Democrats Push Vote on Bill to “Overturn” Supreme Court Decision Protecting Hobby Lobby

The Senate Democrats, led by Patty Murray, have called for an immediate vote on S. 2578, disingenuously titled the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act.  It should be known for what it is, the Anti-Religious Freedom bill.

 

 

 

 

S. 2578 seeks to override the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases.  Unhappy with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's (RFRA) standard that the government cannot substantially burden our Constitutionally-recognized religious freedom without showing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means, these Senate Democrats want to create a right for the abortion industry to use the coercive force of government to trample pro-life Americans' rights.

 

The bill mandates that employers cannot "deny" insurance coverage of any item required by federal law or regulation. Effectively, this writes a blank check to the Obama Administration (or future administrations) to force employers to pay for insurance coverage of any drugs, devices, and services—even if that employer has a religious or consciences objection.

 

Notably, the Anti-Religious Freedom bill is not limited to "contraceptive services." There is nothing in this bill to preclude the federal government from forcing an employer to cover even late-term abortion.

 

The HHS Mandate already seeks to force conscientious employers to pay for life-ending drugs and devises misleadingly labeled as "contraception"—including ella, a drug which can end a young human life even after implantation.  HHS might, in the future, issue a regulation adding RU-486, or even surgical abortion, to its list of required "preventive services" under the Mandate.  If this were combined with the enactment of the Anti-Religious Freedom bill, no law would be able to protect pro-life Americans from being coerced to provide such objectionable services.

 

This bill is a clear illustration of the way the tactics of the abortion lobby are publicly moving from Choice to Coercion. The abortion lobby no longer hides behind its 'freedom to choose' facade—it openly seeks to force conscientious Americans to pay for coverage of life-ending drugs, devices, and services.

 

Rather than use any number of less restrictive means at its disposal to achieve its stated goal, Senate Democrats are pushing this Anti-Religious Freedom bill to undermine RFRA, and other conscience protections that might inconvenience the abortion lobby.

 

It is essential that pro-life Americans reach out to their Senators today to ask them to vote against this dangerous and coercive law.

 

Source: LifeNews.com

Illinois Planned Parenthood pushes birth control vote

 

 

 

 
This fall Illinois voters will get to weigh in on birth control and religious liberty. The ballot in November will have a question asking voters whether they think any health insurance policy written in Illinois should be required by law to cover birth control, regardless of the employer's religious beliefs.
 
Jim Anderson of Illinois Radio Network reports that Kim Foxx, the board president of Planned Parenthood Illinois, hopes the referendum passes, especially in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision.
 
"We hope the referendum gives the women and men of Illinois the voice to say enough! Birth control is basic health care," Foxx said. "Let women get the basic health care we need, and stay out of medical decisions we make with our medical providers and our families."
 
Foxx, who is also Chief of Staff to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, does believe, however, that employers should be involved in women's medical decisions when it comes to paying for them.
 
Illinois law has required health insurance policies that provide coverage for outpatient services and outpatient prescription drugs or devices to cover birth control since 2004. So the ballot measure is seen by most political analysts as a election-year stunt to increase Democrat turnout in November.
 
Gov. Pat Quinn signed the bill to put this measure on the ballot. The campaign of Republican governor candidate Bruce Rauner says Rauner supports the current law requiring coverage for contraception.
Source: Illinois Review

U.S. Senate Democrats push bill to nullify abortion limits nationwide

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on radical bill to nullify virtually all abortion limits nationwide National Right to Life President Carol Tobias will testify against "Abortion Without Limits Until Birth" measure WASHINGTON – Four months before the mid-term congressional election, Senate democrats are pushing into the national spotlight "the most radical pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations. Tobias is one of only two non-congressional witnesses who will testify against the so-called "Women's Health Protection Act" (S. 1696), at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 15, 2014, at 10 AM EDT. S. 1696 was introduced in November, 2013, with much fanfare from major pro-abortion advocacy groups, who have since featured the bill in fundraising solicitations to their memberships. A story published by National Right to Life News on November 20, 2013, which explains the radical sweep of the bill, is posted here: http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/11/pro-abortion-coalition-unveils-sweeping-new-national-abortion-on-demand-legislation-in-congress/#.U8AepCieb4Z A copy of S. 1696 (PDF format) may be viewed or downloaded here: http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/foca/S1696WHPA.pdf S. 1696 is currently sponsored by 35 Democrat senators, including the chief sponsor, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.), who will chair the July 15 hearing. A House companion bill, H.R. 3471, currently has 125 cosponsors, all Democrats. Always-current lists of cosponsors, arranged by state, are posted on the NRLC Legislative Action Center at: (Senate) http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=63003456 (House) http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=63003496 Like most congressional committees, the Senate Judiciary Committee offers video coverage of its hearings, which can be accessed either live or after the fact via the Committee website at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/ We do not know yet whether the hearing will also be covered by C-SPAN. The bill is an updated and expanded version of the old "Freedom of Choice Act" that was championed by Barack Obama when he was a senator. The new bill would invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion, and prohibit states from adopting new limitations in the future, including various types of laws specifically upheld as constitutionally permissible by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the laws that the bill would nullify are requirements to provide women seeking abortion with specific information on their unborn child and on alternatives to abortion, laws providing reflection periods (waiting periods), laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions, laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks, meaningful limits on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection. These laws generally have broad public support in the states in which they are enacted, including support from substantial majorities of women. The bill would also invalidate most previously enacted federal limits on abortion, including federal conscience protection laws and most, if not all, limits on government funding of abortion. Regarding the bill, Blumenthal told Roll Call last November, "As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues." Tobias commented, "We believe that many voters will be appalled to learn that nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats have already cosponsored a bill to impose nationwide the extreme ideological doctrine that elective abortion must not be limited in any meaningful way, at any stage of pregnancy."   In her testimony, Tobias will call on Senate Democrats to also allow consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670), sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which has an even greater number of Senate cosponsors (41), and which duplicates legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives (H.R. 1797). The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would generally protect unborn children in the sixth month and later, by which point they are capable of experiencing great pain during abortions.

Pro-lifer follows Hobby Lobby's lead against mandate

 

 

In the aftermath of business owners winning the right to religious freedom from ObamaCare's abortion pill mandate, a Connecticut man is suing for the same right for individuals.

Barth Bracy, who heads the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee and lives with his family in Connecticut, preferred to stick with his medical insurance. But he received a notice from the company that the policy would be canceled. That forced him to go to the ObamaCare exchanges in Connecticut.

"That means they require that a mandatory abortion surcharge be levied against the enrollees in the plan – that would be us – and that we would have to pay that abortion surcharge out of our own pocket," he explains.

Bracy says he won't do that because he opposes abortion based on his faith. So he has filed suit in federal court and is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Casey Mattox, who tells OneNewsNow that the Hobby Lobby decision is helpful with the case.

"The violation here is, if anything, even more fundamental because this is about just individuals and a family who is being forced to pay for other people's elective abortions, surgical abortions, against their conscience," the attorney explains.

"It's a fundamental violation of our First Amendment right, and we filed this case in Connecticut to make sure that that does not happen to the Bracy family and other families that are like them."

According to Mattox, a legal victory for Bracy would impact anyone using the exchanges who object to their funds being used to finance abortions.

Source: OneNewsNow.com

King of Abortion: Warren Buffet Has Spent $1.23 Billion, Enough to Kill 2.7 Million Babies in Abortions

The world's fourth richest person, Warren Buffett, ploughed $1.23 billion into abortion groups over eleven years, a media watchdog has found.
 
The Media Research Center (MRC), which analysed tax returns for Buffett's foundation, labeled him the 'king of abortion'.
The MRC says the money given 'is enough to pay for the abortions of more than 2.7 million babies in the womb' – which, it points out, equates to the entire city of Chicago.
 

 

 

 
MRC's report lays out the money Buffett's foundation gave between 2001 and 2012, saying it amounted to $1,230,585,161.
 
The money was given to groups which either 'provided abortions themselves or advocated for abortion or access to abortion'.
Warren Buffett has made his money through investments, and is listed by Forbes as having a net worth of $65.4 billion.
 
According to Buffett biographer Roger Lowenstein, Buffett has a 'Malthusian dread that overpopulation [will] aggravate problems in all other areas – such as food, housing, even human survival.'
 
This fear of an overcrowded planet is at least in part what gives him his enthusiasm for abortion. I guess he thinks that if there were more people on the planet his wealth might have to be shared.
 
Buffet is not alone amongst the mega-rich in having a record of funding population control. Also previously implicated are Ted Turner (founder of the Cable News Network), Bill Gates of Microsoft, David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard and financier George Soros.
 
In a similar way the pro-assisted suicide campaign in the UK has been bankrolled by wealthy businessmen.
 
Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide for mentally competent adults with less than six month to live, follows on from his highly controversial Falconer Commission which laid its framework.
 
This was conceived by Dignity in Dying (DID), the former Voluntary Euthanasia Society, manned by euthanasia sympathizers and funded by DID patrons Terry Pratchett and Bernard Lewis.
 
Bernard Lewis is the English entrepreneur behind the River Island fashion brand and clothing chain and is estimated to be worth £1,030m (€1,484m).
 
Terry Pratchett is an English novelist who has a net worth of £42 million according to the Sunday Times Rich List.
They are small fry compared with Buffet and Gates but very well-endowed by UK standards.
 
Baroness Warnock is a moral philosopher who believes that elderly people suffering from dementia should consider ending their lives because they are a burden on the NHS and their families.
 
She said in 2008 that pensioners in mental decline are 'wasting people's lives' because of the care they require and insisted there was 'nothing wrong' with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.
 
The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be 'licensed to put others down' if they are unable to look after themselves.
It deeply troubles me when I hear of very wealthy and powerful people using their money to finance efforts to legalize medical killing through abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia.
 
I wonder if part of the motivation is to protect their personal wealth from those who might have calls on it for care, support or treatment.
 
The real heart of a society is revealed in the way it treats vulnerable people – especially the unborn, elderly, sick or disabled. Does it make sacrifices for vulnerable people or does it choose rather to sacrifice them?
 
These rich men all use the language of autonomy, choice and compassion but taking another person's life through abortion or euthanasia, or helping them to kill themselves through assisted suicide, is actually to eliminate all future choice.
 
In stark contrast stands the life of Jesus Christ, creator and sustainer of the universe, who gave himself for us when we were helpless and weak:
 
'For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.' (2 Corinthians 8:9)
 
'For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. ' (Romans 5:6)
 
Source: LifeNews.com
 
LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Peter Saunders is a doctor and the CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a British organization with 4,500 doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. This article originally appeared on his blog. He is also associated with the Care Not Killing Alliance in the UK.

IFRL Attends NRLC Convention

 

              Three IFRL directors, Pat & Dick Conklin and John Ryan, attended the NRLC Convention in Louisville last Thursday - Saturday.  The convention included several excellent sessions addressing issues related to fetal pain and strong responses to the real war on women.  There were also several sessions addressing the critical need for a more aggressive approach to protecting life against doctor prescribed suicide and outright euthanasia, both on an individual basis and before the legislatures.  With Congressional elections and state elections in the vast majority of states approaching in November there were also numerous presentations focused on what the pro-life movement needs to do to promote pro-life candidates and bring them to victory.  Pat, Dick, and John also attended a number of convention sessions and meetings regarding fundraising and organization that hopefully will benefit IFRL in the year ahead.

                The convention opened with a panel discussion of the appropriate pro-life response to the purported "War on Women" entitled "The REAL War on Women" featuring Kathryn Jean Lopez, Editor-At-Large of National Review Online, Dr. Jean Garton, Founder and long-time President of Lutherans for Life, and Joy Pinto, an on-air personality on EWTN radio and TV and director of a CPC in Birmingham, AL.  All three were clear in the need to turn the language on the proponents of unceasing attack on unborn women and any women who do not agree with them.  Dr. Garton examined the plain meaning of the word "war" to illustrate how just the use of the term suggested an attack pro-lifers and conservatives have never made, but one pro-aborts and "progressives" are willing to undertake.  Lopez and Pinto both brought a strong, unapologetic, and positive energy to many of their answers.

                An evening general session Thursday  followed up the introduction with acclaimed breast cancer surgeon Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., FACS, presentation entitled "What if ALL Women Knew ALL the Facts?"  Dr. Lanfranchi has conducted research, written, and spoken extensively on breast cancer prevention including reproductive and hormonal risk factors.  She has spoken extensively around the United States, in numerous nations around the world, and at the United Nations before medical and medical training organizations, cancer organizations, and governmental bodies about the risk factors which prominently include induced abortion.  Dr. Lanfranchi illustrated the depth and breadth of the research illustrating the abortion – breast cancer link and ways in which it is increased within particularly at-risk populations.  Among the noteworthy populations with a substantially increased risk of breast cancer later in life is adolescents who have abortions well into a first pregnancy, something that occurs quite commonly.  Even with some general familiarity with the facts, it is stunning to realize just how far our society will go to protect the abortion industry at the expense of millions of individual women.

                In a presentation entitled "The Lessons of Fetal Pain and the Duty to Protect Unborn Children" O. Carter Sneed, a University of Notre Dame Law Professor and the Director of Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture, started from the current efforts to protect pain-capable unborn children to suggest the critical problem in law of who is protected.  While pro-lifers say that everyone is protected, everyone counts as a member in the community of persons, Roe v. Wade opened the door to exclude not only those yet to be born, but also the weak, the aged, and the handicapped.  The law plays a critical role in "humanizing" at risk populations as has been illustrated with born alive infant protection acts, bans on partial birth abortions, ultrasound opportunity laws, and pain-capable child protection acts.  If we continue to educate and demonstrate the humanity of the unborn child new knowledge may push the pain sensory thresholds back into the range where the unborn child responds to touch at around 8 weeks gestation.  In this process there will be new opportunities to make the society aware of the beating heart and other physical proofs of the humanity of the unborn child back to the earliest stages of pregnancy.  In such steps the law needs to and can continue to work with science and elements of the culture to restore the notion that everyone counts from conception until natural death.

                In another general session titled "Bioethics' War on Humans" Wesley J. Smith, PhD., a renowned ethicist, author, and lawyer who is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism, asked why the great push for assisted suicide and euthanasia did not come 100 years ago when there was much more suffering related to many medical conditions.  Smith traced the answer to the philosophy of DesCartes which proposed health as a primary good of society.  Relief of pain has become a goal and relieving suffering, eliminating suffering, has become a purpose of society.  Definitions of suffering have become fluid and severe disability, chronic illness, mental illness, terminal illness, and financial hardships have all entered into some definitions of suffering.  Medical ethics committees, medical schools, and individual bioethicists have all moved in new and frightening directions.  Smith referred to "undignified bioethics" where capacity has become more important that being.  If an injury changes a person, as was the case with Terri Schiavo, then no one in our society is safe. 

Smith argues that we need human exceptionalsim, or speciesism, -- our dignity is inherent in our membership in the human species.  Critical threats continue to be seen in many directions.  Arguments are being made for the harvesting of human organs before the donor has been declared dead.  "Suicide tourism" is being seen in some European countries.  Critical inappropriate legislation and ethics standards with regard to the obligations of medical professionals are being seen in various corners of the world, most notably at the moment with regard to euthanasia in Quebec and abortion in one Australian state.  Smith maintains that it is our fault as a society that many elderly people have come to view themselves as a burden on their families.

As part of the same general session Jennifer Popik, the Legislative Counsel for NRLC's Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, outlined the legislative and judicial movement towards doctor prescribed suicide in five states where there has been overt movement in that direction.  Each law or judicial opinion has been worse than the one before it, although there are definite possibilities of limiting or repealing a law passed in Vermont which included certain safeguards that would drop off in three years if the law is not repealed of amended.  Burke Balch, Director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics, concluded the session with a call to arms citing the swing from the philosophy of Hypocrites towards the philosophy of Plato within the ethics communities of most hospitals today.  He referred to the emphasis on quality of life today being "Himler-like" with the very clear EXCEPTION of the RACIAL component of Himler's purges of the Jewish and Black races.

By John Ryan, Illinois Federation for Right to Life

Democrats File Bill to “Overturn” Supreme Court Decision Protecting Hobby Lobby

As promised, Senate Democrats filed legislation today to "overturn" the Supreme Court's decision protecting Hobby Lobby and other companies from being forced to comply with the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for abortion-causing drugs for their employees.
 
The Supreme Court ruled that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn't have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare. The high court issued a favorable ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.
 

 
The court ruled that the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, a 1993 law and it held that the mandate "substantially burdens the exercise of religion" and that HHS didn't use the "least restrictive means" to promote this government interest, tests required by RFRA.
 
"HHS's contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion," the decision reads, adding that the "decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates." The opinion said the "plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act" are "perfectly clear."
 
Now, Senate Democrats want to change the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a way that would force companies to pay for birth control, contraception and those abortion-causing drugs.
 
Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), both abortion advocates, are behind the new legislation and they said, "The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act would ban employers from refusing to provide health coverage — including contraceptive coverage — guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law."
 
"After five justices decided last week that an employer's personal views can interfere with women's access to essential health services, we in Congress need to act quickly to right this wrong," Murray said. "This bicameral legislation will ensure that no CEO or corporation can come between people and their guaranteed access to health care, period. I hope Republicans will join us to revoke this court-issued license to discriminate and return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care and their own bodies."
 
Not one Senate Republican has signed on to the legislation, which pro-life groups will undoubtedly strenuously oppose. House Republicans will not take up the bill, making it so the legislation will not reach President Barack Obama, an abortion advocate who would sign it into law.
 
In their ruling, the Supreme Court indicated Congress could change the law to require businesses t pay for the birth control and abortion drugs.
 
"There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives," the opinion concluded.
 
"The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs," read the opinion.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined in the majority decision. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
 
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion saying that government itself could provide the coverage for contraception and the abortion-causing drugs if a company declines to do so.
 
But, Americans oppose the HHS mandate and its pro-abortion requirements.
 
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans agree with the Supreme Court's decision this week that the Christian-run Hobby Lobby doesn't have to obey the HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in their employee health care plans.
 
"Half of voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that a business owner should be able to opt out of Obamacare's contraceptive mandate if it violates his or her religious beliefs," the poling firm reports about its new national survey.
 
A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.
 
"Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees," Rasmussen reports.
 
The poll found: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
 
Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure."
 
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.
 
Source: LifeNews.com

Cosmetics Giant Kiehls’ Donates to Abortion Biz Planned Parenthood After Hobby Lobby Decision

The cosmetics giant Kieh's is apparently so upset by the Supreme Court's decision protecting Hobby Lobby from being forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs for its employees that it's making substantial donation to the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
 
Kiehl's is an American cosmetics brand retailer that specializes in making premium skin, hair, and body care products. Now part of the L'Oréal Group, it currently has more than 250 retail stores worldwide.
 
From the report:
 

 
On the heels of a series of controversial Supreme Court decisions limiting access to birth control, Planned Parenthood of New York City is celebrating its largest cash donation in history from a local business.
 
Cosmetics giant Kiehl's has donated $20,000 to Planned Parenthood of New York City, in honor of a soon-to-open Kiehl's location at 223 Mulberry St., just a few blocks from a Bleecker Street Planned Parenthood clinic.
Planned Parenthood of New York City spokeswoman Adrienne Verrilli credited New York City-based artist Marilyn Minter with helping to facilitate the donation, calling her "an inspiration."
 
Verrilli said the donation, which will be exchanged during Thursday's official store opening where Minter will be present and where one of Minter's paintings will be on permanent display, is going to be a huge morale boost for the staff.
 
The Thursday night Kiehl's store opening will feature actresses from the TV show "Orange is the New Black," including Selenis Leyva. There will also be tote bags designed by Minter sold to benefit Planned Parenthood of New York City.
 

The most recent annual report showed Planned Parenthood is merely an abortion business.
 
The report indicates a high percentage of pregnant women are going to Planned Parenthood get abortions while a handful get prenatal support or adoption referrals. The report shows 149 abortions for every adoption referral Planned Parenthood makes.
 
One of the most glaring numbers was the steep decline in prenatal services-a 31.97 percent decline from the prior year. In addition, Planned Parenthood's highly touted cancer screening services dropped 14.22 percent from the 2011 numbers.
 
The abortion giant now does one-third of all abortions in the United States.
 
Complain to Kieh's by going here. Or contact them on Twitter.
 
Source: LifeNews.com

226 Pro-Life Laws Passed Since 2011, Including 21 This Year, Saving Babies From Abortion

Abortion advocates are up in arms today because of a new report by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute showing states continue to pass pro-life laws at a high rate. These pro-life laws are leading to historic low abortion figures as abortion clinics close and babies are saved from abortions.
 
State legislators passed a record number pro-life laws in 2011 as a wave of pro-life lawmakers were elected in reaction to the election of pro-abortion President Barack Obama and his push for more abortions funded at taxpayer expense. In the years following, pro-life laws continued to be approved at a higher rate than in prior years, as the Guttmacher graphs show.
 

 
"So far this year, 13 states have adopted 21 new restrictions designed to limit access to abortion, about half the number (41) of similar restrictions that had been enacted by this point last year. These restrictions range from requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals to bans on insurance coverage to limitations on medication abortion," the report says.
 
At the same time, the pro-abortion side could only manage to approve three pro-abortion laws.
 
Guttmacher is most upset at the kind of laws that protect women's health and close down abortion clinics and stop abortion practitioners who can't meet the same standards expected of legitimate medical centers and physicians. The pro-abortion group calls such laws TRAP laws because it claims they trap abortion clinics and abortion practitioners by forcing them to comply with basic health and safety standards that ensue women's health is protected from dangerous abortions.
As its chart shows, these pro-life laws are multiplying, and abortion clinics are closing as a result.
 

 
"Perhaps spurred by a decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Texas law, Louisiana and Oklahoma enacted measures requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Once these two new laws go into effect later in the year, seven states will require abortion providers to have admitting privileges," it said. "In addition, Arizona and Indiana, which already had stringent requirements on facilities where abortions are performed, moved to allow the state health agency to make unannounced inspections. Altogether, 26 states have some sort of TRAP law, a sharp increase from 2000, when only 11 states had such requirements. With the addition of these new laws, 59% of women of reproductive age live in a state that has enacted TRAP provisions."
 
Ultimately, as LifeNews' extensive coverage has shown, the passage of pro-life laws will protect women, save unborn babies from abortion and close down abortion clinics. Although some gimmicks have cropped up in recent years about how to end abortion sooner, these laws are stopping abortions now as the pro-life movement works to overturn Roe and protect unborn children legally in a more permanent way.
 
Source: LifeNews.com

University of Chicago publishes how-to guide on getting an abortion in Illinois

The University of Chicago has published a how-to guide on getting an abortion, complete with referrals to local abortion providers, links to financial assistance programs and statements that it's one of the "safest" procedures in America today.

The guide also tacitly warns readers not to trust crisis pregnancy centers, citing an 8-year-old study commissioned by a top Democratic lawmaker that claims the vast majority of centers provide false or misleading information that could "lead to suicide and 'post-abortion stress disorder.'"
 
While the university says it's a guide for health and social service providers, it contains links to multiple abortion providers in Illinois.
 

 
Area pro-life groups are upset with the university's decision to collaborate on such a project.
 
The abortion guide is full of "inaccurate information, hypocrisies, inadequately researched studies, and attempts to dissuade women from seeking all healthcare options available," Emily Zender, executive director of Illinois Right to Life, said on the group's website.
 
Source: Illinois Review
 
More HERE

Illinois governor approves November ballot question on birth control coverage

 
CHICAGO - In an attempt to ensure Democrat voter turnout in November, Gov. Pat Quinn today approved a referendum ballot question that'll ask voters if they think prescription drug coverage plans should be required to include birth control.
In a statement, Quinn said a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on birth control has brought the issue of women's rights to the forefront.
 
Illinois already requires insurance providers that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA-approved contraceptive drugs for women.
 
Democrat State Sen. Iris Martinez sponsored the legislation, which became law in 2003. She's a sponsor of the ballot measure and says t's necessary to make the argument stronger in light of the Affordable Care Act and court disputes.
 
Source: Illinois Review

Wheaton College wins in Supreme Court decision - at least for now

 
WHEATON - DuPage County's Wheaton College objected to filling out a form mandated in ObamaCare that would push contraceptive coverage onto their third party insurers, and in a decision that received little notice compared to Monday's Hobby Lobby decision, Wheaton College won a temporary victory Thursday.
 
As a way out of paying for contraceptives, the Obama Administration said faith-affiliated charities, colleges and hospitals must fill out the document known as Form 700 that enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control. If the form is filled out, the employer does not have to arrange the coverage or pay for it. Insurers get reimbursed by the government through credits against fees owed under other provisions of the health care law. 
 
Wheaton and dozens of other nonprofits sued over the form, saying it violates their religious beliefs because it forces them to participate in a system to subsidize and distribute the contraception. 
 

The court said it was not ultimately deciding the issue Thursday and noted that it is likely to take up the nonprofits' cases at some point. 
 
For now, though, it said in an unsigned opinion that the letter to HHS is sufficient and that the government can rely on the letter to ensure that women covered by Wheaton's insurance can obtain emergency contraception at no cost. 

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.