The Government Should Oppose, Not Sponsor, the Aborting of America's Poor Women

Helen Alvare

In early January, George Mason University Law Professor Helen Alvare testified before a congressional committee about the need for the federal government to “once and for all” remove itself from involvement with funding of abortions. Her testimony brought to light many truths, including one that is an embarrassment for a country and people that is as generous as ours. Alvare pointed out that “the well-off support abortion funding for the poor more than the poor favor it for themselves” – a reality that she called a “particularly unpleasant fact.”

Alvare cited a Rand study that was conducted with the support of the Packard, Hewlett, and Rockefeller foundations. It found that a majority of respondents who earn less than $25,000, and 55% of those whose education level was a high school degree or less, oppose “the government providing funding for abortion services to poor women.” And yet, sadly, those earning more than $75,000 favor abortion funding for the poor by 56%.

Other polls confirm that a majority of Americans with less formal education (and presumably less income) oppose government funding of abortions for poor women, as do a majority of America’s women. A 2011 CNN poll found that 66% of respondents (both men and women) who had never attended college, opposed “using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it.” Sixty-three percent of respondents earning under $50,000 opposed it. Among women, 59% opposed public funding of abortion.

A 2010 Quinnipiac University poll found even stronger evidence of this opposition, with 68% of women, 69% of respondents with no college degree, and 68% of those earning less than $50,000 opposing “allowing abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill.”

If the majority of women don’t support public funding of abortion, and the majority of lower-income Americans (those most likely to benefit from it) don’t support public funding of abortion, why does there continue to be a push by some segments of our society for government funding of elective abortions?

There are several arguments openly advanced in support of government funding of abortion. For instance, you will hear talk of the need for “reproductive justice” for women of color. One would think that with abortions on non-Hispanic African American women already making up 30% of all abortions (even though African Americans only make up 13% of the population), that public policy advocates would be sounding the alarm about these numbers, rather than pushing for making abortions more accessible to Black women. Similarly, abortions on Hispanic women make up 25% of all abortions, even though Hispanic women only make up 16% of the population.

But beneath the publicly-stated reasons for government-funded abortions, is there, for some, an unspoken reason underlying it all that none dare mention? None, that is, except for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In 2009, the New York Times published an in-depth interview of Ginsburg. In it, Ginsburg said she had been “surprised” by the Court’s 1980 decision upholding the federal Hyde Amendment, which prevents the use of federal Medicaid funds for elective abortion. She was surprised because she had assumed that the Roe v. Wade decision was just the first step towards paving the way for government funding of abortions for “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She said:

“Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”

In a later interview, Ginsburg tried to walk back a bit from the comment. And she confirmed that her earlier comments were a reference to a general concern within society, and not meant to be ascribed to her personal views. Even so, it is nevertheless telling that a sitting United States Supreme Court justice, especially one that had travelled in feminist legal circles for years prior to the Roe and McRae decisions, gave voice to such a perception regarding Medicaid funding of abortion. As NRL News editor Dave Andrusko wrote at the time – did Justice Ginsburg reveal more than she intended to?

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

For Planned Parenthood the perfect gift for Valentine's Day is Abortion

When one thinks of Valentine’s Day, typically roses, chocolates, or a candlelit dinner come to mind. However, for Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, it’s about abortion.

In a video posted on Twitter, Richards lists things she believes women need for Valentine’s Day. That includes “safe and legal abortion.” How romantic!

At one time, abortion proponents hid behind the slogan “safe, legal and rare” to characterize their support for abortion-on-demand. Now, Planned Parenthood’s CEO openly celebrates abortion, taking a holiday about love and making it about abortion.

True love involves sacrifice. It means we extend a hand to women in difficult circumstances. We support the work of pregnancy resource centers. We offer compassionate solutions that respect the lives of her and her unborn child. And it also means we lend a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on when someone we know confides in us that they had an abortion.

Mother Teresa, whose life embodied selfless love and inspired millions around the world, wrote, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want.”

The violence of abortion is not what women need for Valentine’s Day, or any other day throughout the year. The unborn child, whose life is taken from them, sometimes in excruciating pain, is not the only victim in an abortion. Their mothers are left to bear the loss, many suffering incomprehensible grief and regret in silence for the rest of their lives.

True love stands with women and their unborn children, working to eliminate the circumstances that make abortion even considerable.

By Andrew Bair, NRL News

Decades after birth, fetal cells remain in mother's body aiding to repair injuries

Studies in mice show that mothers may carry cells from their babies years after delivery, and that these cells may aid the mother if she suffers a stroke.
(Photo: Robert F. Bukaty)

Although widely known in the scientific community, it’s news to most laypeople that years—even decades—after a mother delivers her baby, some of the fetal cells will remain in her body. These fetal cells, which are some of the developing baby’s cells, while not necessarily stem cells, are adaptable in their ability to grow and repair tissues. We’ve carried stories about this phenomenon previously, including one we are reprinting today.

Liz Szabo writing in USA Today, adds additional breadth and depth to our understanding of the ability of these fetal cells to “come to a mother’s rescue” in a story whose sub-headline reads, “New study in mice shows that fetal cells carried by moms after they give birth may actually provide stem cells to help the body repair some damage.”

Szabo’s lead is extremely clever:

“Many moms carry photos of their children in their wallets.

“Yet mothers may be surprised to learn that they’re also carrying some of their children’s cells, years or even decades after the end of a pregnancy. And while a baby photo can melt a mother’s heart, the cells her child leaves behind in her blood may actually heal it, emerging research suggests.”

Or, as she puts it later, “[T]he fetal cells left behind in women’s bodies are more than mementos.”

The story begins with a discussion of a paper delivered last week at the American Heart Association’s International Stroke Conference in San Diego, by Louise McCullough, director of stroke research at the University of Connecticut Health Center. The story can be read in its entirety so let me offer a few highlights.

The crux of the story is that the fetal cells that remain in the mother mouse’s body appear to act like stem cells when they race to repair damage caused by a stroke in the mother’s body, which raises intriguing (but as yet still unclear) possibilities.

McCullough studied how fetal cells operated in the mother mouse who had suffered a stroke. They quickly (within three days) clustered around the area of the stroke, Szabo writes,

“But these fetal cells were more than bystanders, McCullough says. They also began dividing and giving rise to the types of cells that line blood vessel walls, as if trying to form new blood vessels to restore blood flow to the injured brain.

“What scientists don’t yet know, is whether the fetal cells were clustered around the stroke site by coincidence, or if they really were acting like stem cells attempting to regenerate tissue. McCullough presented her research in abstract form. She has not yet published the full paper in a peer-reviewed journal.”

Other scientists, working independently, have seen similar behavior in mice with heart failure. Szabo writes

“The mice who recovered best were ones in which fetal cells integrated into their heart tissue, says [V.K.] Gadi, who wasn’t involved in McCullough’s research. In a study in humans, researchers found maternal cells at work in a diabetic child, apparently trying to repair insulin-producing cells, he says.

Naturally, others are examining what role fetal cells may play in diseases such as cancer.

Szabo raises another fascinating possibility: that, like stem cells, “Fetal cells appear able to change into whatever specific type of cell is needed, McCullough says. So fetal cells in a mother with liver damage could transform into liver cells.”

Amazing stuff. Go to www.usatoday.com to read Szabo’s full story; and to “The Amazing Interplay between Mother and Unborn Child.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Gosnell's right-hand man is sentenced to 6-12 years

Steve Masoff

Among the most nightmarish testimony from last year’s trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell came from the lips of Steven Massof, an unlicensed physician who for five years worked “under-the-table for $300 a week, performing illegal late-term abortions and killing infants born alive,” as the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Joseph A. Slobodzian wrote today.

Massof was smart enough to plead guilty to two counts of third-degree murder and testify against Gosnell, who eventually was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. Prosecutors originally charged Massof with first-degree murder for killing infants born live and viable during abortions by slitting their spinal cords. He would have faced a possible death sentence if the jury had found him guilty.

Today Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Benjamin Lerner sentenced Massof to 6-12 years in prison.

Massof’s intelligence was one of the reason Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron argued for a 10- to 20-year prison term. “Despite Massof’s cooperation, Cameron said, he had the education, intelligence and training to know what he was doing was wrong – and stop it,” Slobodzian reported earlier today.

Judge Lerner described what went on at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic as “unspeakably horrible.”

“As evil as Dr. Gosnell was, as charismatic as he may have been, he didn’t do this alone,” Lerner said. “He couldn’t do this without the assistance of someone like you.”

Slobodzian writes

“I don’t know how it started,” the 51-year-old Massof, voice cracking as he forced down a sob, told the judge.

“I realize that this is something that’s wrong and will never be right and will never go away,” said Massof, who called his work with Gosnell “a horrific part of my life.”

In 2011 Massof was one of nine Gosnell workers at the Women’s Medical Society who were charged, including Gosnell’s wife, Pearl. Three have yet to be sentenced.

The following is from a story posted in April 2013, when Massof testified.

_________________

As grim as testimony in the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell had been prior to Thursday, it took a decidedly worse turn when Steve Massof testified about his five years working at Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic.

In 2011 Massof, an unlicensed doctor, was one of nine Gosnell employees charged in connection with second- and third-trimester abortions. All but one pled guilty.

Massof had already admitted to delivering viable unborn babies alive and then slitting their spinal cords, prior to his testimony. Like Gosnell, he faced first degree murder charges but pled guilty to two counts of third degree murder in exchange for his testimony.

If you read the account of the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Joseph A. Slobodzian—assuming you can get through it—you will have a far deeper and more disturbing understanding of what took place at Gosnell’s West Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Slobodzian writes that Massof

“at times exhibited an almost ghoulish glee, smiling and giggling, as he described the abortions he did and infants whose spines he snipped with surgical scissors.

“’No babies would be born alive at 3801,’ Massof said Gosnell told him.

“At one point Massof asked jurors to feel the backs of their necks and he guided them to the spot where he would use scissors. Several jurors did.

“’It’s like a beheading,’ Massof said.”

Massof has already pleaded guilty in a separate case “to 30 counts of using Gosnell’s prescription pads for controlled narcotics that were sold on the streets,” Slobodzian writes. “Gosnell is to be tried there after the murder case is over.” [Gosnell pled guilty last December to running a “pill mill.”]

When joint federal and state authorities raided Gosnell’s abortion clinic in 2010 it had nothing to do with abortion. He was suspected of illegally selling drugs, particularly OxyContin.

Only then did they discover (according to the Grand Jury report) a “filthy, foul-smelling ‘house of horrors’ “ where hundreds of viable unborn babies were aborted alive and then allegedly murdered when (primarily Gosnell and Massof) slit their spinal cords.

On cross-examination, Gosnell’s attorney, Jack McMahon, returned to one of his primary arguments: that Gosnell practiced “urban medicine” with the good of his poor clients his uppermost interest.

“I believe that Dr. Gosnell was honestly trying to help women and protect them from abuse and neglect,” Massof said.

However, the Associated Press reporter observed that

“The statement came in questioning about why Gosnell kept fetal samples, including severed feet, in jars at the clinic.”

Massof also testified, “He always led me to believe he was a poor, struggling urban physician and surgeon,” he added. “I thought he was hurting financially.”

Prosecutors assert Gosnell made a million dollars a year off of illegal abortions and kept $250,000 in cash under his mattress

Finally, in response to questioning by the prosecution (according to the AP)

“Massof estimated that he saw about 100 babies born alive and then ‘snipped’ with surgical scissors in the back of the neck, to ensure their ‘demise.’

“Gosnell, who had another clinic in Delaware, typically came in only at night for the final part of the procedure, leaving Massof to monitor the pain-racked or highly sedated women.

“’I felt like a firemen in hell. I couldn’t put out all the fires,’ he testified.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Planned Parenthood to Pay $2M in Hush Money to Botched Abortion Victim's Family

Thomas More Society Calls For Inspection of Abortion Facilities: "No More Tonya Reaves Tragedies"

On February 7th, the Thomas More Society renewed its call for stronger abortion clinic inspection and regulation in Illinois, in the wake of a $2,000,000.00 wrongful death settlement by Planned Parenthood of Illinois, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation with the family of Tonya Reaves, a woman killed by a botched abortion in 2012. In February of 2013, the Thomas More Society filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation ("IDPR") requesting an investigation into the Chicago "Loop Health Center" of Planned Parenthood, which was responsible for Ms. Reaves' botched abortion. No known action has been taken by the IDPR to follow up on the complaint.

In response to the settlement, Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society, said, "The fact that Planned Parenthood has been allowed to merely pay 'hush money' to the victim's family without any further consequences is a slap in the face to every woman who walks through the doors of the nation's largest abortion provider." 

After the botched abortion took place, Tonya Reaves was left to bleed for five and a half hours in the Planned Parenthood clinic without medical treatment. Furthermore, when Ms. Reaves was finally transferred to the hospital, it took several more hours for her to be treated properly, which indicates that Planned Parenthood did not provide the hospital with sufficient information regarding Ms. Reaves' condition. The autopsy after her death revealed that Ms. Reaves had suffered perforation of the uterus.

"Ms. Reaves' tragic death demonstrates the dire need for increased inspection and regulation of Illinois abortion clinics," added Breen. "Abortion clinics in this state are not held to the same standards as other outpatient surgical facilities, despite the fact that the average clinic performs hundreds of invasive surgeries each year," he explained.

Read the wrongful death settlement petition here.

Read the court's approval of the wrongful death settlement here. 

The following links record the Thomas More Society's ongoing demand for investigation into the lack of abortion clinic regulation that led to Reave's death via botched abortion:

• Complaint Demands Investigation and Discipline Against Planned Parenthood for Botched Abortion and Death of Patient 
   
• BREAKING: Autopsy Reveals Details of Grisly Abortion Death

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, Thomas More Society

Stunning adult stem cell developments evoke hope, caution

Remarkable advancements in stem cell biology are enabling scientists to reprogram mature cells into a variety of different tissues – but experts say these methods should be used carefully to avoid ethical questions and inadvertent cloning.

While the new technology is an “exciting and surprising development,” said Brendan Foht, assistant editor of “The New Atlantis” bioethics journal, there are “some important scientific and ethical questions need to be addressed” before the technique is applied to human cell therapy.

“The scientists found that the cells made through this technique seemed to have even more developmental potential than embryonic stem cells,” and able to turn into a variety of embryonic and placental tissue in addition to a range of adult tissues.

“This means that this technique may not just be a way of creating stem cells, but a way of creating embryos,” opening the door to human cloning, Foht told CNA on Jan. 5.

The new mechanism produces “stimulus triggered acquisition of pluripotency” or STAP cells, which uses stressful situations, such as acid baths, to trigger adult animal cells into a re-programed state where they can develop into a wide range of tissues.

Findings were detailed in two papers published in the scientific journal “Nature” on Jan. 29, involving research from the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Japan as well as the Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in the United States.

The reprogrammed cells showed “totipotency,” or the ability to turn into embryonic and placental tissue, but did not on their own have the ability to be grown for extended periods of time.  

However, when scientists altered certain aspects of the cell culture, the some STAP cells were able to replicate and grow – some displaying qualities like existing pluripotent stem cells that can morph into a variety of tissue, and others maintaining totipotent ability to grow into embryonic and placental tissue.

“It’s exciting to think about the new possibilities these findings open up, not only in areas like regenerative medicine, but perhaps in the study of cellular senescence and cancer as well,” said Haruko Obokata, who lead the project at RIKEN.

“But the greatest challenge for me going forward will be to dig deeper into the underlying mechanisms,” Obokata said, “so that we can gain a deeper understanding of how differentiated cells can covert to such an extraordinarily pluripotent state.”

Foht said that while the development is exciting and may “really provide an easy source of pluripotent stem cells for regenerative medicine and research,” further research and ethical inquiry is needed to determine “under what conditions these cells are totipotent and have the character of embryos.”

He pointed out that Charles Vacanti, co-leader of the Harvard STAP cell project, told the “New Scientist” news source that “you can very easily, from a drop of blood and simple techniques, create a perfect identical twin.”

Vacanti also mentioned that he asked an unnamed collaborator to look further into the cloning applications of this technology, and that this partner was able to reprogram a mouse's white blood cell to form into an embryo and then into a mouse fetus.

He added that the purpose of the experiment is not to investigate cloning further but rather to understand the mechanisms behind the new technology.

Foht weighed in that while many are worried about the ability of people to willfully misuse the technique for human cloning, “we should be perhaps more worried that the reckless use of this technique will inadvertently create cloned human embryos in the process of making stem cells.”

He argued for continued research into how to manipulate STAP cells, saying that it “might provide knowledge that will be useful for those who would misuse this technique” for human cloning, and that “such misuses can be prevented by strong legal prohibitions.”

If the mechanism behind STAP cells is further investigated and understood, Foht reflected, “when we start using this technique on human cells, we can be sure that we are using it in a way that does not create human embryos.”

Source: CNA/EWTN News

What science tells us about the unborn

Before deciding how we ought to treat the unborn—a moral question—we must first be clear about what the unborn is. This is a scientific question, and it is answered with clarity by the science of human embryology.

When sperm fertilizes egg

The facts of reproduction are straightforward. Upon completion of the fertilization process, sperm and egg have ceased to exist (this is why “fertilized egg” is an inaccurate term); what exists is a single cell with 46 chromosomes (23 from each parent) that is called a zygote. The coming into existence of the zygote is the point of conception—the beginning of the life of a new human organism. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus all refer to developmental stages in the life of a human being.

Four features of the unborn

Four features of the unborn (i.e., the human zygote, embryo or fetus) are relevant to his or her status as a human being. First, the unborn is living. She meets all the biological criteria for life: metabolism, cellular reproduction and reaction to stimuli. Moreover, she is clearly growing, and dead things (of course) don’t grow.

Second, the unborn is human. She possesses a human genetic signature that proves this beyond any doubt. She is also the offspring of human parents, and we know that humans can only beget humans (they cannot beget dogs or cats, for instance). The unborn may not seem to “look” human (at least in her earlier stages), but in fact she looks exactly like a human at that level of human development. Living things do not become something different as they grow and mature; rather, they develop the way that they do precisely because of the kind of being they already are.

Third, the unborn is genetically and functionally distinct from (though dependent on and resting inside of) the pregnant woman. Her growth and maturation is internally directed, and her DNA is unique and different from that of any other cell in the woman’s body. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, central nervous system, etc. To say that a fetus is a part of the pregnant woman’s body is to say that the woman has four arms and four legs, and that about half of pregnant women have penises.

A whole organism

Fourth, the unborn is a whole or complete (though immature) organism. That is, she is not a mere part of another living thing, but is her own organism—an entity whose parts work together in a self-integrated fashion to bring the whole to maturity. Her genetic information is fully present at conception, determining to a large extent her physical characteristics (including sex, eye color, skin color, bone structure, etc.); she needs only a suitable environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of human life.

Thus, the unborn is a distinct, living and whole human organism—a full-fledged member of the species Homo sapiens, like you and me, only at a much earlier stage in her development. She is a human being.

Affirmed by textbooks, scientists

This fact is confirmed by embryology textbooks and leading scientists, who could be cited here ad nauseam. In The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, perhaps the most widely used embryology text, Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud explain: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell — a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Langman’s Embryology notes, “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

Adds Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School, “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.”

In 1981 a U.S. Senate judiciary subcommittee heard expert testimony on the question of when life begins. The official subcommittee report reached this conclusion:

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

The report also noted that “no witness [who testified before the subcommittee] raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged the scientific consensus that unborn children are ‘human beings,’ insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species.”

Evidence is decisive

The evidence, then, shows that the unborn is a living organism of the human species from his or her beginning at conception. Thus, to kill the unborn by abortion or for embryo-destructive research is to kill a human being. This is not a moral claim about whether such killing is right or wrong, but a factual one, based on the scientific evidence of embryology.

Objections to this conclusion stem from scientific ignorance, confusion or misunderstanding. I consider common objections below.

Objection #1: ‘No one knows’

The claim that “no one knows when life begins” is so often repeated that it bears addressing. While there is indeed debate about when a human being becomes (if she isn’t by nature) valuable and deserving of full moral respect, the strictly biological matter is clear, as I explain above. The life of a human being, a living member of our species, begins at conception.

(Contrary to what many pro-choice advocates apparently believe, agnosticism regarding the unborn is actually a decisive reason to refrain from killing her. A hunter does not shoot into the brush unless he is sure that his target is not a person.)

Objection #2: Potential of sperm and egg

Some say that if the unborn is a human being, then we must (absurdly) conclude that the sperm and egg are also human beings, for they also have the potential to become a child, a teenager and eventually an adult.

This is bad biology. The sperm and egg are simply parts of larger organisms. When they unite they cease to be and something new comes into existence: the zygote, a whole organism with the active capacity to develop into a mature member of its species, given only a suitable environment and nutrition. Each of us was once a zygote, but none of us was ever a sperm or egg.

Objection #3: Somatic cells

Some people compare the zygote and embryo to regular somatic (body) cells, which are also human, living and possessing of a full genetic code. Since these cells are not actual human beings—brushing skin cells off my arm is not the killing of hundreds of tiny humans—the zygote or embryo is not an actual human being either, the critic reasons.

But there is a crucial difference. The unborn is its own organism, not a mere part of another. The unborn from conception is a distinct and complete individual whose parts work together in a coordinated fashion to develop the whole to maturity. That is not true of skin or other somatic cells, which function as mere parts of a larger organism.

Objection #4: Twinning

Defenders of embryo-destructive research sometimes say that because very early embryos can split into two distinct embryos—an event called twinning—the early embryo must not itself be a unitary individual. But the conclusion does not follow.

When a flatworm is cut in half, or when an organism is cloned via somatic cell nuclear transfer, a single organism gives rise to two distinct organisms. In both cases the original entity is a unitary, self-integrating, whole individual. The scientific evidence shows that the embryo likewise functions as its own organism, from the zygote stage forward, regardless of whether twinning occurs.

Objection #5: Brain death

The irreversible cessation of brain activity is used as a criterion for the death of a human being, even though some of the body’s organs can live after brain death. For this reason, some advocates of embryo-destructive research claim that the life of a human being does not begin until the unborn develops a brain.

But brain death is accepted as a criterion only because it signals the end of the body’s ability to function as an integrated organism, for which the brain, in older humans, is essential. After brain death there is no longer a unitary organism. By contrast, the embryo from conception is a unitary organism, actively developing herself to the next stage of human life. The brain, at this earliest stage, is not yet necessary for her to function as such.

All, or only some?

Because the scientific facts are clear, the permissibility of taking unborn human life hinges on a moral question. Do all human beings merit full moral respect and protection, as you and I uncontroversially do—or only some?

Editor’s note. Paul Stark is Communications Associate for MCCL, National Right to Life’s state affiliate

Thomas More Society shocked at Obama's denial of IRS' targeting of pro-life groups, despite proof

President Obama told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly that the recent IRS targeting scandal had "not even a smidgen of corruption." The denial-laden interview on Sunday leaves the Thomas More Society shocked, as the President adamantly rejected the suggestion that the IRS was abusing groups not in concert with his administration. He claimed that IRS officials were confused about how to implement laws governing tax-exempt groups. The Thomas More Society, however, a national public interest law firm based in Chicago, was heavily involved in providing Congress with evidence of specific wrongdoing on the part of Lois Lerner - disgraced former IRS director of the exempt organizations division - and her staff.

"Thomas More Society has defended six pro-life organizations whose First Amendment rights were trampled upon by the IRS because of the groups' dedication to the sanctity of life," said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society. "In fact, in May and August of 2013, Thomas More Society produced two memos to the House Committee on Ways and Means, totaling over 500 pages of evidence that the IRS specifically targeted and harassed pro-life and conservative charities, illegally questioning their religious activities and withholding their tax exemptions. Frankly, we are shocked that President Obama would state that there was 'not even a smidgeon of corruption' involved in the IRS scandal. The Obama Administration must stop making excuses to cover up the IRS' illegal activity and instead deal justly with the corruption and scandal that occurred."

The following links record the Thomas More Society exposure of the IRS pro-life discrimination scandal:

• Broadening IRS Victims Include Pro-Life Advocates, As Congress Investigates


• Congress Receives Irrefutable Evidence of IRS Harassment of Pro-Life Organizations


• IRS Pro-Life Victim Testified Before Ways and Means Committee Today "So It Won't Happen to Others"


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

Source: Thomas More Societ

Guttmacher: Abortions Reach Lowest Rate in 40 Years

The abortion rate decreased — from 2008 to 2011 — and reached its lowest rate since the Roe v. Wadedecision in 1973.

The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the abortion industry, released the report Monday. Pro-lifers note that its finding coincides with other data reflecting a decrease in abortion over the last couple of years. They also note, though, the study’s lack of attribution to the significant increase in pro-life laws.

“The authors of the Guttmacher report downplay the more than 40 new state laws passed between 2008-2010 as having an impact on the abortion drop,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director for public policy at Focus on the Family. “Yet, they also admit their survey of the abortion industry wasn’t designed to measure the impact of new laws.”

The institute released a report last month showing that 70 pro-life laws were enacted in 22 states last year. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of such laws passed.

Monday’s report shows that the abortion rate dropped significantly in 2011. That year, there were an estimated 1.1 abortions in the U.S., representing an abortion rate of 16.9 per 1,000 women ages 15-44. This shows a drop of 13 percent since 2008.

Guttmacher concluded that abortion restrictions played no role in this decline:

The national abortion rate has resumed its decline, and no evidence was found that the overall drop in abortion incidence was related to the decrease in providers or to restrictions implemented between 2008 and 2011.

The institute says factors could include changes in sexual activity, increased use of contraceptives and the economy.

Earll underscored the power of pro-life legislation.

“Each time state pro-life bills are considered and passed, there’s a considerable amount of public dialogue on the topic — all of which impact public perception of abortion and raise questions about legality, safety and the value of human life,” she explained.  “The bottom line is that the pro-life message continues to resonate with Americans and this decrease in the number of abortions.”

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser agrees.

“The child in the womb is increasingly being seen for what she is: a second victim of the violence of abortion,” she said. “Guttmacher’s new report is another indication that our nation is indeed growing weary of the destruction wrought by legalized abortion on demand.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read the Guttmacher report: “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability In the United States, 2011.”

Read “Report: More Pro-Life Laws Enacted in 2011-13 than in Previous Decade.”

Read “Advocates March for ‘Most Basic Right to Life.”

Source: CitizenLink by Bethany Monk

Candidate Questionnaire Exposes Personal PAC's Abortion Agenda for Illinois

After two decades of legal and political obstruction, Illinois finally enacted a law allowing parents to be notified before their minor children obtain abortions. A small victory, and a modicum of restraint after Illinois' long retreat from human decency.

Some might think that would be the end of it. Like Obamacare, liberals would accept that parental notification is now the law. After all, except for notification, there are few restrictions on abortion in Illinois.

But the fight is never over for the profiteering proctors of prenatal death. Private and public money is too plentiful and flows too freely into the pockets of Illinois' pro-abortion politicians.

The primary channel through which Illinois' feticide money cascades is Personal PAC, which seems to be telegraphing its future agenda through its 2014 endorsement questionnaire.

"The status of reproductive health care in the U.S. is shameful and is held hostage by narrow religious beliefs," says Personal PAC's questionnaire to Illinois candidates. "Going forward, much more needs to be accomplished..."

So, what specifically does Personal PAC plan to accomplish in Illinois?

Passing FOCA

The abortion industry is nervous about the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court reconsidering their 1973 Roe vs Wade decision that legalized abortion. Personal PAC asks (below) if the candidate supports passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (commonly referred to as FOCA), which would keep nearly unrestricted abortion legal in Illinois even if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade.

Overturning Parental Notification:

Continuing to require public schools to teach sexually-explicit classes to children starting at K-5:

Forcing pharmacists or medical personnel who conscientiously object to distributing abortifacients to provide referrals for other resources that provide them:

Making Illinois taxpayers fund all abortions for women on Medicaid, and pay for state government employees' insurance to cover abortion:

Requiring Crisis Pregnancy Centers to publicize that they do not provide abortion services:

Making it illegal for Illinois health care plans not to cover abortifacients, birth control and sterilization; and for Illinois hospitals to be required to offer emergency abortifacients to sex assault victims:

Personal PAC even goes so far as to ask candidates to clarify their positions by repeating previous questions with different, more strident wording:

Personal PAC's agenda also includes:

Heading off any public policy discussion about requiring an ultrasound prior to performing an abortion:

Preventing any public policy discussion or debate about scientific evidence regarding the use of adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells:

Requiring taxpayers to fund all "emergency" contraceptives (ECs) for girls and women, and providing legal recourse and protection against anyone withholding them. They also want health plans to be required to provide ECs, and all Illinois hospitals - no matter what denomination or religious belief sponsors them - to be required to distribute them.

Passing the Reproductive Health & Access Act (RHAA), which provides further legal protection for all manner of abortion:

Personal PAC writes: "Decisions about reproductive health care are private, and should be made by a woman, in consultation with her doctor, in accordance with her personal beliefs and values, and not government."

Ironically, in its push to be free from government, the RHAA uses government to deny others their religious liberties and parental rights in order to protect abortion.

Personal PAC also wants to judge candidate's commitment to "sexual freedom" asking them about their religious beliefs and whether they support abortion rights unequivocally.

They even ask the candidates if they will support pro-abortion politicians for their caucus leadership.

Illinoisans should find it interesting to learn which candidates earn the approval and recommendation of Personal PAC.

Source: Illinois Review

House Passes Bill that Would Ban Federal Funding of Abortion

The U.S. House on Tuesday passed a bill that would permanently ban taxpayer funding for abortion.

Reps. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey and Dan Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act last year.

The legislation now heads to the Senate.

“It’s rare Congress comes to an agreement on the issue of abortion,” said U.S. Rep. Randy Hultgren of Illinois. “But ensuring no taxpayer dollars go to fund abortions has enjoyed bipartisan support ever since the Honorable Henry Hyde introduced his amendment.”

Passed by Congress in 1977, the Hyde Amendment ensures that abortion is not covered in the comprehensive health care services provided by the federal government. Obamacare, however, has separate funding streams that are not covered.

“Vast majorities of Americans oppose using taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, and this bill ensures this policy becomes permanent and government-wide, including in the president’s health care law,” Hultgren said. “All life should be protected, from conception to natural death, and forcing someone to pay for a procedure they oppose on moral grounds violates their freedom of conscience. Regardless of your views on the issue, everyone can agree that no one should be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion.”

Source: CitizenLink by Bethany Monk

Let's Restore Government Neutrality When it Comes to "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion"

Yesterday, the House debated, voted, and passed HR7 227-188-1. HR7 is a bill that will restore government neutrality when it comes to “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion”. Since the Hyde Amendment’s passage in 1976, it has been status quo that no federal monies may be used to pay for abortions. Obamacare created a loophole that bypasses the Hyde Amendment. HR7 seeks to make the Hyde Amendment permanent so that there is no government funding for abortion or funding for health care coverage that includes abortion. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said, “The American people do not want their hard-earned money to destroy human life… Our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortion.” She is right. Americans should not be forced to pay for the destruction of children.

In a frenzied attempt Planned Parenthood sent out an action alert asking Members to vote against HR7. Pro-abortion supporters called HR7 a “radical Republican assault on women’s rights”. This is just typical emotional rhetoric about “women’s rights”. However, by law women will continue to be able to get abortions. HR7 simply continues to ensure that my money and yours will not be used to pay for other people’s abortions, a provision that has been upheld for the last 38 years.

By Arina Grossu, FRCBlog