New Poll: 58% of Americans Agree All Or Most Abortions Should be Banned

At the National Right to Life convention last week, NRLC Executive Director, Dr. David O'Steen, unpacked polling data that reveals our nation's view on abortion and explains why National Right to Life supports incremental or "step by step" legislation. Dr. O'Steen was a former mathematics professor and department chairman at the College of St. Scholastica in Minnesota, when he began his grassroots pro-life involvement in 1973.

Dr. O'Steen began his lecture by explaining a new poll conducted by The Polling Company, which revealed that 58% of the American people believe that abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances. The circumstances in which most people believe abortion should be available are in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, according to the late June survey.


 
According to the teaching text of the National Abortion Federation, these cases make up a very small percentage of U.S. abortions. Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health as a reason for having an abortion (most were not life-threatening), and only one percent reported choosing the procedure because they were survivors of rape.

While National Right to Life is often criticized because they support legislation that provide rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions, Dr. O'Steen explained why they do during his lecture, The Challenge and the Opportunity: Understanding the Public Opinion on Abortion.

"We are not out just to make a statement. We will state our principles. We want no child conceived in rape aborted, and we want to save them. But we can't save any children if we have a solidly pro-abortion House, Senate, and President, not through the law."

O'Steen made it clear that this does not change National Right to Life's position or beliefs, but emphasized that polls show that the majority of people will not support political candidates that run their campaign on an abortion without exceptions platform. But when pro-life candidates run with these exceptions, the results are astounding.

For example, The Polling Company found that 75% of people support pain-capable bills that protect 20-week or older unborn children from abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Dr. O'Steen also discussed the debate in the pro-life community over several proposals that would grant personhood to unborn children at the moment of conception and would recognize unborn children as persons under the law. While this seems like a positive proposal, Dr. O'Steen said National Right to Life has not adopted this strategy. He said this is partially because their attorneys say it may have no effect on abortion law, and because it could prohibit some forms of birth control, could prohibit in-vitro-fertilization, and possibly subject women to prosecution for murder who have abortions.

Additionally, National Right to Life believes these proposals won't gain the support of the American people. In a June 2014 study conducted by The Polling Company, 62% of individuals opposed personhood proposals.

The new polling NRLC released indicated personhood amendments do not resonate with the American public.

Lastly, Dr. O'Steen said that these findings show that when we keep our incremental legislation, we win. The American people believe in common-sense legislation and they support ending abortion in most cases. If we meet people where they are, we can change laws one by one and show our nation that abortion, even under the worst of circumstances, unjustly kills an unborn child.

So far, through incremental legislation, we've eliminated partial-birth abortion, enforced regulations on the abortion industry that help protect women from sloppy, Gosnell-like abortionists, and enacted laws that protect pain-capable unborn children. We've established waiting periods, which give women time to reconsider their decision, and through ultrasound laws, we require abortion facilities to show mothers a moving image of their unborn child's beating heart. All of these protections bring us one step closer to a pro-life future.
 
Contact: Sarah Zagorski, LifeNews.com

Obama Wants to Force Americans to Pay for Abortion-Causing Drugs Since He Can’t Force Hobby Lobby

So just how is the Obama administration spinning the Supreme Court's decision that dealt it a devastating blow?
 
Now that President Barcack Obama can't force Hobby Lobby and other companies and businesses to pay for abortion-causing drugs, he's wanting to force Americans to pay for birth control and very early drugs that may cause abortions.
From the Daily Caller:
 

 
The White House has quickly converted the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision into a campaign-trail wedge issue, by calling on Congress to continue providing abortion-related drugs to a small number of women who work for Catholic employers.
 
Because of the court's decision, women "no longer have access to free contraception coverage… simply because of the religious views held by their bosses," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
 
"That's the problem we want Congress to fix," he said, effectively setting the stage for Democrats to blame GOP legislators in the run-up to the November election. That pitch is likely aimed at Democratic-leaning young unmarried women, who are less likely to vote in midyear elections.
 
Earnest underlined the campaign theme by repeatedly describing women as helpless victims of their "bosses."
 

The Blaze has more:

The White House will push for congressional action to provide contraception coverage in light of the Supreme Court ruling Monday.

"We will work with Congress to make sure any women affect by this decision are not denied access to contraceptive services," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.

"There is a problem being exposed that a group of women of an indeterminate size no longer have access to free contraception because of religious views, not their own religious views, but their bosses religious views," Earnest said. "We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the oval office disagrees."
 
Contact: Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Hillary Clinton Shows She Has No Idea What the Hobby Lobby Ruling Was About

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner at this very early point in the 2016 presidential race and, after the midterm elections, the pro-life movement will undoubtedly bring up a laundry list of her pro-abortion actions and comments. Here is something that will undoubtedly be added to the list.
 

 
The potential presidential candidate proves in her response to the Supreme Court's decision protecting Hobby Lobby from the Obama HHS mandate that she really has no fundamental understanding of what the case was about.
 
John McCormack of the Weekly Standard breaks it down:
 

On Monday evening, Hillary Clinton said that she found the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby case "deeply disturbing." Clinton added that "it's very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer's health care plan because her employer doesn't think she should be using contraception."
 
Contrary to Clinton's assertion Hobby Lobby's owner "doesn't think [women] should be using contraception," the family-owned business covers the entire cost of 16 out of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives under its insurance plan. The company's owners simply objected to covering pills or devices that may cause the death of a human embryo.
 
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government's contraception mandate as applied to closely held corporations was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. The Court held that the government could provide coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients without forcing Americans, like the Christian family that owns Hobby Lobby, to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
 
Following the Court's ruling, Hobby Lobby, like almost all employers in the United States, will continue to cover contraception under its insurance plan. The federal government will also continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year providing contraception to poor and low-income women through Medicaid and the Title X program.
 
Although Clinton, who commands a $225,000 speaking fee, claimed that contraception is "pretty expensive," a month's supply of birth control pills may be purchased at Target for as little as $9 per month.
 

Right to Life of Michigan also noticed Clinton's gaffe and said she embarrassed herself in her reaction.
 
"Former U.S. Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently shared her thoughts on the Supreme Court decision in Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby and said a number of things which are completely untrue.  It's almost as if she has no clue what the case was about," the pro-life group commented.
 
"This statement is wrong in so many ways.  Hobby Lobby's health plan provides 16 different types of contraceptives to employees.  16 different types.  Hobby Lobby and their owners are not opposed to contraception and don't attempt to prevent their employees from using contraceptives.  Hobby Lobby filed suit because their owners felt it violated their consciences to provide 4 other types of birth control which they believe can be abortifacient," RLM added. "If Clinton was really in favor of people being able to make their own choices, then shouldn't she support the owners of Hobby Lobby and their choices regarding which forms of birth control they decide to cover?"
 
Contact: Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Here’s the Fastest Pro-Life Bumper Sticker You’ve Ever Seen

Have you ever heard about pro-life drag racers? Neither had I until a few months ago when I came across Fred Jaramillo on Twitter.
 

 
He and his son Phil of Jaramillo Motorsports, based in New Mexico, race dragsters, along with their support team (their wives Deanna and Jennie) travel the southwest, racing their vehicles and raising awareness about babies and the pro-life movement.
 
Intriguing: fast cars and babies? Really, really fast cars. They have 1,000 horsepower engines and they drive at speeds up to 184 miles per hour!
 
LifeNews caught up with Fred via email to find out more about his ministry.
 

"Jaramillo Motorsports took on the Choose Life logos to promote a message of life to woman who could be contemplating abortion because we felt called to do more in our stand for life. We realized that many people were unaware that one in every four babies are aborted and that we were in a position to help educate others through the exposure that we get while on the race track and while traveling to racing events.
We felt that with as many abortions taking place each and every day that we could be interacting with young pregnant women who were in that position still wondering what to do and we felt that this was a great way to meet them where they are with a better message than what the abortion industry has in mind for them."
 

Not only do their dragsters have "Choose Life" emblazoned on their sides, they also got a huge "Choose Life" sticker for their trailer so that they impact fellow drivers along the thousands of miles they travel annually to race.
 
Fred and his family have reaped great benefits from their family hobby/ministry: "We stepped out in faith and really were rewarded with meeting great people who have offered us positive support and who often thank us for what we are doing and that's a great feeling." Undoubtedly (considering the huge percentage of the population who statistically will be involved in an abortion in their lifetime), through their efforts they have saved lives through their racing and their attendance at fairs and other events that pro-life groups invite them to.
 
Fred and Phil (and their dragsters) are supported by their local Knights of Columbus but always need more support helping getting the word out. If you are interested in their ministry, you can reach Fred by email at fredj-kofc@comcast.net. They travel throughout the southwest but primarily to Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Kansas and their home state of New Mexico. If you are a pro-life organization and are interested in having the racers come to your event, feel free to reach out. You can also follow Fred on Twitter.
 
We'll let Fred have the last, encouraging word: "We might not know what kind of effect we have, but with your prayers we will continue to do what we can and maybe one day God will show us that we made a difference in someone's life."
 

 
 
 
Contact: Liberty Pike, LifeNews.com

Narrow Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby underscores deeper abortion-expanding aspects of Obamacare

 

 

 

 
The National Right to Life Committee, the nation's oldest and largest pro-life organization, today released the following analysis of yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Any part of the following analysis may be attributed to National Right to Life.
 
The ruling provides a modest victory for religious conscience rights. However, as explained further below, the ruling does not truly correct any of the major abortion-expanding problems created by Obamacare.
 
The five-justice majority rejected the Obama Administration's attempt to force family-owned for-profit corporations to directly purchase health insurance covering certain drugs and devices that violate the employer's religious and moral beliefs. The Court held that this application of a provision of Obamacare violates a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court's majority recognized the gravity of the moral and religious objections raised by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties in this case.
 
However, the Court left open the possibility that those objections might be satisfactorily resolved by a government mandate ("accommodation") that these employers' insurance carriers pay directly for the same drugs and devices. This leaves unresolved the status of many entities (including religiously affiliated schools, charities, and hospitals) with sincere religiously based objections to providing specific drugs and devices, who regard a federal mandate that requires them to take action to require their insurance carrier to carry out the same ends as differing only in form and not in substance from the original mandate.
 
Moreover, regardless of how the scope of the "accommodation" is defined by future rulemaking and litigation, it is difficult to discern what would prevent HHS from issuing a further expansion of its "preventive services" mandate to require that most employers also provide coverage for surgical abortions, or for doctor-prescribed suicide, that would be just as expansive as the contraceptive mandate.
 
In short, even with respect only to the "preventive services" component of Obamacare, the Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby comes nowhere near to correcting the heart of the problem, which is the overly expansive authority that the Obamacare law itself provides to HHS to define "preventive services." The other major abortion-expanding provisions of Obamacare, including the massive tax subsidies that will assist millions of Americans to purchase health plans that cover elective abortion, were not even issues in the cases just decided.
 
Only comprehensive legislative reform can cure the multiple abortion-expanding components of Obamacare – and such reform can only be accomplished with new leadership in the U.S. Senate and in the White House.
 
During the congressional debate over Obamacare, National Right to Life continuously warned against the abortion-expanding and health care rationing provisions of the bill. An archive of documents related to the abortion-expanding provisions of Obamacare is available here: http://www.nrlc.org/federal/ahc/obamalaw/. In March, National Right to Life's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics issued a report on how Obamacare is rationing access to life-preserving medical treatment, "The Affordable Care Act and Health Care Access in the United States" which is available here (with other supporting materials): http://www.nrlc.org/communications/healthcarereport.

Pro-Lifers to Protest National Education Association’s Support for Abortion

Pro-lifers will be gathering to protest the National Education Association's (NEA) support of abortion this week in Colorado.
 
The 3.1 million-member National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the United States. It represents public school teachers and support personnel; faculty and staffers in colleges and universities; retired educators; and college students preparing to become teachers.
 

 
The NEA's mission is allegedly "to advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world."
 
The group, headed by Bob Pawson who founded Pro-life Educators of America, will be at the NEA Teacher Convention in Denver, Colroado as 10,000 NEA delegates from 50 states arrive.
 
"The NEA union leadership has policies & practices supporting abortion..As taxpayers/parents and children/students, you have legitimate voices in chastising the NEA leadership for involving the union in the abortion issue at all! Abortion is one of a vast number of social, moral, & political issues which NEA's 'leaders' have adopted policies and engaged in activism which have nothing to so with representing teachers in collective bargaining. Their gathering in Denver is YOUR opportunity to take them to task and deliver a message of reprimand to that 'leadership' cadre," Pawson writes.
 
A resolution from 2013-2014 shows a support for "reproductive freedom" code for abortion on demand:
 

 
 

I-17. Family Planning
The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.
The Association urges the government to give high priority to making available all methods of family planning to women and men unable to take advantage of private facilities.

The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel. )

 

"How wicked & stupid for the leaders of a teacher union to support the killing of future students. Ironically, charging teachers DUE for supposedly "protecting" their job security," Pawson points out on his events page.
 
In 2009, the NEA defeated a measure that would have had it take a neutral stance on abortion. The bylaws amendment would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 which says the NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom," which is a code word for abortion.
 
The defeated proposal would have had the NEA take "no position" and would have prohibited the group from filing a Supreme Court brief supporting Roe v. Wade if the Supreme Court ever considers a case that would overturn the decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy. It would have also prohibited the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."
 
In 2008, pro-life advocates protested at the national NEA convention at the Washington Convention Center. The protest pointed out how the union has upset pro-life advocates many times over the years.
 
Most recently, the NEA received criticism from pro-life advocates when it hosted a forum featuring a late-term abortion practitioner. The National Education Association came under fire for allowing a radical pro-abortion group to use its building to host a forum featuring controversial late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller.
 
Source: LifeNews.com

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning will rule on HHS mandate.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday morning will rule on religious freedom in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties cases regarding the HHS mandate.

 

Both companies sued the federal government over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement that employers offer insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations. This mandate goes against the religious and moral beliefs of both companies.

 

The ruling will most likely set a legal precedent for similar lawsuits filed by religious-based and nonprofit employers -- such as the Little Sisters of the Poor.

 

No doubt about it -- Monday's ruling will be a big one.

 

If you live in the Chicagoland area, and if the ruling is favorable, head over to Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago at the intersection of Adams and Dearborn streets at noon for a victory rally.

 

Source: Catholic Conference of Illinois

Presbyterians OK with Killing Born Babies

 

By Wesley J. Smith, National Review

 

The Presbyterian Church USA General Assembly has been making a lot of news on the same sex marriage issue. But this vote has my eyebrows raised. The convention voted no on protecting babies born alive after a failed abortion. From the failed motion:

 

1. Call for the Presbyterian Mission Agency and member congregations to enter a two-year season of reflection upon the plight of children unwanted by human society, both born and not-yet born, and to purposefully seek to enter the pure worship of God by offering aid, comfort, and the Gospel to those responsible for the care of our most desperate orphans (including those who survive abortion procedures): parents, siblings, church and community leaders, and the medical profession.

 

2. Direct the Moderator of the General Assembly and the Stated Clerk to issue statements that denounce the practice of killing babies born live following an abortion procedure, such as was revealed in the Dr. Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia.

 

There was more to the motion, which supported a pro-life perspective. But it is breathtaking that the Church wouldn't even agree to "reflect" on protecting the lives of born babies and denounce Kermit Gosnell-style murders.This is akin to refusing to oppose the terminal neglect of unwanted infants, even infanticide.

 

This isn't a matter of protecting "reproductive rights." A baby that is born is no longer in his or her mother's body and thus nothing is being done to interfere with her privacy or autonomy.

 

Peter Singer believes that unwanted infants can be killed in the same manner as they can be aborted. Apparently, so does the Presbyterian Church, USA.

Abortionists with troubled history at work in Wisconsin, says pro-life group

 

 

 

 
By: Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)
 
An abortionist whose gruesome work was shut down in Illinois has joined forces with another abortionist in Wisconsin.
 
Dennis Christensen and Bernard Smith filed suit against a 2013 Wisconsin law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Both abortionists learned this week that three Milwaukee hospitals have refused to let them admit patients.
 
Cheryl Sullenger with Operation Rescue says both are "operating against the law" after failing to get admitting privileges.
 
"They're only open because they have obtained an injunction until the court can make a final ruling," she tells OneNewsNow.
 
Operation Rescue reports that Christensen was the abortionist at a Rockford, Illinois abortion mill who posted vulgar signs mocking Christianity and pro-life demonstrators. After repeated complaints to state health officials, an inspection was done – the first in 18 years – and the clinic was closed permanently.
 
"Once the state closed it down for posing serious health and safety hazards – it was an absolutely filthy mess inside – he relocated to Milwaukee," Sullenger says of Christensen.
 
The second abortionist, Bernard Smith, has been involved in a number of botched abortions, she alleges.
 
If the court rules in favor of the new state law, they will be shut down.
 
"If they're not qualified to practice in a hospital setting, we don't believe they're qualified to practice medicine at all," Sullenger says.

States Can't Mandate 'Buffer Zones' Around Abortion Clinics, High Court Says

 

 

 

 
Saying that a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court rules that the law is too broad.
 
Its backers have said the law treats groups equally, requiring both supporters and opponents of abortion rights to maintain their distance from the clinics. But in a unanimous decision, the court said that establishing the buffer zone the way Massachusetts has is a presumptive act that infringes on First Amendment rights.
 
From the law experts at SCOTUSblog:
 
"The upshot of today's ruling is that an abortion clinic buffer zone is presumptively unconstitutional. Instead, a state has to more narrowly target clinic obstructions. For example, the police can tell protesters to move aside to let a woman through to the clinic. But it cannot prohibit protesters from being on the sidewalks in the first instance."
 
The justices' opinion also suggests alternatives for helping clinics protect their patients and staff from harassment, including obtaining court orders.
 
by Bill Chappell NPR News

Abortionist Denied Hospital Privileges in WI After His IL Abortion Biz Shut Down

Former Rockford, IL abortionist Dennis Christensen
By Cheryl Sullenger - 
 
An abortionist who routinely posted vulgar signs mocking Christianity and pro-life supporters has been denied admitting privileges at three hospitals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he relocated after the State of Illinois shut down his filthy abortion business in Rockford citing serious health and safety violations.
 
Dennis Christensen, now of Affiliated Medical Services (AMS) in Milwaukee, reported that his applications for hospital privileges were denied after U.S. District Judge William Conley ordered him to follow up on his applications as part of a suit challenging the 2013 Wisconsin law that requires abortionists to maintain hospital privileges within 30 miles of their abortion facilities.
Christensen's associate at AMS and co-plaintiff, Bernard Smith (photo right), was also denied hospital admitting privileges.
 
The two abortionists joined with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin in pursuing a legal challenge to the new law and earlier received an injunction that has so far kept them in business. The trial in the case concluded on May 30. A ruling from Judge Conley is pending.
 

The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court last December to set aside the injunction so the law could be immediately enforced, however, on Monday, June 23, the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal, most likely because a ruling in the case is imminent.
 
Both Christensen and Smith were denied privileges by Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Aurora Healthcare and Froedtert Health Inc. The hospitals noted that Christensen and Smith "do not qualify for admitting privileges" because they and AMS "are not subject to review by a professional board to make sure their practices meet hospital standards."
 
"Christensen and Smith have long histories of abortion abuses and are the kind of abortionists that the law was meant to weed out. If they are not fit to practice in a hospital setting, they aren't fit to practice anywhere," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and a strong advocate of the hospital privilege requirement. "When abortionists have such abominable track records when it comes to patient safety that hospitals do not want to be associated with them, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue placing the lives and health of women at risk."
 
Christensen's Rockford, Illinois, abortion business that was located in a former church building, was inspected on September 15, 2011, when inspectors found that all three of the abortion rooms "failed to ensure a sanitary environment." Surgical instruments were not sanitized, and "brown substances" were found on surgical equipment and gloves. Inspectors also discovered that Christensen had no hospital privileges and failed to have a registered nurse present during invasive procedures as required in that state. The Illinois Department of Public Health issued a closure order five days later.
 
Christensen's abortion facility was known to display sacrilegious images, including a rubber chicken dangling from a cross, and signage mocking pro-lifers and Christianity. In 2009, pro-lifers filed suit against the clinic for video-taped a rant by an operative of the clinic that included racial slurs and attacks.
 
Smith's safety record is also questionable. He was involved in two medical emergencieson the same day in April, 2011. A previous complaint lodged in 2007 concerning other medical emergencies at AMS involving Smith went unheeded.
 
If the Wisconsin hospital privilege requirement is allowed to be enforced, it would close two out of four of Wisconsin's remaining abortion businesses, including AMS in Milwaukee and a Planned Parenthood facility in Appleton.
 
Cheryl Sullenger writes for Operation Rescue

First they came for the pro-lifers: Group warns about U.S. Senate bill

 

Democrat members of the U.S. Senate are seeking a blank check to limit free speech, and the National Right to Life Committee is warning about the impact.

 

"This proposed constitutional amendment would give Congress and the 50 state legislatures complete authority to restrict and even criminalize any type of communication of the public that might influence elections," claims National Right to Life spokesman Douglas Johnson.

 

Johnson is referring to S.J. Res. 19, which is being pushed by Democrats after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on campaign contributions in the Citizens United case. 

 

Government.gov describes the bill as a constitutional amendment that "grants Congress and the states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal and state elections, respectively."

 

But Johnson says it is a "radical proposal that would cut the heart out of the First Amendment."

 

He says the pro-life group is concerned because abortion is one topic among others "that are out of favor with the institutional news media or certain elites."

 

"This is a blank check," Johnson warns, adding that National Right to Life is telling senators the organization considers the bill a "key issue."

 

"And we do take this seriously, because 44 Democratic senators have already signed their names to this radical proposal," he says.

 

The letter NRTL sent to senators can be read here.

 

The proposed amendment is reminiscent of the Johnson Amendment, which virtually shut down pastors from speaking about politics from the pulpit, including limits on speech on social issues.

 

Charlie Butts   (OneNewsNow.com)

Senate Democrats Pushing Bill to Wipe Out Every Single Pro-Life Law on Abortion

Source: LifeNews.com

Few Americans are aware that a "Gosnell Prerogative Act" has been introduced in Congress.  This bill would permit the grisliest abortion providers—like the now-convicted murderer, Kermit Gosnell—to set the standard of care for abortion.

Unsurprisingly, this bill is not actually called the "Gosnell Prerogative Act"—instead, S.1696 is deceptively titled the "Women's Health Protection Act."  However, it is difficult to imagine a bill less protective of women and their unborn children



In spite of court interference, we have made great strides in the enactment and defense of state legislation that regulates and limits abortions since Roe v. Wade, with approximately 160 laws enacted across the country between 2011 and 2013 alone.

Now, imagine the laws in 32 states requiring varying degrees of informed consent prior to an abortion invalidated overnight.  Twenty laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion – gone.  Twenty-nine state laws requiring abortion clinics to meet some degree of safety standards—gone.  Other abortion bans, admitting privileges requirements, regulations on abortion-inducing drugs, ultrasound requirements, and limitations on the use of public funds and facilities for abortions and abortion training–all gone.
Imagine the vast majority of pro-life laws wiped out with the enactment of a single piece of federal legislation.  That is the purpose behind S. 1696.

S. 1696 attempts to override U.S. Supreme Court precedent and other legal standards and would logically permit abortionists to set the standard of care for their patients with no oversight from the state and no effective remedies for the abortion industry's abuses.  This bill could reasonably be interpreted to invalidate virtually any type of state restriction or regulation on abortion, and would also prohibit the future enactment of any of these laws.

S. 1696 adopts the myths that abortion is good for women, asserting that it is "essential to women's health," and, condescendingly, that abortion is "central to women's ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States."

Abortion advocates understand that Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned in the future.  Abortion providers are also shaken by the success of pro-life laws enacted across the country.  One surefire way to guarantee that the abortion industry continues to flourish in this country would be to enact federal legislation that invalidates state pro-life laws.

Shamefully, the abortion industry is pursuing this strategy in the name of protecting women, when in reality they are much more concerned about protecting their pocket book.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that abortion is fundamentally different than any other procedure.  No other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a human life.  Abortion is "fraught with consequences" that do not exist with other "procedures."

States must be free to regulate abortion differently than they regulate life-affirming healthcare.  Congress should not even consider a bill that would obliterate over four decades of labor on behalf of our unborn children and their mothers.  Surely, the Gosnell scandal taught us that much.

The Gosnell Prerogative Act is an insult to all those who suffered because of Gosnell – and others like him. It should never see the light of day.

Surrogate Asked to Abort and Sex Select

Ms Szalacinski

I am not a fan of surrogate mothering. I am particularly opposed to commercial surrogacy, as it reduces gestation to a matter of breeding and can, in particular, lead to the profound exploitation of the surrogate mothers–known in the dehumanizing industry parlance, as "gestational carriers."

The Daily Mail has a story about a surrogate who had two feel-good experiences, but then got out of the trade because she came to see its dehumanizing aspects. From the story:

In more recent times, she entered into a third arrangement, this time with a 'well known' and 'mega rich' couple from the entertainment industry, who she can't name for legal reasons – and who were due to pay her a 'significantly higher' fee than she had been offered previously. 'It was like hearing the neighbor's kid crying. I think it would have been harder for me if I hadn't bonded with the dads'

Unlike with the first two couples, she found it impossible to 'bond' with these people, who treated the process like 'a business transaction'; so much so that Ms Szalacinski started referring to herself as a 'commodity.'

Actually, no matter how nice the biological parents might be, as they said in The Godfather, "It's not personal, it's business."

Back to the story:

Not only were the couple initially insistent on having a boy – testing the embryos five days after fertilization for gender – but when they eventually settled on two female embryos, they asked Ms Szalacinski to 'reduce', or terminate, one of them if they both 'took,' because they didn't want to raise twins.

"Reduction" is the industry euphemism for targeted abortion. In other words, if one of the twin fetuses had been killed, the other child would still be a twin, but with a dead sibling. Imagine knowing that there but for where the forceps went would be thou!

Then came the eugenics that is rife within the industry:

Additionally, the picky couple were eager to choose a 'particularly attractive' egg donor, despite the fact that her eggs were 'sub-par', because, according to Ms Szalacinski, they were 'obsessed with looks.' 'I couldn't believe that this kind of misogyny exists. My moral compass kept flicking off and I had to walk away,' she says.

Good for her. But women who really need the money may not have that strength and might find themselves participating in actions they consider wrong and immoral–with potentially devastating emotional consequences.

This story reflects the ultimately crass nature that lurks at the bottom of the baby-making industry. Not only do many buyers believe they have a right to a child by any means necessary, but to the child they want.

Sometimes, surrogate mothers are collateral damage, and few care. See the Center for Bioethics and Culture's (for which I am a paid consultant) excellent documentary, Breeders. It's not all peaches and cream!

Adopt. Adopt. Adopt.

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

Blackburn: We Have a Moral Obligation to Protect Women and Babies from Dangerous Late-Term Abortions

Calls on Senate to Pass Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Editor's note. One year ago today the House passed H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, intended to protect women and babies from dangerous late-term abortions on a vote of 228 to 196. The measure has languished in the Senate under the leadership of pro-abortion Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.)

Pro-life Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Today called on the Senate to take up and pass H.R. 1797.

"I have always believed America is better than abortion. We have a moral obligation to end dangerous late-term abortions in order to protect women and these precious babies from criminals like Kermit Gosnell," Blackburn said. "The struggle to end dangerous late-term abortions is not over simply because the House passed H.R. 1797. It will take the continuing effort of putting pressure on the Senate to not abdicate their responsibility to human life.

"The House of Representatives has spoken, as have the American people – this legislation should not languish in the Senate for another day. It is time the blight of late-term abortion was taken seriously by Senate Majority Leader Reid and time we learn where Senate Democrats stand in the fight to protect viable life. By refusing to allow H.R. 1797 to come to a vote, Senator Reid is tacitly endorsing the abhorrent crimes of Kermit Gosnell and others who prey on the most vulnerable people in our society."

Blackburn was a leader of the bipartisan effort on June 18, 2013, when the House approved H.R. 1797 to provide nationwide protection for unborn children who are capable of feeling pain, beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (equivalent to "22 weeks of pregnancy," the beginning of the sixth month).

See more at: http://blackburn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384931#sthash.C6dhLaXQ.dpuf

Illinois now offering online voter registration

Starting Tuesday, Illinoisans will be able to register to vote on the Internet. Those registering through the State Board of Elections are told:

1. You must be a United States Citizen.
2. You must be at least 17 years old on or before the date of the next General Primary Election and be at least 18 years old on or before the date of the next General Election.
3. You must live in your election precinct at least 30 days prior to Election Day.
4. Not be convicted and in jail.
5. You must not claim the right to vote anywhere else.

The information the ISBE website requires is:

1. Your Illinois Drivers License number or Illinois Secretary of State issued State ID number.
2. Date the license or ID was issued.
3. The last four digits of your Social Security number.
4. Your birth date.

The applicant does not sign a paper form, but clicks a box to "confirm" they are the person named in the record and all they have entered on the website form is true. However, opponents say, no one could ever be prosecuted for voter fraud, since no one can prove who actually entered the data and clicked the okay.

The process is a completely anonymous registration that campaign workers will utilize with portable devices. That raises administrative concerns that incorrect signatures for voters may be selected by the Secretary of State, said Lake County Clerk Willard Helander while explaining the issues county clerks are having with the new system.

If the wrong signature is chosen, at the time of voting the voter should provide two pieces of ID and a correct signature, Helander said.

However, such a system could put county clerks in a difficult position when the voter first appears at his or her precinct to vote, confusion about the signature could lead to charges of 'voter suppression' when ID is rightfully required.

The online process appears as such on the ISBE website:

But even more confusing, the new voting law - HB 105 - removes requiring a government issued photo ID at early voting for November 2014 only.

In addition, there are other changes to voter law affecting registration on university or college campuses.

Censoring Studies on Abortion and Breast Cancer: How Science and Free Speech are Stifled

By Mary L. Davenport, M.D.

Editor's note. This appeared at Reproductive Research Audit.  What follows first is RRA's introduction to Dr. Davenport's essay.

Reproductive Research Audit covers studies that address the most controversial topics in reproductive health research, including the long-disputed (but recently affirmed) link between induced abortion and preterm birth, the contested link between induced abortion and breast cancer (ABC link), and the suppression of studies that suggest abortion may contribute to problems in mental health. RRA covers these topics not just in spite of widespread hostility toward researchers and suppression of these findings, but due to the fact that such persecution and censorship is contrary to standards of scientific discourse and intellectual honesty. Today RRA welcomes this guest post from Dr. Mary Davenport who not only expands upon research in these areas but offers her personal account of such censorship in the medical community. This information is even more timely in light of this most recent study that found a 2.8 fold increase in breast cancer risk in relation to induced abortion. RRA is grateful to Dr. Davenport for sharing her article which first appeared at The American Thinker.

In the U.S. we are used to abortion advocates claiming that the risk of elective abortion is relatively trivial, and major medical organizations denying any link between abortion and breast cancer. Now a powerful new study from China published [in February] by Yubei Huang and colleagues suggests otherwise. The article, a meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with at least one abortion, and 76% with at least two abortions and 89% with at least three abortions.

This new article is another example of the recent excellent scholarship on abortion in peer-reviewed journals coming out of the People's Republic. There is no bigger data base than China, where there are an average of 8.2 million pregnancy terminations every year, and 40 abortions for every 100 live births. Chinese researchers and physicians are unencumbered by abortion politics, and do not cover up data showing long term effects of induced abortion, as do their U.S. counterparts in governmental, professional and consumer organizations.

Huang's study shows an even stronger increase than the 30% higher risk found in the 1996 meta-analysis by Joel Brind and colleagues on abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer. The Brind meta-analysis, combining the results of 23 studies, gave a more complete view than any single study. But even though it was the most comprehensive study on the topic at the time, it was disregarded by establishment medical groups.

Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, is not unique in having experienced censorship of his findings for the past two decades, including at the notorious National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop on "Early reproductive events and breast cancer" in 2003. This important workshop was manipulated by its chairperson NCI epidemiologist Louise Brinton to suppress critical information on the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link. The main speaker on abortion and breast cancer, Leslie Bernstein, who had never published on this topic, openly said, "I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them (women) that having babies is the way to reduce your risk," even though it has been an established fact, conceded by abortion proponents that this is true.

This workshop was designed to influence subsequent governmental policy, academic scholarship, physicians, and popular perception of the topic, and succeeded in doing so. It also influenced the individual life trajectories of many women who were led to believe, falsely, that an abortion decision would not have an impact on their future breast cancer risk. Because there is a lag time between abortion and the appearance of breast cancer, the effect of an abortion is not immediate for an individual. And abortion is only one of a number of factors influencing breast cancer risk, such as family history, use of hormones, and age at first childbirth. The majority of women who have breast cancer have never had an abortion. Nonetheless, there will be some women who develop breast cancer and die from it, impacted by the failure to inform them of the ABC link, or its dismissal by establishment medical and consumer groups such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. This is an ethical breach of huge proportions.

The new Chinese meta-analysis not only concerns the ABC link on an individual level, but also confirms the observation of statistician Patrick Carroll, who predicted the rise in breast cancer in several European countries following legalization of abortion. Again, because of the lag time between abortion and the appearance of breast cancer, the link is not immediately apparent. Carroll's work is important because he finds that not only is induced abortion an independent risk factor for breast cancer (separate from such factors as late child-bearing) but that it is the best predictive factor for forecasting a nation's future breast cancer rates. Nations such as China, with traditionally low breast cancer rates, are now seeing an increase, many years following their legalization of abortion.

Unfortunately, the ABC link is not unique in suffering a systematic cover-up by ideologically-driven medical organizations intent on suppressing information about complications of abortion. Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal death, in the taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of infants annually, with a cost of 26 billion dollars in the U.S. alone. It has risen 20% between 1990-2006. It causes cerebral palsy, long-term intellectual and visual handicaps, and much suffering. There are 135 studies from diverse locations world-wide that link abortion and preterm birth.The relationship is most pronounced with multiple abortions, and very premature infants born before 28 weeks gestation, the "million dollar babies" that spend months in neonatal intensive care units. Preterm birth disproportionately affects African Americans.

Yet the medical community, WHO, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) have long ignored this association in their official publications and task forces to combat the problem. Another big cover-up involves the psychological consequences of abortion, especially suicide, which are inadequately acknowledged by mainstream groups because they conflict with the propaganda-driven view of abortion as a health "benefit."

This year I was personally prevented from delivering a paper at a conference at the last minute, along with two other women physicians presenting papers on abortion complications, at the MWIA (Medical Women's International Association) in Seoul, South Korea. These were academically sound presentations on maternal mortality, psychological issues, and preterm birth that had been accepted months earlier. Shelley Ross, the Secretary-General of the organization personally barged into an interview with Korean journalists to attempt to prevent us from speaking to them, almost causing a fist fight. In a press release regarding this incident, she claimed that the presentations threatened a woman's reproductive rights, and further asserted that "the evidence is overwhelming and undisputable that a woman's control over her reproductive health is linked to…the health of women and children." But if she is talking about abortion, it is obvious that breast cancer and suicide do not improve the health of women, and preterm birth and abortion obviously do not improve the health of a woman's future children or the aborted babies.

It is a disgrace that a more honest discourse about difficult medical topics can be found in the People's Republic of China than in the USA. The censorship of medical journals, prevention of conference presentations, denial of grant money and faculty promotions, and self-censorship of honest scholars in academic medicine who want to tell the truth but feel they cannot, impoverishes us, and should not be tolerated.

Pro-Life Political Speech Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

 

Life Legal Defense Foundation Applauds Susan B. Anthony List Victory in Ohio Election Case

 

Contact: Tom Ciesielka

 

Today the United States Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment right to free speech as applied to pro-life political speech in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The controversial case sprung from the Ohio election commission's decision that the pro-life advocacy organization's statements about an incumbent Congressman's voting record were a violation of state law.

 

"This decision is a victory for the Susan B. Anthony List and for pro-life advocates everywhere," declared Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, filer of an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief in support of the Susan B. Anthony List, in conjunction with the Bioethics Defense Fund. Cody added, "Today the Justices acknowledged the harm that occurs when free-speech is chilled by the threat of prosecution. Susan B. Anthony List has won the opportunity to challenge Ohio's election law and thereby to speak the truth about our elected leaders in the future."

 

The case began when the Susan B. Anthony List publicized the voting records of members of Congress who voted in favor of Obamacare, known as the Affordable Care Act, despite the taxpayer funded abortion that it put into place. The group's political opponents claimed that statements such as, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion," were false and violated Ohio's election laws. Faced with the threat of prosecution, the Susan B. Anthony List challenged the law. The lower courts ruled that there was no current threat of prosecution, and thus the organization lacked standing to bring the challenge.

 

Today's United States Supreme Court ruling in the Susan B. Anthony List's favor found that the pro-life group had demonstrated a credible threat of enforcement of the law against them. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court ruling that the Susan B. Anthony List and co-petitioner COAST (Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes) have standing to challenge the Ohio election statute under which they had been threatened with prosecution for holding members of Congress responsible for their voting record.

 

The Court concluded that, "…denying prompt judicial review would impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking costly proceedings and criminal prosecution on the other."

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