Pro-lifers worldwide celebrate International Day of the Unborn Child

Pro-life communities and communities of faith around the world observed the International Day of the Unborn Child on March 25th.

The observance was to recognize the need to protect and care for expectant mothers and their unborn children.

The first official declaration recognizing a “Day of the Right to Be Born” came in El Salvador in 1993. The first “Day of the Unborn” was officially recognized in Argentina. Then-president of Argentina, Carlos Menem, established it in an effort to fulfill a promise that he had made to Pope John Paul II.

This celebration of life had its earliest beginnings in individual faith communities. Many priests and parishes saw the natural relationship between March 25th and the unborn child. The Feast of the Annunciation, on March 25th, celebrates the moment when the angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would be the mother of Jesus Christ. This was seen as a day to draw attention to life in the womb.

Today marks the first time the nation of Chile is officially celebrating March 25 as the Day of the Unborn Child.

Over the years, the international pro-life community in various countries has embraced the day as a time to recognize not only the humanity of the unborn child but also the inherent dignity of all human life.

In some countries, the day is designated by the Catholic Church and, in others, it is officially acknowledged by the government.

Countries all across the globe participate. In 2002, Peru’s Congress designated March 25th as the “Day of the Unborn” and Ecuador proclaimed March 25th as the “Day of the Unborn” in 2006.

On the other side of the world, the Philippines designated it as a day to remember the unborn through a presidential proclamation in 2004. Spain recognizes it as the “International Day of the Unborn.”

Organizations and groups such as the Knights of Columbus and Priests for Life also recognize the day in an official capacity. The Knights of Columbus passed a resolution in 2002 proclaiming the day as the Day of the Unborn Child.

In a written statement, Carl Anderson, the Supreme Knight ,said, “May this day be the occasion for all of us to witness to the sanctity of God’s great gift of life and to further resolve to protect and defend it.”

But why should it be necessary to recognize a day to celebrate the life of the unborn child?

Tragically, there are still too many abortions here in the United States and around the world. The Obama administration has pushed an agenda that promotes abortion in broad and sweeping actions. While the number of abortions in the U.S. in recent years has decreased, there are still over a million lives lost each year! Since the 1973 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing abortion on demand, there have been over 56 million abortions performed in the United States.

Proclaiming an International Day of the Unborn Child gives the pro-life community around the world an opportunity to promote a Culture of Life and educate fellow citizens about the beauty and dignity of the unborn child.

In some communities, pro-life groups hold prayer services or vigils; some people may attend a special Mass or Rosary service. Others may participate in fundraising for local crisis pregnancy centers.

In recognition of Argentina’s declaration in 1999, Pope John Paul II sent a statement to Argentinian President Menem that included the following:

“The Catholic Church sees in the attacks against human life a grave offense against the Creator (cf. Gaudium et Spes). In this sense, I have not spared any efforts in proclaiming the value and inviolable character of life…I express my best wishes that the celebration of ‘The Day of the Unborn Child’ will favor a positive choice in favor of life and the development of a culture in this direction which will assure the promotion of human dignity in every situation.”

Technology has given us the ability to see into the womb, science tells us the unborn child can feel pain, and medicine treats the unborn child as a separate patient. As the pro-life movement promotes the International Day of the Unborn Child, the reality of life in the womb is being fostered in our communities.

Through this, the work to create a culture that embraces the humanity of the unborn child and the value of human life is being carried out all over the globe.

By Laura Echevarria, NRL News

Read the transcript from the oral arguments on the Obama Mandate and see the frightful place the mandate's logic takes us

Hobby Lobby co-founders David Green and Barbara Green

I had a chance this afternoon to read the entire 100+page transcript from Tuesday’s widely anticipated Supreme Court oral arguments in which the justices heard an extremely thoughtful challenge to the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

We’ve commented previously on the 90-minute back and forth on “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby” and “Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius” (nrlc.cc/1iBhOKX and nrlc.cc/QgOVKJ), so this post will be more of a series of hopefully informed impressions.

I suppose it’s fairly common, but the lawyer for the plaintiffs had not completed his second sentence before former Solicitor General Paul Clement was interrupted by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her line of questioning was one she (and other justices, particular Elena Kagan) used as a kind of moat to try to separate the Obama mandate from Clement’s extremely effective attacks.

In a word if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can successfully argue a religious objection, then (in Justice Kagan’s words) “you would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork.”

As he always is in front of the justices, Clement was unflappable. Each case is different, he argued, and the “parade of horribles” offered up by the government is hypothetical and unconvincing.

The justices who favored the Obama mandate kept trying to find some irresolvable scenario that would force Clement to back off. Each one they offered—including what happens if a single stockholder in a company does not have a religious objection to providing health coverage for a particular drug or procedures –-Clement provided a perfectly rational, acceptable answer to.

You had to feel sorry (sort of) for Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is not nearly as quick on his feet as Clement is. (Every time he sai he wanted to “walk” the justices through a particular point, he stumbled.)

He made it to his third sentence before Chief Justice John Roberts politely asked if Verrilli’s opening words weren’t “inconsistent with RFRA,” the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was at the core of the defense relied on by the plaintiffs.

Understandably a debate on what the RFRA meant/means took up a lot of time.

Verrilli had the unenviable task of trying to demonstrate that the government had a “compelling state interest” in requiring what Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood opposed providing, given the many exemptions the Obama administration had provided. Verrilli had a particularly difficult time with the “grandfathering” clause [allowing people to hold onto old insurance policies that don’t meet the new ObamaCare requirements], both explaining why it was used and predicting when (in the foreseeable future) it might expire.

As the Los Angeles Times’ Jon Healey described the exchange, “As [Chief Justice John] Roberts noted, there’s no date certain for grandfathered plans to be eliminated. In theory, they could continue until all of their current holders reach retirement age and switch to Medicare.”

This intersected with the question of why mandating the services Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood objected to furthered “a compelling governmental interest.” As Healey put it (summarizing a line of questioning from Justices Roberts and Samuel Alito), “If it’s so compelling to require employers’ health plans” to include this coverage, “why did the Affordable Care Act allow people to hold on to ‘grandfathered’ plans that didn’t include the coverage?”

There was one other very important point begun with question from Justice Alito: “What about the implications of saying that no for-profit corporation can raise any sort of free exercise claim at all and nobody associated with the for-profit corporation can raise any sort of free exercise claim at all,” which is the government’s position.

What about abortion? Justice Anthony Kennedy put it this way:

“Under your view, a profit corporation could be forced — in principle, there are some statutes on the books now which would prevent it, nut — could be forced in principle to pay for abortion.”

Verrilli responded:

“Well, I think that if it were for a for­ profit corporation and if such a law like that were enacted, then you’re right, under our theory that the for­ profit corporation wouldn’t have an ability to sue. But there is no law like that on the books.”

In the four minutes he was given in rebuttal time, Clement picked up on Verrilli’s less than sterling response. Clement said

“Let me start with the Abortion Conscious Clause, because it tells you something about where Congress has drawn the line and it tells you the consequences of the government’s position. Historically, those conscience provisions have applied to all medical providers, including for-profit medical providers. But we learned today that as far as the government’s concerned, that’s just Congress’ judgment. If Congress changes its judgment and says that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion, RFRA doesn’t apply. That, with all due respect, cannot be what Congress had in mind when it passed RFRA.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Pope Francis, President Obama meet at Vatican

Not to be overly cynical, but if I was President Obama (with every kind of approval index mired in the high 30s and low 40s), I know I would like to bask in the reflected glow of Pope Francis, whose popularity is double that of the beleaguered President.

So far not a lot has come out about the 52-minute meeting Thursday between Pope Francis and President Obama. Mr. Obama expressed his appreciation for the meeting, the first with Pope Francis and the second the President has had with a Pope. (The first was with Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, “a cordial meeting that nevertheless drew attention to the differences between the church and Obama on abortion,” as Fox News noted.)

“I was grateful to have the opportunity to speak with him about the responsibilities that we all share to care for the least of these, the poor, the excluded,” Obama said today. “And I was extremely moved by his insights about the importance of us all having a moral perspective on world problems and not simply thinking in terms of our own narrow self-interests.”

The Vatican put out a brief statement. “Views were exchanged on some current international themes,” the statement read. “[T]here was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

Other accounts, such as Doyle McManus for the Los Angeles Times and John Allen for the Boston Globe, both read between the lines and reminded readers that there are serious differences between this Administration and Rome.

Allen, for example reminded us that “Aside from the broad clash between Obama’s support for abortion rights and the Catholic church’s opposition,” the meeting at the Vatican comes two days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two lawsuits challenging the Obama mandate that compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures , including contraceptives, to which they have moral or religious objections.

“Sharp differences on that score still loom over the administration’s relationship with the church,” Allen reported.

McManus noted that just as Obama gave an interview with a newspaper in Rome prior to the meeting, so, too, did the Vatican media office issue a statement before the Pope and the President met. It noted that the two men were meeting during “a complex phase of the administration’s relations with the Church of the United States, marked, in particular, by controversy on the implementation of health care reform (the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ commonly known as ‘Obamacare’)…”

Of the stories I read, only McManus noted the significance of Pope’s parting gift to the President: “a bound copy of his 2013 letter to the faithful, ‘The Joy of the Gospel’ — the one that became famous for its critique of trickle-down economics.”

McManus wrote that Obama said, “I actually will probably read this in the Oval Office when I’m deeply frustrated,” and added, “I’m sure it will give me strength and calm me down.”

But “If the president actually does read the pontiff’s letter, he’ll find that though it’s joyful, it isn’t always comforting,” McManus observed. “[T]here’s also a strong reminder that the church still believes that there are ‘objective moral norms which are valid for everyone.’ And there’s a full-throated defense of traditional Catholic teaching on abortion, which Francis complains is too often criticized as ‘ideological, obscurantist and conservative.’”

He then quotes from what Pope Francis wrote in “The Joy of the Gospel”:

“This defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right,” the pope argues. “Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Jimmy Carter Equates Sex-Selection Abortion With Murder of Babies

Television history was made when a guest on “Late Show with David Letterman,” for quite possibly the first and last time, used the words “murdered” and “aborted” in the same sentence.

The person doing the talking was former president Jimmy Carter, who’s making the rounds to plug his new book, “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power.”

Follow this link to view the video: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/jimmy-carter-sex-selection-abortion-akin-murder-newborns

Any conservative saying what Carter said, which was profoundly disturbing, would be immediately condemned by the left as an extremist –

LETTERMAN: Things are contained in this book that I was completely ignorant about and am stunned by what I know of what is covered here. What, what is the source of this, the abuse of women, essential slavery, human trafficking, on and on?

CARTER: Well, it’s the worst human rights abuse on earth and it’s basically unaddressed. I’ll start with the worst statistic that I know and that is that 160 million girls are now missing from the face of the earth because they were murdered at birth by their parents or either selectively aborted when their parents find out that the fetus is a girl. So that many people are missing and they’re all girls who are missing.

LETTERMAN: And how many countries are represented in this?

CARTER: A good many countries are. I don’t know how many parents in America would rather have a boy than a girl, that they’re very poor and feel they can’t support children. But in about 15 years ago there was an accurate assessment in China and 50 million were already missing there because the Chinese government had mandated one-is-best, two-is-most (limiting family size), and then India has had the same problem with them, and in many other countries as well. So now, for instance in China and India and South Korea and some other countries, young men can’t find brides to marry, so they buy brides and that increases the amount of slavery that exists on earth.

The slave trade now is much greater (“greater”? How about “worse”?) than it ever was in the 19th century. It amounts to about $32 billion a year and the United States State Department is required by law now to assess the slavery market and they estimate that 800,000 slaves are sold across international borders every year. And 80 percent of those slaves sold are young girls who are going, who are being sold into the sex slave, slavery. And this occurs, about 100,000 of them are in the United States, not sold across international borders. Atlanta is a key of the human trafficking or slavery trade.

During his “Morning Joe” appearance on Monday, Carter went even further, stating that the 160 million “missing” girls murdered through infanticide and sex-selection abortion far exceeds the death toll of the Holocaust — more fighting words to liberals had they come from a conservative.

Letterman, predictably, kept his questions limited to slavery and human trafficking and never revisited Carter’s claim that sex-selection abortion contributes to the enormity of this current-day holocaust — despite Letterman specifically asking about “the source” of this terrible abuse. At the very least, sex-selection abortion must be seen as one of the sources.

Then again, how could Letterman ask about this, since doing so risks derailing a dominant liberal meme, that of the so-called war on women. What Jimmy Carter is describing is an actual war on women and girls, the real thing, global in scope and incomprehensible in its staggering losses. What liberals call the war on women is a phony war.

In yet another example of its affinity for the obscene, the left would rather wage their phony war than an actual one worth fighting; hence their opposition to efforts in Congress to ban sex-selection abortions.

For Carter to describe all these girls as “missing,” however, is a curious euphemism since the word implies that a person whose whereabouts aren’t known might be alive. Such is not the case after abortion and murder, both of which are rendered with unforgiving finality.

Here’s where I part company on this with the former president: those tens of millions of unborn boys who’ve been aborted — they’re among the missing, too.

Editor’s note. This appeared at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2014/03/25/jimmy-carter-equates-sex-selection-abortion-murder-babies

By Jack Coleman, NRL News

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