Melinda Gates Right About Abortion

 

Melinda Gates, who with her husband gives millions to pay for women's health care, says that the Gates Foundation will not fund abortion internationally because it isn't "health care."  From the World story:

 

Abortion should not be confused with women's healthcare, philanthropist Melinda Gates wrote on June 2 in a blog post applauded by pro-lifers around the world. Gates, a long-time supporter of international women's health, wrote the comments following a two week trip to Geneva, London, Berlin, and Toronto. Gates and her husband, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, have declined to fund abortion through their philanthropic organization, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Instead, the organization focuses on making contraceptives available to 120 million poor women.

 

"We should provide all women the information and tools to time and space their pregnancies in a safe and healthy way that works for them," Gates wrote. "This approach is simple, it works, and it saves lives. The question of abortion should be dealt with separately."

 

Gates is absolutely right. A normal pregnancy is not a disease. A fetus is not a tumor.

 

Abortion that ends a healthy pregnancy is not health care, nor is fetus killing in such circumstances a medical act. It is what I call a "consumerist" procedure that uses medical means for a non-medical purpose.

 

If the "international community" would go along with Gates' wisdom, many policy conflicts over family planning–which need not involve contraception, allowing devout Catholic couples to participate–would go away. Such a separation would substantially benefit the poor women of the world because it would allow those with implacably different views on the matter of abortion to row in the same direction.

 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online

Conservative Republican activist Jack Roeser dies

Jack Roeser at his office in Carpentersville in April of 2010. (Stacey Wescott/ Chicago Tribune / June 13, 2014)

Long time conservative Republican activist Jack Roeser, a Carpentersville businessman who helped develop the tea party movement in Illinois, has died, GOP leaders said today.

Roeser, who used publishing, radio and the internet to spread his sharp-tongued criticism of teacher's unions, homosexuality, abortion and modern morality, was 90. An assistant to Roeser said she had no details on the cause of death.

"We would like to offer our heartfelt condolences to Jack's family, and our gratitude for his lifetime of principled leadership, innovation, and support for Republicans throughout our state," said Tim Schneider, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, in a statement today.

Roeser was the  chairman and founder of Otto Engineering Inc. in Carpentersville. Wearing his trademark bolo tie, Roeser was ever visible at tea party and conservative events he helped sponsor, believing the tide had turned after decades in which he and other conservatives felt shut out by the moderate leaders who ran Illinois' Republican Party.

While Roeser never disavowed any comments he had made, his own rhetoric also helped to cast him as an outsider—except to those candidates who wanted his campaign cash. Most every candidate he backed in major politics went down in defeat—including his own ill-fated bid against Gov. Jim Edgar in 1994.

Since 1997, state campaign finance records showed Roeser poured more than $4.6 million into Republican candidates and causes, including his own political action committees, the Family Taxpayers Network and, later, the Republican Renaissance PAC.

"I was saddened to learn of Jack's passing early this morning. Jack was a veteran and patriot, built a respected company and used his business success to give back to the community," Rauner said in a statement. "He was always willing to stand up for what he believed in and impacted many lives in a positive way. He will be missed."

 

By Rick Pearson Tribune reporter

Rockford Prolife group urges Rauner to protect innocent life

ROCKFORD - Wednesday night, outside a fundraising event for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, two dozen with the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative held signs and urged Rauner to be concerned about abortion in Illinois.

The group reports that several Republicans thanked them for being there and conveyed they would speak with the candidate about his stand on abortion while inside the event.

Former Winnebago County GOP chairman Jan Klaas told Illinois Review she had a moment to ask Rauner his position on abortion-related issues, and he assured her that he would oppose any attempt to repeal parental notification. He also conveyed that he wanted women's health to be protected, so as governor, he would make sure current abortion clinic regulations were enforced.

And while she would have liked to have heard stronger pro-life stances, "Overall," Klaas said, "he assured me that Illinois social conservatives would be better off with him as governor than with Pat Quinn."

Earlier this year, Rauner called on the current Winnebago County GOP chairman to step down after he published a joke in the organization's newsletter that some found offensive. Chairman Jim Thompson remains as Winnebago County GOP's head, and was not listed as a co-host of the Rockford fundraiser.

Prolifers reported on their website Thursday that they were joined outside the Giovanni's fundraiser by "progressives" connected to public sector unions.

"All the signs the progressives held concerned money or money related issues," Rockford Pro-Life Initiaive reported. "All the signs the pro-lifers held had to do with the protection of innocent human life and love for God and neighbor."

"The progressives arrived after the pro-lifers and stayed only long enough to be interviewed by the local news media," they reported on their website. "Within five minutes of the news media putting away their cameras, union members and their progressive supporters had all gotten into their cars and left."

The group says they're committed to protecting innocent life, no matter what party or politician they have to go up against.

"No matter if it is a pro-abortion Quinn, Rauner, or Obama; no matter if it is our secular progressive culture of death that places its own selfish economic gains and sexual perversion over the lives of the poor, weak, and innocent; those who love and follow Christ will always stand against them and by the grace of Jesus Christ will outlast and out live, both in history and eternity, those who destroy human life and love."

 
Members of the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative picketed outside a Rauner fundraiser Wednesday

Planned Parenthood teaches sado-masochistic sex ed, takes Illinois tax $$

Sado-masochism is now being promoted by Planned Parenthood in its sex education information. In a new trailer put out by LiveAction Films, BDSM is described as "simply changing the definition of romance," one reporter says, while Planned Parenthood staffers say pain with sex is "just fine, as long as it's consensual."

Such instruction is controversial to most adults, however, taxpayers are now footing the bill for it.

Planned Parenthood receives over 500 million in federal taxpayers dollars every year - and additional $75 million to provide sex education instructions. But besides the nearly $600M in federal dollars, the Illinois Comptroller's office shows Illinois has been writing checks for millions of state taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood of Illinois over the past several years, ranging from $10 million in 2011 to nearly $7 million thus far in 2014:

And thousands to the Planned Parenthood of St. Louis:

And thousands more in Illinois tax dollars to another Planned Parenthood clinic:

What kind of things do taxpayers get for their money? Planned Parenthood provides abortions for young women, provides access to contraceptives and health care for sexually-transmitted diseases, as well as immunizations and breast cancer screenings.

Live Action Films has gone undercover and filmed some of the counseling Planned Parenthood representatives are giving minors that come into their clinics. In the trailer below, no Planned Parenthood staffers are shown, but a full report on the investigation is to be released before the end of June.

Video details Planned Parenthood's counsel  on how to enjoy violent sex with whips, asphyxiation and torture. A trailer about the upcoming Live Action undercover investigation was released this week:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7oeSAOZwdk

Stephen Hawking is a great scientist but his advice on decriminalising assisted suicide should be given short shrift

By Dr. Peter Saunders

Stephen Hawking

Scientist Professor Stephen Hawking has spoken out in favor of assisted suicide for people with terminal disease.

In an interview with the BBC, he said:

'I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those who help them should be free from prosecution.

But there must be safeguards that the person concerned genuinely wants to end their life and they are not being pressurized into it or have it done without their knowledge or consent, as would have been the case with me.'

Prof Hawking, now 71, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease (MND) aged 21 and told that he had just two or three years to live.

Following a bout of pneumonia in 1985, he was placed on a life support machine which his first wife, Jane Hawking, had the option to switch off, but instead insisted that he be flown back from Geneva to Cambridge.

He recovered from his pneumonia and went on to complete his popular science best-seller 'A Brief History of Time', which sold more than 10 million copies worldwide.

Somewhat ironically, he is living proof of the fact that doctors can be very wrong about prognoses (28 years out in Hawking's case!), and that one can live a worthwhile life, full of meaning and purpose, despite having a serious, progressive, life limiting disease.

There have been three attempts to legalize assisted suicide in Britain since 2006 all of which have been defeated by substantial majorities. Two further bills, one in the House of Lords and one in Scotland are currently awaiting debate.

All of these bills contain the kind of safeguards Hawking has referred to but on each occasion in the past parliamentarians were not convinced that they would work and opted to reject them out of concern for public safety.

Their judgement was that any change in the law to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia would place pressure on vulnerable people – those who are elderly, sick, disabled or depressed – to end their lives for fear of becoming a financial or emotional burden. Such fears would be acutely felt at a time of economic recession when many families are struggling to make ends meet and health budgets are being cut. Moreover subtle forms of coercion within families are extremely difficult to detect, even by skilled health professionals.

We often hear from the pro-euthanasia lobby that they are only interested in legalizing assisted suicide or euthanasia with so-called 'strict safeguards' – usually only for people who are 'mentally competent, terminally ill adults'.

And yet the two major arguments they employ autonomy ('it's my right') and compassion ('my suffering is unbearable') can be equally applied to people who are neither mentally competent nor terminally ill.

There is thus a logical slippery slope operating, in that if you accept that assisted suicide or euthanasia is applicable for some under strict criteria, then it must follow logically that it will also be applicable for others outside these bounds. Activists pushing for legalization are obviously aware of this.

Any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia on any grounds at all would be ripe for challenge under equality and diversity legislation – hence the charge that activists are knowingly using the excuse of 'robust safeguards' to disguise the fact that they are actually working to an agenda of incremental extension: progressive legalization by a series of imperceptibly small steps.

As I have previously argued, evidence of practice in those jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia (especially Belgium and the Netherlands) shows that the safeguards are illusory.

Lord Falconer's bill, about to be debated in the House of Lords, uses a licensing system similar to that in the Abortion Act whereby two doctors certify in good faith that the necessary legal conditions apply.

But practice under the heavily 'safeguarded' Abortion Act demonstrates clearly why such a system involving doctors as the gatekeepers does not work in practice.

First, there has been a steady escalation in abortion since the change of the law in 1967 to the current situation where there are 200,000 abortions per year, accounting for one in five pregnancies. This is in spite of the law being 'heavily safeguarded' to allow abortion only in rare circumstances.

Second, almost all abortions currently fall outside the legal boundaries. 98% are carried out on grounds that continuing the pregnancy poses a greater risk to the mental health of the mother than having abortion, when there is no scientific evidence that this is ever the case. In most of these cases the real grounds are social inconvenience, failed contraception, economic difficulty or unwanted pregnancy.

Third, flagrant abuses of the law are not prosecuted. The current case of the DPP's refusal to prosecute two doctors who authorized abortions on grounds of sex selection has attracted widespread criticism but no action. Similarly cases identified in 14 NHS trusts of forms authorizing abortion being signed by doctors who had not even seen the women concerned have brought no action from the CPS, despite being in breach of the Perjury Act.

In addition there are other reasons to be suspect of such legislation.

First, we have already seen in the failures of regulation by the Care Quality Commission and other regulators over poor care in hospitals and care homes (e.g., North Staffordshire) that abuses by healthcare staff will not be dealt with adequately until it is too late.

Second, if some doctors cannot be trusted with a clinical tool like the Liverpool Care Pathway, which was abandoned after a major enquiry due to widespread abuse, why do we imagine they can be trusted with authorizing and administering assisted suicide?

Third, and this is probably what concerns me most, having assisted suicide as a healthcare option potentially saves a lot of money on care. This will inevitably make it an attractive option to families, healthcare managers and politicians who are wanting to cut costs. The danger of vulnerable people then being subtly steered toward suicide under such a system is very real and will be very difficult to detect. For a start, the key witness in each case will be dead and unable to give evidence.

We are best off with the current law, a blanket ban on assisted suicide and euthanasia but with discretion given to prosecutors and judges in hard cases. The penalties the current law holds in reserve provide a strong deterrent to those with an interest in another person's death but allow flexibility for compassion. Most importantly it does not give doctors the power and authority ever actively to end life. We tamper with it at our peril.

This first appeared at pjsaunders.blogspot.com.

Judge rules in favor of feeding and hydrating radio icon Casey Kasem

By Dave Andrusko

Casey Kasem

The next stage in the bitter standoff between the wife of radio icon Casey Kasem and the children from his first marriage over whether he will be fed and hydrated will take place this Friday. In the meanwhile Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel S. Murphy has ruled in favor of Jean Kasem that Mr. Kasem, who has been described as having a progressive form of dementia, will be given nutrition, hydration, and medications.

On Monday Judge Murphy appointed an attorney who will meet with Kasem and his doctors in Washington state, according to the Associated Press. Murphy scheduled another hearing Friday for an update on Kasem's condition.

The battle within the family, already rancorous, grew worse when daughter Kerri Kasem moved to have her father's food and fluids stopped, described (no doubt unintentionally ironically) as "end of life measures."

The attorney for Kerri Kasem told the court that the decision "was made after doctors determined that feeding and hydrating the celebrity had become increasingly painful," the AP reported.

Steve Haney, the attorney for Jean Kasem, alleged Kerri Kasem's motives were entirely different. She "could cash in immediately" on her share of a $2 million life insurance policy when he dies," CNN reported.

Jean Kasem, Casey Kasem's wife of 34 years, "said she supported Murphy's ruling and will ask to be restored as her husband's caretaker," the AP reported. (Kerri Kasem was named Casey Kasem's temporary conservator last month.)

"Only God knows when to take someone," she said.

Kasem is described as being in critical condition.

Asking Awake ICU Patients to Harvest Organs

By Wesley J. Smith

Wesley Smith

Pick your cliche: Give them an inch and they will take a mile; in for a penny in for a pound, etc. In bioethics, there is never a permanent boundary beyond which the utilitarian impulse will not take them.

Now, advocacy is beginning to ask conscious patients who want to stop life-sustaining treatment for their organs. So far, this "non-heartbeating cadaver donor" process has only been done with the profoundly cognitively disabled.

But now, that line is under assault. From an article by Dutch ethicists–euthanasialand!_in Clinical Ethics (201 3 Volume 8 Number I​):

"In a medical community in which withdrawal of lifesustaining measures in unconscious and in conscious ICU patients is accepted, where organ donation after death is common practice, and in which there is a shortage of organs for transplantation, there can be no moral objection to ask certain conscious ICU patients to donate their organs after death.

"Although withdrawal of mechanical ventilation on request of the patient on the ICU is rare and therefore the number of organs that come available is limited, it is still well worth considering. We argue that there are no valid moral and legal objections against it; it is ethically feasible and practically possible to ask the patients for organ donation after death."

Well, here's one: I can think of few things more dangerous to the weak and vulnerable than to allow people having trouble to believe that their deaths have greater value than their lives.

Well, there is one: Letting society think that same thing.

Next stop: Asking suicidal people for their organs. It already happens in Belgium euthanasia.

Editor's note. This appeared on Wesley's great blog.

Stillborn baby declared ‘dead’ revives 25 minutes later, now 3 months old

Robin Cyr, 34, was experiencing a birthing mother's worst possible nightmare. Her baby girl who had done so well during nine months of pregnancy was, after a painful and complicated labor, stillborn.

The tiny baby had been officially declared dead after laying motionless for 25 minutes in the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Robin laid in bed, heartbroken that her baby was gone.

Credit: Shutterstock.com

But then something utterly unexpected happened.

Excited nurses came rushing back into the room, breathlessly announcing that the baby had started breathing again.

"Another nurse came over, two minutes later. … She couldn't talk. She was speechless, and another nurse came over and said, 'Your baby's breathing,'" Robin said, reported Metro Halifax.

Doctors could give the mother no explanation for the baby's recovery.

"He said it's a miracle," Robin recounted. "He said, 'I'm very sorry I gave up on your baby when I did, because I turned around and she's breathing on her own.'"

Now three months later, Robin says that her little Mireya is "doing everything on time."

"She holds her head up, she turns to your voice, she smiles," she told Metro Halifax last week.

Robin's aunt Pearleen Shephard believes that God was in the delivery room that day.

"It's a miracle, and God is doing his work," she said. "The doctors took their hands off her. They called it. She was gone. So she truly, truly is a miracle."

by Peter Baklinski, LifeSiteNews

Rockford pro-lifers to protest Rauner Wednesday

ROCKFORD - A group of prolifers based in Rockford plan to protest a Republican fundraiser for gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner Wednesday afternoon from 4:30pm – 6:00 pm, outside Giovanni's restaurant.

The Rockford Pro-Life Initiative lists two key concerns for their protest: 

• We here in Rockford have a lot of experience with an abortion clinic that celebrated the killing of babies by abortion as a demonic victory over God.
• We here in Rockford know about an abortion mill that did not sanitize surgical instruments and treated mothers like they were less than animals.

"So why are Rockford area Republican leaders trying to bring abortion back to our city by raising funds for the pro-abortion Bruce Rauner?" the group asks. "Republicans like Rep. Joe Sosnoswki, Sen. Dave Syverson, Winnebago County Board Chairman Scott Christensen, Gloria Cudia, and many other Republican leaders have turned their back on the unborn by raising money for Bruce Rauner, who supports the murder of babies."

GOP candidate Bruce Rauner has said on numerous occasions that he's "personally pro-life," but his wife Diana has been generous to pro-abortion groups at the state and national levels. Rauner says he would support keeping parental notification before abortion in Illinois, but refrains from supporting laws that would increase regulations on abortion clinics and require women be fully informed before an abortion.

The Rockford group says Governor Pat Quinn's administration closed the Rockford Women's Clinic for clinic health code violations.

"Who would have thought that the Illinois Department of Public Health would close the horrific Rockford abortion mill under Democratic Governor Pat Quinn and our local Republican leaders would be doing all in their power to elect a man who would like to begin the killing all over again in Rockford?"

"Together we can show Bruce Rauner and the Winnebago County Republican establishment that every child in the womb is loved by God and is our sister or brother," the group's website says.

Source: Illinois Review

Illinois Birth control advisory to be on November ballot

Source: Illinois Review



Yet another advisory referendum will be on Illinois' November 2014 ballot. With the help of two Republicans - State Rep. Tom Cross and Kay Hatcher - the Illinois House Democrats agreed with Senate Democrats to ask voters the following:

"Shall any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides prescription drug coverage be required to include prescription birth control as part of that coverage?"

The question is redundant, as Illinois insurance law already requires insurance companies to include prescription birth control, and has done so for ten years, State Rep. Dennis Reboletti (R-Addison) said during floor debate. "We're asking 'Shall the law of the state be the same as it has been for the past ten years?'"

HB 6237 - Reboletti's proposal for an advisory referendum about whether or not Illinois taxpayers want a tax hike - remains in Rules Committee, and will not be on the November ballot.

The last few minutes of the Friday's afternoon debate is below, including comments leading up to the vote: 1. State Rep. Jil Tracy (R-Quincy), 2. State Rep. Dennis Reboletti (R-Addison) 3. Bill sponsor State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago). During the vote verification, Democrats mocked the verification request by shouting House members names out as the clerk read them. 

HB5755 debate 

The House roll call on HB 5755 is as follows:



The Senate roll call on HB 5755:



 

Planned Parenthood Uses God to Boost Abortion Sales

Contact: Hannah Solem, FRC Blog

All of my public relations classes have taught me the key to reaching a specific market: know your target audience. Strike a chord that resonates in their spirit. When you've built that credibility with them, make your sales pitch.

In attempts to reach their target audience and boost sales, Planned Parenthood has introduced a new emotional sales ploy. This time, they've used God's Name in that appeal.

Recent news reports reveal a "pastoral letter" written by Planned Parenthood's far-left clergy which used God as a new sales prop to reach their clients. The letter was drafted for Planned Parenthood clients and future clients who are religiously inclined, proclaiming the message that Scripture does not say anything for or against abortion and that many clergy believe abortion to be permissible.

The letter states: "Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures -- Jewish or Christian -- and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision."

The Planned Parenthood Clergy Advocacy Board is composed of fifteen members, including one Muslim-affiliated member. The board does not include any Catholic priests.

Their letter states: "God loves you and is with you no matter what you decide."

Planned Parenthood's letter ignores Scripture that equates the killing of an unborn child with murder (Exodus 22:21). And it belittles the name and character of God. God does love people. Liberation comes from the truth that God loves all people, regardless of age or size. He loves that innocent child that He wonderfully created in His image (Psalm 139:14).

Planned Parenthood may think that this letter will help mask the devastation of abortion but in reality its overreaching and deceptive sales pitch doesn't make abortion any less immoral nor does it help the many suffering post-abortive women who have experienced the destructive effects of abortion.

True relief is found in resting in the promise that God is a very present help in time of need. He is the One who grants the peace that surpasses all understanding and He promises to be with and to save all who call upon His name. Christ's target audience includes all people, regardless of size. Do not be deceived He came that His all-inclusive audience might have life and have it to the full (John 10:10).

Planned Parenthood Closings in Southwest Iowa Answer to Pro-Life Prayers

Thomas More Society Defends Pro-Life Advocates' First Amendment Rights Prior to Closure

Contact: Tom Ciesielka, TC Public Relations

As far as the peaceful pro-life advocates in Red Oak and Creston, Iowa, are concerned, their prayers have been answered. The Planned Parenthood facilities in both southwest Iowa towns are shutting down. Thomas More Society-Omaha confirmed that a sign hanging on the door at the Red Oak abortion facility declares that the facility will be "consolidated" with another Iowa Planned Parenthood, effective June 18, 2014. The notice of these closings comes after months of prayer outside of these abortion clinics by dedicated pro-life advocates.

"The closing of two Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in Iowa is a great victory for life," said Thomas More Society-Omaha attorney Martin Cannon. "Credit goes to the prayerful people of Red Oak and our listening God, but Thomas More Society also had the honor of assisting these men and women. By clarifying the existence of public property in front of the clinic, we were able to work with the police of Red Oak to ensure that the people's First Amendment rights to assemble on public property were respected."

The pro-life prayer vigil and sidewalk counseling efforts at the Red Oak facility were jeopardized during the Spring 2014 40 Days for Life campaign, when Planned Parenthood challenged the right of pro-life advocates to stand on the grass parkway. The abortion provider tried to have the praying crowd arrested and charged with criminal trespassing, claiming that those praying were on private property.

Initially, the police concurred with Planned Parenthood, but after intervention by Cannon and the Thomas More Society-Omaha, the Red Oak city administrator verified the public right of way. Legally equivalent to a public sidewalk, this is a "traditional public forum" in the eyes of the law and constitutes a place where people have a First Amendment right to assemble.

Many in the area believe that the Planned Parenthood sites fell victim to the unrelenting presence of those peacefully offering life-saving alternatives to abortion. Regardless, the fact is that the Red Oak abortion facility and its sister clinic in Creston, 40 miles down the same highway, are closing.

Black, Franks Lead Bipartisan Effort to Call on Harry Reid to Bring the 'Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act' to a Vote

Bipartisan, House passed legislation would protect unborn children at twenty weeks of age -- with exceptions provided for instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is endangered.

Contact: Tom Flanagin (Rep. Black) 202-225-4231; Ben Carnes (Rep. Franks) 202-225-4576

Today, Reps. Diane Black (R-TN-06) and Trent Franks (R-AZ-08) led a bipartisan effort of 105 Members of the House to send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging him to allow for a vote in the Senate on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

"More than a year after the conviction of the abortionist Kermit Gosnell, it is long past time that the Senate move forward and pass this bipartisan legislation to help protect the health of women and children," said Congressman Black. "Sadly, the United States lags far behind most of the world when it comes to protections for unborn children. There is clear evidence that these babies can feel the pain of dismemberment in the womb -- it's time we acknowledge the science and take action to protect our unborn children. I thank Congressman Franks for his leadership in this effort, and I hope Senator Reid will heed this call and move forward without delay."

"One year ago, the case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans," said Congressman Franks. "However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening in America every single day for the past 41 years -- including the year that has passed since America first learned of Kermit Gosnell. Had Kermit Gosnell agonizingly dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure. If America truly understands that horrifying reality, hearts and laws will change.

"To that end, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed out of the House last year, marked the first time in history, in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, that affirmative protection has been extended to unborn children. I applaud Senator Lindsey Graham's boldness in championing the Senate companion bill (S. 1670), I thank my colleague Diane Black for her work on behalf of this vital cause, and I urge Harry Reid to finally allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote. America is one of only seven countries that allows elective, late-term abortions after the beginning of the sixth month. It is time that America finally opens her eyes to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them."

As the Congressmen wrote in their letter, on May 13, Senator Lindsey Graham's request for floor consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was blocked. Click here for a digital copy of the Members' letter to Senator Reid.

The real anti-choicers: RH Reality Check argues pro-life doctors should be forced to perform abortions

By Cassy Fiano

Abortion advocates like to call themselves "pro-choice" because, as they say, all they want is for a woman to be able to make her own choice regarding her own body. Don't dare call them pro-abortion, oh no — they're just big fans of choice.

Interesting, then, that they so frequently fight against anything that would give anyone choices beyond abortion. The most recent example is at RH Reality Check, where Joyce Arthur and Christian Fiala write a post arguing against conscientious objection, or in favor of forcing doctors who don't want to perform abortions to perform them anyway. [The following is a long quote from the Arthur/Fiala post.]

Do health-care professionals have the right to refuse to provide abortions or contraception based on their "conscientious objection" to these services? Many pro-choice activists would retort, "No way! If you can't do your job, quit and find another career!" We agree with them, and have detailed why in our new paper, "'Dishonourable Disobedience': Why Refusal to Treat In Reproductive Healthcare Is Not Conscientious Objection."

Reproductive health care is the only field in medicine where freedom of conscience is accepted as an argument to limit a patient's right to a legal medical treatment. It is the only example where the otherwise accepted standard of evidence-based medicine is overruled by faith-based actions. We argue in our paper that the exercise of conscientious objection (CO) is a violation of medical ethics because it allows health-care professionals to abuse their position of trust and authority by imposing their personal beliefs on patients. Physicians have a monopoly on the practice of medicine, with patients completely reliant on them for essential health care. Moreover, doctors have chosen a profession that fulfills a public trust, making them duty-bound to provide care without discrimination. This makes CO an arrogant paternalism, with doctors exerting power over their dependent patients—a throwback to the obsolete era of "doctor knows best."

Denial of care inevitably creates at least some degree of harm to patients, ranging from inconvenience, humiliation, and psychological stress to delays in care, unwanted pregnancy, increased medical risks, and death. Since reproductive health care is largely delivered to women, CO rises to the level of discrimination, undermining women's self-determination and liberty. CO against providing abortions, in particular, is based on a denial of the overwhelming evidence and historical experience that have proven the harms of legal and other restrictions, a rejection of the human rights ethic that justifies the provision of safe and legal abortion to women, and a refusal to respect democratically decided laws. Allowing CO for abortion also ignores the global realities of poor access to services, pervasive stigma, and restrictive laws. It just restricts access even further, adding to the already serious abrogation of patients' rights.

CO in reproductive health care should be dealt with like any other negligent failure to perform one's professional duty: through enforcement and disciplinary measures, including possible dismissal or loss of license, as well as liability for costs and any negative consequences to victims. Because abortion and contraception are integral elements of women's reproductive health care, those who would refuse to provide those services because of a personal or religious objection should not be allowed to enter disciplines that deliver that care, including family medicine and the obstetrics-gynecology specialty.

Get that? If an OB/GYN has an conscientious objection to performing abortions and as such, refuses to perform them, they should potentially lose their license to practice medicine. So now, not only should abortion be legal, apparently every obstetrician practicing should be performing them, whether they like it or not.

It's also interesting hearing ethics be brought up as an argument against conscientious objection, considering that ethics plays a rather large role in practicing medicine. Most doctors aren't big fans of abortionists, in all likelihood because of this very reason. People who take vows to "first, do no harm" aren't going to be giving any standing ovations to people who take lives for money. It's also not unethical for a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, nor is it an abuse of power.

A patient could theoretically ask the doctor to perform the abortion; the doctor says no. It's really that simple, and the patient is free to find another doctor that is willing to kill their unborn baby. This is the situation that is being railed against, and therefore, the logic follows that the answer would be that every doctor must be forced to perform abortions whether they like it or not. Not doing so would, in this pro-abortion extremists' eyes, be unethical and an abuse of power. Have you ever read something so ridiculous?

News flash: not every OB/GYN performs abortions, and they shouldn't be required to. It isn't a negligent failure to perform one's professional duty to not perform an abortion.

But then, as Adam Peters pointed out, forcing people, including women, to do things they don't want to do is business as usual for the abortion industry.

Coercing women into getting abortions, and physicians into performing them, isn't a problem for them because they don't actually applaud choice. The mantra of being "pro-choice" is a lie, because to abortion advocates, there is only one choice available, and that choice is always abortion.

Editor's note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org

Teenager chooses life for her baby

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

"I know that this what I am supposed to be doing and I know He is in my life right now because he needs to be and God wanted him to be on this earth"

LifeCanada does some remarkable work. Today we're going to talk about "Darby" and her story that you can watch on YouTube.

In less than 3 minutes, Darby tells about the shock of learning, at age 16, that she was pregnant; how she considered her "options"; how she chose life; and how she can't imagine life without her son.

The video is the model of simplicity. Darby tells her story while holding her son, changing only her (and her baby's) position and the tone of her voice (hint: she cries).

Darby tells us, she "I really didn't believe it was real," and went to the doctor for a confirmation. And, yes, she is pregnant. "That's when the tears began flooding in." Her options? Become a parent, abort, or put the baby up for adoption.

In the video Darby explains that the doctor tells her that she has talked with many women (sitting in the same chair Darby was) who "regret their abortions," but "not once, have I ever met a single mother who has ever regretted having her baby."

Understandably, so many things are "whirling through my head," and after a month she asks/tells herself "maybe I'm not meant to have this baby." After all, they tell you the baby is just a blob of cells, wouldn't feel any pain, etc.

But then Darby suddenly walks us through the ABCs of fetal development. That by the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the baby has all these marvelous capacities. Somebody explained those realities to her and we can only speculate that they were pivotal.

The remainder of this 2:45 second video is one powerful testimony. As she rocks her baby, Darby says, "I know that is what I am supposed to be doing and I know He is in my life right now because he needs to be and God wanted him to be on this earth."

As she looks at her son, Darby half-laughingly says, "It's pretty amazing that you could just love someone so little so much." Then…tears….followed by a riveting moment:

"I just can't imagine not having him here with me today…and what I would doing if he wasn't in my life right now. I think I'd be very lost and wondering, this November, 'Where was my baby?'"

"Where's was my baby?" Wow!

Darby ends by reflecting on two central truths: "Life is a beautiful gift," she says. "I think that we can never take it for granted or put ourselves in a position where we can be controllers of life. Honestly, you know [looking deeply into her baby's eyes], look at how precious that is. You are just too cute for words."

Final words of advice?

"Choose life, you're never going to regret it."

Tip of the hat to lifenews.com

“Obvious Child”: a movie that scrapes the bottom of the barrel

Unless you believe (which I don't) that there is some depth to which pro-abortionists can sink that other pro-abortionists won't happily defend, you won't be surprised that Amanda Hess found "Obvious Child" to be "the most honest abortion movie I've ever seen. It's about time."

Before we tackle Ms. Hess's tacky, tasteless celebration of the death of a baby depicted as a punch line, a couple of preliminaries for those who may not have any particular feelings on the subject of abortion. (NRL News Today stories are carried by all the major sites that aggregate news stories, such as Google News.)

You have to have an appreciation (I guess that's the word) for bodily-humor jokes. As we wrote last month, the star is Jenny Slate, formerly a bit player on "Saturday Night Live," best remembered for dropping the ultimate four-letter obscenity her first night on SNL.

Clearly Slate and Director Gillian Robespierre were made for each other. Both have an affinity for vulgar, sub-adolescent humor, and bodily functions which Robespierre (told The Village Voice) is "obviously something that I need to go to therapy about. I can't not talk about it."

You also have to believe that this is "the subversive Rom Com you've been wanting." Evidence? How about the set up line? Slate's character, Donna Stern, a stand-up comic, is looking in the mirror, practicing what she is going "to lead with" when she tells the baby's father what she intends to do.

"I'm having your abortion. Do you want to share dessert?"

This is "subversive"?

Okay, so why is Ms. Hess so in love in "Obvious Child"?

For starters, it has a "happy ending" which is "long overdue." A death child and nobody gets all bent out of shape.

Which is an important breakthrough for Hess. She argues that even more modern movies "about modern women" that touch on abortion "fail to regard their hard-earned constitutional right as an unambiguously positive development."

Worse yet, "pregnancy decisions in movies are now less likely to result in abortions than ever, and that trend's become particularly pronounced in films produced since 2003. In other words, now that abortion's safe, women on screen don't choose it."

In other words, as many pro-abortionists have put it of late, they have the "wrong ending": birth. Perhaps what irritates Hess most of all is that too often women in these films clearly SHOULD have aborted but never even considered it! Talking about failing the Sisterhood.

In a back-handed way, Hess will kind of grant you that a film that teams up with NARAL and "features the most charmingly competent Planned Parenthood doctor that a young, sexually active woman has ever seen" perhaps stretches the boundaries of credibility.

But, of course, since this is a celebration of a movie for slaying imaginary dragons, Hess can't actually admit the obvious because that would undermine her entirely implausible, tiresome argument.

Instead (how's this for euphemisms?) "the film's satirical potential is somewhat limited by its unambiguous politics."

You think?

But after that ever-so-brief contact with reality, Hess concludes

"For too long, Hollywood has been offering up either the tragic abortion narrative or the implausible motherhood story without giving the abortion caper its due. Obvious Child makes this heretofore untold tale look like a piece of cake. The film manages to be revolutionary by treading the most traditional of rom-com territory: A girl meets a boy, and after navigating a series of miscommunications and obstacles, one of which happens to be an abortion, they live happily ever after. Or at least through a snuggly, post-abortive viewing of Gone With the Wind."

Two quick thoughts. The whole point of so much pro-abortion propaganda these days is to utterly undermine the "compromise" they have always loathed: the bogus pro-abortion assurance (made famous by Bill and Hillary Clinton) that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."

Why should abortion be rare, they angrily retort? It's a rite of passage for many women, a decision that is completely theirs alone to make as often and as late in pregnancy as they wish. Anything that suggests the tiniest moral ambiguity or respect for the child is heresy and must be stamped out.

Second, by grungifying the context in which the child's death takes place, it all becomes part of one big joke, a kind of "Animal House" for the urban pro-abortion sophisticate.

You do have to ask yourself, who would make a joke out of the end of a child's life? Only those who are dead set on scraping the bottom of the barrel.

ERA not called for a vote!

 

ERA was not called for a vote in the House.  Thank you for all of your hard work in the past couple of weeks.  You raised your voices and reached out to many others to increase our voice, and it worked.  We have been greatly blessed!  Thank you for standing up so vigilantly for women, their families and our society.

We know that they will continue to try and push this harmful amendment.  They may even try to pass it in the veto session that begins November 19th. 

What is the ERA?

 

The ERA is a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that has not yet been fully ratified.  The supporters of the amendment claim that if they can get 3 more states to ratify it, it will become a binding US Constitutional Amendment.  The main wording of the amendment reads:  "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." 

 

The amendment originally sought to give women equal rights, but its vague, overly broad language would actually harm women, their families, and our society by removing important legal safeguards. The ERA would create a genderless society by nullifying all laws and government practices that make any distinction based on gender.  The broad language of the ERA will empower the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives.  An immediate example includes abortion.

 

More information about the ERA:

 

There was an attempt to pass the original federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois in an effort to have three more states ratify the amendment.  The supporters of the ERA have a complex legal argument in which they claim that the time deadline of 1979 can be extended.  If three more states ratify the ERA, it could become a binding national constitutional amendment.  The Illinois House passed it in 2003, but it was blocked in the Illinois Senate.   The Equal Rights Amendment will not help women; instead it will harm women, their families, and our society.

 

The ERA will further entrench abortion in our society and legally mandate taxpayer funding for elective abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled under their state ERA that since only women undergo abortions, the denial of taxpayer funding is "sex discrimination" (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998).

 

ERA could undermine working expectant mothers' rights

Source: Illinois Review

The Illinois House could vote once again on the four decade old Equal Rights Amendment. If the U.S. Constitution were to ratify the amendment, it would ban any federal law differences based on gender. 

Wednesday, the Illinois House agreed unanimously with Senate changes to legislation requiring Illinois employers to set up special working conditions for expectant mothers.

Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago) House Bill 8, the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act,” ensures that pregnant workers are not forced out of their jobs or denied job modifications to allow them to continue working. The legislation now heads for the governor's desk.

But would an implemented ERA strip away special rights the Illinois House gave pregnant working moms Wednesday, since it provides special rights for women only? 

Yes, it would, says Eagle Forum lobbyist and constitutional attorney Sharee Langenstein.

"The ERA would prevent states from making any distinction between men and women. WIC would be gone. Protections for pregnant and nursing women would be gone.” Langenstein said.

"Women already have 'equal protection' under the law. Why do we need to strip away our equality in favor of androgyny?"

SJR75 has already passed the Illinois Senate.

 

Doctors Told Her That Her Baby Had Died in the Womb, Then She Was Born Healthy

By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Doctors told her mom that little Eliza Bellamy died in the womb. Ellen Bellamy, 31, was 8 months pregnant when doctors delivered the news. But then, Eliza was born healthy and, six months later, is doing fantastic.

These kinds of stories underscore the importance of understanding that doctors are not always right. Often time, they will tell a mother or prospective parents that their baby has some sort of severe physical or mental disability and suggest an abortion as a result. As LifeNews has chronicled countless times, parents have rejceted abortion in such scenarios and given birth to healthy babies or given birth to disabled babies they loved and were glad they had not aborted.

In this case, when mother Ellen was eight months pregnant, two doctors announced that her baby had died in the womb and would be stillborn. The news left her ‘simply devastated.’

From the London Daily Mail:

And while carrying what she thought was a dead baby, she and her husband Chris then had to think about funeral arrangements.

Not only that, but at one point Mr Bellamy feared his wife had died as well after he saw a crash team rush into the hospital theatre where she was giving birth.

In fact, the team were on standby because – against the doctors’ expectations – Eliza had been born alive.

Despite this joyous reversal of fortune, doctors then further upset Mrs Bellamy, 31, by blaming her ‘excess stomach weight’ for their misdiagnosis.

Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire has since apologised to the couple. The blunder occurred on a Sunday and at a time when the sonographer, an expert in doing ultrasounds, was not working.

The couple, who are both teachers and have a four-year-old daughter, Ava, said their nightmare began in November when Mrs Bellamy was admitted to hospital with heavy bleeding at 35 weeks.

Two doctors carried out scans to check the baby.

‘When doctors told us our baby wasn’t moving and there was no heartbeat, Chris and I were simply devastated,’ said Mrs Bellamy.

The couple, from Langley, Berkshire, were then forced to wait four hours preparing for the arrival of their stillborn baby until an operating theatre became free.  Mrs Bellamy said: ‘I still wanted to be awake when she was born, and hold her in my arms, even if she wasn’t alive. So I opted for an epidural.

'This will be the best part of your life': New TV series 'Jane the Virgin' features pro-life message

Contact: Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com

The trailer of the new TV series Jane the Virgin contains a heartfelt plea for a confused, expectant mother to keep her unborn child.

The CW network program's titular star, 23-year-old Jane Villanueva (Gina Rodriguez), has decided to save her virginity for her wedding night, because her own mother (Xiomara, played by Andrea Navedo), got pregnant at age 16. Her decision is reinforced by her grandmother, Alba (Ivonne Coll), a devout believer in Jesus Christ and Spanish soap operas.

Jane (Gina Rodriguez)

Despite Jane's virtuous efforts, she finds herself pregnant when a harried doctor mistakenly performs an artificial insemination.

The child belongs to billionaire Rafael (Justin Baldoni), who owns the hotel where she works while she's putting herself through college, and a former crush of Jane's. Her fiance, Michael (Brett Dier), who has expressed his respect for Jane's decision to preserve her chastity, wants no part of another man's baby. Rafael's two-faced wife, Petra (Yael Grobglas), further complicates the plot.

Conflicted about whether she should abort an unwanted child who threatens to upend her carefully planned future, Jane turns to her grandmother.

“I told your mother to get an abortion,” Alba says mournfully, “but I carry that shame in my heart, because you have become the best part of my life. And this will be the best part of your life, too.”

The series gives no indication whether Jane decides to keep the child, but such pro-life sentiments are unusual in a network program that targets young women.

The CW's parent corporation, CBS, says the nation's fifth largest broadcast network specializes in “targeting young adult viewers, specifically young women 18-34” – also the largest demographic of women who have abortions.

Jane the Virgin is scheduled to air Mondays this fall at 9 p.m., following the successful series The Originals, which has averaged 3.3 million viewers this season.