ACTION ALERT - Senate Bill 3076, Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment

Senate Bill 3076 - POLST bill is in the Senate Public Health Committee 

SB 3076 amends the Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment [POLST] form to allow for "practitioners" other than physicians to sign the POLST form.  The other "practitioners" include "advanced practical nurse, physician's assistant or licensed resident after completion of one year in a program."  It requires POLST forms to be honored by health facilities.

Problems with SB 3076:

The POLST form, which gives no distinctions for terminal and non-terminal conditions, is more for removing "life-sustaining" treatment than for protecting patients with "life-sustaining" treatment.  SB 3076 would change the long-standing relationship of doctor and patient in matters of end-of-life decisions by having nurses and even less qualified physician's assistants talk to patients about these decisions and authorize "actionable medical orders" including "do-no-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

A patient who signs a POLST form can check a box "do-not-attempt-resuscitation" if he/she stops breathing and the pulse stops.  This is an "actionable medical order" to do nothing even if CPR would clearly be called for in a medical situation.  For example, an allergic reaction to a medication can stop the breathing and pulse, but most patients would want to have CPR.  The POLST form says NO.

Also, many elderly and frail patients may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form, and so should have better education and options that the POLST form does not give.

Pro-Life has broad concerns with the POLST forms.  One clear concern is that private foundations that have put their money into promoting POLST have also given large amounts of money to the Euthansia organizations.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

SB 3076  -- State Senator John Mulroe]-- is in the Senate Public Health Committee and will be heard in committee when the Senate returns after the Illinois Primaries on March 18th.

Please contact your state senator this week and urge him/her to vote NO on SB 3076 - the POLST bill, which will change who can sign the POLST form from the long-standing authority of doctors, to include those persons who are advance practice nurses and physician's assistants. You can find you legislator's contact information at: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

The Public Health Committee Members are:

Chairman John Mulroe

Mattie Hunter

Napoleon Harris, III

Kwame Raoul

Heather A. Steans

Patricia Van Pelt

Dave Syverson 

Dari M. LaHood

Jim Oberweis

ANOTHER IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM:

REGISTER ONLINE WITH THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ORDER TO FILE WITNESS SLIPS (YOUR VIEWS ON LEGISLATION) FOR THE SENATE PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE AGAINST SB 3076.   PLEASE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS BELOW.   AFTER YOU HAVE REGISTERED YOU CAN FILE WITNESS SLIPS.. YOU WILL ALSO BE REGISTERED TO FILE WITNESS SLIPS ON OTHER PRO-LIFE RELATED LEGISLATION THAT WE ALERT YOU TO.

REGISTER NOW OR BY MARCH 13TH, WHEN SB 3076 IS OFFICIALLY POSTED FOR A HEARING, AND YOU CAN FILE A WITNESS SLIP AGAINST IT.

STEPS TO REGISTER ONLINE:

Go to the Illinois General Assembly Website at www.ilga.gov

At the website, click on "GA Dashboard" found in red under "Reports and Inguiry"

See website link here:      http://www.ilga.gov/

At the Dashboard site, click on "Register" on the left column

See Dashboard link here:     http://my.ilga.gov/

At the "Create an Account" page, follow the requests to put in your email and create your password.   Check that you agree to the Terms and Agreements and then click "register."

Now that you have created an account, you can "log in" when ever you need to file a witness slip.

WHILE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FILE A WITNESS SLIP AGAINST SB 3076 UNTIL IT IS RE-POSTED FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ON OR ABOUT MARCH 13 [AND AFTER] , FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW ON HOW TO DO THIS:

First, follow the directions above to get to the GA Dashboard once you are registered.

When you are there, click "log in" found at the upper right of the screen.

Then click "Senate" at the left of the screen.

Then click "Committees" at the left of the screen

Go down to find Public Health Committee and if it says "Scheduled" on the right of it, click on the second icon "View Committee Hearings"

Then, click on "View Legislation" on right.

When bills appear, find SB 3076 and click on the second icon "Create Witness Slip"

Then complete the witness form.    Make sure to check "opponent"  under POSITION  and "record of appearance only"  under TESTIMONY , then click "Create (Slip)"

If hundreds of people throughout the State do this, it would be a powerful message against SB 3076 and the members of the committee will take notice.

NBC Warns: Midterm Election 'Holds the Fate of the Rest of the Obama Presidency'

On Tuesday morning, only NBC’s Today marked the beginning of the 2014 midterm primary season and explained the dire situation for Democrats ahead on the November election. Co-host Savannah Guthrie proclaimed: “While President Obama’s dealing with the crisis in Ukraine, here at home, the future of his presidency could be at stake. The midterm primary season kicks off today, and this will affect who will control the levers of power in the coming years.”

In the report that followed, chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd warned: “…it sets the stage for what’s going to be an epic national battle in these midterms between the two parties for control of the Senate, which in turn, holds the fate of the rest of the Obama presidency.”

Neither ABC’s Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning provided any midterm election coverage on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Todd described the uphill battle for Democrats:

“Democrats are playing defense, polls show the party is vulnerable in as many as a dozen seats in the Senate. Republicans only need to win six of them for control. And the GOP play book, it’s the same all over the country, make the election about President Obama and his health care law….Many Democrats, particularly in the decisive red state Senate races, are running scared.”

Todd highlighted Democratic candidates distancing themselves from Obama:

“These midterm elections are going to end up being about one person who isn’t on any ballot this year, President Obama, who is desperately trying to turn the campaign away from being about him….In Kentucky, Allison Lundergan Grimes avoids health care and says she doesn’t need President Obama. Instead, she and other endangered Democrats are enlisting the help of another Democratic president.”

A sound bite played of Bill Clinton campaigning for Grimes.

Trying to find a silver lining in the bad news, Todd turned to Texas and declared: “Democrats hope Wendy Davis’ meteoric rise to national prominence translates into an upset over Republican Greg Abbott in the governor’s race.”

The latest Real Clear Politics average of polls has Abbott beating Davis by over eleven points.

Editor’s note. This appeared at newsbusters.org.

Source: National Right to Life

By Kyle Drennen

The truth is always the best defense against pro-abortion assaults on Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Rai Rojas

A few weeks ago a friend asked me to appear on NPR to discuss Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). She noted that the conversation would be about CPCs in general but more specifically about the anti-CPC law in New York City.

I agreed immediately, not just because CPCs serve such a life-saving link in the pro-life chain, but also because delivering diapers and formula on behalf of a CPC to new moms was one of the first things I did in the right to life movement. I know firsthand what great work these centers do.

It was also a timely discussion. Days before the taping of the program, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court’s decision that most of the anti-crisis pregnancy law passed by the NYC council against CPCs was unconstitutional. The NYC council had passed the law by a vote of 39 to 9 in March of 2011 in the hopes of shutting down CPCs across the city.

In the opening NPR segment we heard from a “field reporter” (a woman’s whose name I’ve forgotten or clearly blocked) who expounded on the “horrors” of the CPCs and how disingenuous they are. Then the pro-abortion guest spoke and stated how CPCs hurt women.

That’s at about the point I lost my mind. My response:

“Women don’t die at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. The most invasive procedure to take place there is a blood test and doctors with suspended licenses don’t go from room to room wielding unhygienic and unsterilized instruments perforating uterus and sucking out intestines. Would that Tonya Reeves or Maria Santiago or Jennifer Morbelli or Karnamaya Mongar had gone to a Crisis Pregnancy Center instead of Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics they’d be alive today.”

There was a pause as I composed myself and the producer stopped shaking his head–yet they still followed up with, “but wearing lab coats is misleading.” I responded by letting them know that the women who work behind the Estée Lauder counter at Macy’s wear lab coats and no one is mistaking them for plastic surgeons.

The rest of the show was spent discussing the number of abortions Latina women have. I commented about how high and disparate the ratio of abortions for women of color is and reminded them that the most dangerous place for a Latino in the United States is in her mother’s womb.

Needless to say by the time I took off my headphones and stepped away from the mic, the folks at the other end were not the least bit amused. I had also said that the biggest issue the abortion industry takes with CPCs has little to do with women’s health – it has to do with their bottom line. It really is all about money for them.

One of the authors of the anti-CPC bill and rabid pro-abortion advocate Christine C. Quinn, formerly the Speaker of the New York City Council, said, “Women need to know, they have a right to know, whether they are consulting with a licensed medical provider.”

Really Christine? Remember Karnamaya Mongar? She was administered lethal doses of anesthesia by a woman with an 8th grade education at Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” abortion clinic. Gosnell was convicted of second-degree manslaughter in Mrs. Mongar’s death.

Maria Santiago died because no one at the abortion clinic where she had been butchered knew or had been trained on how to perform CPR. Planned Parenthood has been ordered to pay Tonya Reaves’s family $2 million because the “highly trained staff” at one of their Chicago clinics didn’t have the wherewithal to call paramedics as Ms. Reaves bled to death.

If they really cared about women, the folks on the NYC Council would train that laser-like focus they have on the very real horrors that take place in shoddy and dirty abortion mills at times run by people with suspended medical licenses.

But they won’t (to their great shame). There’s no money to be made in providing women alternatives to abortion and as a result, in NYC – and the rest of the nation – the single most dangerous place for a Latina continues to be in her mother’s womb.

By Rai Rojas, NRL News

"THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND HEALTH CARE ACCESS IN THE UNITED STATES"

National Right to Life Releases New Report Examining the Effect of the Affordable Care Act in the United States

WASHINGTON – With a March 31, 2014, deadline impending for open enrollment in the insurance exchanges established by “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (also known as Obamacare), the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee today issued a new report, “The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States.”

The report analyzes four fundamental policy areas of Obamacare and concludes that they will drastically limit access to life-saving medical treatment under the law. These four areas include: the “excess benefit” tax coming into effect in 2018, the current exclusion of adequate health Insurance plans from the exchanges, present limits on senior citizens’ ability to use their own money for health insurance, and federal limits on the care doctors give their patients to be implemented as soon as 2016.

“For pro-life Americans concerned about the impact on innocent human life—both born and unborn—the policies of Obamacare couldn’t be worse,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “Americans are just as concerned with the law’s impact on our ability to access life-saving medical treatment for ourselves, our family members, and our loved ones as with Obamacare’s funding of abortions. Obamacare is bad medicine for America.”

Since Obamacarewas first debated in Congress, National Right to Life’s Powell Center for Medical Ethics has argued that key provisions of Obamacare would limit what Americans could spend—out of their own funds—to access life-saving medical treatment. As the Center’s new report concludes, Americans will see a significant shift in how they are able to access health care, and just what types of treatment they will be able to obtain.

As documented by media reports and the language of the law itself, Obamacare will limit access to life-saving treatment in four different ways:

1. Obamacare imposes a 40% excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not keep up with medical inflation. Consequently, insurance companies will be forced to impose increasingly severe restraints on policy-holders’ access to medical diagnosis and treatment—limits that will make it harder to get often-expensive treatments essential to combating life-threatening illnesses.

2. Under Obamacare, consumers using the exchanges may only choose plans offered by insurers who do not allow their customers to spend what government bureaucrats deem an “excessive or unjustified” amount for their health insurance – regardless of whether the insurers offer such plans inside or outside of the exchanges established by the law.

3. Most senior citizens know that the law will significantly cut government funding for Medicare, but they may not be aware of the law’s provision allowing Washington bureaucrats to prevent them from making up the Medicare shortfall with their own funds by limiting their right to spend their own money to obtain insurance less likely to limit treatments that could save their lives.

4. The “Independent Payment Advisory Board” is directed to recommend measures to limit spending on health care to a growth rate below medical inflation – not just for Medicare, but also for all private, nongovernmental health care spending. The federal Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is then authorized to implement these measures by placing limits on the treatments providers may give their patients by requiring them to abide by so-called “quality and efficiency standards” imposed by HHS.

“Obamacare authorizes Washington bureaucrats to create one uniform, national standard of care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives,”stated Burke Balch, J.D., director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. “We are convinced most Americans do not believe that the government should limit the right of Americans to use their own money for health care necessary to save their lives. Yet, that is exactly what Obamacare does. ”

The report is available from the National Right to Life Communications Department here:www.nrlc.org/communications/healthcarereport.

Source: National Right to Life

"I'll love you forever, I'll like you for always..." The story behind Robert Munsch's best-selling children's story

“Only he who suffers

can be the guide and healer
of the suffering.”  –  Thomas Mann

My six-year-old grandson loves to read almost as much as he loves being read to. So much so that if during the course of the day he commits a slight transgression the sure-fire way to get him back on track is to threaten to read him one less story later that night. It works every time.

A few years ago he asked me to come sit in the rocking chair in his room as his mom read to him before prayers and sleep, and of course I obliged. I’ll admit that I was only halfway paying attention when my daughter began reading Robert Munsch’s “Love You Forever.”

The book starts off with a young mom rocking her baby and singing a song to him as he falls asleep.

“I’ll love you forever,
I’ll like you for always,
As long as I’m living
My baby you’ll be.”

For the rest of his life, no matter his age, she always manages to find him in bed and—well–rock him to sleep.

I’ll also admit that I thought it was a little creepy; I mean at one point she’s climbing stairs to get into her adult child’s room to take him out of his bed to… rock him to sleep.

But the mom’s self-less devotion clearly resonated with my daughter, reading and repeating this verse to her son, because about half way through the story I realized that she was crying and on the verge of a sob.

She got out of bed, handed me the book and asked me to please finish reading it for the little dude – and I did. After she composed herself, she nuzzled in next to the boy and read the last two books of the night.

Now, several years later my daughter is finally at a point where she can read “Love you forever” to him without blubbering. Well, she was.

Last night she sent me a text with a link to the author’s web site with the words – “This is so horribly sad” written underneath.

And it was.

“On his web site Mr. Munsch explains the story behind his best-selling book.

“I made that up after my wife and I had two babies born dead. The song was my song to my dead babies. For a long time I had it in my head and I couldn’t even sing it because every time I tried to sing it I cried. It was very strange having a song in my head that I couldn’t sing.

“For a long time it was just a song, but one day, while telling stories at a big theater at the University of Guelph, it occurred to me that I might be able to make a story around the song.

“Out popped ‘Love You Forever’ pretty much the way it is in the book.”

Oh my.

I immediately thought of my friends who’ve lost babies at birth, or who have miscarried, and how some of them have grappled with that great loss.

But I also reflected of the countless women I’ve met who have also lost their children no less tragically to the once prevailing culture of death.

Some of these women have healed, some are still painfully engulfed in the process of mourning – but all have expressed a forever love for their children.

The pro-life movement aches with them and for them. We fight, on a daily basis, to protect the lives of the innocent children, but also because we know the harm and the damage that is suffered by our post-aborted sisters and mothers and daughters. We know all too well the devastation that is felt by women once they realize that they are in fact the mothers of dead children.

It’s a pain I can’t and won’t imagine – but it’s a pain made manifest by the narrative behind Mr. Munsch’s book.

My grandson has outgrown the story, and his little brother won’t be ready to hear it for another couple of years. But now that she knows the back-story it may be even more difficult for my daughter to read.

That may be true for many of us.

By Rai Rojas, National Right to Life

PPFA's political arms already flexing muscle to adoring media

No pro-lifer doubts the political muscle of Planned Parenthood’s “political entities”– the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes. As a key component of the Democratic Party’s “left of center” coalition, they have access to gazillions of dollars and a voice—a large voice—at the table.

But besides the usual self-congratulation and soft-peddle treatment by the mainstream media, what else can we learn from Alexander Burns’ “Planned Parenthood reveals big 2014 game plan,” which ran in a week ago in POLITICO?

For starters, they take credit for—and are given credit by Burns for—the election of pro-abortion Terry McAuliffe over pro-life Ken Cuccinelli in last November’s Virginia gubernatorial election. Really? McAuliffe prevailed for a number of reasons which we wrote about here.

Suffice it to say that Democrat McAuliffe won by 56,000 votes out of more than 2 million votes cast, although Republican Cuccinelli was vastly outspent, hindered by a bevy of polls which consistently placed him far behind (thus discouraging contributions and supporters) and hampered by the presence of a third party candidate, and was the personal punching bag of newspapers such as the Washington Post.

Had Cuccinelli carried the day, a lot of the conventional wisdom that still remains would not have dissipated (that will never be permitted by the legion of PPFA allies in the media) but would have diminished.

Part—a large part—of that received wisdom is the power of the “War on Women” mantra. Let’s be clear: when not challenged by the Republican candidate or when bungled by self-same, it can dramatically hurt him or her.

NRLC Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., addressed the cost of allowing pro-abortion Democrats to frame the issue. In November 2012, he wrote

“A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most unfortunate statements by candidates created a ‘perfect storm’ that played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this election. This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.

“The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this happen again. We must see that the issue before the public is how and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the baby who dies. If this is done, then with a majority opposed to abortion on demand pro-life political victories will once again be the norm.”

Note, as we posted over the next few months, much of the advantage enjoyed by the pro-life candidate—neutralized in 2012—has returned.

The flipside is that this “War on Women” drivel is a backhanded admission of how chancy it is for pro-abortionists to ever allow the conversation to move to abortion. That is why they pounce on any comment, even those which are entirely innocuous, which they morph into a bogus example of the candidate’s supposed “misogynistic” views.

The final two paragraphs in Burn’s account is the core of the story and no doubt will be used by PPFA’s political arms to raise even more money:

“At least for the time being, Democrats remain confident that they have the upper hand on any issue that can be placed in the broad category of ‘women’s health’ — and that Planned Parenthood’s investment in the 2014 campaign will be a clear net positive for the party.

“Tom Lopach, chief of staff to Montana Sen. Jon Tester and an adviser to the Democrat’s 2012 reelection campaign, said Planned Parenthood had been a ubiquitous presence in that race, ‘knocking on doors in their pink shirts. They were running their own program, but their volunteers were also active, showing up and making calls for us,’ Lopach said. ‘I think people’s minds often go immediately to abortion services, but in reality Planned Parenthood talks about so much more.’”

This tells us the heart of the strategy: subsume everything that isn’t nailed down under “women’s health,” eviscerate any Republican candidate who doesn’t agree with every component, and make sure, above all else, to send the message that Planned Parenthood is about “so much more” than abortion.

The job of those running against candidates supported by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes is to remind them that the issue is not “family planning,” not “women’s health,” but abortion.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

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