Planned Parenthood election spending demands response, pro-lifers say

Planned Parenthood’s intention to spend millions of dollars to support political candidates who favor legal abortion shows the need to speak out more on the issue, pro-life groups say.

“There are no winners, except those making money by selling abortions, when Big Abortion leader Planned Parenthood pours millions into America's elections,” Lila Rose, the president of the pro-life group Live Action, told Fox News Feb. 27.

The abortion provider’s political arms, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and the political action committee Planned Parenthood Votes, have said they intend to spend more than $18 million on 2014 races, including the $2.4 million spent to help defeat Ken Cuccinelli, the pro-life Republican candidate for Virginia in 2013.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat who supports legal abortion, credited Planned Parenthood as a “key partner” in his campaign for governor. He said the group provided “essential support” for his campaign.

The abortion provider’s monetary goals are significantly higher than in previous years. In the 2012 elections, its political spending reached $12 million, mainly through its action fund and through Planned Parenthood Votes, Politico reports. In the 2010 midterm elections, its action fund spent $4.2 million.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, told Politico that the funding announcement shows the need for action.

“We cannot afford another election cycle of crouching in a fetal position and hoping the attacks go away,” she said.

Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who has criticized the Republican Party’s failure to counter attacks related to abortion, told Politico that the party has been ignoring the issue.

She said Planned Parenthood has succeeded politically in part because Republicans do not defend their views and do not hold Democrats accountable for their opposition to popular legal limitations on abortion.

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said her organization will “absolutely be on the offense.” She told Politico many political races will be determined “by women and women voters” and her organization will oppose “politicians who are running on a platform to repeal women’s access to health care and women’s rights.”

The action fund plans to use tactics including paid advertising on television and online, in addition to voter-contact efforts like knocking on doors and campaign mailers.

The political branches of the abortion provider plan to be active in at least 14 states. They are targeting Senate races in North Carolina, Alaska and Montana as well as governor’s races in Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas, Politico reports.

The action fund is also watching U.S. Senate races in Iowa, Michigan and New Hampshire as well as the governor’s race in Wisconsin.

An explanation of how NRLC calculated the total number of abortions since 1973 along with new factsheet on abortion statistics

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.

When we published an estimate of the number of abortions earlier this year, we noted that it was provisional, awaiting the expected publication of new abortion data from the Guttmacher Institute.

Our original calculations had assumed the status quo for the years from 2008 through 2011 which proved, happily, not to be the case.

Guttmacher released its data on February 3rd. According to Guttmacher, there were 1.06 million abortions in 2011 (the last year for which it had data), which is a 13% drop in abortions from 2008; it also showed the lowest abortion rates and ratios in forty years.

Thus we are able to report that we have revised our estimate of the total number of abortions since 1973 downward–from 56,622,169 to 56,405,766.

Our hope is that even this total proves to be an overestimate. To calculate the final total here, we projected that the number of abortions would remain at 1.06 million in both 2012 and 2013.

But it would be better news if the downward trend recently reported by Guttmacher continues. Unfortunately, Guttmacher takes a long time between surveys and it may be a number of years before we know for sure.

In the meantime, keep up the good work. As you can see, we’ve made a huge difference and saved a lot of lives!

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

Nod to Life: Best Supporting Actor Thanks Single, High School Dropout Mom

Jared Leto

Looks like the media are tiring of their attack on life, at least when that life turns out to be a celebrity success story.

During his acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actor, Jared Leto told the story of his mother who fought to create a better life for him despite her status as a high school dropout and single mother. From Time magazine to ABC News, the media offered only praise for Leto’s words.

Leto won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his controversial role in portraying a transgender diagnosed with AIDS in “Dallas Buyers Club” on March 2.

When he earned his award, Leto first thanked his mother:

“In 1971, Bossier City, Louisiana, there was a teenage girl who was pregnant with her second child. She was a high school dropout and a single mom, but somehow she managed to make a better life for herself and her children. She encouraged her kids to be creative, to work hard and to do something special. That girl is my mother and she’s here tonight. And I just want to say ‘I love you mom, thank you for teaching me to dream.’”

Leto went on to acknowledge others including his brother, those who “lost the battle to AIDS” and “dreamers” in the Ukraine and Venezuela.

Time magazine’s Isaac Guzmán called the acceptance speech “amazing” while Mashable’s Neha Prakash described his words as “beyond perfect.” PolicyMic dubbed it “incredible,” ABC News (via AP) noted the speech as unselfish and “touching,” and even celebrity blogger Perez Hilton gushed, “his speech will leave you in tears!”

Nice to see the media press pause on their routine language and coverage in order to celebrate life, even if briefly.

Source: National Right to Life

Why Planned Parenthood Doesn't Care Abortion Takes Human Life

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood on the irrelevance of when life begins.

There was some sturm and drang at The Corner yesterday. Andrew Johnson’s posted an entry noting Planned Parenthood’s abortion honcho sniffing that the humanity of the aborted fetus is irrelevant. Many angry comments ensued and Drudge put it on his front page. From the quote:

The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue. “It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

Why is anyone surprised? Planned Parenthood is really in the “right to a dead baby” business. Recall, for example, a lobbyist for Florida’s PP refusing to rule out infanticide after a botched abortion if that is what the mother wants. From my post of March 29, 2013:

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist [Alisa Laport] Snow.

Note the (im)moral consistency between Richards and Snow. The real issues for PP are getting paid and the right to a dead baby.

What’s this all about? Pro-abortion leaders believe in an unfettered right to terminate at any time for any reason, which they see as the fundamental predicate to attaining true equality for women, This is the position, for example, of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Under this theory, Roe v Wade should be overturned–but from the other direction–because it allows too many restrictive regulations.

This could easily be justifed by shifting the relevant moral criteria from “humanhood”–as in Roe–to “personhood,” e.g., possessing certain “morally relevant” cognitive capacities.

This is the perspective of many leading bioethicists, which is why some think the life of a pig has greater value than that of a baby. From my First Things column, “A Pro-Abortion Reversal of Roe?”

As an article in the UCLA Law Review supportive of the equal protection standard put it, “Crucially, once the Supreme Court recognizes that people have a right to [abortion] by virtue of equal citizenship,” the right would be “on a stronger legal and political footing,” making it far less susceptible to the current pro-life strategy of “chipping away.”…

But many powerful voices no longer consider “human life” to be a morally relevant category. For example, the mainstream bioethics movement argues that what matters morally isn’t being “human” but possessing sufficient mental capacities ”such as being self-aware”to be considered a “person.” In this view, only persons have a right to life. Since a fetus does not possess personhood capacities at any time during gestation” contrary to Roe ”the state has no interest in protecting fetal life even after viability.

To Recap: The American People may believe that “when a human life begins” is very relevant to the question of abortion, but leaders of the pro-abortion movement don’t.

And here’s the problem: They are well ensconced among ruling class elites. What these neo Patricians want often becomes law–regardless of the contrary opinions of the American people.

Source: National Right to Life

Illinois Legislative Update

HB 5462: Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (Amendment)

Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Morrison 

This bill amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act, it provides that "ambulatory surgical treatment center" includes any facility in which a medical or surgical procedure is utilized to terminate 50 or more pregnancies in any calendar year (instead of to terminate a pregnancy). It requires a physician to remain on the premises of an ambulatory surgical treatment center on any day when an abortion is performed at the facility and to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is located within 30 miles of the ambulatory surgical treatment center. It also provides that any facility that performs more than 50 abortions in a calendar year shall comply with all of the statutes and rules that are applicable to ambulatory surgical treatment centers. The bill authorizes the Director of Public Health to seek an injunction against any facility that is in violation of the Act and creates a private right of action against a facility or physician that performs an abortion in willful violation of the Act.

Status: This bill was placed in the Facilities Subcommittee on February 27th.

==================================

HB 5463: Abortion Informed Concent Bill (with ultrasound)

Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Morrison 

This bill, amends the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 and adds various definitions to the Act. It provides that an abortion shall not be performed or induced without the voluntary and informed consent of the patient upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced. It establishes what circumstances are considered informed consent and provides that if the medical facility has the necessary equipment, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if at least 24 hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion on the pregnant woman, the referring physician, or a qualified person assisting the physician has offered the woman, orally and in person, the opportunity to: 

(1) view the active ultrasound image of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible; and 

(2) receive a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the unborn child. 

This bill provides that the Department of Public Health shall cause to be published printed materials and an informational DVD in English and Spanish within 30 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act. and provides that the materials shall include a comprehensive list of the agencies, a description of the services they offer, and the telephone numbers and addresses of the agencies, and shall inform the woman about available medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. Provides that a pregnant woman upon whom an abortion has been performed in violation of the Act, or the parent or legal guardian of that woman if she is an unemancipated minor, may commence a civil action against the abortion provider for any willful violation of the Act for actual and punitive damages.

 

Status: This bill was placed in the Informed Consent Subcommittee on February 27th.

The Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee announces 2014 Illinois Primary Endorsements

Only Candidates with a primary contested race that responded to our survey are listed.

All candidates (incumbents and challengers) that respond to our survey will be listed for the November General Election endorsements. 

_________________________________

FEDERAL OFFICES

U.S. Senate: Jim Oberweis (R)

U.S. House:

District 3:Sharon Brannigan (R)

District 11: Darlene Senger (R)

District 13: Erika Harold (R) and Rodney Davis (R) (Dual Endorsement)

District 14: John J. Hosta (D)

_________________________________

STATE OFFICES

Governor: Kirk Dillard (R)

Lt. Governor: Jil Tracy (R)

Treasurer: Bob Grogan (R)

State House

District 37: Recommend over opponent - August (O’Neill) Deuser (D)

District 42: Jeanne Ives (R)

District 45: Daniel Brinkman (R)

District 48: Peter Breen (R)

District 51: Bob Bednar (R)  

District 79: Kate Cloonen (D)

District 81: Keith Matune (R) 

District 94: Randy Frese (R)

District 96: Sue Scherer (D) 

District 97: Mark Batinick (R)

District 115: Will “Bill” Kilquist (D) 

Terri Bryant (R)

_________________________________

Yes, we must vote Pro-Life but we must work for Pro-Life candidates!  We are asking that you commit to contacting at least 10 households in your neighborhood for Pro-Life Candidates on the national and state levels.  And call the campaign headquarters of the Pro-Life candidate in your district and volunteer to help with the election! 

We can win when we all work together!

This ad is paid for by the IFRL-PAC, connected with the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Inc. and was not authorized by any of the candidates. Joe Behnken Treasurer. A copy of our report is on file and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., and the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL. 

The Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee announces the endorsement of Kirk Dillard

The Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee (IFRL-PAC) announces the endorsement of Kirk Dillard as the Republican candidate for Governor in the Illinois primary to be held in March of 2014.

The protection of the lives of unborn children in Illinois and the nation is the foundation upon which we build all other rights. If we do not restore and maintain protection of the right to life for the weakest and most helpless members of our society, we ourselves become endangered.

Kirk Dillard has demonstrated that he fully understands the foundational nature of the right to life. We believe that as Governor he will continue to work to protect innocent life in Illinois as well as the disabled and those at risk at the end of life. 

The March 2014 primary is of the utmost importance to the pro-life movement. Bruce Rauner does not support our cause. We urge pro-life voters to unite behind one candidate and we believe that Kirk Dillard should be that candidate. For the sake of the unborn it is imperative that we elect a pro-life Governor. We ask those who believe life is sacred to join us and support Kirk Dillard for Governor. 

The Illinois Federation for Right to Life is a statewide organization with local affiliates throughout the State of Illinois.

Source: Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee

This ad is paid for by the IFRL-PAC, connected with the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, Inc. and was not authorized by any of the candidates. Joe Behnken Treasurer. A copy of our report is on file and is available for purchase from the Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., and the Illinois State Board of Elections, Springfield, IL. 

Durbin's Defense of ObamaCare Receives Worst Rating From WashPost 'Fact Checker'

Pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin (D-Il.)

Senator Dick Durbin apparently didn’t check his facts before making a number of wild claims during his appearance on Sunday morning’s edition of CBS’s Face the Nation.

The Illinois Democrat’s assertions that 10 million Americans have found insurance coverage thanks to ObamaCare — which he also claimed would lower the budget deficit — earned him four Pinocchios from the Washington Post’s “fact checker,” the lowest rating possible.

When discussing ObamaCare, host Bob Schieffer stated that the new health-care system is still confusing to nearly everyone. He then asked the senator if there is “any hope of getting it straightened out.”

Durbin responded:

Bob, let’s look at the bottom line. Ten million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act — 10 million. And we can also say this. It is going to reduce the deficit more than we thought it would.

We’re seeing a decline in the growth of the cost of health care, exactly our goal in passing this original legislation. I’m finding people, as I go across Illinois, who — for the first time in their lives — have an opportunity for affordable health insurance for their families.

“Now, there are many Republicans who are wishing that this fails, hoping they can find any shred of evidence against it,” the Illinois Democrat asserted.

“We had a bad rollout. Let’s concede that point,” he said. “Since then, we are gaining steam. And I think, ultimately, we’re going to find you can’t go back. You have to extend the health insurance protection to the 25, 30 million Americans who will ultimately have it, and we’ll be a better nation for it.”

However, according to an online article by the Post’s appointed “fact checker” Glenn Kessler: “Sometimes, talking points persist even in the face of new evidence negating the previous claims.”

Kessler stated that “Durbin appears to be combining two figures released by the administration: more than three million signing up for insurance through the federal HealthCare.gov and state exchanges, and 6.3 million deemed eligible for Medicaid.”

But there are big problems with both numbers, the reporter noted.

First, “the troubled federal exchange counts people as enrolled if an individual has selected a plan, but it does not know if a person enrolled and paid a premium because that part of the system has yet to be built.”

Second, the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility, but “no one really knows how many of the 6.3 million are in this expansion pool — or whether they are simply renewing or would have qualified for Medicaid before the new law.”

“These figures must be treated with caution,” he noted, but “Durbin went a step further and claimed that all of these people would not have had health insurance if not for the Affordable Care Act.”

“That’s simply ridiculous,” Kessler said, since it is impossible to verify the White House claims. About all one can say with certainty is that the number of people who signed up and got new health insurance is no more than four million, and even that estimate is “extraordinarily generous.”

Also, Kessler sharply criticized Durbin, stating that given the “fuzzy nature” of the numbers and the wide publicity devoted to recent surveys, he “has little excuse for going on national television and claiming that every one of these people had been previously uninsured. This has now become a Four Pinocchio violation.”

Soon after the article appeared, Durbin spokesman Max Gleischman released this statement:

Fact check after fact check has confirmed that more than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Many of the more than nine million Americans are being covered for the first time.

No matter the number of new enrollees, there is no question that the law is working, and millions of people are realizing the benefits of affordable health coverage and the protections it guarantees.

The Fact Checker responded that he is “unaware of any fact checks that have confirmed these figures as all ACA enrollments or evidence that ‘many’ of the enrollees are being covered for the first time.”

Regarding ObamaCare’s impact on the federal budget deficit, a recent Congressional Budget Office report did not suggest that ObamaCare would bring down the deficit. Instead, it is expected to rise uncontrollably after 2015.

It comes as no surprise that such a devoted ObamaCare supporter doesn’t let reality get in the way of his opinion. Perhaps in the future, Durbin will check his facts before making more wild claims.

Editor’s note. This appeared at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/02/12/durbins-defense-obamacare-receives-worst-rating-wapo-fact-checker

By Randy Hall via NRL News

Belgian Chambers of Representatives overwhelmingly approves child euthanasia

When the Belgian Senate voted 50-17 in December to remove all age limits on euthanasia, the dye was cast. Approval in the Chamber of Representatives—which occurred today by a vote of 88 to 44 with 12 abstentions—was a foregone conclusion as is the signature of King Philippe, Belgium’s constitutional head of state, a mere formality.

But to their great credit, opponents never gave up. An Open letter was signed by 160 pediatricians denounced the bill. The church spoke out against the legislation. There were many peaceful demonstrations.

The familiar battering rams prevailed. It is discriminatory to deny children the “right” to be euthanasized; “only” a handful of children would be “affected”; and besides it’s already happening, so let’s legalize the killing. (As Wesley Smith says of the latter, “This is typical euthanasia metastasizing: Doctors break the guidelines and then the answer is to expand the guidelines rather than punish the doctors.”)

But, even if you are reluctant to buy into what might be called the quantity argument, there are the obligatory “safeguards.” As the Washington Post described it.

“The child must have a terminal and incurable illness, with death expected to occur ‘within a brief period.’ The child must also be experiencing ‘constant and unbearable physical suffering.’ Like for adults desiring euthanasia, that diagnosis and prognosis must be agreed upon by the treating physician and an outsider brought in to give a second opinion.

“The child is to be interviewed by a pediatric psychiatrist or psychologist, who must determine that the child possesses ‘the capacity of discernment’ and certify that in writing.”

But who is kidding whom? If you look at the history of euthanasia just in Belgium and its neighbor to the North, the Netherlands, whatever limitations there are initially can be compared to flashing yellow lights. First proponents slow down as they approach them and then they insist on a green light to eliminate all “restrictions.”

“Terminal” is replaced by psychological uneasy and how long before we’re told this nonsense about children signing their own death warrants is slowly down the process?

You can read Alex Schadenberg’s fine analysis at “Belgium extends euthanasia to children without first dealing with the abuse of the euthanasia law.”  He reminds us that unrequested euthanasia is already rampant and that the 160 pediatricians had debunked the canard that children in Belgium are suffering: “The palliative care teams for children are perfectly capable of achieving pain relief, both in hospital and at home.”

Let me close with an astute observation from Dr. Peter Saunders written a little over a year ago:

“I have never been convinced by the term ‘slippery slope’ which implies passive change over time. What we are seeing in Belgium is more accurately termed ‘incremental extension’, the steady intentional escalation of numbers with a gradual widening of the categories of patients to be included.

“I recently described the similar steep increase of cases of assisted suicide in Oregon (450% since 1998) and Switzerland (700% over the same period). In the Netherlands since 2006 the number of official cases of (lethal injection) euthanasia has doubled since 2006, although many other people (possibly up to 12.3% of all deaths) are having their lives actively ended through the process of ‘continuous deep sedation’ whereby doctors deeply sedate patients and then withhold fluids with the explicit intention that they will die.

“The lessons are clear. Once you relax the law on euthanasia or assisted suicide steady extension will follow as night follows day.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

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