Supreme Court hears oral arguments in challenge to Obama Mandate

Former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement

In a widely anticipated case, the Supreme Court heard two challenges consolidated into one case that are contesting the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Each side was given 45 minutes to present its case. The lead attorneys were the same as faced off two years ago when the High Court addressed the issue of ObamaCare’s individual mandate requirement: former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, and current Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

The Plaintiffs–Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.– are family owned corporations. Hobby Lobby is a chain of arts-and-crafts stores while Conestoga Wood Specialties is a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker. They argue that the mandate, which are regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare–violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.

Most media accounts came to the conclusion that, as is so often the case, the swing vote is likely Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Adding suspense was that he asked questions that each side could conclude favored their position.

For instance, over at the Scotusblog.org, long-time Supreme Court watcher Lyle Denniston likened the discussion to “something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.”

And the Washington Post’s Robert Kaiser wrote that “The three liberal and female justices were the most vocal in questioning Paul Clement. Justice Elena Kagan “said Clement’s argument could be extended to employers refusing to pay for blood transfusions or vaccines because of religious objections.”

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

Denniston wrote, “When it was Solicitor General Verrilli’s turn at the lectern, he found immediately that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., were ready to pounce, disputing each of the government lawyer’s core points” about the need for the mandate in this context.

Those included queries about what Congress meant when it passed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the religious rights of corporations, and why the government couldn’t pay for the services it wanted but to which the plaintiffs objected.

What Denniston described as the “low point” for Verrilli came near the end

“when Justice Kennedy told him bluntly: ‘Under your view, for-profit corporations can be forced to pay for abortion. Your reasoning would permit that…. You say that for-profit corporations have no standing to litigate what their shareholders believed.’”

Hobby Lobby, which has a workforce of 13,000 people of all faith, prevailed before the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“In a divided opinion, the appeals court relied in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which said corporations have political speech rights just as individuals do in spending on elections,” Kaiser wrote. In that case Judge Timothy Tymkovich, writing for the majority, concluded “We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation’s political expression but not its religious expression.”

A panel of the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Conestoga Wood Specialties must comply with the HHS mandate.

The financial penalties for non-compliance are extremely heavy, particularly for Hobby Lobby with its large work force. The fine is $100 per day per employee–$365 million for Hobby Lobby.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) issued a statement this morning with this apt conclusion:

“This burdensome penalty is completely unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable. The Obama administration is saying we will punish you, we will hurt you, we could even put you out of business for providing healthcare for your employees unless you provide healthcare according to the government’s conscience. Also, employees currently on their businesses health plan could lose the coverage they need for themselves and their families. [HHS] Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have no business imposing their morality on people of faith, but that is exactly what their oppressive mandate does.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

POLST Bill SB3076 Passes out of Committee

Update on POLST Bill SB3076

The bill passed out of Public Health Committee today. Two Senators voted against the bill: Senators LaHood and Oberweis.  Seven voted in favor of the bill.

WE OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE:

1.     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." 

2.     SB 3076 does not distinguish between terminal or non-terminal conditions for withholding treatment.  As proposed in the bill this form promotes withholding treatment instead of protection for patients. 

  (For example: 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).

3.     SB3076 changes 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-not-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

4.     SB3076 will confuse many elderly and frail patients who may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form.  They require more education and options thaN the POLST form provides.  

5.     SB3076 has the support of private foundations that have put their money into promoting euthanasia organizations.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THIS BILL:

Contact your state senator, urge him/her to vote NO on SB 3076 - the POLST bill when it comes to a vote.  You can find you legislator's contact information at: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

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

Senate Bill 3076, Illinois Physician's Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST Bill)

Sponsor:  State Senator John Mulroe (D-10)

Committee Hearing: State Senate Public Health Committee on Tuesday March 25th at 1:00 p.m. in Room 409 in the Capitol

What is a POLST FORM?  A POLST Form is a do-not-resuscitate medical order to do nothing (even CPR) to save an individual.

OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE:

1.     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." 

2.     SB 3076 does not distinguish between terminal or non-terminal conditions for withholding treatment.  As proposed in the bill this form promotes withholding treatment instead of protection for patients.  

(For example: 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).

3.     SB3076 changes 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-not-resuscitate" orders even in non-terminal situations.

4.     SB3076 will confuse many elderly and frail patients who may not understand the various options available to them with a POLST form.  They require more education and options thaN the POLST form provides.  

5.     SB3076 has the support of private foundations that have put their money into promoting euthanasia organizations.

WHAT YOU MUST DO TO STOP THIS BILL:

1.     Contact your state senator today or tomorrow before 1:00 p.m.  Urge him/her to vote NO on SB 3076 - the POLST bill.  You can find you legislator's contact information at: http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

2.     Contact the following Public Health Committee Members:

Chairman John Mulroe

Mattie Hunter

Napoleon Harris, III

Kwame Raoul

Heather A. Steans

Patricia Van Pelt

Dave Syverson 

Dari M. LaHood

Jim Oberweis

3.     REGISTER ONLINE WITH THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN ORDER TO FILE WITNESS SLIPS 

-What is a witness slip?  A witness slip is a form that is filled out by lobbyists and concerned citizens to express their support or opposition to a bill that is being heard in the committee.  The witness slips are read by the Chair of the committee before the bill is heard.  It is always impressive to have a stack of witness slips in support of or opposing a bill.

NOW YOU CAN FILL OUT A WITNESS SLIP AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD WITHOUT TRAVELING TO SPRINGFIELD!

 (YOU WILL ALSO BE REGISTERED TO FILE WITNESS SLIPS ON OTHER PRO-LIFE RELATED LEGISLATION WHEN YOU DO THIS AND WE WILL ALERT YOU WHEN WE NEED TO DO SO!) 

SO REGISTER NOW AND HERE IS HOW: 

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

2. Click on "GA Dashboard" found in red under "Reports and Inquiry"

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

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

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

4. At the "Create an Account" page, put in your email and create your password, check agree to the Terms and Agreements and click "register."

NOW YOU CAN FILL OUT YOUR WITNESS SLIP AND HERE IS HOW:

1. Log in whenever you need to file a witness slip.

2. Follow the directions above to get to the GA Dashboard once you are registered.

3. Click "log in" at the upper right of the screen.

4. Click "Senate" at the left of the screen.

5. Click "Committees" at the left of the screen

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

7. Click on "View Legislation" on right.

8. Find SB 3076 and click on the second icon "Create Witness Slip"

9. Complete the witness form.  Check "opponent" under POSITION, "record of appearance only" under TESTIMONY, 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.

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama Mandate next week

Next week, Tuesday to be specific, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in what may well be the most watched cases of this term: the hugely controversial HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

This represents the first legal challenge to ObamaCare to reach the Supreme Court since it upheld the law’s “individual mandate” 21 months ago.

In the lower courts one of the two plaintiffs prevailed — Hobby Lobby Stores—while the other lost–-Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. Both are family owned corporations. Hobby Lobby is a chain of arts-and-crafts stores while Conestoga Wood Specialties is a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker.

As Richard Wolf of USA Today wrote this morning, the mandate has “been the subject of more than 100 lawsuits across the country, including 78 that are still pending.”

The core arguments raised by the plaintiffs are that the mandate violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, said “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby, said at the time, “This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans’ religious liberty.” In an interview with POLITICO, Duncan said, “The cases will decide ‘who gets to exercise religion — it’s really that simple. The idea that the protection of religious liberty is confined to only certain pursuits … from our perspective, that’s disturbing.’”

The financial penalties for non-compliance are staggering, particularly for Hobby Lobby which employees 13,000 workers. The fine is $100 per day per employee–$475 million for Hobby Lobby.

Last June the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hobby Lobby in a 5-3 ruling.

In July the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Conestoga Wood Specialties’ request for an exemption from the mandate which are regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare, formally known as the “Affordable Care Act.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

One pro-abortion mind at work: contempt for babies, children, and pro-lifers

When pro-abortionists truly go off the deep end, I am reluctant to go after them, in no small part because those over-the-top comments so often come wrapped in obscenities. But on further reflection, I think it’s worth discussing Amanda Marcotte’s two recent full-throated diatribes against pro-lifers in a responsible fashion. They tell us something. Today, Part One.

To be clear, it simply is unproductive to quote/paraphrase Marcotte’s foul mouth. To people like Marcotte—the same ones who tell you how stupid, dull, boring, and repetitive pro-lifers are—the more personal the insult, the stronger they believe their case is.

Or, to put it differently, why from Marcottte’s perspective bother to talk to pro-lifers (the jumping off point, by the way, was whether it made any sense to debate secular pro-lifers) when (a) they are no less authoritarian than pro-lifers who base their case on, or are motivated by faith, and (b) “rational, free discourse is predicated on the understanding that everyone involved in the debate is arguing in good faith, and I can assure you, after years of dealing with this issue, that anti-choicers are not arguing in good faith.”

In other words to “indulge” any pro-lifer by allowing them (us) into a “free-wheeling” discussion is to afford them (us) an honor they do not deserve. We have nothing new to add.

But if recycling old positions is the definition of boredom and “half-baked quackery,” what new argument have pro-abortion advocates presented? One: they are even more extreme than ever.

For example, if “an embryo or even fertilized egg that has no brain,” as Marcotte hisses, then you might think that there is an endpoint somewhere in pregnancy where the unborn has the qualities even pro-abortionists would feel honor bound to recognize.

Not so. At the very same time every medical breakthrough is demonstrating the incredibly complexity and interconnectivity of the unborn child and her mother, the Marcottes of this world are vocally and unapologetically extending the logic of “terminating” unborn life to the very end of a pregnancy.

None of this first, or second, or even beginning of the third trimester limitation. There is no abortion that should be banned. Ever. And, of course, anything that however slightly impedes a race from panicky reaction to a pregnancy test to an abortion can only be still another example of how pro-lifers do not “respect” women.

But the reason our case for the unborn child and her mother has to be (in Marcotte’s words) “a bunch of half-baked, never-changing nonsense that they cling to no matter how frequently it’s debunked” is, in her words, “simple: They don’t want to speak their real argument out loud.”

And—in the interest of saving time–it goes without saying that Marcotte goes up into the attic of her mind where she reaches into a chest now covered in cobwebs to pull out the hoariest of retreaded canards: it’s all about men wanting to control women. If we point out that women are more pro-life than men are, then advocates like Marcotte cite that as “proof” women are brain-washed by the “patriarchy.” So much for respecting women. And, for the matter, so much for originality.

Finally, what really set Marcotte off in her March 14 post was the specter of adoption. (We’ll skip her distaste for children which is a problem more deep-seated than any foolish post.)

Sure, a woman (in this scenario Marcotte) may not want this child—or want the child later—but she’s not going to put her body through all that @#$%^ for nine months “so that some couple I don’t know and probably don’t even like can have a baby.”

You don’t have to know Marcotte well—or at all—to understand what motivates her to say things such as what a woman wants “trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.”

She feigns surprise in the next paragraph that having said this (and other oddball rantings) “I’m performing against gender norms so hard that even I recoil a little.” That’s all for show and is just a setup so we understand that her self-hating conclusion is justified.

Marcotte loathes the “training and socialization” that has “bull[ied] women into pretending that they’re more interested in being selfless and eternally nurturing than they actually are, even at great cost to themselves.”

Marcotte believes she is freeing herself from the imaginary chains of oppression by acting as unpleasant as she possibly can, say things that are ugly and hurtful and filthy as she can come up with, and at all costs turn those who disagree with her into mindless automatons who deserve every slur she launches at us.

It’s hard to miss the irony of her final paragraph. Enough of this pointless, vacuous “when does life begin” nonsense. That’s for conformist dummies.

In Marcotte’s world, a herd of independent minds if ever there was one, what truly free-wheeling thinkers talk about is “Gender norms and conformity.”

All that hate for this?

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

New Smart-Phone "Appcessory" Allows Moms to Hear Unborn Child's Heartbeat

Pro-lifers have told people without fail that “abortion stops a beating heart,” but perhaps no technology made that clearer than the fetal heartbeat stethoscope, allowing mothers and dads to hear the “whoosh-whoosh” of their unborn child’s pumping circulatory system. That is, until maybe now.

For years, the fetal heartbeat stethoscope was a specialized piece of medical equipment largely used within the confines of a pregnant woman’s Ob-Gyn. As a mom shared the experience with other members of her family, her friends, or her co-workers of the wonder of the “whoosh,” her accounts were largely second hand.

Now, though, thanks to a new smart-phone “appcessory” featured in the March 6, 2014 issue of Laptop Magazine, a woman can hook a microphone and amplifier up to her iPhone, hold the microphone next to her belly, and listen to her baby’s heartbeat whenever and wherever she wants.

And she can share that amazing experience with anyone she wants!

The new Bellabeat Tracking System sells for $129 and can be used by phones with either an iOS or an Android operating system. The BabyWatch companion app not only enables the mother to hear the heartbeat, but also allows her to see a colorful, moving display of her baby’s vital signs.

There’s no pocket ultrasound yet, but the Bellabeat tracking system also delivers information on the child’s weekly development and offers the mom a chance to log each kick. A calendar helps a mom track her prenatal appointments and reminds her to take her folic acid supplements. (Tips about singing and talking to the baby are also included.)

As noted one of the features is the ability to connect and share this data via social media. As meaningful as this might be to the expectant mother and father, this new phone app has the chance to influence public perceptions of the unborn child even more widely.

This will make it harder than ever to dismiss the unborn child as just a “clump of tissue.”

The device has been licensed by the FDA, but no one is suggesting that this app take the place of regular visits to a woman’s obstetrician. Women will need to learn how to distinguish the baby’s heartbeat from the rush of their own blood flow. However there is little doubt that this will prove a fascinating and attractive accessory to many young mothers of the smart-phone generation.

More than that, though, it may end up being another valuable pro-life educational tool making the broader public more aware than ever before of the humanity of the unborn child.

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

World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges that legalizing abortion does not make it safe

Abortion advocates have long advanced their opinion that all legal abortions are safe, and all illegal abortions are unsafe. But this has never been true.

An editorial in the latest Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO) considers the definition of “unsafe abortion” and distinguishes the safety of abortion from its legality. This is a reversal of a policy that has been in place since the early 1990s and a tremendous step in the right direction.

The article acknowledges, “WHO has historically used a pragmatic operational construct that measures safety in terms of only one dimension—legality—in developing its regional and global estimates of rates of unsafe abortions.”

This method inflates the number of “unsafe abortions” in countries that prohibit abortion, providing fuel for efforts to legalize abortion. And it downplays the number of dangerous abortions in countries that permit abortion on demand.

The truth is that “illegal abortion is not synonymous with unsafe abortion,” as WHO’s new editorial concedes. We know, on the basis of evidence from around the world, that abortion can be legally permitted and yet be extremely dangerous to the health of women, largely depending on the medical context.

Legalizing abortion does not suddenly make it safe. It only makes it more common. Evidence from many countries shows that legalizing abortion is simply not necessary to reduce maternal mortality and protect the lives and health of women.

We applaud WHO for recognizing the difference between abortion’s safety and its legality. We urge WHO to also recognize that no abortion is ever completely safe—that abortion inherently poses risks to women’s physical and psychological health. And we hope that WHO will one day recognize that every single abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, a valuable member of the human family who deserves our care and respect—the unborn baby.

Source: NRL News

Law Professors Explain Why Ultrasound Laws are Constitutional

There are few pro-life initiatives that more irritate—and frighten—pro-abortionists than laws that give pregnant women a chance to look at their unborn child before they make an irreversible “choice.” Such laws often are contested in court and as I what I hope is a helpful service I’d like to re-run a piece I wrote a while back with just a few updates.

Law professors Scott W. Gaylord and Thomas J. Molony eloquently made the case that the much-maligned (by pro-abortionists) ultrasound laws are constitutional in an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In so doing, Gaylord and Molony remind the lay reader of five truths that are often overlooked in the back-and-forth over abortion in general, laws that give women a chance to look at an image of their unborn child, in particular.

#1. “Those criticizing the growing number of ultrasound laws frequently ignore the fact that the Constitution permits states to try to dissuade women from having an abortion.” They cite, for example, the 1992 Planned Parenthood of “Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey” decision where the High Court expressly acknowledged that a state may “further its legitimate goal of protecting the life of the unborn by enacting legislation aimed at ensuring a decision that is mature and informed, even when in so doing the state expresses a preference for childbirth over abortion.”

#2. These laws do have an impact, which, of course, is why pro-abortionists so loath them. Gaylord and Molony, who teach at the Elon University School of Law in Greensboro, North Carolina, cite a 2011 Quinnipiac University study, whose primary motivation (if you go the study itself) “was to determine if the anecdotal evidence on ultrasound laws was true: did giving women the opportunity to view their unborn fetus reduce the probability that they would have an abortion.” The answer? “[U]ltrasound requirement laws reduce the odds of a woman having an abortion quite substantially.”

#3. “The Supreme Court already has considered –and rejected”– the argument made of late that requiring abortionists “to display and describe ultrasound images violates their right to be free from compelled speech.” The court has “held that, in the context of ‘the practice of medicine,’ physicians were ‘subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the state’ and consequently could be compelled to provide disclosures about childbirth and abortion,” Gaylord and Molony explain.

#4. “The criticisms of speech-and-display requirements, therefore, must be understood for what they are–critiques of the policy choices that state legislatures across the country are making,” they write. “To the extent those critical of these policy choices seek a constitutional prohibition on mandatory ultrasounds, they actually are advocating a return to the standard set forth in Roe v. Wade, under which virtually all abortion regulations were struck down. But Roe is not the law. Casey is. And under Casey, Pennsylvania has substantial latitude to regulate abortion by requiring the disclosure of truthful, nonmisleading information, such as ultrasound images of the fetus within.” Finally,

#5. Gaylord and Molony write, “Whether ultrasound laws represent good policy or are effective, though, is a separate question from whether such laws are constitutional. Under the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, states have a right ‘to ensure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision’ and can require physicians to provide ‘truthful and not misleading’ information about the abortion procedure and the development of the fetus. As the Fifth Circuit noted in upholding the Texas speech-and-display statute this year, ultrasound images and descriptions of those images ‘are the epitome of truthful, nonmisleading information.’”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

To Love-or Kill-Disabled Children?

Sometimes life gives me emotional whiplash. On one hand, a little Canadian girl named Emma narrates a sweet short film about her younger brother Teddy, disabled by cerebral palsy.

Teddy is valued and loved. From the New York Times op/ed introduction to the film by Teddy’s mother, Kelly Obrien:

“My daughter Emma was just 3 when Teddy was born, with a viral infection he contracted in utero that caused extensive brain damage. This short film captures her love for Teddy, one not weighted down by disappointment, sadness or a full understanding of all the ways in which he wasn’t ‘normal’…

“While I spent those first few years longing for what Teddy wasn’t, my husband, Terence, was able to appreciate him for who he was. As both mother and filmmaker, I felt it was important to find ways to represent Teddy not simply as a tragedy or a constellation of delays and disabilities, but as the sweet, happy and complicated kid that he is. Emma’s connection with Teddy reveals this perfectly.”

Hooray!

On the other, when Canadian farmer Robert Latimer murdered his daughter Tracy because she had cerebral palsy, he was hailed by a majority of Canadians as a heroic loving father and his imprisonment decried as unjust.

So why the difference? Why is Teddy valued and Tracy’s murder justified or excused even though they have (had) similar conditions?

Relativism. Teddy’s life is depicted by his family as clearly worth living and loving. Tracy was defined by her father and his supporters as having a useless life of meaningless suffering–despite her big smile for her daddy/murderer in the picture below.

But the sanctity of the lives of our ill or disabled brothers and sisters should not depend on how they are defined by family members. Rather, the Teddys and Tracys among us need to unequivocally be seen as flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood, each deserving of equal protection, acceptance, and love.

By Wesley J. Smith, NRL News

In speech to UN, Hillary Clinton again ties abortion to "gender equality"

Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, listens before her speech at a U.N. meeting to kick off events for the International Women’s Day, March 7, 2014 at United Nations headquarters.
BEBETO MATTHEWS — AP Photo

A tip of the hat to Kristen Andersen. I had not seen or heard about pro-abortion Hillary Clinton’s speech last Friday to the United Nations where she offered a “bedrock truth”: abortion and women’s advancement go hand in hand.

This tiresome mantra is nothing new, either from the broader abortion community or from Clinton herself. Clinton, formerly a senator from New York and Secretary of State, is widely expected to run for President in 2016 and is an early frontrunner.

CNN’s Politicalticker blog headlined its account of Clinton’s March 7 speech marking International Women’s Day, “Clinton ties ‘broader human development’ with women’s reproductive rights.” I search the UN webpage but couldn’t find the text, so what follows is based on various news accounts.

Seated next to United Nation Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Clinton said, “There is one lesson from the past, in particular, that we cannot afford to ignore: You cannot make progress on gender equality or broader human development, without safeguarding women’s reproductive health and rights.”

This is both wrong and tragic. As you read stories about her speech, Mrs. Clinton makes numerous unassailable assertions about the importance of equality for women and girls. But, alas, as do so many pro-abortionists, she hitches abortion to the wagon of humanity equality, in the process ignoring the equality of the unborn child. Here are just three quick examples of Clinton’s strong feelings on abortion (in reverse order):

Reporting on a June 2012 UN Conference, the Christian Science Monitor wrote of then Secretary of State Clinton

“She received applause when she added, ‘Women must be empowered to make decisions about whether and when to have children.’ The U.S. ‘will continue to work to ensure that those rights are respected in international agreements,’ Clinton said.”

At a 2009 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, pro-life Congressman Chris Smith, questioning Clinton about whether euphemisms (such as “reproductive health”) are code for abortion. “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health,” Clinton told Smith. “And reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare.”

Way back in 1995, speaking at the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued that “The international community has long acknowledged….that both women and men are entitled to a range of protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children they bear.“

When it comes to abortion and the Clintons, like husband, like wife.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Dr. Alveda King: Where is the Love? Rolling Stone, Planned Parenthood and Overzealous Pro-Life Camp Controversy Pours Salt on Old Wounds

The following is submitted by Dr. Alveda King:

When Rolling Stone magazine published Lauren Rankin's "The Seven Most Common Lies About Abortion," what we discovered was a misstatement of the position of the reasonable voices of proponents of life and natural women's health. Among the so called "lies" the article lists are "Abortion causes breast cancer," "Most women regret having an abortion," and "Abortion is psychologically damaging to women."

If you read the article, you will discover that there is a lot of pain and frustration on both sides of the line. The pro-choice voices believe that they represent the reproductive rights of the women who go there to the abortion clinic to be rid of the lives in their wombs. The pro-life voices believe that they are there to protect the women and their babies. One thing that both sides get right; women need respect and protection; but from what? And where are the civil rights for the babies and even the fathers? Most importantly, where is the love?

Here is the truthful platform of pro-life combined with pro-women advocacy groups:

Many women regret abortions. I am one of the women whoexperienced abortion and live to regret it.

Abortion and carcinogenic birth control -- more appropriately termed "fertility blockers" are linked to breast cancer.

In many cases, abortion has been found to be linked to cases ofsuicide, depression and other psychological disorders.

In many cases where physical and psychological issues are noted in post-abortive women, it is often also noted that no such issues were present in the lives of these mothers prior to their abortions.

Added to these facts are the truth that fathers also suffer damaging psychological effects after their children are aborted.

In her book RECALL ABORTION, Janet Morana uncovers the duplicitous agenda of the pro-abortion industry, debunking lies such as those told by Rolling Stone and Planned Parenthood. 

SNMA spokesman Kevin Burke and Oil of Joy Ministries have documented case studies of links to abortion and incarceration. 

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider is often behind many reports and studies such as this one by Rolling Stone.

What Planned Parenthood and their advocates refuse to admit is that abortion numbers in New York and Mississippi are upside down with more African American babies being aborted than born. In 2010 in Georgia, my home state, 53% of all abortions were on Black mothers and babies; with a distant 23% on Hispanic minorities, and 24% on Caucasian and "others."

Finally, let's remember that the driving force behind the HHS mandate which seeks to force tax payers and the working class to fund fertility blockers and easy access to abortion is Planned Parenthood's never satisfied lust for our money and our blood.

These lies of the abortion industry hide behind clever promises to end poverty and improve our quality of life. As Father Frank Pavone often asks: "How can killing the poor serve the poor?" He has been reminding us for years that "we are our brothers' keepers." I add that we are also our sisters' and our daughters' keepers. I don't know about you, but my daughters and granddaughters; my sons and grandsons need good jobs and good education; not the pain and suffering that are often linked to abortion and carcinogenic birth control. 

Let's end the word games and face the facts. Abortion kills babies and hurts mothers and fathers. Stop the lies. Defund Planned Parenthood. Stop the HHS Mandate. Recall abortion. Let's make love and life, not war on the wombs of women.

Contact: Leslie Palma

Free Birth Control Does Increase Risky Sex

According to the study "Change in Sexual Behavior With Provision of No-Cost Contraception," published online Thursday, March 5th, 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, little evidence was found to support concerns of increased sexual risk-taking behavior subsequent to greater access to no-cost contraception.

Walter and Lori Hoye founders of the Issues4Life Foundation, find evidence within the same study contrary to the studies published conclusion disagree and are alarmed at the blatant disregard of significant facts within the study's data.

USA Today's March 7th, 2014 article titled "Study: Free birth control does not increase risky sex" stated: "researchers looked at data on 7,751 participants ages 14 to 45 who completed follow-up surveys. All were either sexually active with men or planning to become active when the study began. Among those without partners at the start, just 5% were virgins."

Again according to the study: "46% who were virgins at the beginning of the study were still virgins, despite their earlier intentions to start having sex."

Studying the effects FREE birth control will have on women who are already sexually active and possibly using some form of birth control will show few if any significant changes in behavior and yield the BIG abortion/more birth control result of minimal, if any increase in risky, promiscuous behavior. Similar to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and serving FREE drinks as the ship is sinking to passengers already on board.

Studying the effects FREE birth control will have on women who have NEVER been sexually active or used birth control, however will reveal different results. The study showed that just 5% were virgins among those without partners at the time of the survey. At the end of the study only 46% were still virgins, which means 54% were NO LONGER virgins. This is a 54% INCREASE in sexual activity from a group of women who started at 0% and were given FREE birth control.

• 54% INCREASE in exposure to sexually transmitted diseases
   
• 54% INCREASE in exposure to the side effects of birth control products
   
• 54% INCREASE in potential customers for BIG abortion aka Planned Parenthood
   
• 54% INCREASE in potential revenue for BIG abortion aka Planned Parenthood
   
• 54% INCREASE in hurt and harm for women

The study's Project Director and researcher at Washington University, Gina Secura says. "It's not as if getting birth control opened the floodgates' on sexual activity."

If your business gave away FREE samples and had a 54% INCREASE in customers from a customer base that would NEVER have bought your product before, wouldn't that be significant?

Not only is a 54% INCREASE in sexual activity a FLOOD and more than enough reason to continue fighting against the HHS Mandate and Obamacare, this is the same tactic used by Planned Parenthood in the 1960s when targeting Black Americans for abortions. This three (3) minute clip from Life Dynamics' Maafa21 DVD, featuring Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, Inc. in Denton, Texas and Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., Pastor of the New Calvary Baptist Church in New Jersey, drives this point home.

Mark Crutcher says: "To understand what the agenda was behind the legalization of abortion, all you need to do is look at statistics from the U.S. government. Studies from the CDC show that, prior to legalization of abortion, approximately 80% of all illegal abortions were done on white women. One study in New York even found that white women had five-times as many abortions as black women. But at the moment abortion became legal, that began to reverse. And that's why the legalization of abortion was so crucial for the eugenics movement. Legalization created the ability to market abortion in the black community and, from a eugenics standpoint, that changed everything."

David Kyle, writer, director and producer of "BloodMoney," says,  "Women and girls are given this false sense of security that if they use birth control pills they won't get pregnant. Planned Parenthood knows statistically -- without a doubt -- that X number of women will get pregnant with or without birth control. Planned Parenthood knows that when someone doesn't use birth control perfectly, the failure rate just skyrockets."

Even the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's own research arm concludes in their February 2014, "Fact Sheet" entitled "Induced Abortion in the United States" that: "Fifty-one (51%) percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).

As Christians we should not be forced to cooperate with BIG Abortion's push to target Black Americans for abortion by FLOODING our neighborhood's with birth control knowing the wholesale destruction of human lives that lies ahead.

Contact: Walter B. Hoye II, Issues4Life Foundation

Pro-abortion schizophrenia finds a new expression: Birthing Center/Abortion Clinic

Samuel Armas, who was 21-22 weeks old when doctors operated to close the lesion on his spinal column. Photo by Michael Clancy.

When you read pro-abortion blogs, there is always—always—plenty of material to add to your “you can’t make this stuff up” folder. Here’s the latest, although by the time I post this story, something new will undoubtedly be available to add.

Check out this from a post on Slate.com:

“Having a single place to go for all your pregnancy needs instead of sorting patients out depending on their preconceptions about outcome is just plain common sense. Being able to go to the same doctor to give birth and have an abortion at different times in your life is likely comforting for patients.”

Comforting?! Yup, according to Amanda Marcotte, the author of “Nation’s First Birthing Center/Abortion Clinic Opens in Buffalo. This Is Huge.”

What is Marcotte talking about? Quoting from another pro-abortion site, she sings the praises of the Birthing Center of Buffalo. We’re told the “clinic” offers “a traditional slate of gynecological services, including abortion up to 22 weeks.”

Twenty two weeks? Do you remember photographer Michael Clancy’s utterly amazing pictures of Samuel Armas, the unborn baby who was 21-22 weeks when doctors operated to close the lesion on his spinal column? (See photo.) See his hand grab the surgeon’s hand? That’s the age babies at the Birthing Center of Buffalo will have their lives snuffed out at.

The clinic is run (we’re told) by Dr. Katharine Morrison and the gimmick is that it is a place “where women who want a nonhospital birthing experience can go while having the benefit of being attended by a certified nurse midwife and an OB-GYN who has admitting privileges at the local hospital in case of complications.”

Do her abortionists also have admitting privileges when the inevitable complications occur? Or do they simply rotate between being a real doctor—and delivering live babies–and an abortionist–delivering dead babies?

The latter. At the end we learn that the “doctor” wears two hats. “The same doctor who is performing abortions is also delivering babies,” Marcotte writes.

[I wish I could remember where I first read what I consider the winner of the all-time prize for best euphemism: abortion and live births should be seen as alternative ways to “terminate” a pregnancy.]

What’s the agenda? Marcotte is straightforward. Here’s a lengthy quote that begins with the larger context:

“Which isn’t to say that there aren’t lots of OB-GYNs out there who do both abortions and deliveries, of course. But abortion is so siloed off in freestanding clinics that many doctors do most of their OB-GYN care in one office and then travel to a separate one to perform abortions. While this system can help women who are looking for abortion find it more easily, it also had the negative effect of stigmatizing abortion patients by walling them off from all the other patients seeking OB-GYN care.

“As Emily Bazelon reported in the New York Times in 2010, there’s been a move in the medical profession to rectify this problem by reintegrating abortion into mainstream medical care. ‘The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned,’ she writes.”

Okay, I get it. You cover the ugliness of slaughtering huge babies with the blanket of compassionate delivery of living babies. To Marcotte, it’s three cheers for the “doctor” who one minute hands a living, breathing newborn baby over to her mother and the next minute hands the assignment over to his nurse to reassemble all dead baby’s body parts.

To most people, that would be almost clinical definition of schizophrenia. But in the minds of ultra-radicals like Marcotte, it proves “There’s no contradiction there.”

I have always known that one would have to have a split personality to wash one hand in antiseptics and the other hand in the blood of unborn babies. But until today, I’d never realized that to the Marcottes of this world, it represents a badge of honor.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

How ironic. Pro-abortionists accuse pro-lifers of being "un-American"

Ilyse Hogue

As we end the week, let me offer two illustrations (in separate) posts about our benighted opposition. This first one I was not going to write about at all—it’s so stupid—but on reflection it said so much about pro-abortionists—in this case NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue—that it practically forced my hand. [1]

The first instance of Hogue’s out-to-sea observations was at the organization’s 45th anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C. on February 4. The second took place at a March 4 San Francisco fundraiser.

What was she saying? In the video blurb that Yoder includes from the February 4 speech, Hogue makes this intriguing remark:

Time after time after time they [that would be us] vote against these commonsense tools [“birth control and comprehensive sex education”]. Why? Because what they really care about is telling women and all people for that matter, that it’s their way or the highway, that there’s only one ‘right way’ for us to live our lives, and that they get to decide what that is. And that, my friends, is un-American. But we know, and guess what, they know too, that the American people are on our side.”

Let’s talk a few minutes and dissect this observation, remembering that while they are uttered in the context of self-congratulation, this is the mantra they utter time after time after time to the public.

#1. To make the most obvious point first, wouldn’t you say that in arguing that there is only “one way” to reduce abortions, isn’t NARAL saying it is “their way or the highway”? Of course. Geez.

#2. So, if the issue is public policy—which is ultimately the art of persuasion—some “way” will be adopted. That’s what we have legislatures for. Right now, because of the Roe decision as modified by Casey, abortion is legal essentially on demand in some states while others have enacted protective measures to ensure that women can make an informed choice. And speaking of “my way or the highway,” pro-abortionists will not budge an inch. They are deathly afraid women might jump off the train whose terminal is terminal for unborn children.

#3. Hogue says, “But we know, and guess what, they know too, that the American people are on our side.” Really? Do you and I know—in our heart of hearts—that the American people are on the side of the Abortion Industry?

Click here to view the video: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/naral-president-anti-abortion-anti-american

Hogue is right about one thing: both sides do know which side a majority of the American people are closer to. She just gets it backwards. It’s us.

Looks at the polls (for example, “’Wide Divide over abortion’? Nearly 60% oppose all abortions or would allow them in only a few circumstances“). Look at recent elections. Look at the stream of pro-life legislation passed in state legislatures. Look at the support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Look at how people self-identify as pro-life or pro-choice.

Try again, Ms. Hogue, only this time look at the facts.

[1]I am indebted to Katie Yoder, writing at Newsbusters.org, for alerting me to Hogue’s remarkable statements. You can watch the brief video at newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/03/07/naral-president-anti-abortion-anti-american

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

A federal judge magnificently debunks NARAL's justification for attacking women-helping centers

U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasenow

We had just learned that last Friday Judge Chasenow struck down a blatant abridgement of free speech rights, an ordinance adopted by the Montgomery County (Maryland) City Council that targeted women helping centers, described as “limited-service pregnancy resource centers.“

But I’ve since had the opportunity to read her very thoughtful 54-page decision. Her analysis is a devastating critique of the pro-abortion assault on women-helping centers.

Montgomery County (and the city of Baltimore, for that matter) is only one of the examples of NARAL-inspired attacks on women helping centers. Attempts to stifle their First and Fourteen Amendment rights are still being contested in San Francisco, Austin, as well as Baltimore.

The Montgomery City Council passed Resolution No. 16-1252 on February 1, 2010. Among other things, the resolution required public signage (in English and Spanish) to be prominently displayed in the waiting rooms of certain pregnancy resource centers that stated “the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff” and “the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider.”

What made Judge Chasenow’s decision so important is that point by point, she came to agree (as the plaintiff–Centro Tepeyac–put it) that “The Resolution is a solution in search of a problem, a condition that does not justified compelled speech.” (For us laypeople, it’s crucial to remember that free speech rights are not only about being freedom to speak but also about the “right to refrain from speaking at all”—in this case not being compelled to say what you otherwise would not.)

The nub of the rationale for these ordinances is they are needed to “safeguard the health of pregnant women.” (The irony/hypocrisy of NARAL and its allies using the “health of pregnant women” as a club to bash women-helping centers is too obvious to belabor.)

But as Judge Chasenow wrote

“The mere identification of a valid compelling interest is not sufficient, however: the restriction on speech must also actually further that interest.”

So, how does the ordinance supposedly further that interest? According to the Montgomery City Council (and other like-minded jurisdictions), limited-service pregnancy resource centers (LSPRCs) like Centro Tepeyac might mislead a pregnant woman into mistakenly believing that “an LSPRC is staffed by professionals licensed to give medical advice.” Thus misled, they “may not take important steps, including consulting appropriate medical professionals, which would protect their health or prevent adverse consequences during the pregnancy.”

But you’d think before such an obvious infringement of free speech make its way into law there would be proof that Centro Tepeyac had mislead women into thinking they were medical clinics. Right?

Wrong. The only “evidence” was a 2006 tract produced for pro-abortion Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman (Ca.), the ranking minority member at the time, by the minority staffers on the House Committee on Government Reform, and “volunteers” sent by NARAL already primed.

Judge Chasenow’s careful examination of the evidence—as opposed to pro-abortion speculation and agenda-promoting assertions—produced this litany of counterexamples (the quotes are from Judge Chasenow’s opinion):

• Dr. Ulder Tillman, Montgomery County’s Chief of Public Health since 2003, testified “in that time she has not received one complaint from someone who had sought service at either Centro Tepeyac or Birthright. She had not received any evidence that any actual pregnant women who went to an LSPR delayed seeking medical care.”
• Mariana Vera, Executive Director of Centro Tepeyac, “submitted comments and stated that at least half of the women who come in for a prergancy test are referred to them by the public clinics in Montgomery County.” Judge Chasenow added, “Those referrals continued even after passage of the Resolution.”
• Ms. Jacqueline Stippich, executive director of Shady Grove Pregnancy Center, “stated that they received forty-three percent (43%) of their clients from their advertisements where they are listed under ‘Abortion Alternatives’ in the telephone book. They opened in 1983 and have served over 30,000 women ‘without ever receiving a formal complaint for giving inaccurate information or misrepresenting our services.’ She stated that their website has four disclaimers, including one that states ‘we are not an abortion provider.’”
• “Councilmember Phil Andrews opposed the Resolution, finding that it is unnecessary as he had not received a single complaint from anyone who went to an LSPRC in his eleven years as a Councilmember.”

You get the point. Nobody—more specifically, no “actual pregnant women”—has complained about Centro Tepeyac or Birthright. The county keeps sending pregnant women there, which would be hard to square if they were actually misleading women and/or endangering their health.

One other quick thought. The Montgomery City Council (as have, I believe, all the jurisdictions that have tried to drive women-helping centers out of business) offered an incredibly tortuous interpretation of what LSPRC’s are doing so as to turn their speech into “commercial speech.” This does not receive the kind of heightened First Amendment protections afforded to non-commercial speech.

Judge Chasenow did an elaborate search, showing why LSPRC’s speech could not remotely be construed as commercial speech. But the bottom line is the most obvious explanation: they don’t charge anything! Their services are free!

Will this stop NARAL from going after women-helping centers? Of course not. They are NARAL’s competition and every baby they save is one that Planned Parenthood loses.

But everyone who is defending LSPRCs should read Judge Chasenow’s brilliantly persuasive opinion. For clarity, content, and careful reasoning, it would be difficult to surpass.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News