Justices skeptical of abortion clinic buffer zone

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed skepticism of a state law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone for pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics.

Some of the justices seemed to challenge the Massachusetts law in oral arguments Wednesday (Jan. 15), questioning whether it protects free speech while seeking to limit obstructions outside the state's abortion centers.

Last January, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a 2007 law that established a 35-foot zone around the entrances and driveways of abortion clinics. The measure bars pro-life sidewalk counselors from entering that zone to talk to women considering an abortion or scheduled for one unless those women provide consent.

The law protects the rights of patients while also ensuring pro-lifers could exercise their First Amendment rights, the appeals court said in its opinion. Pro-lifers contend, however, the scope of the buffer zone makes it almost impossible to speak to women going to the clinic.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), which signed onto a friend-of-the-court brief in support of pro-life counselors, expressed hope the high court will defend free speech in its ruling.

"We need to pray the Supreme Court does the right thing in upholding freedom of speech for all, including for those of us who are convictionally pro-life," ERLC President Russell D. Moore said in a statement to Baptist Press.

Mark Rienzi -- representing Eleanor McCullen, a grandmother who had done peaceful sidewalk counseling with abortion-minded women for years before enactment of the Massachusetts law -- told the justices the broad principle in the case is "a law that makes it illegal to even engage in consensual conversation, quiet conversation, on a public sidewalk ... for which Mrs. McCullen can go to prison, I think, is not permissible under the First Amendment."

"That's an extraordinary power for the government to ask to selectively control speech among willing participants on public sidewalks," said Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

"It's a place where the government claims it can essentially turn off the First Amendment," he said.

At some of Massachusetts' abortion clinics, the only opportunity to communicate with an abortion-minded woman is to wave a flyer as she drives through an entrance to the center's parking lot, Rienzi told the court. "If you have to stand 35 feet back and do that, the evidence here shows there's essentially zero chance to reach that audience," he said.

Jennifer Miller, assistant attorney general for Massachusetts, told the justices that experience demonstrated "there had to be a certain amount of space around the facilities. What we had, for example, were pro-choice advocates swearing and screaming at pro-life advocates within the buffer zone.... You had the Pink Group, which is a pro-choice organization, pushing and shoving and jockeying for position."

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia countered by saying, "[S]urely you could have a law against screaming and shouting within 35 feet or protesting within 35 feet. Isn't that more narrowly tailored? I mean, what this case involves, what these people want to do is to speak quietly and in a friendly manner, not in a hostile manner, because that would frustrate their purpose, with the people going into the clinic."

Associate Justice Samuel Alito posed a hypothetical case to Miller that appeared to indicate his doubt regarding the law's constitutionality.

"A woman is approaching the door of a clinic, and she enters the zone," Alito said. "Two other women approach her. One is an employee of the facility; the other is not. The first, who is an employee of the facility, says, 'Good morning. This is a safe facility.' The other one, who's not an employee, says, 'Good morning. This is not a safe facility.' Now, under this statute, the first one has not committed a crime; the second one has committed a crime. And the only difference between the two is that they've expressed a different viewpoint. One says it's safe; one says it's not safe. Now, how can a statute like that be considered viewpoint-neutral?"

The Obama administration sided with Massachusetts in defense of the buffer zone. Ian Gershengorn, principal deputy solicitor general with the Justice Department, told the court the law "is simply a place regulation that does not ban speech, but instead effectively moves it from one part of a public forum to another, in this case away from the small areas."

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy joined Scalia and Alito in appearing to express skepticism about the law. Even Associate Justice Elena Kagan, certainly not considered a pro-life vote on the court, acknowledged the law has some problems, saying she is "a little bit hung up on why you need so much space."

Amy Howe, editor of SCOTUSblog and a former law school professor, wrote on the blog after the arguments that five of the justices -- Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas -- "may well be ready to strike down the law because it prohibits too much speech, such as the peaceful speech in which Eleanor McCullen wants to engage."

The ERLC joined in a brief by the Christian Legal Society that not only urged the Supreme Court to strike down the Massachusetts law but to reverse its 2000 opinion upholding a similar law in Colorado. The brief, which nine other religious organizations also signed onto, contended the Massachusetts law violates a sidewalk's legal status as a public forum open to peaceful assembly and speech. 

The high court's 2000 opinion regarded a Colorado law that established a 100-foot zone around abortion clinic entrances. Inside that zone, a pro-lifer needs permission in order to get within eight feet of a person to counsel or distribute a handout.

The high court's opinion regarding the Massachusetts law could affect ordinances in several major U.S. cities that have enacted similar buffer zone measures.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in the case, McCullen v. Coakley, before it adjourns in late June or early July.

Contact: Tom Strode who is Baptist Press' Washington bureau chief.

Abortions top 56 million since Roe v. Wade

Given the trends seen in recent national reports, National Right to Life now believes that there have been over 56 million abortions since 1973.

One critical piece of evidence in that calculation arrived in November of 2013, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported its latest national figures. It was important to find out whether the drop in abortions for 2009 seen by the CDC–4.6%–would continue in 2010. If it dropped again, we'd have some confidence that the 2009 figure wasn't just some odd statistical aberration, that there really was some real and significant decline. It did.

As reported in NRL News Today, abortions for 2010 declined another 3.1%, according to the CDC. (See "CDC Report Shows Decline in Abortions for 2010; abortion rates and ratios both down")

We typically like to compare and confirm those trends with data from the Guttmacher Institute, the former special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood which publishes its own private study.

Guttmacher, which surveys abortion clinics, hospitals, and private practice physicians directly, has higher and what are widely thought to be more reliable abortion numbers. Unlike the CDC, however, they do not survey every year, and have not, as of this date, published anything more recent than 2008 data when Guttmacher reported there were 1,212,400 abortions.

The CDC publishes national totals of its own. However they have been missing data from several states, including the nation's most populous, California, since 1998, so their recent totals leave out hundreds of thousands of abortions. It creates a bit of a conundrum, because the new CDC data showing the trend doesn't really give a complete national count, while better national annual tally, from Guttmacher, is years out of date. Under the circumstances, the best one can do is to apply the trend from one to the total from the other and extrapolate. It's not ideal, but it allows you to produce a justifiable ballpark estimate.

Thus the 56 million+ figure comes from the mathematical application of the assumption that the Guttmacher numbers will roughly reflect the same declining percentage in the number of abortions that the CDC found.

LONG TERM TRENDS ENCOURAGING

The long term trend is fewer abortions, and the number is down significantly from 1990 when the country saw 1.6 million abortions a year. As one measure of the impact your work has had, if the number of abortions had remained at 1.6 million, more than seven MILLION more babies would have died.

The publication of data from the CDC last November is good reason to believe there is a new major downward trend. The drop of 3.1% for 2010 was not as large as the 4.6% drop for 2009, but it is still considerable and the arrows are pointing in the same direction.

We obviously can't know in advance whether the numbers Guttmacher will publish later this year will show the same drop off. However if those same percentage of declines CDC found were applied to the number Guttmacher reported for 2008, the number of abortions for 2009 would become 1,156,630. Likewise, for 2010 the number of abortions would be 1,120,775.

So far, so good.

If one assumes that the 1,120,775 number held constant from 2011 to 2013, the total number of abortions would be 54,972,980.

But Guttmacher concedes that it might undercount the number by 3%. Add that 3% and it yields a total of 56,662,169 abortions since 1973.

Despite the seeming precision, this is not an exact number. No such number is possible. There will always be missed abortions, missed abortionists. Adjustments, however careful, will always be imprecise.

But given the data we have, we feel it is reasonable to assume that we have now seen at least 56 million lives lost since Roe and are looking at topping 57 million sometime in the coming year.

We will, of course, revise our numbers accordingly when Guttmacher publishes figures from its latest survey. But unless the trajectory of those numbers wildly diverges from trends recently reported by the CDC, we expect things to remain within that 56 to 57 million range.

Of course, we all know that we are talking about more than just numbers or statistics. The blood of more than 56 million aborted babies represents an enormous stain on our national conscience and a heavy burden on our hearts.

But these numbers also show us that our efforts have not been in vain. As noted above, if our nation had continued at the rate of 1.6 million abortions a year we saw in 1990, our cumulative total would have been approaching 64 million by now.

That would translate into approximately 7 million more babies alive today than would have otherwise been the case. That is the equivalent to the number of abortions performed over a span of six to seven years–living human beings alive today because of you!

Of course the Movement has a long way to go to return full legal protection to unborn children. But never underestimate the importance of what you, grassroots pro-life America, are doing.

What you do makes a real difference.

By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D. NRL Director of Education & Research and Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life News Today editor

What does it mean to be pro-life?

Every human being matters, and we ought to act accordingly

The media often use the label "anti-abortion" to describe pro-life advocates. It's true that we oppose abortion—and infanticide, euthanasia and embryo-destructive research. But we are only against those things because we are for something else.

What we are for

What are we for? We are for the proposition that human life is good, that it is worth living, that it deserves respect and protection. We are for the proposition that every human being has an equal worth and dignity—that every human being has a right to live.

The pro-life position rejects all attempts to divide humanity into those who have rights and those who don't. Our society now recognizes that past discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity and social status was deeply unjust. We recognize that the worth of a human being does not depend on such characteristics.

Nor, however, does the worth of a human being depend on age, size, ability, dependency, stage of development or the desires and decisions of others. The big are not more valuable than the small. The strong do not have more rights than the weak. The independent do not matter more than the vulnerable and needy.

No, we have value and a right to life simply because we are human—not because of what we can do, but because of what (the kind of being) we are. That's why everyone matters. Everyone counts.

What we are against

It is because we support equal human dignity that we oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings. And that means we oppose abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and embryo-destructive research.

Pro-lifers oppose abortion because it takes the life of a human being before he or she is born. The scientific facts of embryology and developmental biology make clear that the unborn (the human embryo or fetus) is a distinct and living human organism, a full-fledged (though immature) member of the species Homo sapiens. Each of us was once an embryo and a fetus, just as we were once infants, toddlers and adolescents.

And all human beings, at all stages, have a right to life, whether or not they are "wanted" or "convenient."

We oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide because killing is never the answer to the difficulties of life. All human beings should receive our compassion and care, irrespective of disease, disability or perceived "quality of life."

We oppose embryonic stem cell research (but not adult or non-embryonic stem cell research) and human cloning because they require the destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are human beings in the embryonic phase of life. And all human beings, regardless of appearance or location (e.g., a petri dish), ought to be treated with respect and not as mere raw material to use for the hypothetical benefit of others.

Living our conviction

But being pro-life is about more than just holding an ethical position. To be truly pro-life means to live and act accordingly.

It means treating other people with dignity and respect—even those with whom we disagree. It means helping pregnant women in need and those who suffer from illness or disability.

It means recognizing the moral gravity and scale of abortion—the premier injustice and leading cause of death in American society today—and taking action to save lives. Educating ourselves, talking to others, persuading them. Supporting pro-life educational and legislative efforts through organizations like MCCL.

Being pro-life, ultimately, is about loving others, especially the most vulnerable. It is about loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. And love isn't just a feeling. It is a commitment.

By Paul Stark, Mr. Stark is Communications Associate for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), National Right to Life's state affiliate. This article was first published in the November-December 2013 issue of MCCL News.

Husband Sues Over Pregnant Wife’s “Life Support”

There are two cases involving "brain death" in the news. Both have been covered here. 

Jahi McMath

The first is Jahi McMath, whose family sued to force Children's Hospital to continue her "life support" and otherwise treat her as a living–rather than a dead–patient. That case settled with the family removing Jahi from the hospital still on a ventilator. We await further developments.   

Marlise Munuz

The second case involves a pregnant Texas woman named Marlise Munuz, who apparently was declared brain dead. But because she was pregnant, the hospital refused to stop "life support," as apparently required by Texas law. Here is the relevant statute:

A person may not withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment under this subchapter from a pregnant patient. 

Erick Munuz has now sued to force the hospital to remove the life support. From the Courthouse News story:

Erick Munoz sued John Peter Smith Hospital as husband and next friend of "Marlise Munoz, deceased," in Tarrant County Court. He wants the Fort Worth hospital ordered to stop administering life-sustaining care. The couple had been married for less than a year when Erick found his wife unconscious on the kitchen floor on Nov. 13 last year. She was 14 weeks pregnant with their second child

"Erick and Marlise worked as paramedics during their marriage, and thus were knowledgeable of and had personally witnessed injuries that resulted in death, including brain death," the complaint states. "Erick and Marlise frequently discussed their requests, beliefs and desires with each other, and expressed clearly to each other, family members and friends, their respective desires not to be resuscitated should either of them become brain dead."

I am not sure how this will go. If she was declared dead, under Texas law a "brain dead" person is dead, and so the maintenance wouldn't technically be "life support," as used in the earlier quoted statute. Nor, I suppose, would Marlise be considered a "patient."

There is more to consider: I think how one thinks about this case depends on the value one accords the life of the fetus, because removing life support from Marlise will doom her unborn child. 

This raises the question of whether she would have wanted life support removed if she knew it would also take her child's life. Obviously I don't know, but many mothers thinking about such a circumstance would not.

Then there is this: I think that the technical medical support currently applied to Marlise could be deemed, as the hospital has apparently argued, actually for the benefit of the unborn child since it maintains an environment where the gestating baby can continue to mature to the point that a caesarian could be performed.  Since the fetus is at 21 weeks, we are almost to that point.

And what if Texas has a fetal homicide law, which treats the intentional killing of a fetus as a crime except in cases of abortion? Ai, yi, yi!

I am willing to bet this is a matter of first impression for the courts. I hope whatever judges hear this case have the wisdom of Solomon.

If it were me deciding, I would give every legal benefit of the doubt to allowing an innocent child to be born. But that and $2 will buy a small cup of Starbuck's coffee. 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Supreme Court Hears Abortion Seller ‘Buffer Zone’ Case

Pro-life attorneys argued yesterday at the U.S. Supreme Court against a Massachusetts law that creates a "buffer zone." The 35-foot area was created to prevent sidewalk counselors from speaking to women entering abortion sellers.

Gov. Deval Patrick signed the law in 2007. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed suit the following year on behalf of life advocates challenging its constitutionality. Shortly after, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court's decision in favor of the buffer zone law.

ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden called today's hearing a "very spirited discussion."

"Mark Rienzi, advocating for the pro-life counselors, was brilliant in explaining how the law worked to completely deny pro-life counselors access to mothers in need, and why that violates the Constitution," he told CitizenLink.

The government cannot be allowed to create censorship zones, said ADF Attorney Michael De Primo.

"This buffer zone censors speakers from engaging in constitutionally protected speech," he said. "We hope the Supreme Court will agree and strike down the law that created the zone."

Source: CitizenLInk, by Bethany Monk

Congressional Committee to Take Up Abortion Funding Ban Wednesday

January 15, the U.S House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee will take up and vote on H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. This legislation is strongly supported by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

HR. 7 would permanently prohibit subsidies for abortion and health insurance coverage of abortion in federal programs – both within longstanding federal programs and within the health care law signed by President Obama in 2010.

During last week's hearing on H.R. 7, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that H.R. 7 would codify "the two core principles of the Hyde Amendment throughout the operations of the federal government: namely, a ban on federal funding for abortions, and a ban on the use of federal funds for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion."

For many years, the Hyde Amendment and other provisions on the annual appropriations bills have prevented federal funding of abortion through a patchwork of overlapping laws. But they must be renewed each year.

The need for enactment of H.R. 7 is all the more urgent due to ObamaCare. Pro-life efforts to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to the ObamaCare law were unsuccessful due to opposition from President Obama and the Senate majority. As a result, the enacted ObamaCare law contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover elective abortion.

Moreover, in early October 2013, the Obama Administration issued a rulemaking allowing the federal government to purchase abortion-covering plans for Members of Congress and their staffs, which is something that no other federal employee is allowed to do. The rulemaking spells out how this transition will occur, without interrupting the contributions made by the government to the cost of such plans (approximately 75% of the premium cost). The rulemaking violates the Smith Amendment, which for most of the past 30 years has prohibited the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from any administrative involvement in purchasing any health plan for federal employees that covers abortion (except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest). Research by the office of Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) found that of the 112 health plans available to Members of Congress and their staffs, more than 90 percent of the plans – 103 out of 112 plans – cover elective abortion.

Due to the actions of the Obama Administration, enactment of H.R. 7 is needed now more than ever.

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

U.S. Supreme Court Sets Date for Hobby Lobby Hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments March 25 in Hobby Lobby's case challenging a government mandate requiring potential abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans. The evangelical-owned arts-and-crafts chain filed suit last year.

"My family and I are encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide our case," said Hobby Lobby CEO David Green. "This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law."

If the court rules against his company, the fines would be more than $1 million a day. Green has said he would shut it all down rather than comply.

The high court will also hear arguments in a case involving a Mennonite-owned business suing over the mandate. The Hahn family owns and operates Conestoga Wood Specialties in Lancaster County, Pa. The Court has consolidated this case with Hobby Lobby and will hear both on the same day.

The Obama administration required for-profit businesses to comply with the Health and Human Services mandate by August 2012. Nonprofits—many of which are faith-based—had a so-called safe harbor until this month.

More than 90 suits are in play. To date, courts have granted 52 injunctions, halting the mandate for 33 for-profit businesses and for 19 nonprofit organizations.

In July, a federal court granted Hobby Lobby a temporary reprieve from the mandate.

"This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans' religious liberty," said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby. "We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that religious freedom in our country should be protected for family business owners like the Greens."

Source: CitizenLink by Bethany Monk

10 surprising quotes from abortionists

Abortionist Jane Hodgson

They're threatened by informed consent. They're traumatized by the limp body parts they look at every day. They're torn by the contradiction that they became doctors to preserve life but use their profession to end it. Here are some eye-opening confessions from current and former abortionists.

They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion. –Dr. Randall, former abortionist

Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it. -Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist

You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That's not fluid currents. That's obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that's to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.] -Dr. John Szenes, abortionist

Telling those women their fetuses feel pain is heaping torment upon torment. These women have real pain. They did not come to this decision easily. Creating another barrier for them to get the medical care they need is really unfair. –Abortionist David Turok

This is why I hate overuse of forceps – things tear. There are only two kinds of doctors who have never perforated a uterus, those that lie and those who don't do abortions.–Anonymous Abortionist

I got to where I couldn't stand to look at the little bodies anymore. -Dr. Beverly McMillan, former abortionist

I think in many ways I've been lucky to have been part of this. If I hadn't gotten involved, I would have gone through life probably being perfectly satisfied to go to the medical society parties and it would have been very, very dull. I would have been bored silly. -Dr. Jane Hodgson, late abortionist

Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I performed an abortion, and that's 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience… The grieving process may last from several days to several years… Grief is sometimes delayed… The grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years. -Dr. Susan Poppema, abortionist

If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is "who owns this child?" It's got to be the mother. -Dr. James McMahon, abortionist

We know that it's killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances. -Dr. Neville Sender, abortionist.

Editor's note. This first appeared at liveactionnews.org and is reprinted with permission.

By Lauren Enriquez, NRL News

A first look at 2014 pro-life state legislation

"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

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

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'

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

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

“Brain Dead” Teen’s Life Support to End

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.

Sen. Roberts Introduces Abortion Insurance Disclosure Bill

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."

Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, H.R. 3279, S. 1848

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

Judge Orders Life Support for “Brain Dead” Girl

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

 

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

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