“Brain Dead” Term Too Loosely Used

I have been following the tragic case of Jahi McMath, who went to Oakland Children's Hospital for a tonsillectomy and suffered a catastrophic complication, resulting in cardiac arrest. According to the media, her doctors later declared her "brain dead" and told the parents she would be removed from life support. After a lawyer's letter, Jahi's life support continues.

"Brain dead" is a popular term, not a medical one–and it is too loosely used. Some use it to denigrate the moral value of profoundly disabled patients such as Terri Schiavo, who we now know may be aware and able to recognize family. Slinging "brain dead" as an epithet justifies dehydrating them to death or castigating family members, like the Schindlers, who fight to keep such patients alive–which they legally and biologically are.

In Jahi's case, brain dead actually means a declaration of "death by neurological criteria," one of the two legal methods for declaring the bona fide death of a human being. To be declared dead by neurological criteria does not mean there are no brain cells remaining alive. Rather, it means that medical tests, observation of the patient post injury, and history of the case demonstrate that the patient's brain and each of its constituent parts have irreversibly ceased to function as a brain. As one doctor told me, it is as if the patient was functionally decapitated.

Death by neurological criteria is controversial. Some pro lifers see it as an excuse to harvest organs from living patients, and oppose its use as a clinical method of determining death.

Many bioethicists–of the type who once assured a wary public that brain dead was truly dead–agree, but because they want access to the organs of patients with clearly working brains, such as a patient diagnosed as unconscious but who can breathe without medical assistance. In other words, they want to allow killing for organs and they believe that undermining the public's belief in "brain death" can help them achieve that end.

Under the law, brain dead is "dead" when it connotes death by neurological criteria. In such circumstances, if accurately determined, there is no legal right to continue life support of what is, essentially, a cadaver. This isn't true–yet–of patients thought to be permanently unconscious. But that may be coming, my pretties. That may be coming. 

A huge problem in this field is that there are no uniform criteria for declaring death by neurological criteria, with testing requirements varying from state to state, and in some instances, hospital to hospital. That needs to change.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Health group slams push for abortion in Catholic hospitals

The New York Times was "inaccurate and irresponsible" to claim that Catholic hospitals' refusal to perform abortions threatens pregnant mothers in obstetric emergencies, the Catholic Health Association says.

"Catholic hospitals in the United States have a stellar history of caring for mothers and infants," the association said Dec. 9. "Hundreds of thousands of patients have received extraordinary care – both in the joy of welcoming an infant or in the pain of losing one."

The health association said that in many communities, the Catholic hospital is "the designated center for high-risk pregnancies."

Several independent organizations have oversight responsibility for all hospitals, including the Joint Commission and state licensing agencies that accredit and certify hospitals. These organizations have "robust standards and inspections" and would not "in any circumstance" accredit or license a hospital unsafe for mothers or infants.

The association – which is the largest U.S. organization of Catholic health care systems and facilities – stressed that health professionals are also committed to care for these mothers and "would not tolerate working in a clinical setting that is detrimental to their patients."

Its statement comes in response to a Dec. 8 editorial in the Sunday New York Times that claimed mergers between Catholic hospitals and non-Catholic hospitals is a "threat." Catholic hospitals' refusals to perform abortions, the newspaper editorial board claimed, harm their ability to "provide care for women in medical distress."

The newspaper's editorial board relied heavily upon the American Civil Liberties Union's federal lawsuit against the U.S. bishops on behalf of  Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman. The lawsuit claims that Means was negligently treated at a Catholic hospital in 2010 when her water broke when she was 18 weeks pregnant.

Means made three visits to the emergency room, delivering the baby on the third visit. Her baby died less than three hours after birth, while she herself suffered severe pain and an infection. The lawsuit claims that the hospital should have told Means an abortion was an option and "the safest course."

The legal group, which has a history of targeting Catholic institutions, is suing the U.S. bishops rather than the hospital on the grounds that the bishops set ethical practices for Catholic hospitals. Catholic teaching, reflected in the "Ethical and Religious Directives," recognizes that abortion kills an innocent life and that the lives of both the mother and of the unborn baby deserve care.

In its editorial, the New York Times noted that Catholic hospitals have about 15 percent of the hospital beds in the country and are often the only facilities available in many communities.

The editorial claimed it is a violation of medical ethics and existing law to allow "religious doctrine to prevail over the need for competent emergency care and a woman's right to complete and accurate information about her condition and treatment choices."

The piece also denigrated religious freedom arguments, saying only that "the bishops are free to worship as they choose and advocate for their beliefs." It added that religious beliefs should not "shield the bishops from legal accountability when church-affiliated hospitals following their rules cause patients harm."

In their response, however, the Catholic Health Association strongly criticized the editorial.

"It is inaccurate and irresponsible to assert that these wonderful community services are unsafe for mothers in an obstetrical emergency, simply because a Catholic hospital adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives," the association said.

Such an assertion, the association said, "can be frightening to families and is grossly disrespectful to the thousands of physicians, midwives and nurses who are so devoted to their patients and to the care they deliver."

The health group also questioned the New York Times editorial board's assumption that abortion is a solution. In obstetric emergencies, the association noted, the unborn infant is "almost always much desired" and parents want "every option for saving their baby."

"This is not a simple clinical situation that you 'take care of' and then move on," the association said. "Anyone who has ever cared for these parents knows that this will always be the child they lost."

The Catholic bishops' ethical directives do not prevent the provision of quality care for mothers and infants in obstetrical emergencies, the Catholic Health association said.

"Their experience in hundreds of Catholic hospitals over centuries is outstanding testimony to that."

The merits of the ACLU lawsuit have been challenged on both medical and legal grounds. U.S. bishops' conference president Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz on Dec. 6 said the lawsuit is "a clear violation of the First Amendment."

Dr. Brian C. Calhoun, a professor and vice-chair in the obstetrics and gynecology department at West Virginia University-Charleston, told CNA Dec. 2 that abortion is "never necessary to save the life of the mother."

He added that an abortion at 18 weeks is usually performed through "surgical dismemberment" and surgical abortions have "numerous" complications for a pregnant woman. The physician suggested the lawsuit is an attempt "to make abortion seem like a great idea."

An unborn baby at 18 weeks is "essentially fully formed," Calhoun said. The baby has a small human profile and is about 5.5 inches long and seven ounces in weight. He or she can make sucking motions with his or her mouth and can begin to hear, the Mayo Clinic website says. The mother can often feel the baby's motions.

Catholic University of America law professor Mark Rienzi told CNA Dec. 4 said that the ACLU lawsuit ignores federal and state laws that protect the right of religious providers to refrain from providing or referring to abortions.

He said the lawsuit from the pro-abortion rights legal group was "an effort to drive people with different views out of the health care field."

Should the lawsuit succeed, it would mean "a lot fewer health care providers," said Rienzi, who specializes in constitutional law and religious liberty issues.

Source: CNA/EWTN News 

Women of the National Black Prolife Coalition Denounce Planned Parenthood's Latest Propaganda Maneuver

Women of the National Black Prolife Coalition (NBPLC) believe Planned Parenthood is continuing its age old strategy of targeting the black community by enlisting members of the black elite to promote their organization. The Root's article "How Black Women are Saving Planned Parenthood" is the most recent example of the propaganda machine they employ. The NBPLC denounces this practice pointing to the hundreds if not thousands of women that have been hurt in Planned Parenthood abortion chambers and the millions of babies that have died as they have grown their business into the leading abortion provider in the nation.

"To this day I remain haunted by the death of Tonya Reaves, a vibrant young twenty four year old that Planned Parenthood in Chicago left bleeding for more than five hours after a failed abortion of her fifth month of pregnancy," said Catherine Davis, Founder of the Restoration Project. "She did not have to die. But Planned Parenthood had so little regard for her life they refused to transport her 1.7 miles down the street where lifesaving help in one of the leading trauma centers was available." 

The NBPLC believes this is because Planned Parenthood has an agenda of population control and the life of the mother is expendable as they strive to achieve "a U. S. population of stable size" (as revealed in their 2008 tax filing). "Instead of helping to eliminate poverty, these elitists seek to eliminate the poor. This race genocide must stop," said Connie Eller of Missouri Blacks for Life. "Black women who support Planned Parenthood are participating in the evil elimination and denigration of other Black women and children," she continued.

"Their model has not changed," said Day Gardner of the National Black Prolife Union. "Since the days of Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood has been adept at ferreting out advocates who care more for money and power than people. The result is over 55,000,000 children slaughtered, and thousands of women injured, some unto death."

"Planned Parenthood has a history of promoting the government's eugenicist plan to reduce the black population by employing black women," notes La Verne Tolbert, PhD, a former board member of Planned Parenthood. "In the early 1970s Faye Wattleton was the first black voice to promote abortion. She was always elegant on television as she debated Catholic clergy who wore their tab white collars -- the perfect visual contrast Planned Parenthood needed as Faye championed black women to abort their babies."

"Planned Parenthood's callous use of black elitist women to smooth talk their way into the homes of vulnerable black women and take advantage of them is notorious. Rather than providing life affirming assistance, they sell them deadly contraceptives and abortion," said Alveda King, Director of African American Outreach, Priests for Life.

"This racist genocide must stop."

Contact: Catherine Davis, Women of the National Black Prolife Coalition

Gosnell Sentenced

The abortionist responsible for the "House of Horrors" in Philadelphia was sentenced on Monday to 30 years in prison for illegally dispensing prescription drugs.

Kermit Gosnell, 72, was found guilty this spring of first-degree murder in the deaths of babies who were born alive. He was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a pregnant woman.

"In Philadelphia and across the nation, the abortion lobby routinely pushes safety concerns and comprehensive women's health care aside for the sake of 'choice,'" said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "This hasn't gone unnoticed by some who have seen firsthand the damage done to women inside America's abortion clinics."

Gosnell delivered live babies in the third trimester and then killed them by cutting their spinal cords with scissors.

"Women across the country are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous abortionists – some just as brutal as Kermit Gosnell — and yet, where are all the feminists?" Dannenfelser asked. "Although the state of Gosnell's facility was known by abortion industry leaders Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, it was federal drug agents that first exposed the 'House of Horrors.'"

The abortion industry claims to support "women's health care," she said.

"But their campaign against meaningful regulations of clinics and abortionists should give every American pause."

Source: CitizenLink by Bethany Monk

Convicted murderer abortionist Kermit Gosnell gets 30 more years for running “pill mill”

When abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell was sentenced today to 30 more years for running what prosecutors called a "pill mill," there was hardly any coverage. After all, the 72-year-old West Philadelphia abortionist is already serving three consecutive life sentences for murdering three babies that he'd he aborted alive, plus an additional three and half years more for involuntary manslaughter in the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar.

Indeed, one of the few brief accounts I ran across concluded, "The sentencing Monday afternoon effectively closes the book on Gosnell…" Here's where I flatly disagree.

Gosnell fought the drug charges—charges that he made a fortune writing bogus prescriptions for thousands of OxyContin, Percocet , and Xanax pills, on top of the fortune he made performing late, late abortions almost entirely on women of color.

He initially rejected a plea bargain (an additional 20 years) on the federal drug charges but then, once the murder trial was complete, Gosnell pleaded guilty. He "insists he had only good intentions as he repeatedly filled prescriptions for OxyContin and other painkillers for addicts," the local CBS affiliate reported. Ah, yes, Kermit Gosnell, the good-hearted drug addiction counselor.

This is of a piece with Gosnell's self-understanding that was never on better display than in the exclusive interview he gave a local reporter Steve Volk when he was in prison. His motives were always, always pure, and he was always, always misunderstood. 

He adamantly insisted to reporter Volk that he never knowingly slit the spinal cord of a live baby. Here's what he told Volk:

"He said he'd never actually seen a baby move, beyond a 'reflex' when the scissors snipped the spinal cord. He snipped the necks of dead babies, he claimed, merely to prevent any possible pain reception—as if dead babies feel any pain at all."

To his credit, Volk chased him down but Gosnell continues to bob and weave.

"I pressed him on this, explaining that it simply didn't seem credible for a medical doctor to be worrying about the pain experienced by a fetus he felt sure was dead. …He could never explain himself. And his answers seemed carefully couched: 'I never saw anything I took as fetal movement.'"

This case will not go away because you can bet Gosnell will make sure one small e-book by one local reporter is not the last word on his career. Would anyone be surprised if a real book is in the works, one that in exchange for access to the man who ran a "House of Horrors" will be allowed to portray himself as half civil rights champion, half martyr, and all compassion?

Gosnell's case will not go away because there are other abortionists who may not do exactly what he did, but whose behavior is scandalous by anyone standards. Indeed there are some abortionists even the Abortion Establishment is eager to distance itself from. Every time there is a court case or one of these "rouges" tries to get his medical license back, the reporter will likely recall Gosnell.

There are many other reasons Gosnell's case will not and should not go away, including the head-in-the-sand insistence by big shots in the abortion industry in Pennsylvania and Delaware that they knew nothing—NOTHNG– about a man who operated what the prosecution called a "baby charnel house."

And the memory of what Gosnell did (according to the Philadelphia Grand Jury) to hundreds of babies long past the point of viability won't go way because I won't let it.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

A “Scandal”-ous assumption by Hollywood

We all know that Hollywood and pop culture are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and routinely promote that position. But, I have to say, even I was a little taken aback recently when a friend told me about a storyline in the hit T.V. show "Scandal." However, I believe it provides a teachable moment, especially as we are entering a big election year.

"Scandal" is a political drama on ABC. Sally Langston, the character that plays the Vice President, is preparing to mount a run for the Presidency. Her character is an outspoken Christian, pro-life conservative.

In a recent episode, she has a conversation with her campaign manager. He demands that she immediately renounce her faith and her pro-life convictions, insisting that otherwise she will not win. He emphatically states that women would never support her. She briefly objects, and while the ease with which she caves (no questions asked) may reinforce the biases of the writers of "Scandal," it is not true to life, figuratively or literally.

The assumption that a pro-life candidate could not possibly win–and will fold like a tent when confronted by a campaign manager–goes completely unchallenged. This false premise–that having a pro-life position is a hindrance, even a politically fatal mistake–is continually perpetuated by the mainstream cultural narrative, and in this case by the writers of "Scandal."

I'm sure you will hear this more times than you can count over the next year. But let's look at the facts.

We see upon close examination of the numbers, a pro-life position is actually an advantage in many elections. For example, a poll taken after the 2010 elections showed that of those voters who said abortion affected their vote, they voted for the pro-life candidate by a 14% margin. Even in the 2012 elections, when the outcome was not what we wanted, this advantage held, albeit by a smaller margin.

Let's take a look at the recent gubernatorial election in Virginia. Conventional wisdom has said that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli lost to pro-abortion Terry McAuliffe because he was too "extreme" on abortion. But what do the numbers say?

According to an article written by Adam Schaeffer and Nancy Smith that appeared in "Campaigns and Elections," here's what research conducted by Evolving Strategies and the Middle Resolution PAC shows:

"What moved the voters most was an attack on McAuliffe's positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe's support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli."

Even in the liberal, pro-abortion bastion of New Jersey, pro-life Governor Chris Christie won re-election last month by a landslide.

Another false assumption implied in the notion that pro-life candidates do not win, is that women are overwhelmingly "pro-choice" and therefore won't support a pro-life candidate. A Gallup poll from this past May shows that, in reality, men and women are fairly evenly divided on this issue.

Moreover a poll done by The Polling Company in July of 2012 shows that 62% of women surveyed would be more likely to support a hypothetical Congressional candidate if that candidate supported a bill that would "not allow abortion in the District of Columbia after 22 weeks of pregnancy. . . . unless the mother's life is in danger." In addition, in the same poll, 70% of women surveyed said that they did not believe abortion should be permitted after the point where substantial medical evidence says that unborn children can feel pain.

Messaging matters greatly, but by and large Americans are more than willing to support a pro-life candidate, regardless of what advisors to "Vice President Sally Langston" say.

By Elizabeth Spillman, NRL News

Awesome: Pro-Life License Plates Raise $19 Million Nationally

Although pro-choice organizations have fought to keep them off the road, as of now 29 states give drivers the option to 'Choose Life' on their license plates.

Russell Amerling, the National Publicity Coordinator for Choose Life America, realizes the vast potential of having pro-life license plates on our nation's highways as an inexpensive way to promote a culture of life. He once spoke with a billboard salesman about the significance of miniature advertisements on the road, especially considering the costly expense of renting billboard space. Amerling shared some of their conversation with Townhall:

"An advertising executive told us once that the advertising value of having thousands of citizens driving around with that little 6" by 12" pro-life license plate on the back of their cars would be tremendous."

And tremendous it has been. Drivers have ordered the pro-life specialty plates in droves, ordering nearly 900,000 and raising $19,101,157 nationwide since their inception in 2000, according to figures Amerling provided. Some of the proceeds, Amerling explains, have been distributed to pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers.

One of the pro-life organizations benefiting from the 'Choose Life' program is Heartbeat International. Debora Myles, who works in communications for Heartbeat, shared some encouraging figures with Townhall in regards to the funds they've already received from Virginia's 'Choose Life' program:

"Heartbeat continues to be grateful for all contributions over the past few years. Naturally, the program began with great enthusiasm and the interest in the program has continued to grow. The fund experienced a 27 percent increase in contributions in 2012 over the previous year and in 2013, the increase was a 13 percent increase over 2012."

But, it's been a bumpy road. In ten states that were approved for the plates, pro-abortion organizations such as NARAL or NOW have filed lawsuits to have the pro-life option removed. Some of these activists claim states should not inject themselves into the abortion debate. Yet, what they fail to realize is a little item called "free speech" and they are more than welcome to introduce their own specialty license plates. But who wants to drive around with an "I Love Abortion" sign?

Despite the pro-choice activists' efforts, drivers have continued to order these specialty plates in droves. I'm sure I'm not the only one encouraged to see so many Americans displaying their pro-life views in such a public way. The prolific presence of the "Choose Life" plates just reaffirms that America is a pro-life nation.

It's good news for babies that drivers can stop and consider what exactly 'Choose Life' really means and perhaps experience changes of heart while sitting in traffic jams.

By Cortney O'Brien, Townhall.com via National Right to Life

Planned Parenthood 2012-13 Annual Report Released; revenue reaches all-time high for nation’s largest abortion provider

Number of abortions drop slightly, but signs point to effort to further expand abortion empire

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood clinics, which performed a record 333,964 abortions in 2011, reported 327,166 abortions in 2012, a 2% drop, according to PPFA's annual report. At the same time its revenues were the largest ever, exceeding $1.2 billion.

Considering that the overall national abortion trend has been down for a number of years, it was perhaps inevitable that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion chain, would eventually see some slight drop off.

In light of recent reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that seemed to show yearly declines in the range of 3% to 5%, Planned Parenthood's one year decline of 2% is very modest.

Is this part of a trend or a one-time blip? Unfortunately, everything you read in the report hints that this decline may be short-lived.

Planned Parenthood is rich, powerful, and politically well-connected. Every page of the 2012-2013 annual report signals that it will continue to aggressively promote its abortion agenda both here and abroad.

From the numbers in the report, there's no clear explanation for the drop. It certainly wasn't as if Planned Parenthood suddenly began steering patients toward its other (already very limited) services for pregnant women.

Just 19,506 women received prenatal services at Planned Parenthood in 2012 (this would obviously include multiple services to individual patients rather than 19,506 individual patients). This is down from 28,674 the year before, a drop of nearly 32%! If any service appears to be being phased out, it would seem to be prenatal services to moms rather than abortion.

Adoption referrals, sent to outside agencies, are an even more infrequent occurrence at Planned Parenthood clinics. Just 2,197 Planned Parenthood patients were referred for adoptions in 2012, just slightly fewer than the 2,300 reported in 2011. Even with fewer abortions, it puts things in perspective to see that abortions still outnumbered adoption referrals at Planned Parenthood by a nearly 149 to one ratio!

Smaller PPFA clinics close, Mega-clinics open

Alexis McGill Johnson,chair, PPFA board

In the opening paragraph of the message from the group's chair that begins the report, Alexis McGill Johnson, and president, Cecile Richards, the team hails Planned Parenthood as "the nation's leading reproductive health care provider and advocate," specifying that they are "the most effective advocate in the country for policies that protect access to safe and legal abortion…"

Rather than long paragraphs on programs, the group uses several pages of its annual report to focus on "10 History-Making Moments" in which Planned Parenthood played some part.

Pro-lifers have rightly celebrated the closing of a number of abortion clinics around the country in the past few years, but have reason to be particularly concerned about Planned Parenthood's History Making Moment #3 – the opening of "more than 30 health centers" around the country in the last two years.

True, Planned Parenthood has closed clinics; they say they currently have "more than 700 health centers" around the country – just ten years ago, it was 866. But this can be very misleading.

Closures frequently involved the shuttering of small clinics that did not offer abortions and thus could not generate much revenue. The new clinics going up are often large, modern behemoths, professionally designed and decorated mega-clinics set up to process large volumes of clients and perform large numbers of abortions, and many of these are the new clinics to which Planned Parenthood must be referring. (See NRL's factsheet, Planned Parenthood: MegaClinics & Mergers)

Revenues again up

The annual report shows that these closing clinics have done little to hurt Planned Parenthood's bottom line. Revenues at the abortion giant reached another record this year, reaching $1.2 billion ($1,210,400,000, to be more precise) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. Close to half (45%) of that came from the pockets of federal, state, and local taxpayers, with $540.6 million in revenue from "Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements."

No one knows exactly how much income Planned Parenthood generates from abortion, but it surely considerably more than the 3% they tout in many of their public pronouncements. Ignore for a moment that many Planned Parenthood clinics perform abortions well into the second trimester, when they are considerably more expensive, and that Planned Parenthood has long been in the forefront of promoting more costly chemical abortions using the abortifacient RU-486. Even if we treat all of Planned Parenthood's 2012 abortions as standard, first trimester abortions, the revenues from 327,166 would easily top $147 million, close to 20% of the figure Planned Parenthood reported for all expenses associated with "medical services" for the most recent fiscal year.

The advent of ObamaCare promises even more revenues and probably more abortions. "Health Care Expansion" was #1 among Planned Parenthood's "History Making Moments" for 2012, as Planned Parenthood celebrated that the "Affordable Care Act goes into effect, with the women's preventative benefit that Planned Parenthood led the fight to include."

We won't go into detail here about all the ways that Planned Parenthood stands to benefit under the new health insurance system (if you wish to see more, look here www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/11/obamacare-key-to-planned-parenthood-expansion). But if the law steers more women toward Planned Parenthood clinics, it will obviously mean more customers, more abortions, more money, and more political influence

PPFA abortions increase over time while overall numbers drop

Long-time trend observers will note that abortions at Planned Parenthood have nearly tripled in the last two decades. This took place at the same time figures for all abortions from all abortion performers in the U.S. showed a drop of more than 25%, from 1.6 million in 1990 to about 1.2 million in 2008, with new data suggesting that the current figure may be closer to 1.1 million. (See www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/12/cdc-report-shows-decline-in-abortions-for-2010-abortion-rates-and-ratios-both-down/)

Despite this slight drop, there is nothing in these newest figures threatens to dislodge Planned Parenthood as the nation's largest abortion provider and promoter. PPFA accounts for at least 27%-29% of the intentional deaths of unborn babies in the United States.

Beyond the services statistics, there are strong restatements and reaffirmations of Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion policy and plans. (See also "Five Takeaways from PPFA's Annual Report," http://nrlc.cc/1h3T4JM.)

Number 6 of the "10 History-Making Moments" in which Planned Parenthood played some part–"Wendy Stood"–features a page high photo of Wendy Davis. Davis is the Texas state Senator who Planned Parenthood says filibustered a "draconian abortion law" and lit a fire in that state and led the public to rise up against "unprecedented attacks on women's health at the state level, from North Dakota to North Carolina." (Davis is now running for governor.)

The laws in these cases are not specified, though it should be noted that the law that Davis famously filibustered featured "draconian" provisions such as protecting 20 week old pain-capable unborn children from abortion and requiring that abortion clinics meet some minimally basic safety standards so that women in Texas were not treated like those in abortionist Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors.

PPFA looks ahead

Planned Parenthood spent millions on the 2012 presidential election and was heavily involved in Virginia governor's campaign. Its political arm stirred up phantoms about attacks on women's health care, on cancer screenings (remember that many Planned Parenthood clinics offer abortion, but not mammograms), in the process misleading many voters.

It is clear that the wealthy abortion giant isn't going to just walk away. But let this small drop in abortions be a reminder that the efforts of pro-lifers, educating their communities, voting, passing laws, reaching out to abortion vulnerable women, and praying can make a difference. A woman who finds out there are better, life-affirming alternatives to abortion may decide not to be Planned Parenthood's latest customer or conscript.

And when a child lives and a mother thrives, that's a real "history making moment."

To read the report for yourself, go here.

Contact: Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D. NRL Director of Education & Research

Belgian Senate Okays Child Euthanasia

Belgium took a big step closer to child euthanasia, with a huge vote in favor in the Senate. From the ABC story:

Senators on Thursday voted 50-17 in favor of the proposed law. If adopted, it will decriminalize euthanasia for children, if they are in great pain, suffer from a terminal condition and are expected to die soon. The children would have to submit a written request to be euthanized, and be aware of what their request meant. No age limit would be set, but the children would have "to possess the capacity of discernment."

Good grief.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, National Review

More Obamacare Rationing Evidence: Exchange Plans Limit Access Not Only to Top Hospitals and Doctors, But Also to Drugs

As mainstream media outlets are reporting, and as NRL News Today has repeatedly documented, tens of thousands who had individual health insurance policies that were terminated against their will, despite numerous and repeated assurances from President Obama that if you liked your insurance plan you could keep it, are finding that the replacement policies available in the state and federal "exchanges" typically severely restrict the doctors and health care facilities in their plan networks. More evidence is emerging of the extent of these limits, and now there is new information about wide limits on access to lifesaving drugs.

In an article by Ariana Eunjung Cha, the December 9 , 2013, Washington Post reports,

"A new analysis of health plans sold in the federal exchange — which covers 36 states — and 14 state exchanges found that the benefits tend to be skimpier than in most other private insurance in the United States, with drug benefits a particular weak spot. The analysis, by Avalere Health, a health-care consulting company, was based on a sample of 600 insurance plans.

. . .

"As the details of the benefits offered by the new health-care plans become clear, patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune diseases also are raising concerns, said Marc Boutin, executive vice president of the National Health Council, a coalition of advocacy groups for the chronically ill.

. . .

"[P]eople who expected the new plans to provide pharmaceutical coverage comparable with that of employer-sponsored plans have been disappointed. . . . [I]nsurers selling policies on the exchanges have pared their drug benefits significantly more, according to health advocates, patients and industry analysts. The plans are curbing their lists of covered drugs and limiting quantities, requiring prior authorizations and insisting on 'fail first' or 'step therapy' protocols that compel doctors to prescribe a certain drug first before moving on to another — even if it's not the physician's and patient's drug of choice."

Besides limits on access to drugs, there are more news accounts on limits on access to hospitals and doctors.

In a December 8, 2013, piece in the highly-regarded British paper Financial Times entitled, "New Affordable Care US health plans will exclude top hospitals," reporter Stephanie Kirchgaessner writes:

"Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, will not offer patients' access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country…. It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors 'in network.' In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan."

And a December 5, 2013, Bloomberg article, "Doc Shock' On Deck in Obamacare Wars," Megan McArdle notes

"Come January, when some number of Americans have bought insurance on the new health exchanges and are starting to use the services, you can expect another controversy to arise when many of them find out just how few doctors and hospitals they have access to…. It's true that narrowing your networks gives you more leverage to negotiate prices with doctors — if you're willing to exclude most of the doctors in the state, you're in a better bargaining position than you are if doctors know that you're selling customers the ability to see any doctor they want. But the doctors who are in really high demand can simply refuse to take the lower price. And unfortunately, there does seem to be some correlation between how much we spend on health care and how good the results of treatment are."

While some are blaming the insurers, the true culprit is the Obamacare requirement that exchange bureaucrats exclude insurers who offer policies deemed to permit Americans to engage in "excessive or unjustified" health care spending. As the Post article reports, "Insurers . . . acknowledge that to keep premiums low, they must restrict the use of some costly drugs if there are alternatives."

Under the Federal health law, state insurance commissioners are to recommend to their state exchanges the exclusion of "particular health insurance issuers … based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases." Not only must the exchanges exclude policies from being offered in an exchange when government authorities do not agree with their premiums, but the exchanges must even exclude insurers whose plans outside the exchange offer consumers the ability to reduce the danger of treatment denial by paying what those government authorities consider an "excessive or unjustified" amount. (See documentation at http://www.nrlc.org/medethics/healthcarerationing .)

This evidently is creating a "chilling effect," deterring insurers who hope to be able to compete within the exchanges from offering adequately funded plans that do not drastically limit access to care.

When the government limits what can be charged for health insurance, it restricts what people are allowed to pay for medical treatment. While everyone would prefer to pay less–or nothing–for health care (or anything else), government price controls prevent access to lifesaving medical treatment that costs more to supply than the prices set by the government.

As Kirchgaessner explains,

"Mr. Priselac at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles says … the hospitals that are being excluded are leaders in innovation, which saves billions of dollars for the healthcare system in the long run. 'There is confusion between price and efficiency,' he says. 'The major teaching and research hospitals are more expensive not because they are inefficient but because of what they do.'"

While Obamacare continues to roll out, it is important to continue to educate friends and neighbors about the dangers the law governing them poses in restricting what Americans can spend to save their own lives and the lives of their families.

Note: the abortion-related provisions dealing with the state exchanges are described here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/index.html

Contact: Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics

CDC reports decline in U.S. abortions

Abortions are on the decline in the United States, though numbers remain shockingly high in New York City, according to a CDC report released over Thanksgiving. 

The study used voluntary data from 44 states, New York City and the District of Columbia.

From 2001 to 2010, the number of reported legal abortions in the United States fell by 9 percent. The number of teenagers getting abortions dropped most significantly, probably due in part to the overall drop in teenage pregnancies. For that 10-year period, the abortion rate among teenagers fell about 30 percent. The six states not included in the study had not provided data for each of the 10 years.

The number of abortions in New York City alone remains incredibly high: 83,750 in 2010. That amounts to 694 abortions for every 1,000 live births. No other jurisdiction approaches that high an abortion ratio. Other city health reports have shown that nearly 40 percent of pregnancies in New York end in abortion.

Also from the CDC's New York numbers: 82 percent of abortions in the city were performed on African American or Hispanic women. 

The CDC authors noted that the numbers, because they are voluntary, significantly underreport abortions compared to the more fully researched Guttmacher Institute studies. For 2008, the CDC reported 825,564 abortions while Guttmacher reported 1.21 million abortions.

The CDC released another report Dec. 6 compiled from its own data as well as outside sources like Guttmacher that shows, since 1990, the abortion rate has fallen 32 percent.

Contact: Emily Belz/WORLD News Service, Source: Baptist Press

Emily Belz is a writer for WORLD Magazine. This article is used by permission by Baptist Press from WORLD News Service.

Palatine High School Teacher tells Student Abortion not acceptable topic

Abigail Cornejo is a Sophomore at Palatine High School who merely wanted to write a paper on the controversial topic of abortion. But her English teacher had something else in mind and told Conejo she couldn't write on the topic — and if she did, she would have to write from the pro-abortion perspective.

"My English class is doing a controversial issue research paper," Abigail told LifeNews. "My English teacher, Mr. David Valentino originally told the class we may not do abortion, euthanasia, or legalization or marijuana. I asked why we couldn't do infanticide, abortion and he replied with, 'I've read too many papers on it. I don't care anymore.'"

Cornejo is now writing about stem cell research.

Source: Illinois Review

Funding for adult stem cell research increasing, report finds

A recent report has found that research on ethically-sourced adult stem cells is rising in popularity, leaving advocates pointing to its advantages – in both ethics and outcome – over embryonic stem-cell research.

The views of the scientific community are shifting with the realization that "the best hope for rapid medical advances lies with morally unproblematic alternatives," said Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, to the Washington Times for a Dec. 3 article.

The Charlotte Lozier Institute is the research branch of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. Recent reports by the institute have shown significant shifts in research funding from embryonic stem cells to more successful and ethically acceptable adult stem cells.

"Money also talks," said one of the two reports detailing the changes in funding, adding that "what the money is saying is that those viable alternatives exist and it is with them that the real therapeutic promise of regenerative medicine lies."

Stem cell research has been the source of much controversy, both over its potential for regenerative and potentially life-saving therapies, and over the ethical questions in how the cells are obtained.

Stem cells taken from human embryos require the destruction of new human life. In the past, researchers have advocated their use because they have the potential to grow into nearly any type of tissue, making them a kind of "master cell."

However, in clinical trials and treatments, it has been difficult to coax the cells to turn into a specific type of tissue. In addition, therapies relying on embryonic stem cells have shown a tendency to turn into tumors and cancers following treatment.

In contrast, adult stem cells come from a variety of tissues found in newborns and adults, including the placenta, umbilical cord, bone marrow and other bodily tissues. Their extraction does not require the destruction of a human life.

While they naturally grow into a more narrow set of tissues than embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have also been induced to form other kinds of tissues outside of their natural range. In some cases, the stem cells can also be harvested from the patient himself, nearly eliminating the chance of the body's rejection of the treatment.

To date, embryonic stem cells have failed to yield any successful treatments, while adult stem cells have been used to treat more than 100 diseases and conditions.

Amid concerns over the ethics of stem cell sourcing, President George W. Bush in 2001 restricted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to cell lines that already existed.  

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research in California reacted with a voter initiative pledging $3 billion in funding over 10 years only to research on embryonic stem cells, to be distributed through grants by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

By 2012, however, funding at the institute had shifted, with a majority of grants – totaling $50 million – going towards research on non-embryonic stem cell projects and only $19 million in funding awarded to embryonic research.

A similar shift in funding has taken place at Maryland's Stem Cell Research Commission, according to a Lozier Institute report from October. In 2007, the organization funded 11 embryonic stem cell research projects and four non-embryonic ones. Now, it is supporting one embryonic stem cell project and 28 non-embryonic ones.

Grants in Maryland "can also serve as an important bellwether for the direction stem cell research is taking," the report added, "given that the state is home to one of the nation's most prominent sites for stem cell research, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine."

Dr. David Prentice, senior fellow for the Family Research Council and a researcher in cell biology, stated that researchers were told for years "that embryonic stem cells were the 'only' stem cells for treatment as well as lab research."

"But even in states previously devoted exclusively to embryonic stem cell and cloning research, the majority of grants now are going to ethical, successful adult stem cell studies," he commented in a statement.

"This latest news simply emphasizes what advocates of ethical stem cell research have said for years - adult stem cells are the true gold standard for stem cells. They are certainly golden for patients; more than 60,000 people a year around the world are currently treated with adult stem cells."

Adult stem calls research has shown "tremendous progress," while embryonic stem cell research "relies on the destruction of young human life" and has had limited success, Prentice observed.

This offers a clear choice to researchers and investors who are looking for results, he said. "Adult stem cells save lives."

Source: CNA/EWTN News

Posthumous Paul Walker movie lauded for pro-life message

One of late actor Paul Walker's final movies – a thriller set to debut next week – is drawing praise for its life and family-affirming message.

Walker, best known for his role in the Fast and Furious franchise, died in a fiery car crash on Nov. 30. The actor was 40 years old.

Before his death, Walker had completed filming for a film entitled Hours. The suspenseful thriller was filmed in March of this year in New Orleans and is still set to be released on Dec. 13, despite Walker's death. He stars with Genesis Rodriguez in the film.

Hours takes place in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. Walter plays Nolan, a man who faces the death of his wife and premature birth of his daughter as the storm hits.

Nolan must fight to keep his daughter alive. She must be kept on a respirator for 48 hours in an incubator at a hospital that has been flooded and left without power.

In a Dec. 7 article for Live Action News, writer Lauren Enriquez said that Hours offers a strong pro-life message.

"Walker's character defies all odds and gives completely of himself to the point of self-sacrifice so that his daughter can have a chance at staying alive and becoming healthy," she explained, praising the "incredibly life affirming role."

Peter Safran, the movie's executive producer, told the Hollywood Reporter that Walker "was incredibly proud of this project."

He recalled being at a press conference two weeks before the crash. "I remember sitting with (Walker) and how excited he was for people to see this movie."

"Hours embodies a message that was so important to him, which is that you have to do everything you can to keep friends and family safe," Safran explained.

Source: CNA Daily News