January 9, 2014

A first look at 2014 pro-life state legislation

Inline image 1

"Shifting strategies for state abortion battles in 2014" is the headline on a story in POLITICO written by Natalie Villacorta. I think it would be worth our while to take a few minutes to look at her analysis, given that as we approach the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we'll read a slew of these "here's-what-to-look-for" stories.

Her second and third paragraphs are a good (although not sufficient) jumping off point. She writes

"Rather than bans that directly challenge Roe v. Wade, many states are again going for more incremental measures that address the physical space requirements of clinics, physicians' qualifications and the use of certain procedures. The move is hardly a retreat, abortion opponents say, but rather a strategic decision that they expect could be nearly as effective in less time. Compared to broader moves, restrictions that are more narrowly drawn often pass judicial muster."

Although this hardly exhausts the range of pro-life legislation, this wouldn't be a "retreat," strategic or otherwise, for National Right to Life and its Department of state legislation.

NRL and its 50 state affiliates specialize in passing legislation that protects unborn babies to the maximum extent possible; protects their mothers from the likes of Kermit Gosnell and Timothy Liveright (see "Delaware Board of Medical Licensure & Discipline to hold closed hearing to discussed former Planned Parenthood abortionist Timothy Liveright"); and educates pregnant women and the wider public to the marvelous complexity of the unborn child's developmental journey (see "A Baby's First Months" brochure in stock and ready to be ordered).

Unfortunately, Villacorta pays insufficient attention to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is on the books in 10 states and which has already passed the United States House of Representatives. It is difficult to exaggerate the potential of this measure to reorient the abortion debate.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act invites not just legislators (and governors) to consider something most people would prefer to avoid at all costs: the truth that at some juncture, the unborn child has developed to the point where she experiences pain.

Citing a considerable body of medical evidence, The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act offers protection to unborn children beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (equivalent to "22 weeks of pregnancy"), the beginning of the sixth month.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is grounded in a moral empathy that resonates loudly with the American people: "You don't kill unborn children who are capable of feeling pain."

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act turns the table on pro-abortionists who are forever telling us that pro-lifers want to "take us back." In fact what makes the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act so dangerous to Roe v. wade is that it demands precisely the opposite. Rather than freezing our understanding of fetal development at what was available to the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 41 years ago, the bill says, "Come, let's see what we know now what we didn't know then."

The polls that have been taken show strong support for such legislation. Can we not also rightly ask ourselves that if the public does not approve of killing unborn babies capable of feeling pain (now that they are learning the unborn CAN experience pain), would they accept aborting a child if they knew abortion stops a beating heart?

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Jahi Being Nourished

Inline image 1

Jahi McMath has been moved to an undisclosed facility and provided nutrients. From the San Francisco Chronicle story:

Lawyer Christopher Dolan and Jahi's uncle, Omari Sealey, said Jahi was "safely" moved from Children's on Sunday night in an ambulance. "We're very relieved that she got safely to where she needed to be, because we were all very afraid that given the fragile condition as she wasted away at Children's that she might not make it," Dolan said. He said Jahi is being stabilized so that she can be given a feeding tube and that she was already receiving potassium intravenously

For those all het up about the costs:

As for the costs, Dolan said the family is being helped by charitable donations and organizations.

That's as it should be.

Some say I should use the term, "her body," when referring to Jahi. I won't do that. I believe she has died because there have been sufficient examinations to have confidence in the declaration. But why pour salt in a wound?

The die is cast. Eventually her body will break down regardless of technological support. If not, that will really be eyebrow raising.

By Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Legal Firm Files Appeal in Planned Parenthood Fraud Case

Inline image 1

A Christian legal group filed an appeal today on behalf of a Washington taxpayer alleging the nation's largest abortion seller submitted fraudulent claims costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Jonathan Bloedow filed suit in 2011 after discovering alleged fraud via a state open-records request. The case wasn't made public until 2013 due to a federal law protecting "whistleblowers" with inside information exposing such billing by government contractors. By law, these cases are filed under seal until a judge unseals them.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton said public funds should not be funneled to groups that abuse the public trust.

"American taxpayer dollars should be used responsibly and for the common good," he said.

According to the suit, Planned Parenthood of the Northwest filed at least 25,000 false claims to the state Health and Recovery Services Administration for reimbursements exceeding the amount for oral contraceptive pills. It also alleges the abortion seller filed at least another 25,000 false claims for the reimbursement of possible abortion-inducing drugs.

The total damages could be as much as $377 million.

A federal district judge dismissed the case last month on technical grounds. According to ADF, the judge wrongly concluded that Bloedow's allegations were barred by another lawsuit against an entirely different Planned Parenthood affiliate in California.

ADF released its updated report to Congress last year, identifying almost $108 million in waste, abuse and potential fraud committed by Planned Parenthood affiliates and other providers.

"Compliance with the law should not be sacrificed for the sake of Planned Parenthood's bottom line," Norton explained. "They have cheated the American taxpayer for too long. It's time the abortion giant is held accountable."

Source: CitizenLink by Bethany Monk

Pro-Life Advocates Pray that Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinics 'Bubble Zones'

Inline image 1

Pro-Life Action League Calls for Prayer as Justices Prepare to Hear Sidewalk Counselor Rights Case

The Pro-Life Action League is calling on all pro-life Christians to pray daily from now until Wednesday, January 15. The focus of these prayers is that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down all of the restrictive "bubble zone" laws that have deprived pro-life sidewalk counselors of their Constitutional right to freedom of speech. On January 15, the high court will hear oral arguments in the case of McCullen v. Coakley, challenging Massachusetts' "bubble zone," the most restrictive in the country. Under the law, pro-lifers may not speak to abortion clinic clients within 35 feet of the entrance. This prohibition effectively scuttles the life-saving outreach of pro-life sidewalk counselors while exempting clinic staff and "agents" (a term which could apply to any abortion advocate).

The pro-life plaintiffs are also asking the court to overturn their ruling in Hill v. Colorado which upheld a less restrictive "bubble zone" in 2000. Since that time, similar laws have been enacted in many jurisdictions across the country -- including a 2009 "bubble zone" in the City of Chicago, where the Pro-Life Action League is headquartered.

Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action League, offers some specifics. "Three of the dissenters in Hill v. Colorado ruling -- Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy -- are still on the court," he explained. "Only Justices Ginsberg and Breyer remain from the majority. If any two of the new justices on the court -- Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito and Roberts -- were to side with the Hill minority, all the 'bubble zone' laws in the country could be struck down."

"It would be a great victory for the Massachusetts 'bubble zone' law to be stricken down, since similarly restrictive laws continue to be enacted against sidewalk counselors, most recently in Portland, Maine," Scheidler continued, "If all the 'bubble zones' in the nation were to be invalidated, it would be a tremendous victory not only for the First Amendment but for the countless unborn children whose lives would be saved." He described how in the time since the Chicago "bubble zone" was enacted in November 2009, sidewalk counselors in the city have faced continued harassment from police, many of whom are unclear about the actual provisions of the confusing ordinance, and that "bubble zones" elsewhere have likewise hampered sidewalk counselors.

It is with these variables in mind that Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League are calling for this specific period of daily prayer by all pro-life supporters. Scheidler, who is Catholic, suggests a daily novena of the Lord's Prayer, but welcomes the petitions of all pro-life people that the Supreme Court justices will listen to the plaintiffs' arguments in McCullen v. Coakley with open hearts.

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, The Pro-Life Action League

March For Life Chicago: Proclaiming Sanctity of Human Life and Marking Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Inline image 1

Pro-Life Advocates Throughout Chicagoland Join for Common Purpose

On Sunday, January 19, 2014, pro-life groups from all over Chicagoland will come together to proclaim the sanctity of human life and mark the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States. 

The 9th annual March for Life Chicago begins at 1 pm Central at Federal Plaza located at 50 W. Adams, Chicago. Over a thousand expected participants will march from there to the James R. Thompson Center located at 100 W. Randolph, Chicago. March for Life Chicago brings together political figures, religious leaders and media personalities in a multi-faith, multi-cultural demonstration of pro-life values that denounce abortion and decry the harm it has caused society over the past four decades. Complete details about March For Life Chicago 2014 are available at www.MarchForLifeChicago.com 

MARCH FOR LIFE CHICAGO DETAILS: 

WHAT: 9th annual March for Life Chicago, including rallies at the start and culmination 

WHEN: Sunday, January 19, 2014, from 1 to 3 p.m. Central 

WHO: Pro-life groups and individuals from throughout Chicagoland, and Midwest 

WHERE: Assembling at Federal Plaza, 50 W Adams, Chicago, MAP: goo.gl/maps/Zu1lI, marching to James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph, Chicago, MAP: goo.gl/maps/zpzQC 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: www.MarchForLifeChicago.com 
Speakers including Francis Cardinal George and Congressman Dan Lipinski, along with WLS personality Dan Proft and Relevant Radio's Sheila Liaugminas who will emcee the rallies at the March start and culmination. 

Confirmed speakers include: 

Federal Plaza

Francis Cardinal George, Archdiocese of Chicago 
 
Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos, Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Chicago 
 
Pastor Ceasar LaFlore, New Community Church, National Black Pro-Life Union member
 
Fr. Marco Mercado, Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Des Plaines, Illinois
 
Linda Couri, former Planned Parenthood employee 
 
Anna Slater, Students for Life of Illinois
 
Dan Proft, WLS-AM

State of Illinois Building

Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) 
 
Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) 
 
Patrick McCaskey, Chicago Bears 
 
Jill Stanek, JillStanek.com 
 
Brittaney Campbell, Aid for Women client 
 
Sheila Liaugminas, Relevant Radio

"The March For Life Chicago draws students and senior citizens, Latinos, African Americans, Catholics, evangelicals, moms, babies, business people, professional athletes and musicians...this is a diverse group with a common purpose, to proclaim the sanctity of all human life," said Mary Hallan-FioRito, spokesperson for the March For Life Chicago planning committee. "We want to see an end to abortion and the damage it causes our nation," she added, "We're honored to join with March For Life events across the country from Washington DC to San Francisco." 

Presenting organizations include:

Archdiocese of Chicago 
 
CatholicVote.org 
 
Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life 
 
Relevant Radio 
 
Illinois Right to Life 
 
Pro Life Action League 
 
Students for Life of Illinois 
 
Renovación Carismática Católica Hispana

Sponsors include:

Knights of Columbus 
 
Moody Radio Chicago 
 
Lake County Right to Life 
 
Families in Christ Jesus
For more about March For Life Chicago 2014 visit www.MarchForLifeChicago.com. 

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, March For Life Chicago

December 26, 2013

“Brain Dead” Teen’s Life Support to End

Inline image 1

Jahi McMath is dead, a judge has ruled after an independent medical examiner agreed with previous determinations that she has lost all brain function. Under the law, that is the necessary ruling. Under the law, life support is not required to maintain the body of a late patient.

The judge gave the family, still fighting the determination, until Monday to appeal or adjust to the tragic reality. From the San Francisco Chronicle story:

An Alameda County judge declined Tuesday to force Children's Hospital Oakland to continue providing medical care to a 13-year-old girl whom physicians declared brain-dead nearly two weeks ago after tonsil-removal surgery. But Jahi McMath will remain on a breathing machine for the time being, as Judge Evelio Grillo kept in place a restraining order until 5 p.m. Monday, giving the girl's family an opportunity to take its case to a higher court.

The judge ruled after a court-appointed doctor – Paul Fisher, chief of neurology at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford – examined Jahi and testified that she is legally brain-dead and cannot recover any brain function.

I hope the family spends the remaining time loving Jahi and making preparations, as there is zero chance in my view that the court's ruling will be overturned on appeal. If a miracle is to happen, it will have to be when the breathing assistance is removed. People who are brain dead have no ability to breathe on their own.

It's also a shame the hospital has handled the tragedy so maladroitly. I was speaking about this to a former pediatric nurse who used to work in Children's Hospital Oakland's ICU. She said the facility has a real calling to serving the African-American community, and this has hurt trust. That's why I was upset to hear a hospital spokesman say he was "gratified" that the court validated the hospital's diagnosis.

No, the proper and decent thing would have been to say that they were sorry the original diagnosis was affirmed. Good grief.

For the differences between brain dead–actually death declared by neurological criteria–and a diagnosis of living in an unconscious state (often misdiagnosed), see here see here.

December 23, 2013

Sen. Roberts Introduces Abortion Insurance Disclosure Bill

Inline image 1
Sen. Pat Roberts

On Wednesday of last week, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) introduced the Senate version of the Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. S. 1848 is the Senate companion to the bill introduced in the House by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), H.R. 3279. The National Right to Life Committee strongly supports this legislation.

The Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act would require every health plan offered on an ObamaCare insurance exchange to disclose any coverage of abortion in the plan's marketing and advertising materials. It also requires insurers to disclose the cost of the "abortion surcharge," which is the defined monthly charge for elective abortion coverage that every enrollee in an abortion-covering Exchange plan must pay. This abortion surcharge is not optional – every enrollee in the plan must pay it, including families that have moral objections to abortion and/or that contain no females of reproductive age.

Many consumers are having great difficulty determining which plans cover abortion on the ObamaCare Exchanges. And even after they enroll, many likely won't even know they are paying for abortion coverage. That would not be the case if the ObamaCare statute was being enforced as written. That's because ObamaCare requires that Exchange plans that cover abortion must collect a separate payment from enrollees for the abortion coverage and deposit it into a separate account to be used to pay for elective abortions. The plan must also collect a second separate payment for all other services. Federal premium subsidies and cost-sharing would not be placed in the abortion account. This was a key part of the "deal" on ObamaCare that former Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska negotiated when Senate Majority Leader Reid badly needed his vote for Senate passage of ObamaCare back in December 2009.

By paying a separate payment for the abortion services, enrollees would become aware of the plan's abortion coverage, as well as the abortion surcharge. But now the Obama Administration is flouting the two payments statutory requirement. By flouting this statutory requirement, but continuing to segregate premium money into a special fund designated for elective abortions, many enrollees likely won't even know they are paying for abortion coverage; the "abortion surcharge" becomes a hidden fee for which the enrollee is unawares; and the cost of the abortion surcharge remains hidden. For more information on this, see "Bait-and-Switch: The Obama Administration's Flouting of Key Part of Nelson 'Deal' on ObamaCare."

Currently, 18 senators have cosponsored S. 1848: John Barrasso (R-WY), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Dan Coats (R-IN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Thune (R-SD), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

In introducing the legislation, Sen. Roberts said, "Americans have a right to know if a plan they are purchasing covers abortion. Millions of pro-life Americans oppose the use of their money to cover abortion services . . . We need transparency. Consumers have a right to know what these fees are paying for so that they can choose an insurance plan that meets their needs and is in line with their beliefs and values."


By Susan T. Muskett, J.D., Senior Legislative Counsel

Judge Orders Life Support for “Brain Dead” Girl

Inline image 1

This is the right decision. 

Most of you have probably heard of Jahi McMath, the girl who had catastrophic complications from a tonsillectomy and was later declared "brain dead." The family wanted an independent medical assessment before considering termination of life support–and unbelievable to me–Children's Hospital Oakland (which has a good reputation) resisted.

Surprise! That led to litigation. Now, a judge has ordered life support continued pending an exam by a doctor from outside the hospital. From the San Francisco Chronicle story:

An Oakland girl declared dead by Children's Hospital Oakland must be kept on a ventilator until an independent neurologist can examine her to determine if her brain is showing signs of activity, an Alameda County judge ruled Friday in a case stemming from a tonsillectomy that ended in tragedy…"The statute says there's a right to have this reviewed by the independent physician,"

So rather than doing what the law required anyway, the hospital made the family sue. Good grief.

Here's another reason the family might not trust the hospital: Administrators had refused to show them their own daughter's medical records:

The hospital, which had been withholding Jahi's medical records from the family, informed the family Friday that it will turn over those documents.

That should have been done on the first request. Otherwise, it looks like something is being hidden.

If the independent physician also finds that the girl is dead, she will undoubtedly be removed from life support as there is no duty to maintain the body of a dead patient. At that point, with more trust in the finding, I wouldn't be surprised if the family agreed. (See here for details on the proper meaning of "brain dead.") 

If any part of her brain is working as a brain, I assume life support will be ordered continued since the girl would legally be alive.

That might not end the matter, however. The hospital could next try to have treatment removed based on medical futility. Now there would be a brouhaha, given that the death declaration would have previously been found mistaken!

I also want to make a larger point beyond this personal tragedy. I believe that Obamacare and Futile Care Theory are sowing great distrust in the medical system. Technocrats are seizing crucial treatment decisions in dire cases away from patients and families. And they can often be very crass and arrogant about such matters.

Moreover, people are figuring out that these kick-the-patient-off-of-treatment decisions are, at least in part, often about cost of care rather than efficacy. In fact, the efficacy of the care is seen as the problem! People are becoming less willing to bow to the "quality of life" death panel mentality that policy makers and bioethicists seek to impose on society.

Plus, mistakes can be made–as in the Haleigh Poutre fiasco in Massachusetts.

There will be pushback from society if this trend continues. Big time.

Contact Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Death Throes of the Death Industry: A Record 87 Surgical Abortion Clinics Close in 2013

Inline image 1
 
Operation Rescue has concluded an exhaustive survey of abortion clinics in the U.S. and announces today that it has documented a record number of abortion clinic closures in 2013, during which time 87 surgical abortion clinics halted abortions.
 
The total number of surgical abortion clinics left in the U.S. is now 582. This represents an impressive 12% net decrease in surgical abortion clinics in 2013 alone, and a 73% drop from a high in 1991 of 2,176.
 
"These numbers show that the pro-life movement is gaining ground and that the abortion industry is collapsing - mostly due to its own negligence and greed, which has been exposed by their unwillingness and inability to comply with even the most rudimentary safety standards," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.
 
The state with the most closures was Texas at 11, most of which shut down after Texas passed an abortion law earlier this year that required abortionists to maintain local hospital privileges. New clinic safety rules accounted for closures in Pennsylvania and Maryland as well.
 
"Much of the legislation that is now closing abortion clinics was inspired by information gathered by pro-life groups, including Operation Rescue, which have increasingly publicized documentation of abortion abuses. Once legislators find out what is really going on at abortion clinics in their states, they understand the urgency of passing pro-life laws that protect women and their babies from clinics that prey on their vulnerabilities."
 
Operation Rescue has released a detailed report concerning abortion clinic closures that can be found at OperationRescue.org

Contact: Troy Newman, President; Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, both with Operation Rescue

GuideStone injunction blocks abortion mandate


Inline image 1

Federal District Judge Timothy DeGiusti issued a preliminary injunction Dec. 20 against the federal government's mandate that requires employers, including many religiously affiliated ones, to provide abortion-causing drugs and devices.

Although churches and closely related ministries are exempt from the mandate, many Christian universities, children's homes and other ministries were not exempted, and instead were in danger of being forced to provide abortion-causing drugs and devices through a poorly conceived "accommodation" or incur crippling penalties.

DeGiusti's ruling means organizations that use GuideStone's health care plans, now or in the future, will be protected from participating in providing abortion-causing drugs for the foreseeable future. A trial date to make a final decision has not yet been set.

O.S. Hawkins, president of GuideStone Financial Resources, said the ruling by the Oklahoma City federal judge "reflects common-sense legal principles, respects the rights of religious institutions to provide benefits consistent with their convictions, and provides needed relief from the government's attempt to co-opt ministry health plans."

"We appreciate Judge DeGiusti's timely protection of religious liberty and give thanks to God for this victory and for the many thousands who have made this a matter of prayer," Hawkins said.

Hawkins noted that the injunction only concerns abortion-inducing drugs and devices, not other contraceptives.

"While our Catholic friends oppose contraceptive in most every form -- a belief that they should be free to exercise under the First Amendment -- our plans reflect the convictions of most Southern Baptists and evangelicals that the use of contraceptives is a matter of personal conscience," Hawkins said. "Our plans will continue to provide coverage for the vast majority of FDA-approved drugs that do not cause abortions."

Russell D. Moore, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said the injunction is a "first step toward a historic win for religious liberty."

"A government that can coerce the conscience is a government that had overstepped its God-appointed bounds," Moore said. "We are thankful for Guidestone and the gospel grit of President O.S. Hawkins. We're still early in this fight but this is good news."

The ruling also encompasses Truett-McConnell College, a Georgia Baptist Convention-affiliated school, and Reaching Souls International, an Oklahoma-based missions organization.

"We are pleased to see that Judge DeGiusti, along with many other courts, is recognizing these mandates go too far," said Emir Caner, Truett-McConnell's president. "We join with our partners in ministry at Reaching Souls and GuideStone in celebrating this ruling and praising the Lord for this outcome."

Dustin Manis, CEO of Reaching Souls International, said the ruling "protects our ministry from this offensive, objectionable and onerous requirement. We pray this injunction will lead to an eventual full repeal of the abortion-drug mandate and continued protections for religious organizations under the First Amendment."

This case is one of nearly 90 lawsuits brought against the abortion-drug mandate. Hawkins said Christians should continue to pray for these cases as they wind through the courts.

The Dallas law firm Locke Lord LLP filed the lawsuit in conjunction with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The case is GuideStone v. Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius is the HHS secretary.

"Whether the cases relate to family businesses like Hobby Lobby or for nonprofit ministries like GuideStone, the religious freedom concerns cannot be overstated," Hawkins said. "It's time for Christians to stay informed, get involved and pray.

Contact: Roy Hayhurst is department head of denominational and public relations services at GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention

December 20, 2013

Study: Some Mothers Push Daughters to Have Abortions

Inline image 1

While there are some questionable assumptions, some limitations to the data, it is hard to ignore the clear implication of a recent study of teens who abort: that some parents, mothers in particular, are pushing their daughters to have abortions.

The study, "The Role of Parents and Partners in Minor's Decisions to Have an Abortion and Anticipated Coping After Abortion," appeared the December 13, 2013 online edition of the Journal of Adolescent Health (www.jahonline.org).

Two of the authors are familiar names from the "Turnaway" study, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) researchers Diana Greene Foster and Heather Gould [1]. Other authors include Lauren Ralph, another colleague of theirs from the University of California System at Berkeley, and Anne Baker, a clinic counselor associated with Hope Clinic in Granite City, IL. [2]

The study looked at 2008 data from 5,109 women who had abortions at a single, unnamed abortion clinic, in a state "without a parental involvement requirement." Nine percent, or 476, were minors 17 years old and younger.

More than half of the aborting women were white, while about four in ten were African-American. Only about 1% were Hispanic. Seven percent of the minor teens had already given birth to a child.

Researchers looked at data from medical records and counseling needs assessment forms from patients visiting the clinic in 2008. They sought to determine how many minor teens told their parents (or partners) of their plans to abort, how supportive they were of their decision, and what pressure they felt to abort and from whom.

Ralph et al. also tried to assess women's attitudes towards abortion, their confidence in their abortion decision, and how well those women expected to be able to cope with their abortions once they were performed.

Researchers say that their data show that most mothers knew of and were supportive of their minor daughter's decision to abort. Nearly two thirds (64%) of minors in the study said their mother was aware, and 93% of those mothers were said to be "supportive." Note that simply meant that the teen responded affirmatively in some manner to the question "Is this person supportive to you in what you want to do?"

A minor's father was less likely to know of the decision to abort. While just 38% were aware, the teens indicated that 85% of their fathers who did know were supportive. About 80% of a minor's "partners" (the baby's father) were aware of her decision to abort (83%) and, if aware, were "supportive" (85%).

To make sure we're clear, this would mean that just over a third (36%) of minors' mothers and nearly two thirds of minors' fathers (62%) were not informed or for some reason not deemed aware of the abortion. Generally, though, the data indicates that the father of the child was informed and was supportive of the decision to abort.

While most (81%) had what researchers termed "high confidence" in their abortion decisions, one in ten minors aborting at this clinic indicated that they were pressured; they sought abortion "mostly because someone else wants them to." The study's authors were willing to classify 7% as being "pushed" to have abortions (due to the pressure and "low confidence" in some cases). While authors said women at this clinic who revealed the presence of coercion were counseled to delay abortion or receive additional counseling or referrals, there is no guarantee that women visiting other clinics were afforded such alternatives.

It must be noted that this study looked at women from a single clinic with a relatively large abortion clientele. Though a handful appear to have been counseled not to abort (at least at their initial encounter), a clinic doing more than five thousand abortions a year would have quite a workload, approaching 14 abortions a day.

This means, most likely, that this not some full service hospital, but a full scale abortion mill that is probably widely known to be such in the surrounding community. And that means that the women showing up here are probably much more likely to already be "abortion-minded" than a teen showing up at the office of a private practice ob-gyn or a small "family planning" clinic that presents itself as helping women "plan" their "parenthood."

This certainly colors the data, making it difficult to extrapolate to the teens in general or even to the experience of minors and their parents at other clinics across the U.S.. However it does raise concerns.

It is no surprise here to see that minors are more likely to tell their boyfriends than they are anyone else. Not simply because he is the father and there is necessarily any strong desire to let him have a say. It may be because he is, in part, a chief cause of the crisis and thus an obvious choice to turn to for the teen who is seeking a solution. That interaction may be as detached as a confirmation that he will indeed pay for the abortion. But it might also be a curiosity, even a longing, that there might be some indication that he would be willing to make the relationship permanent and welcome the child in life.

The advice of many abortion counselors, that a male be "supportive of whatever decision his partner makes," can too easily be taken as lack of interest or enthusiasm in either the mother or the child, crushing whatever glimmer of hope remains.

Given the prevalence of abortion in the 1980s, there is a likelihood that many of the mothers coaching their daughters to abort have had abortions themselves, aborting what would have been older or younger siblings of teen now deciding what to do with her own baby. That there might be some level of rationalization, some self justification in their advice to their daughters is not difficult to imagine.

And that, over the past thirty years or so, these grandmothers would have internalized many of the arguments and rationalizations made for abortion– that it will ruin the chance at any career, threaten a life of poverty and living with the shame of single motherhood, make it impossible to have an ideal marriage and family–so they would urge an abortion as the only real way to avoid a bad situation.

Though given less opportunity to be involved here, the fathers of these minor daughters would also have been affected by the abortion zeitgeist, if not as aborting fathers, then as men sold the mass media myth of abortion as a painless, easy way out for everyone.

Even in these discouraging statistics, there are some glimmers of hope. About a third (31%) of minors said that they thought that abortion was similar to killing a baby that is already born. Even though it may be difficult to ascertain precisely how a teen understood that statement, it is encouraging to now that this was nearly double the percentage of adults (16%) who voiced a similar sentiment. It does not seem a stretch to say that the younger generation seems to display a greater sense of "baby awareness" than do their parents.

Close to half of minors (49%) expressed what authors termed "some spiritual concerns about abortion" and 24% indicated they were "concerned about God's forgiveness." Percentages for adults on these questions were lower (43% and 18%, on the two questions, respectively), but not significantly so.

Though this study explicitly involved the records of minors from an abortion clinic in a state without parental involvement laws, it is unclear what the study's implications are for teens or such laws. The clinic could have been just across the state line from a major metropolitan area in a state with a parental consent or notification law. Teens could have been under the impression that some sort of parental permission was required and could have felt they needed to give the counselor the impression that they had talked to their parents when they had not. And this particular clinic, because of its size and reputation, may have attracted a more abortion minded population to start with.

Some parents will indeed try and talk their teens into abortions, thinking they will preserve the "family reputation" or somehow spare their daughter years of misery. This simply means that our educational efforts will not only have to focus on teenage girls or even single college aged women, two of the groups that have historically been responsible for many of the abortions in America, but also upon older women who may even be past their childbearing years but are now in a position to pass on their painful mistakes, previous rationalizations, and unresolved issues to their own children.

Many of these teens have some moral qualms and clearly realize they are considering the destruction of another human life. With just a bit of encouragement, a little bit of hope, and better information about alternatives to abortion that are better for both mother and child, many more will be able to fight the pressure to abort their babies.


(2) Information about Baker's work can be found at www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2009/NRL03/Glamour.html

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

“Brain Dead” Term Too Loosely Used

Inline image 1

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

Inline image 1

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

Inline image 1

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

December 18, 2013

Gosnell Sentenced

Inline image 1

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

December 17, 2013

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

Inline image 1

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

December 16, 2013

A “Scandal”-ous assumption by Hollywood

Inline image 1

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

Inline image 1

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