors decided just to identify certain general themes and then count every time a woman gave a response in this category. The authors seem to have abandoned the effort to identify a woman's primary reason for abortion, as that data is not listed anywhere. Thus the best one can do with this data is to simply see how often women offered a particular rationale.

 

Researchers found 40% of these women mentioning something financial, 36% in some way discussing the bad "timing" of the pregnancy, 31% raising a partner issue, 29% speaking of "other children," 20% talking of the child somehow interfering with future opportunities.

 

Less than 20% mentioned something about not being emotionally or mentally prepared (19%), health related reasons (12%), wanting a better life than she could provide (12%), not being independent or mature enough (7%), influence of family or friends, and not wanting to have a baby or to place a baby up for adoption (4%). [1]

 

These do not add to 100%, of course, because women tended to give more than one reason. And some other important qualifications need to be made to give a proper analysis

 

Looking more carefully at the data

 

These responses reflect a women's self-reported subjective assessment, not some independent analysis of her situation. As such, it is a good guide to her perceptions (or at least to her beliefs about what others will consider an acceptable justification). But they do not necessarily tell us the facts about her circumstances.

 

For example, though we know from demographic data reported by the authors that 45% of women participating in the survey were receiving public assistance and that a considerable portion (40%) were not able to indicate that they had "enough money in the past month to meet basic needs," we do not know what these women's precise income was or what mix of public and private resources were available in their communities.

 

Would they have arrived at the same conclusion if someone had sat down with them, looked at the sort of resources available to them, and given them the sort of budget planning advice and assistance that is available at many local pregnancy care centers?

 

Finances are an issue for many a young couple starting out, and it is common to wonder or even worry as to exactly how one can "afford" a baby. Some circumstances are admittedly more dire than others, but it is remarkable how that year after year, decade after decade, century after century, people, some with larger families, find ways to give birth to all their children and care for them.

 

How much these women were aware of or considered taking advantage of these resources is unknown [2]

 

Twelve percent is a higher figure than we are accustomed to seeing citing "health" reasons, but a few caveats are needed here as well. To start with, this study group includes more women with advanced pregnancies than would be found in a general sample of aborting women. This could mean a slightly higher likelihood of physical issues (though researchers specifically excluded any women seeking abortions for "fetal anomaly" from their sample and concluded, in contrast to some other previous studies, that gestational age was not a factor here). But a bigger issue, again, is that these are subjective reports of concerns about possible health problems with the mother or the unborn child, not medical determinations of any particular risk.

 

Data and interviews bear this out. Almost half of the 12% reported were attributed to concerns that the woman had about the impact of her own tobacco, alcohol, or drug use on the health of her child or on her ability to care for the child. One woman said, "because I had been doing drinking and the medication I'm on for bipolar is known to cause birth defects and we decided it's akin to child abuse if you know you're bringing your child into the world with a higher risk for things." There is no indication that this mother or any of the other patients giving these answers had medical tests showing any problem with the child, or were told by a doctor that having a child posed any threat to the mother's health.

 

Other issues like "timing" are amorphous and hard to analyze. About 34 points of the 36% raising this issue said they simply weren't "ready," that it wasn't the "right time." Discussions involving timing often bled into other more tangible issues related to finances, school, or work schedules. Sometimes this was simply expressed in terms of emotional stress. Two percent expressed concerns about being "too old."

 

Women often mentioned concerns about already born children when talking about timing or finances and nearly one in three (29%) mentioned this concern about other children overall. Though the sample here in this study is somewhat different in composition, the percentage of women reporting already having or caring for at least one child (62%) is similar to national figures on abortion patients having previously given birth obtained by Guttmacher and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

 

How much would change if partners were supportive and encouraging and women felt they would have help raising another child (women said 8% of partners were "not supportive," 6% of partners did not want baby, 3% were abusive). No indication, again, of whether women knew of or had access to other support in their wider communities.

 

Demographic correlations

 

One thing useful that the study does is to match reasons with demographics. Perhaps not surprisingly, younger women seeking abortion were more likely to report concerns about immaturity, a lack of independence, or the child interfering with future plans. Younger women also more frequently mentioned the influence of family or friends either in pressuring to have an abortion or as people from whom they trying to keep their pregnancies secret by aborting.

 

African American women were more likely to report problems with their partner but less likely to report being emotionally or mentally unprepared to raise a child at the time. Women who were separated, divorced, or widowed were more also likely to report partner issues.

 

Women who were employed were half as likely to report a health related reason, while those who had a history of depression or an anxiety diagnosis were more than three times more likely to mention health.

 

It is not clear why, but women with more than a high school education were more likely to express concerns about not being financially prepared and to want to abort because they said they desired a better life for the child than the mother felt she could provide.

 

Some women (4%) simply admitted they wanted abortions because they didn't want a baby or didn't want any children and/or wouldn't consider adoption. More than two thirds (68%) of the women saying this had never born a child. A handful of women sought abortions because of legal issues they were going through (3 women) or because of fear of giving birth (2 women).

 

Some of what we learned

 

Though it is not brought out in any detailed analysis here, it is worth noting that despite what appears to be a general resolve to abort among women in the study, data on the same women in the turnaway study show that, even as little as one week later, more than a third of the women (35%) were no longer convinced that abortion was the outcome they wanted. How many more shared that view once the child was born is not addressed here or in that earlier paper.

 

Identifying one single approach that will address every woman's concerns and change her mind is difficult, given the multiplicity of the reasons and rationales given by women for seeking abortion. Some will be benefited by being connected to better support systems, while others need practical economic assistance. Anything making men more responsible for the children they father will go a long way towards helping many of these women care for their children.

 

Yet abortion's legality and the implied social sanction that comes with it is clearly a major part of the cultural machinery that forces these cruel choices on women, that lets men off the hook, that leaves women to care for households of children all alone, and that makes society less accommodating to the demands of motherhood. Collectively such factors may conspire to force many of these women to consider an option that goes totally against their nurturing natures and pit the needs of one or more of their children against another.

 

If we believe the survey, most of the women seeking to abort here did so, not because they were triumphantly exercising their "power to choose," but because they felt like–given the circumstances–they had no other realistic choice. Abortion forces on them a cruel, violent, destructive option that does little to solve their basic social or economic problems, problems, which may, in part, themselves be a consequence of Roe's forced cultural transformation.

 

Those women would find better options and more respect for their rights and responsibilities as women and mothers with abortion off the table.

 

[1] No mention is made or percentages given for abortions related to rape, incest, or any type of sexual assault. This could perhaps mean that occurrences were so few as to merit no specific mention or that these were excluded from the study for some reason not given.

 

[2] Although we do know those citing financial reasons included 0.6% who cited lack of insurance or inability to obtain government assistance as a factor in their decision to seek abortion, while, alternatively, another 0.4% sought abortions because they did not want to rely on government assistance.

 

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

“The Miraculous Journey”: 216 tons of beauty

 

Yesterday a friend of mine sent me a link to a set of photos on the New York Times webpage. The first of 7 photos showed a set of giant white balloons.

 

To be honest, I was busy, wasn't immediately interested, and didn't bother to investigate the remainder of the photos until today. Lo and behold, when I did, here's what I found.

 

The explanation (quoting from the story by Carol Vogel) was "For weeks, 14 giant balloons had been mysteriously parked in front of the Sidra Medical and Research Center, a hulking steel, glass and white ceramic building devoted to women's and children's health that is open on the outskirts of this city early next year." (The city is Doha, Qatar.)

 

As is suggested by the accompanying photo (© penny yi wan) what those balloons concealed for weeks was "The Miraculous Journey," 14 HUGE bronze sculptures that depict the unborn child's journey from conception to birth. The author is a very famous–and even more controversial artist–Damien Hirst.

 

And what a spectacular opening on Monday evening! To the "amplified sound of a beating heart, members of Qatar's royal family, government officials and local artists watched as each balloon, bathed in purple light, opened like a giant flower to reveal an unusually provocative public artwork," Vogel wrote.

 

Three years in the making, the sculptures conclude with a 46-foot-tall baby boy! Collectively they weigh 216 tons and costs $20 million.

 

Most of the work, "fraught with secrecy," was carried out in Hirst's studio in England. "The first meeting I had with the architects, I was not allowed to tell them what the sculptures were because they wanted it to be a surprise," Hirst told Vogel.

 

Vogel added drily, "There is nothing secret about them now: he positioned the sculptures so they can be seen both from the motorway and the desert."

 

Hirst traced his fascination with childbirth to having children of his own. "Everyone talks about our life's journey, but we have a whole journey before you're born," he explained.

 

Without getting into specifics, there was little or nothing in Hirst's previous work that was remotely life-affirming. That changed as of Monday.

 

But the life-affirming exhibit marks a change in course for Hirst, whose previous works have included a diamond-studded human skull, and a variety of animals, some dissected, preserved in formaldehyde.

 

"Ultimately, the journey a baby goes through before birth is bigger than anything it will experience in its human life," Hirst said. "I hope the sculpture will instill in the viewer a sense of awe and wonder at this extraordinary human process, which will soon be occurring in the Sidra Medical Center, as well as every second all across the globe."

 

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

New pro-abortion tactic: demonize adoption

 

Andrea Grimes, writing at RH reality check, a pro-abortion blog, has issued a clarion call to forestall a Texas proposal that would require three hours of adoption counseling prior to any abortion. Her plan? Undermine pro-lifers' "hold" on the issue by "exposing" adoption as a corrupt, woman-coercing, money-making cartel!

 

But to come up with such a counter-factual, counter-intuitive slur, Grimes must set up several egregiously false claims:

 

that adoption "is not an alternative to abortion, but rather an alternative to parenting"; and

 

that adoption victimizes both the mother and child.

 

The first premise is artificial—that "pregnant people' [her absurd term] are either pro-death or pro-life, and, if the latter, are deciding between parenting and adoption. But those struggling with a "problematic" pregnancy are not so easily pegged, and can change course after reflection. Grimes gives no source for the "research" she claims that women open to adoption "never considered abortion as a viable option."

 

Then Grimes asserts that the proposal for pre-abortion adoption counseling "would serve predominantly to detain, and perhaps shame, pregnant people who are already in a time crunch." But far from "shaming" women, the great majority of women facing unanticipated or 'problematic' pregnancies would be empowered by facts, such as accurate information about support systems, maternity homes, and adoption options.

 

Grimes announces that adoption leaves parents and adoptees with "complicated and mixed emotions about their experience…[and] not unilaterally the joyful exploration of loving kindness.. heroism and bravery." Well, no duh.

 

She maliciously paints adoption facilitators and supporters as suppressing or denying such totally expected after-effects. Why? You guessed it–for the greater goal of profit and/or religious ideology.

 

This is untrue and unfair, but not unsurprising given that Grimes' target audience of "reproductive justice" advocates frame all issues as battles against patriarchy, capitalism, and Christian fanaticism.

 

The heart of Grimes' call-to-action is this very self-satisfying pronouncement:

 

"[A]ccusations leveled at the so-called abortion industry by anti-choice reproductive rights opponents—specifically, that coercive 'abortionists' are solely interested in creating and maintaining demand for their services for the singular purpose of making money off hoodwinked and/or ignorant clientele—could be aptly applied to the largely unregulated domestic and international adoption industry."

 

Whereas the self-serving, coercive claims against abortion are true, Grimes' allegations of a coercive adoption cartel remain just that—allegations without actual cases cited. And the tactic is stated—to attack pro-lifers by associating us with adoption agencies which she has demonized.

 

Let's not forget that adoption is not a "political weapon" for pro-lifers. It is a practical remedy for the situation of a child not born into a welcoming family who will otherwise be killed by abortion.

 

By Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director, Kansans for Life

Illinois high schoolers asked to make "death panel" judgements

At St Joseph Ogden High School in St. Joseph Illinois, situational ethics has been updated from the classic life raft scenario to the modern death panel.

 

According to Champion News, a high school social science class was asked to make "death panel" judgments and pick from a list of various individuals who should get dialysis treatment if a hospital's lifesaving machines were limited. Below is the unconfirmed assignment.

 

 

Source: Illinois Review

Members of Congress introduce ‘Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act’

Rep. Chris Smith

 

Editor's note. The following was distributed by the office of Rep. Chris Smith

 

With the exchanges of the "Affordable Care Act" (AKA "Obamacare") activated this month, it has become evident that it is nearly impossible for individuals to try to determine which exchange plans on their state exchange, if any, exclude abortion, said a group of lawmakers at a bipartisan press conference Wednesday.

 

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) unveiled his legislation, H.R. 3279, the "Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act" —cosponsored by 70 other Members of the House—to ensure full disclosure of abortion coverage, requiring prominent and transparent disclosure of abortion coverage for each plan offered on an exchange. This is crucial information for millions of Americans since the many plans that include elective abortion are required by law to impose a monthly mandatory abortion surcharge. Many Americans object to paying a surcharge into a fund to be used solely for the purpose of aborting unborn babies.

 

Smith said the inauguration of the Obamacare exchanges reveals that many health insurance plans throughout the nation will include abortion on demand—even late term abortions. Smith recalled that in October 2009, President Obama said in a speech to a joint session of Congress that, "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion… ." A week after the Obamacare rollout, many are now discovering that—contrary to solemn promises made by the President himself—Obamacare violates the Hyde Amendment by funding plans that include abortion.

 

"The new law requires premium payers to be assessed an abortion surcharge every month to pay for abortions," said Rep. Smith. "But many pro-life Americans may unwittingly purchase pro-abortion plans because of a marketing secrecy clause embedded in Obamacare which stipulates that the surcharge be minimally disclosed only at the time of enrollment. In other words, bury it in the fine print. This is a Right to Know bill. Americans have a right to know upfront and with full transparency when they are purchasing a plan that subsidizes the killing of unborn children. Even the most ardent advocate of abortion should embrace full disclosure."

 

Joining Smith and Dan Lipinksi (D-IL), co-chairs of the Pro-Life Caucus, were Reps. Joe Pitts (PA-16) and Diane Black (TN-06), Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) and Trent Franks (AZ-08).

 

"Americans buying their insurance through the new healthcare exchanges shouldn't have to spend hours trying to figure out if the money they pay for premiums will be spent to provide abortions. This bill will give the American people the transparency they need to make informed decisions that are in line with their religious and moral beliefs," Rep. Dan Lipinski said. "None of this would be a problem if we pass the 'No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.' There is a longstanding principle in our country that the federal government does not subsidize abortions. Yet under Obamacare, taxpayer money under the guise of federal subsidies will be paying for insurance that covers elective abortion. This needs to stop."

 

"The President tells Americans that they can go online, find the plan that covers what they need, and make a selection," said Rep. Joe Pitts. "If Obamacare is all about choice, then why is the administration making it so difficult for people to find out about whether a plan pays for abortion? It's time that we got some truth in advertising."

 

"The Obamacare exchange launch has been an unmitigated disaster," said Congressman Diane Black. "One of the most troubling problems is that many consumers are unclear as to what exactly will be covered by the plans they purchase online. Clearly Americans who are pro-life would object to paying for a health care plan that included abortion coverage and then be forced to pay an abortion surcharge into a fund that is meant to be used solely for the purposes of destroying human life. And this is equally problematic for the millions of Americans who simply don't believe the federal government should be subsidizing abortions. The Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act would simply require that all plans on the exchanges disclose whether or not the plan includes abortion coverage. This is not a partisan issue—this is commonsense."

 

I support the legislation that Rep. Chris Smith has put forward, and I adamantly believe that we need to lift the veil of secrecy from Obamacare while ensuring transparent policies," said Rep. Vicky Hartzler. "I commend every member that has signed on to this bill, and I also encourage members of both parties and the Senate to vote for this common-sense legislation. We must eliminate the "secrecy clauses" and "abortion fees" from current taxpayer subsidized insurance plans and fight to restore individual religious liberty and moral conscience to our medical decisions."

 

Contact: Rep. Chris Smith, via National Right to Life

Working Overtime to Usurp Parental Rights

 

The Illinois General Assembly overwhelmingly agreed this spring that it should be illegal for any minor 17 years or younger to use a tanning bed in Illinois, even if their parents approve. Why? Tanning beds can overexpose sensitive skin to harmful ultraviolent rays and increase the likelihood of melanoma—a deadly form of cancer.

 

The state isn't shy about protecting minors from other potentially-harmful activities. Minors under the age of 18 are banned from purchasing tobacco products. They need parental permission to be tattooed or pierced. And in Illinois, no one under the age of 21 can legally purchase alcoholic beverages.

 

But when it comes to sexual health, so-called "reproduction rights" advocates have successfully organized and pressured Illinois lawmakers to uphold children's privacy over parental rights and responsibilities. Indeed, Illinois law allows minors age 12 and above to seek counseling and medical treatment without parental notice or permission, if the 12 year old thinks he or she may have been exposed to a sexually-transmitted disease. And that so-called "treatment" now allows medical personnel to give HPV and Hepatitis B shots, without parents knowing.

 

The same activists vehemently disagree with Illinois' newly-implemented parental notification law. Within days of the Illinois State Supreme Court forcing into effect an 18-year-old state law requiring medical personnel to notify parents of underage girls of their abortion intentions 48 hours prior, pro-abortion forces set into motion a counter offensive to undermine parents and repeal the law.

 

The StopPNA.org campaign, organized by the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health and the ACLU, is urging calls to state lawmakers and is meeting to discuss moving forward legislation that would repeal Illinois' parental notification law.

 

The group argues that parental involvement in their minor daughters' reproductive health care is intrusive and obstructive. Contemplate this anti-parent statement on their website:

 

"Due to the stigma and shame of abortion, along with troubling parental/home/abusive circumstances suffered by at least a third of youth, it is imperative that young people have unfettered access to abortion. We need to ensure that young people access safe procedures performed by medical providers."

 

Up until August 15, Illinois was the only state in the Midwest not requiring parental notification (However, the U.S. Supreme Court required states to provide a judicial bypass to all underage girls). Among the shrinking number of states without parental notification, Montana is now the nearest to the west, and New York the nearest to the east.

 

At this point, 37 state legislatures have recognized that notifying parents before a minor accesses abortion is simply common sense. Who, besides the child, deals more with the consequences of medical treatment gone awry? Who knows more about a 12-year-old child's medical history? And who is more entitled to know if a crime has been committed against their underage daughters?

 

The National Abortion Federation reports that 70 percent of girls 13 years old and younger who have had sex say that sex was forced on them. Sexual acts with children 17 and under are felonies in Illinois, whether the perpetrators are adults or minors.

 

What sexually-assaulted 12-year-old facing pregnancy and considering abortion would fully comprehend the potential legal and physical complications without a trusted family member or concerned adult counseling them? Abortion clinics are not known for being protective of their clients' welfare. On several occasions, citizen journalists have documented Planned Parenthood staff counseling minors how to avoid reporting sexual assaults.

 

In contrast, imagine what would happen if a tanning bed operator offered backroom tans to kids.

 

Abortions on minors are not rare. In 2009, 251 girls under the age of 14 and 2,734 15- to 17- year olds underwent surgical abortions in Illinois. The numbers remained fairly consistent in 2010 and dropped slightly to 2544 underage abortions in 2011. Estimates are that 67,928 documented underage abortions have occurred in Illinois since 1995, when the law was signed but challenged and paused by pro-abortion activists.

 

It remains to be seen whether the law will prevent abortions, but abortion clinic owners are likely to have growing concerns about diminishing profits now that they must contact a parent of an underage girl 48 hours before she is scheduled to have an abortion

 

In the meantime, rest assured parents, whether you approve or not, your kids will not be getting artificial tans in Illinois, because they are outright banned.

 

Contact: Fran Eaton, Illinois Family Institute

Illinois' 5 year olds required to be taught about sex

 

The LaSalle II Magnet School in Wicker Park, like every other public school in Illinois, is beginning to teach kindergartners to recognize the ABCs as well as their private body parts. The new mandated program will be fully implemented by 2016, according to Illinois' new sex education law.

 

Not only will the LaSalle II 5 year olds be taught about their body parts, the systemwide curriculum will include instruction about gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation, DNAinfo.com reports.

 

The program is to be "age-appropriate," and the sex education experts have determined that students in kindergarten through fourth grade will focus on anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety. CPS said that "younger students in this group will focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching."

 

Students in fourth grade will learn about puberty and the causes and transmission of AIDS infection.

 

Students in grades five through 12 will learn about human reproduction, transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. They'll also learn about contraception and  abstinence.

 

Source: Illinois Review

Life Chain 2013 Locations

 

Below is a listing as of today of the cities and towns where organized events are taking place. To check for the latest updates or for a location closer to you, go to: www.lifechain.net

 

What Is LIFE CHAIN?

 

Annually, on the first Sunday in October, LIFE CHAIN invites the churches in each city and town across North America to stand on a designated local sidewalk and pray for 90 minutes, while holding one of the following approved pro-life sign messages:

 

-ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN

 

-JESUS FORGIVES AND HEALS

 

-ADOPTION: THE LOVING OPTION

 

-LORD, FORGIVE US AND OUR NATION

 

-ABORTION HURTS WOMEN

 

-PRAY TO END ABORTION

 

-LIFE—THE FIRST INALIENABLE RIGHT

 

In 2012, over 1500 cities and towns held Life Chains (in over 1700 locations), and each Chain is posted at LifeChain.net. We are now focusing on National Life Chain Sunday 2013—to be held October 6 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm (or the time specified at LifeChain.net by the local Life Chain Committee) in each time zone across the U.S. and Canada. To include your city in 2011, notify National Life Chain of your interest via email National Life Chain or call (530) 674-5068.

 

For further information goto: http://www.nationallifechain.org/

 

ILLINOIS (For additional information about Life Chains in Illinois, please contact State Director Patty Sprague  618-283-1387)

 

* ALTON AREA - Broadway from Piasa to Henry St Clark Bridge; 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Mary Ann Morris 618-465-3108 

 

* ARLINGTON HEIGHTS - Euclid Ave at Walnut Ave, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; David Bergquist  847-284-6865  

 

* AURORA - E New York St at Oakhurst Dr, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Chuck Jones   630-896-3826 

 

* BELVIDERE - State Street Bridge, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Dennis Sullivan  815-914-1462  

 

* BERWYN - Ogden Ave at Harlem Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.;  Mary Ann Pater  708-484-1204

 

* BLOOMINGTON / NORMAL - College Ave at David Anderson Park at east lot, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Jay Talsma  309-828-9250 

 

* BLOOMINGTON / NORMAL - College Ave at Grandview Dr, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Thomas Shilgalis  309-830-3935 

 

* BRAIDWOOD - Rt 53 at Hwy 113, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Linda Hanahan  815-790-8316  

 

* BROOKFIELD - Ogden Ave at Prairie Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. 

 

* CARBONDALE - Main St at Illinois Ave, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Ray Nowaki  618-684-2930 

 

* CHAMPAIGN - Kirby Ave at Hessel Park, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; John & Myrna Buyno   217-352-1007 

 

* CHICAGO - Ashland Ave at Cullerton St, 1:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Liz Gonzalez  312-421-7647  

 

* CHICAGO / BRIGHTON PARK - Archer Ave at California Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Casey Niedos   773-927-0322 

 

* CLINTON COUNTY - communities along new Rte 50, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Esther Koch  618-526-8589 

 

* COLLINSVILLE - Vandalia St (Hwy 159) from Clay St to N Beltline, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Herman Wenos  618-344-4108  or  618-344-8778

 

* CRYSTAL LAKE - Rte 14 at Teckler Blvd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Nancy Cole  815-455-7265  

 

* DARIEN / WOODRIDGE / DOWNERS GROVE - 75th St west of Lemont Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Betty Girdwain 630-963-0654 

 

* DECATUR - Downtown, 2:30 to 3:30p.m.; signs at Franklin at Wood Sts; Diana Shipley  217-864-5422  or  217-423-8452

 

* DIXON - S Galena Ave at River St, 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.; Margaret Brechon  815-288-1156 

 

* EDWARDSVILLE - Buchanan at Vandalia, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.;  Peggy Pace  618-659-9336 

 

* EFFINGHAM AREA - Keller Dr at Fayette Ave (Rt 40), 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Loretta Koester   217-857-3060

 

* ELBURN - Rt 47 at Pierce St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Darlene Biggs  630-365-9166 

 

* ELIZABETH - Main St (Rt 20) in front of Elizabeth Garage, 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.; Marilyn Gollmer  815-541-0354 

 

* FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS / METRO EAST - Hwy 159 at Hwy 50, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; coordinator to be announced

 

* FARMER CITY - Main St at Hwy 54, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Jerry & Judy Hahn  309-928-2109  

 

* FARMINGTON - Rt 116 at Rt 78, Sun, Oct 27, 1:00 to 2:15 p.m.; Deacon Gary Shultz  309-245-2994 

 

* FREEPORT - Hwy 26 / West Ave at Stephenson St, 1:30 to 3:00 p.m.; Connie Gogel   815-275-9831  

 

* GALESBURG / KNOX COUNTY - Public square, 1:30 to 2:45 p.m. with a rally until 3:30 p.m.; Mary Norton  309-343-0621 OR  Lisa Lindstrom 309-342-7214

 

* GLEN ELLYN - Roosevelt Rd at Finley Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Carol Wright   630-469-2165

 

* GRANITE CITY - 3248 Nameoki Rd in front of store, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Kathy Mangi  618-931-7800  

 

* GRAYSLAKE - 1350 State Rt 137 in front of Crossroads Church, 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.; Gail Bordley  847-362-7120 

 

* GRAYSLAKE / DOWNTOWN - Rt 120 between Lake St and Rt 83, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Ann-Marie Miller  847-212-9297

 

* GURNEE - Gages Lake Rd at Hunt Club Rd, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Meegan McNulty  847-855-0117

 

* HANOVER PARK - Irving Park Rd at East Ave, 2:30 to 4:00 p.m.; Maureen Deitche  630-935-8158  

 

* HARVARD - Rt 14 at Rt 173, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Richard Kirchner  815-770-0160 

 

* HERRICK - Broadway (RR 1) at Herrick Baptist Church, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.; Pastor Jay Huddleston  618-604-3086  

 

* HIGHLAND - Route 40  at Route 143, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; park at shopping center; Angela Michael 618-654-5800

 

* HINSDALE - York Rd south of Ogden Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Maureen Sager  708-352-5834  

 

* INGLESIDE - Rt 59 at Wilson Rd, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Sandy Kolseth  847-587-2251  

 

* JERSEYVILLE - State Street, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.;signs at St. Francis Church parking lot at 2:00 p.m.; Marilyn Parsell  618-498-2679   

 

* JOLIET - Six Corners at Raynor and Rt 30, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Karen Hatfield  815-744-6339

 

* LA GRANGE - Ogden Ave at LaGrange Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.;  Wayne & Marianne Hamilton  708-579-0118

 

* LAKE VILLA - Milwaukee Ave (Hwy 83) south of Grand Ave (Hwy 132), 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Henry Potrykus  847-388-5570  

 

* LAKEWOOD - Tower Hill-Herrick Rd, Lighthouse Tabernacle Pentecostal Church, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Pastor Brown  217-567-3337 

 

* LANSING - Ridge Rd at Burnham Ave, 1:30 to 3:00 p.m.; Cathy Dziubla  219-838-1138 or Dorothy Springer  219-838-1138 

 

* LIBERTYVILLE - Rt 176 (Park Ave) at Rt 21 (Milwaukee Ave), 1:30 to 3:30 p.m.; meet at Formation Center at 1:30 p.m.;  Renee Tam  847-680-6652 

 

* LISLE - Ogden Ave at Main St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Carole Gassett  630-960-2916 

 

* MACOMB - Hwy 136 / 67 between Lafayette and Randolph at Chandler Park, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Connie Kreps  309-333-9483  

 

* MANSFIELD - Hwy 150 at McKinley St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.;  Donnette Coley  217-649-9314 

 

* MARENGO - RT 20 at Rt 23, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.;  Kelly Sergent  630-664-7435 

 

* MASCOUTAH - Rt 177 at Rt 4, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Sally Mueller  618-277-0449 

 

* McHENRY - Rt 31 / Richmond Rd at Pearl, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; signs at St Mary Church at 2:00 p.m.;  Karen Verr  815-363-0408  

 

* MENDOTA - Rt 34 at Hwy 251, 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.; Andy Wujek  815-528-5678 or Tom Schuhler  815-538-1940  

 

* MILLSTADT - Washington St (Rt 158) between Lafayette St and Kossuth St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.;  Mary Thornton  618-476-3365 

 

* MORRIS - Rt 47 (Division St) at Jefferson St, signs at 118 E Jefferson St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Marilou Warrick  815-942-5575 or Renee Zettek  815-941-9121

 

* Mt. CARMEL - Cherry St at Ninth St, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.; Pat Stouse  618-262-7643 

 

* Mt. VERNON - Broadway at 24th St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Larry Pearson  618-755-4716  

 

* MUNDELEIN - US Rt 45 (Lake St) at Courtland St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Margaret (Peggy) Feinendegen  847-566-7658 

 

* NAPERVILLE - Ogden Ave at Washington, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.;  JoAnne Mehon  630-357-6876  

 

* NASHVILLE - Rt 127 at Rt 15, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Jennifer Detering  618-920-9829

 

* NEW LENOX - Cedar Rd at Rt 30, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Melinda Grundhofer  815-424-0371

 

* NOKOMIS - Main St, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Judith Koerner or Diana Litteral 217-774-4874 

 

* NOKOMIS - State St at Spruce St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Missy Huber  217-827-0723  

 

* NORMAL - 1006 E College Ave at Epiphany Catholic Church, TBA; Epiphany Catholic Church  309-452-3268    

 

* OCONEE - Rt 51 at Southern Baptist Church, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Judith Koerner or Diana Litteral 217-774-4874  

 

* ORLAND PARK - 96th Ave (LaGrange Rd) from 143rd to 153rd, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.;  William Beckman  312-422-9300 OR 708-429-2762

 

* PANA - 10 W Second St, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Moe Bruns 217-562-2333

 

* PANA - four locations, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Judith Koerner or Diana Litteral 217-774-4874

 

Rt 51 two miles south of Pana at Celebration Church and Independence Church

Rt 51 five miles south of Pana at Hopewell Baptist Church

Rt 51 at Rt 16 at Knobbs Baptist Church, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.

Rt 16 at First General Baptist Church

 

* PEORIA - University at Northmoor, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Daniel Smith  309-691-3611;  See Central Illinois Right to Life.

 

* QUAD CITIES - Middle Rd at Happy Joe Dr, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Vicki Tyler  563-332-0475  

 

* QUINCY - Broadway at 48th St, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Jane Haas  217-224-5483 or 217-257-0533

 

* RICHMOND - US Rt 12 at Hwy 173, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.;  Laura Brumm  262-279-3061  

 

* RIVERSIDE - Ogden Ave at Harlem Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Katie Kruse  708-442-7515 

 

* ROCKFORD - Alpine Rd at Highcrest Rd, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; signs at Holy Family Church; Joe & Joni Mata  815-505-6006 

 

* St. CHARLES - Rt 64 (Main St) from Kirk Rd to 3rd Ave, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Revecca Hendershott  847-309-5656  

 

* St. CHARLES - Rt 64 (North Ave) at 5th St, Sun, Oct 14, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Larry & Karen Johnson  630-513-0911  

 

* SALEM - Main St, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Tony Wagner  618-323-6840  

 

* SHELBYVILLE - Rt 16 (E Main St) at the Courthouse. 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Judith Koerner or Diana Litteral 217-774-4874 

 

* SPRINGFIELD - S Grand at MacArthur / Wabash Aves AND in front of churches along Sangamon Ave, Stevenson Dr and Taylor Ave, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.; Kathy Cinotto 217-691-4230  or  Terry Everett  217-528-2547 

 

* STERLING - Locust St at 6th St, 1:00 to 2:30 p.m.; Deacon John Kellen  815-626-3965

 

* SULLIVAN - Rt 121 (Jackson St) at Rt 32 (Hamilton St), 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Ruth Ann Lusk 217-728-8471 

 

* TOWER HILL - Rt 51 at Rt 16 at Knobbs Baptist Church, 12:00 to 1:30 p.m.; Pastor Randy Miller  217-567-3290 

 

* VANDALIA - Gallatin St at Kennedy Blvd, 2:00 to 3:30 p.m.;  Pastor Peter Kolb  618-283-1133

 

* VOLVO - NW corner of Rt 120 at Rt 12, 1:45 to 2:45 p.m.;  Pietrina Probst  847-550-1325

 

* WAUCONDA - Rt 176 at Mill St half mile east of Rt 12, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Mary Ann Fijalkiewicz  847-526-7101  

 

* WAUKEGAN - Grand Ave at Green Bay Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Pastor Bob Rhyne  847-746-4905 

 

* WAUKEGAN - Washington St at Orchard Ave, 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.; Pastor George Jones  847-336-0664  

 

* WEST DUNDEE / NORTHERN KANE COUNTY - Rte 72 at Rte 31, 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.; Debbie Schmalen 847-426-7326 

 

* WESTCHESTER - Mannheim Rd at Wight St, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Patricia Meyers  708-865-0374 

 

* WESTERN SPRINGS - Ogden Ave at Wolf Rd AND Ogden Ave at Grand, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Blanche Heaney 708-246-7437 

 

* WILLOW SPRINGS - Archer Ave at Willow Springs Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.; Mary Bartik  708-839-8834  

 

* WOOD DALE - 203 E Irving Park Rd, 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.;  Mary Stuhr  630-250-7521

Pro-life researcher discloses how ObamaCare funds abortions

 

 

ObamaCare will subsidize abortion, according to an expert who has done the research.

 

The multi-state plans run by the federal government will provide at least two that will be available in every state for purchase by most residents of the country. Chuck Donovan of the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute tells OneNewsNow the plans will be on the federal web site menu. But it's required by law that one of the plans must exclude abortion funding.

 

However, there is an exception.

 

Donovan explains: "The law actually allows the federal government to have plans in the states that underwrite elective abortions. All a person who enrolls needs to do is pay a very small fee that they may not even be aware of that provides that abortion coverage but they won't be able to opt out of it and the majority of the states will have these plans."

 

That's in spite of the fact that polls have consistently shown for decades that the public does not want to use tax dollars for abortion.

 

Donovan tells OneNewsNow that Obamacare opens up two larger pathways for funding abortion.

 

"One is by expanding Medicaid in states that fund abortion with their state dollars and the other is through these abortion multi-state plans," he explains.

 

Those plans will be available in 27 states, "and the federal government can be and probably will be heavily promoting them," says Donovan.

 

Donovan suggests one answer is for people to lobby their elected state officials to bow out of ObamaCare abortion funding.

 

Contact: Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

The Hyde Amendment at 37

Pro-life champion, the late Rep. Henry Hyde

 

The Hyde Amendment sticks in the craw of abortion absolutists as much as any pro-life law ever enacted. And today marks the 37th anniversary of passage of the law (the "Hyde" is the late pro-life champion, Rep. Henry Hyde), a titanic struggle that represented a major success against federal funding of abortion.

 

Prior to its passage in 1976, the federal Medicaid program paid for 300,000 abortions a year. Conservative estimates are that there are well over one million people are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment.

 

On this anniversary, there are many things worth remembering. Here are just five.

 

#1. Pro-abortionists never gave up, and it was not until the Harris v. McRae case, settled in 1980, that the United States Supreme Court agreed the law was constitutional. And even then the Court was split 5-4. National Right to Life filed an important brief in that case.

 

#2. Pro-abortionists have made a concerted effort to pretend that somehow the Hyde Amendment would prevent ObamaCare from allowing federally-subsidized health plans to cover abortions. This was and is completely erroneous.

 

#3. Polls consistently show strong majorities against federal funding of abortion. President Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment. No surprise, in either case.

 

#4. Speaking of never giving up, pro-abortionists still grind their teeth when they speak of the Hyde Amendment. For them the "right" to abortion nevermeant only the legal right to abort. It required that through Medicaid you and I and every other tax payer fund their abortions.

 

#5. Because the Hyde Amendment is just that—an amendment—it is a fight pro-abortionists take up every time the annual appropriations bill of the Department of Health and Human Services comes up.

 

We have a lot to thank the late Rep. Hyde for. At the top is enactment of the Hyde Amendment.

 

By Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life

USCCB: statement for Respect Life Sunday

 

Cardinal Seán O'Malley, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, has issued a statement for Respect Life Sunday, which takes place on October 6.

 

Since 1973, "over 55 million unborn children's lives have been taken, leaving many millions of mothers, fathers, and family members wounded and grieving their loss," said Cardinal O'Malley. "Physician-assisted suicide is now legal in three states, allowing doctors to help end patients' lives rather than provide much-needed comfort in times of pain and distress. These laws pave the way for euthanasia by undermining true respect and care for people with serious illness."

 

He added:

 

Only a tender, compassionate love that seeks to serve those most in need, whatever the personal cost, is strong enough to overcome a culture of death and to build a civilization of love. Let us open our hearts and reflect on how God might be calling each of us to witness the sacredness of human life and assist in pro-life efforts. We may be called to help parents welcome their unborn child as a miracle of God's creation, to visit the elderly or aid those who are sick and suffering, to pray and fast for life, to advocate to our elected officials, or to assist educational efforts in our parishes.

 

Source: Catholic World News

House votes to delay Obamacare and fund government

 

Saturday night, Illinois' congressional delegation divided along party lines on a measure to delay Obamacare for one year, repeal the medical-device tax and fund the government. In a 231 to 192 vote, all Illinois Republicans supported the effort and all Illinois Democrats opposed it.

 

But again, the Democrat-led U.S. Senate is expected to reject the House's resolution, leaving the budget at an impasse, increasing the likelihood of a government shutdown Tuesday.

 

GOP Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (IL-06) said House members are listening to what their constituents are telling them.

 

"Today, the House passed legislation to achieve two key priorities for the American people—fully funding the government and delaying for one year this disastrous healthcare law," Roskam said in a statement. "The President himself has implemented a one year delay in the law's requirement for big businesses to provide insurance and a one year delay in the law's privacy and anti-fraud provisions.  It is only fair we extend this same relief to ordinary Americans."

 

Congressman Randy Hultgren (IL-14) said he opposed the medical device tax because it is a "job-killer" for his district and would penalize Americans needing medical devices such as pacemakers, insulin syringes and artificial limbs.

 

"Because of its massive cost, the unaffordable care act law is riddled with hidden taxes on the middle class," Hultgren said in a statement. "The 2.3 percent medical device tax was put in place to raise $30 billion for Obamacare on the backs of medical manufacturers and Americans that rely on specialized devices to improve their quality of life."

 

"The tax is so egregious that in March of this year, 79 Senators voted to repeal it, although the vote had no effect in law. Today the House voted again to repeal it. It is up to the Senate to do the right thing and get rid of it for good. Will the Senate take the final step?"

 

House Speaker John Boehner echoed Hultgren's concern about what Senate President Harry Reid would do.

 

"Now that the House has again acted, it's up to the Senate to pass this bill without delay to stop a government shutdown." Boehner said in a statement.

 

The House also passed a measure that would continue military pay if the government shut down on October 1.

 

Source: Illinois Review

No ObamaCare funding bill heads to Senate, please take action

 

 

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a funding bill that specifically defunds ObamaCare.

 

This week, the same bill now heads to the Senate, where opposition to the overwhelming will of the people is strong.

 

Very simply, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution strips all funding from ObamaCare in its entirety for the coming fiscal year. This bill will fund the rest of government with the sole exception of ObamaCare.

 

It is critical for you to make your voice heard today!

 

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your senators by name. Strongly urge them to:

 

1. Vote in favor of H.R. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution

 

2. Oppose ALL attempts to add funding for ObamaCare

 

Here are a few talking points that will reinforce your call:

 

ObamaCare:

 

Is so bad that congressional staff have exempted themselves from it

 

Violates freedom of religion and conscience by requiring Christian businesses to pay for abortifacients

 

Will send your tax dollars to health care providers who perform abortions

 

Is the leading job-killer in America, as companies lay off workers because of its mandates and its costs

 

Forces companies to shift workers from full-time to part-time positions

 

Drives up the cost of health care premiums

 

Reduces the availability and affordability of health care

 

Source: American Family Association