Abortion Costs US Over $16 Trillion in Federal Revenue

Mark Olson, a former liberal activist, has published research demonstrating the devastating economic impact abortion-on-demand has had on the American economy. Olson's research finds that more than $16 trillion in federal revenue, roughly the size of our national debt, has been lost due to abortion.

"The figure of 55 million persons aborted, typically reported by pro-life groups, is a significant undercount," says Olson, a pro-life political consultant. "Abortions did not magically begin occurring in 1973 [when the Supreme Court allowed them], yet that is when everyone starts counting."

Using widely accepted pre-Roe v. Wade estimates, Olson's research additionally accounts for the compounding nature of population by including the generations of offspring that would have been born to those persons otherwise aborted. The result: The United States has suffered a population loss of over 125 million persons due to abortion.

When the per-capita individual federal tax burden for each respective year is applied to the population loss model, the result is a statistically significant correlation between our current national debt and federal revenue loss due to abortion.

Basic macroeconomics says that any such loss in population will result in a collapse of the necessary aggregate supply and demand to sustain long-term national economic growth. The population loss due to abortion would have the same negative economic impact as any population loss due to war, epidemic or natural disaster.

Olson adds, "We can argue over a balanced-budget amendment or tax-and-spend policies, but the reality is that we have lost over 125 million persons—no liberal or conservative economic policy can make up for that loss. We need to stop destroying our most precious economic resource, our people."

Olson additionally introduces "The Reagan Plan," an informed method for legally ending abortion in America. In 1980, Ronald Reagan laid out an achievable plan to accomplish the legal abolition of abortion. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement has yet to follow this plan.

By Mark Olson
Source: CharismaNews

Pregnancy Support Phone Line Has Helped Two Million Moms Save Their Babies From Abortion

Last Monday night I was contacted by a friend who turned to me for assistance with adoption. It was not for herself, but rather for a resident of her city who came to her looking for help while she was working for her local government.

I felt a sense of appreciation that this friend recognized the mindset I have when it comes to women facing pregnancies which may not be planned and that women may want options other than parenting. I looked up pregnancy centers from Option Line and was able to find a close by location to refer her to.

That same week, on Thursday, Life News was contacted by Heartbeat International, the organization which runs the Option Line service. Option Line was writing to share that they had reached 2 million contacts!

The e-mail sent out shares the story of one of those 2 million contacts, an 18 year old named Morgan.

Morgan was 18 and facing an unplanned pregnancy, which came to be while she was living with her father. While her father wanted her to get an abortion, and even scheduled her an appointment, Morgan was able to fly to her mother in Washington state. Fortunately, Morgan not only had her mother to turn to, but a pregnancy center.

The friend who reached out to me is not the first person to contact me for information regarding pregnancy centers or the forms of assistance they provide. I have gladly referred others to Option Line to look up pregnancy centers in their area, or have done the looking up for them. And just as Morgan turned to the same pregnancy center for assistance where she once volunteered for, I would turn to one should I ever face an unplanned pregnancy. I would know that I would be met with dignity and respect while being assisted.

Secular Pro-Life Perspectives featured a piece from an anonymous blogger  in April, in which the author discussed how thinking she could have been pregnant affected her pro-life views. One such view point of hers specifically mentions the pregnancy center she turned to:

7.       The attacks that crisis pregnancies are under seem even more shameful and unnecessary. I turned to a pregnancy center for a pregnancy test. The staffer there was kind, helpful and non-judgmental. I was also promised confidentiality. The test was explained to me, and was free. My partner, who is neither pro-life nor a Christian, felt being at the center went positively. (This blog just recently reported on the hypocrisy of the legal trouble pregnancy centers have to endure when abortion clinics are allowed to operate without being inspected and under deplorable conditions.)

As the point on pregnancy centers mentions, pregnancy centers are subject to battles in court, their first amendment, as well as their ability to best help those women who turn to them, being threatened. Fortunately, the courts ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in Austin and Baltimore. However, pro-abortion groups still continue to attack these centers, as NARAL Pro-Choice America did so by sharing an article on their Facebook page just earlier this month. And, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have pages "warning" women about them. Despite these shameful attacks, pregnancy centers, such as those which Option Line assist women in finding, pregnancy centers continue to operate to truly help women, women just like Morgan.

By Rebecca Downs | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

Abortion's grim reality may explain 'pro-choice' label drop

A woman looks at a sonogram image of her unborn baby. Credit: Katy Senour/CNA.

Abortion advocates' recent shift away from the term "pro-choice" could be due to improving medicine and technology showing the harsh reality and effects of the procedure.

"Health is a popular buzz word for abortionists, but is much weakened as medical science shows women's health is harmed by abortion," Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, told CNA.

A July 28 article in the New York Times detailed how abortion rights activists are beginning to change the pro-choice label to more vague terminology, saying that they do not want to limit the abortion spectrum to the term. The issue has been transferred to the general labels of "women's health" and "economic security," but advocates have still not found a suitable alternative name.

Yoest believes that abortion rights supporters are seeking another term as they are working to normalize abortion by creating the misconception that – since it is publicly funded – abortion is healthcare.

"The abortion industry is moving from choice to coercion, changing their strategy from mainstream abortion in culture to integrating it into healthcare," she said.

Planned Parenthood released a video in January 2013 promoting the change in terms, called "Not In Her Shoes." This production discussed how abortion advocates do not want to be limited to the pro-choice label because they hold that the issue encompasses more than just a choice.

However, pro-life activists see this shift as a victory, noting that after a forty-year battle, abortion advocates are needing to change their strategy. Advances in medical science and technology have also been viewed as dismantling abortion advocates' cause.

"Thanks to the miracle of the ultrasound, generations are able to see what the abortionist's 'choice' is – the death of an unborn child. And thanks to a growing body of medical research, we know that 'choice' hurts women as well," Yoest said.

According to the Times, various polls have shown that many women – when asked if they are pro-life or pro-choice – will answer pro-life, even if they supported the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S.

"As exposure to the horror of abortion grows, more and more people identify as pro-life based on their concern for both mother and child," Yoest noted.

"Today, the abortion industry has moved from 'choice' to coercion, attempting to use the force of government to force compliance with an abortion agenda, or face dire consequences."

Yoest added that Americans are increasingly aware of this phenomenon, and that it is making them rethink what the term "pro-choice" really means.

"Pregnancy is not a disease 'cured' by the death of a child," she reflected. "Real health care respects life."

By Maggie Lawson
Source: CNA/EWTN News

UN committee’s abortion attack renders it unfit for its purpose

Even in the increasingly bizarre parallel universe of the United Nations, you would expect a Human Rights committee to understand this fundamental principle: human rights are inherent for all members of the human family, they are not bestowed by any government, and cannot be denied by any self-styled Council.

This is Human Rights 101: the basic level of understanding required before any discussion of human rights can commence. By that measure then, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has shown itself to be unfit for its purpose by attacking the rights of a section of the human family and seeking to deny the most vulnerable human beings on the planet their fundamental rights.

Their behaviour in Geneva earlier this month was shameful. The UN is often criticised for its inability to deal with international conflicts, for being a 'toothless tiger', and for failing to investigate fraud and corruption and more. However in demanding that Ireland make abortion even more widely available, the UNHRC has failed in its primary mission, and its entire raison d'être is called into account.

A human rights committee that argues some human beings can be denied a right to life is not fit for its purpose. They have shown themselves to be driven by an ideology that chooses to discriminate and destroy human beings who are so helpless that they can't even raise their eyes in their own defence. It's always easy to attack the weak and the voiceless – but that a so-called human rights committee would choose to do so is simply reprehensible.

Worst of all, the UN committee deliberately misrepresented genuine human rights covenants to try to justify the killing of unborn children, and to argue that unborn children are 'not fully human'.

In fact, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, used by the UNHRC members to push for abortion, never mentions abortion at all, but does say in Article 6 that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

In order to sidestep this Article, the committee claimed that the unborn child was not a human being nor fully a member of the human family, a position so ignorant of basic biology or any scientific understanding that is actually laughable.

Equally astonishing, but not remotely humorous, is the UNHRC's claim that Ireland's protection of unborn children amounted to "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," when they understand very well that abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn child, is the most extreme form of torture imaginable.

What needs to be understood here is that this committee of so-called human rights experts know exactly what abortion is: they know very well that it is not medically necessary, that it kills children and hurts women, yet they still choose to try to foist it on sovereign nations who protect both mother and baby.

Lined up against the unborn child in Geneva was the usual gaggle of abortion pushers, mostly funded by US billionaires who want to browbeat and bully Ireland into accepting abortion. Then the Irish media were on standby as usual to report and endlessly repeat the UNHRC's demand that Ireland legalise abortion for children with disabilities or who have been conceived through rape and incest: this despite the fact that the UN is urging countries to ratify their Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In fact, no 'right' to abortion exists in international law, while the right to life of every person is widely accepted and well established.

Of course, this latest debacle at the UN is wholly expected and the callous hypocrisy in their targeting of innocent children is what we have come to expect from the pro-abortion bureaucrats at the UN riding an endless gravy train of cushy appointments and taxpayer-funded expense accounts.

Their shameful attack on Ireland has shown that the UNHRC are not fit. A real human rights body recognises the rights of every human – without exception.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

“Chloe’s Law” stands for providing expectant mothers with information about Down syndrome, not for denying them evidence-based information

By Mark Bradford, President, Jérôme Lejeune Foundation, USA

Chloe Kondrich prays as Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett signs "Chloe's Law" (used with permission of Kurt Kondrich)

On July 18, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the "Down Syndrome Prenatal and Postnatal Education Act" commonly known as "Chloe's Law." Pennsylvania became the 7th state to implement legislation intended to provide to new and expectant parents "Up-to-date, evidence-based information about Down syndrome that has been reviewed by medical experts and national Down syndrome organizations" and also "contact information regarding First Call programs and support services."

Pennsylvania's law, as is true with the majority of other state laws, reflects the common ground first established in the 2008 federal legislation, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. That Act was co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Brownback, again showing the common ground agreement that women should receive all of the information recommended by professional guidelines.

The need for Chloe's law is two-fold: [1] the Kennedy-Brownback Act has never been funded or implemented, which is why states have taken on state-level measures; and [2] while professional guidelines recommend offering prenatal testing for Down syndrome to all patients, those same guidelines recommend that patients receive up-to-date, accurate information about Down syndrome and referral to parent support organizations, but that is not happening with the same regularity as the offering of prenatal testing.

Author Tara Murtha responded negatively to Chloe's Law in an editorial published at RealityCheck.org on July 25. At its website, RealityCheck describes itself as a "daily publication providing news, commentary and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and justice issues" that claims to contribute "to the global effort to empower people with the information, services and leadership they need to safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights against false attacks and misinformation."

It is peculiar that a site dedicated to countering misinformation would criticize and make false attacks against a law whose very purpose is to ensure that women are fully and factually informed with accurate information regarding the outcomes of a prenatal diagnosis, should that diagnosis reveal the child has Down syndrome.

Ms. Murtha has made Chloe's Law about something that it is not. In citing the bill's sponsors positions on abortion she implies that the purpose of the law is to, in some way, restrict a woman's right to abort a child following a prenatal diagnosis. There is no language in the law that would imply even an incremental move toward restricting access to abortion. The sole purpose of the law is to provide to women evidence based information on the outcomes of having a child with Down syndrome. After that, they are free to make whatever decision they choose.

She also joins the Pennsylvania Medical Association in criticizing the law because it requires physicians to provide information to women prepared by a third party, thus "interfering" in communications between the patient and physician. Murtha misleads her readers by claiming that the law requires that doctors read a script to patients developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

On the contrary, the law states that it will be the Department of Health's responsibility to make available on their website information reviewed by medical experts, including information on physical, developmental, educational, and psychosocial outcomes, life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual development and treatment options. Dangerous and intrusive information, to be sure.

A true reality check reveals why provision of this information may be necessary. During debate over the Maryland law earlier this year, Heather Sachs gave testimony that 9 years ago when she received the result of her prenatal diagnosis she was simply given a pamphlet entitled So You've Had a Mongoloid: Now What?

Stories like hers are not uncommon. For too long, study after study, and parent testimony after testimony, has demonstrated that prenatal testing for Down syndrome has never been administered according to the full professional guidelines because too often parents are simply told the test result and that is it. In a recent study, women reported negative experiences of receiving a prenatal diagnosis outnumbering positive ones 2.5 to 1.

Chloe's Law implements the guidelines physicians were supposed to be following but have not done so consistently. This law is a caring law that will improve patient care. That is why it has received the broad, near unanimous bipartisan support it deserves.

Let's stand for providing women information, not for denying them information about a condition that remains too often misunderstood – even within the medical community.

Source: NRL News

Scientific Review of 72 Epidemiological Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

A scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research. The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, "Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors."[1] Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.

 Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained: 

 "...21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countries...."[2]

 The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.[3]

The authors identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of the risk: i.e., failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of breast cancer; excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; confining their analyses to young women in their reproductive years; only comparing childless aborting women with childless never-pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); and ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions (i.e., abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions).

 The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not associated with breast cancer, but Lanfranchi and Fagan said the NCI's conclusion contradicts not only epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts including premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full term pregnancy and childlessness.[4]

The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and Fagan concluded: 

 "We see that many studies of induced abortion demonstrate significant associations, across multiple cultures and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone exposure). The association manifests itself in the appropriate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically plausible and coherent with existing science and has been demonstrated by analogy."[5]

 ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting a link, but they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women in New York and two ecological studies.[6-8] Lanfranchi and Fagan called the recall bias hypothesis "unproven."

 In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a research data network located in existing mammography screening centers that would collect standardized data on forms concerning women's reproductive, hormonal and breast histories that would include all potential risk factors.

 The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

 References:

1.  Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: <http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf>.

2.  Ibid, p. 101.

3.  Ibid, p. 102.

4.  Ibid, p. 100.

5.  Ibid, p. 103.

6.  Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.

7.  Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510.

8.  Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

Peter Breen, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society Thomas More Society

This pro-life, first-time candidate will be elected, guaranteed

A prominent pro-life, pro-family activist is running unopposed for the Illinois State House after the state's Speaker of the House dropped a lawsuit that would have illegally placed a candidate against him.

Peter Breen, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Chicago-based pro-life, pro-family Thomas More Society, announced in an e-mail to supporters that Speaker Mike Madigan "voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit" to place a candidate on the general election ballot against him. Madigan had, according to Breen, "asked a judge to ignore [state] law and give a pass" to a candidate of Madigan's liking. Breen is running to represent the 48th District of Illinois in Springfield.

Madigan is a leading Democrat in the state, while Breen is a first-time Republican candidate for office. Madigan's lawsuit came earlier this month, after the DuPage County Election Board took Breen's opponent off the ballot.

Breen has long been known for his strong stand in favour of marriage and life. Last year, he accused the IRS of targeting a client of the Thomas More Society, the Coalition of Life for Iowa after the federal agency questioned them about the content of their prayers and what words were on pro-life signs held outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.

Two congressional committees are investigating the IRS for illegally targeting pro-life, pro-family, and Tea Party non-profits for years. The Coalition is one of the organizations that says it was targeted.

Madigan is a senior Democrat in a state that has a Democratic governor and a supermajority of Democrats in the state legislature. His daughter, Lisa, is the state's Attorney General, and was until recently considered a top candidate to run against Gov. Pat Quinn. Madigan's influence is enormous across the state's political structure, and just last week Breen said about the lawsuit that Madigan "never goes down without a fight."

Breen told LifeSiteNews his campaign has "been able to talk about" the issue of life because he is running in a pro-life district. He said that while he will represent the interests of his constituents, "you've got legislators in assemblies, and Senates, and the Congress, who are very much to the left of their constituencies on the life issue." He said this puts many politicians "out of step with their constituencies."

Breen also discussed the candidate controversy that ended last week. He said that DuPage County Democrats failed to "follow....these simple rules that are laid down by the state of Illinois." Those rules, as Breen explained, allowed Democrats to "slate a candidate," but "for whatever reason, they didn't follow the rules."

After the Election Board unanimously stood with Breen, Democrats appealed. However, the appeal to the Circuit Court "has been dismissed," something Breen called "great news."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Contact: Dustin Siggins

Congratulations Amazon, You Sold Out Women’s Health for Money

By Emily Zender - 

Amazon has now wiggled its way in to receive a cut of the abortion industry's multibillion-dollar profits. In January, Amazon began quietly selling Plan B, an abortion-inducing drug taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Amazon began selling the abortion drug for about $17 – well below the $32 manufacturing cost according to a Princeton research study.

Today, the average price of Plan B on Amazon is about $44. Selling the abortion drug isn't the only way Amazon is making money off of women's bodies. While investigating the ability to purchase Plan B from Amazon, advertisements for a plan… "C" appeared below the product. The advertisements, strategically shown to customers who are viewing Plan B on Amazon, are paid advertisements for Illinois abortion clinics. 

If your $44 Plan B doesn't work, here's your plan C: an abortion that on average costs $421. Couple the advertising income from the abortion industry with the profits from selling Plan B and Amazon has a brand new income stream.

How can Amazon sell Plan B without a minor girl or a woman needing a prescription?

In 2011, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was about to approve Plan B over-the-counter (without a prescription). In a shocking last minute move, Former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, an outspoken abortion advocate, halted the FDA's attempt. In what some experts called an unprecedented move, Sebelius issued a letter to the FDA challenging the validity of its data that called prescription-less Plan B "safe" for any age. Sebelius called the FDA's data "inadequate to support approval." President Obama supported Sebelius' refusal to legalize prescription-less Plan B saying, "as the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine."

The abortion industry immediately sued the Obama Administration and won a ruling from U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman to sell Plan B to all ages without any restrictions. After the Obama Administration's initial appeal was rejected by a three-judge Court of Appeals, the Administration dropped its defense. Thus, one year ago on June 20, 2013, Plan B became legal to sell to a person regardless if she or he was 11 years old or 51 years old. 

Plan B is a painful, abortion-inducing drug with serious health side effects to girls and women. Side effects (from the Plan B website) include: menstrual changes, nausea, lower stomach (abdominal) pain, tiredness, headache, dizziness, breast pain, spotting, bleeding, and vomiting.

By eliminating a woman's contemplation process: a discussion with her doctor about the risks, side effects, and proper administration, the abortion industry has also effectively removed any thought into the ramifications of the abortion drug. With the click of a button, Amazon delivers to your doorstep the little pill that can end human physical life. Children under the age of 17 cannot be admitted to a rated R movie without parental accompaniment but Planned Parenthood, a child sexual abuser, or now Amazon, can administer a drug to your 11-year-old daughter, niece, or goddaughter without you ever knowing.

If you think teen pregnancy isn't an issue think again. According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, from 1995 to 2011, 67,928 abortions were performed in Illinois on girls 17 years old and younger. That's 11 abortions performed on a minor girl every day in Illinois.

Now, because of Amazon's partnership with the abortion industry, a sexual predator can order Plan B and never have to show his face in public. He can even order ahead and keep the drugs in his medicine cabinet if he'd like.  Just like that, Amazon can claim "innocence" in aiding and abetting a sexual abuser in covering up his crime because of negligent regulations. And not only did Amazon get paid for its "innocent" assistance in the crime, it did so all with the Amazon smile.

Congratulations Amazon on becoming a corporation that places greed above the concern for teenage girls.  Congratulations Amazon, on becoming the latest corporation to throw moral responsibility and ethics to the wind in the interest of "growing profits."

Some things are more important than money. Children and women's health are two of them.           

Emily Zender is executive director of Illinois Right to Life.
Source: Illinois Review

IRS Strikes Deal With Atheist Group to Monitor Content of Sermons

The next time your pastor delivers a pro-life sermon or urges the congregation to stand up for pro-life values in the political or public arena, he could be taken to task by the IRS.

Alliance Defending Freedom asked the Internal Revenue Service Tuesday to release all documents related to its recent decision to settle a lawsuit with an atheist group that claims the IRS has adopted new protocols and procedures for the investigation of churches.

ADF submitted the Freedom of Information Act request after learning of the IRS's agreement with Freedom From Religion Foundation in a press release the group issued on July 17 concerning its lawsuit Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, which accused the agency of failing to investigate churches the way the atheist group would like.

"Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups," said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. "We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day."

The IRS claims it is temporarily withholding investigations of all tax-exempt entities because of congressional scrutiny of its recent scandals, but no one knows when it will decide to restart investigations based on any new or modified rules that it develops.

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation press release, "The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations."

The release mentions the ADF annual "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" event as one that promotes activity by churches that violates the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that activist groups often cite in an attempt to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status. The Johnson Amendment authorizes the IRS to regulate sermons and requires churches to give up their constitutionally protected freedom of speech in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

"The IRS cannot force churches to give up their precious constitutionally protected freedoms to receive a tax exemption," explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley, who heads the Pulpit Freedom Sunday event. "No one would suggest a pastor give up his church's tax-exempt status if he wants to keep his constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, no one should be asking him to do the same to be able to keep his constitutionally protected freedom of speech."

This year's Pulpit Freedom Sunday will be held on Oct. 5.

Source: LifeNews.com

What the numbers are telling us about the outcome of the November mid-term elections

Let's put together a Gallup summary of President Obama's popularity over the last three months (which ran yesterday) and an analysis of what might happen this fall, provided today by Josh Kraushaar at the National Journal and see what they tell us.

Gallup's Jeffrey Jones tells us

"President Barack Obama averaged 43.2% job approval during his 22nd quarter in office, from April 20 through July 19. That is a minimal increase from the prior quarter's 42.4% average, but still ranks among the lowest for Obama to date. His worst quarterly average thus far is 41.0% in quarter 11."

Those numbers for the 22nd-quarter are higher than only two presidents, one of whom was Richard Nixon just before he resigned in August 1974.

Jones added

"Obama may be able to keep his ratings above the 40% mark as long as he maintains strong levels of support among Democrats. Although Democrats' approval ratings of Obama are down from earlier in his presidency, they still consistently approach 80%."

Let's move on to Kraushaar's "The Odds of a GOP Wave Are Increasing: This year's political environment is shaping up to be nearly as bleak as 2010, and that's ominous news for Senate Democrats."

A fair portion of his intriguing piece is an explanation/rebuttal over what's constitutes a "wave." As would be obvious, if you make the bar high enough, it's almost impossible for the GOP to secure a wave ("shorthand for a landslide victory for the winning party," as Kraushaar explains).

An important point made early: in the second midterm election, historically, the president's party suffers high loses. "But Clinton's and Reagan's relatively high popularity likely helped mitigate midterm seat losses for their parties in the elections."

With Obama striving to stay about 40% in job approval, vulnerable Democrats don't have that life-preserver to cling to. Especially given "that the right-track/wrong-track numbers [whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track] are near historic lows."

Here are two quick observations.

First, the caveat we always offer. Politics and electoral fortunes can change in a heartbeat. But that turnabout should be less of a problem for Republicans in 2014, given the high caliber of their candidates, including challengers to sitting Democratic senators.

Second, as Kraushaar observes

"If anything, this year's environment for Democrats is shaping up to be as bleak [as 2010]. Sizable majorities oppose the Obama administration's handling of nearly every issue, including the economy, health care, and foreign policy. The administration looks out of its element, lurching from foreign policy crises to domestic scandal over the past year. Even out of the headlines, Obamacare is still a driving force for Republicans and for unfavorable poll numbers. This week, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg released new data showing Obama's disapproval at a whopping 60 percent in 12 Senate battlegrounds, with half strongly disapproving of his performance. Overall, Republicans held a 2-point edge on the battleground generic ballot, 46 percent to 44 percent."

Please keep that conclusion about ObamaCare in mind. We are constantly told that the importance of this issue has "peaked," and will not play a major role come November. That simply is not true.

In addition, there is the "generic ballot" gap. That is the response when people are asked whether they would vote for a generic Democrat or Republican (as opposed to naming a specific candidate).

Kraushaar informs us in his first paragraph that running even (or in this case, 2 points ahead) "usually translates into a clear GOP edge" when people actually vote.

Please take five minutes and read the analysis.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Senate May Approve Disability Rights Treaty That Could Promote Abortion

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) this week. While this treaty has a warm and fuzzy name, it could have a dangerous impact on abortion laws in this country.

Pro-life Americans should be especially concerned with the inclusion of the term "sexual and reproductive health" under the list of required areas for which signatory nations must provide "free or affordable health care."

The term "sexual and reproductive health" is not defined. This provides an opportunity for anti-life activists within UN agencies and treaty monitoring bodies to distort its meaning to serve their agenda. Although abortion is not mentioned in the treaty, abortion-activists within the U.N. want this phrase to be interpreted to mean a right to abortion.

The United States already has one of the most radical abortion policies in the world. Our country is in the company of North Korea, China, and Canada as the only four nations in the world to allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.  However, there is a desire on the part of Senate Democrats to further radicalize America's abortion policies—as evidenced by their efforts to advance a new "FOCA" bill, S. 1696–disingenuously named the Women's Health Protection Act.

If the United States were to ratify CRPD, a U.S. court could cite the recommendations of its treaty monitoring body as evidence of customary international law in order to further liberalize the abortion policies in this country. There are examples of this happening around the world. In the last decade, courts in Columbia and Argentina have allowed their nations to be pressured by the recommendations of UN treaty monitoring bodies to liberalize their laws in favor of abortion.

The United States is already one of the world leaders regarding legal protections for people who have disabilities. Ceding this nation's sovereignty to an international body will not increase rights for disabled Americans, but it will create a dangerous opening for policy making by abortion activists within UN bodies.

Now that CRPD has passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee it will be eligible for a vote on the Senate floor. The treaty will need the votes of two-thirds of the Senate in order to be ratified. Pro-life Americans should be on guard against CRPD and any UN treaty that does not expressly prohibit the agreement from being interpreted to mean a right to abortion.

Legal Group: Planned Parenthood Continues to Commit Fraud, Misuse Taxpayer Funds

A Christian legal group made public today its latest annual report. It shows alleged wastes, abuse and potential fraud by the nation’s largest abortion seller. The report, issued to Congress, urges federal lawmakers to continue investigating Planned Parenthood’s alleged misuse of taxpayer money.

“The government should use American tax dollars responsibly and for the common good,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Litigation Counsel Catherine Glenn Foster.

“The taxpayers who provide that hard-earned money deserve to know if it’s being funneled to groups that are abusing it.”

The report, “Profit. No Matter What,” reviews audits of the abortion seller and its affiliates for the fiscal year 2013. According to ADF, these audits show a total of more than $115 million in waste, abuse and potential fraud in federal and state family planning funding programs—most of which goes to Planned Parenthood.

The report also highlights other alleged billing violations. Some of them include overbilling for contraceptives and Plan B products.

“When it comes to accountability and transparency, Planned Parenthood’s publicly-funded, billion-dollar abortion empire cannot be given a pass,” Foster explained. “It has to play by the same rules as everyone else.”

Planned Parenthood continues to receive government funds to end the lives of preborn babies. The nation’s largest abortion seller also continues to overlook the safety of women and girls. Ask your lawmakers to stop using our tax dollars in this way.

TV and abortion: "Progress" = more abortions

NBC Entertainment Chairman Bob Greenblatt

As NRL News Today has noted (at length), the controversy over the addle-pated “abortion-themed romantic comedy“” Obvious Child served as a springboard for a number of related discussions.

From our perspective, suffice it to say two things about the film itself. First, director Gillian Robespierre proved once again that there is no depth to which abortion advocates won’t sink to “normalize” abortion. That Robespierre and star Jenny Slate would continue to try to have it both way—milk the abortion angle for all its worth yet insist (wink, wink) that abortion was not the heart and soul of Obvious Child—is pretty much what you would expect.

Second, lead character Donna Stern (Slate’s foul-mouthed night club comic) is a linear descent of Emily Letts, infamous for videotaping her own abortion and putting her child’s final minutes on YouTube for all the world to see.

Pro-abortionists continue to try to make hay out of the controversy over a film that hardly lit up the box office. For example, a few weeks ago (according to the Washington Post’s Alyssa Rosenberg) “NBC found itself the target of criticism after reports surfaced that the network had declined a digital ad for the independent movie ‘Obvious Child.’” (That’s not entirely accurate. See below.)

The headline of Rosenberg’s piece illustrated her conclusion: ”Is TV afraid of abortion? For NBC, the answer is complicated.”

She is basically sympathetic to the answer NBC Entertainment Chairman Bob Greenblatt gave to a colleague of Rosenberg about “whether the controversy reflected a broader timidity about abortion and reproductive health on television.”

Greenblatt alluded to a show that ran 20 or so years ago where a character was considering an abortion. So, too, was the staff, deciding in the end to have her “lose the baby sort of on the way to getting the abortion.”

“I don’t think we cop out like that anymore, but I still think writers and producers are nervous about it because it really does divide people,” Greenblatt said. “But I think we’ve made progress.”

Rosenberg offers conclusions from an analysis from a pro-abortion think-tank that concludes abortion has been a more common story line since Roe. “The number of those storylines that end with a character losing the pregnancy has increased slightly, though there has been a greater shift toward characters carrying pregnancies to term and either parenting their children or giving them up for adoption,” she writes. But….

“[J]ust because pop culture has characters consider abortion more often does not mean that fictional characters are actually having abortions or that television has gotten any braver about treating abortion as routine,” Rosenberg writes. “As my former colleague Tara Culp-Ressler reported in February, ‘Between 1973 and 2002, abortion represented about 60 percent of the pregnancy outcomes in pop culture plots. But from 2003 and 2012, that dropped to about 48 percent.’”

So to be clear, “progress” = more women having abortions, not just considering them.

Greenblatt told Rosenberg that he thought “the advertising sales team at NBC had taken ‘the path of least resistance,’ selecting an ad that did not mention the ‘abortion angle’ in ‘Obvious Child’ by choosing the spot out of three potential options.

Jennifer Salke, president of NBC Entertainment, “said they simply could not remember very many story pitches about abortion and unplanned pregnancies during their tenure at NBC.” What about the future? “We would just want to make sure we were smart about it, that it was handled appropriately,” Salke said.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

 

Basic dos-and-don'ts men should know when helping women face an unplanned pregnancy

In our culture, equipped with a gazillion cell phone cameras and a multiplicity of recording devices, every once in a while when an unhinged pro-abortionist goes off on a pro-lifer, it’s get captured and makes its way onto the internet.

An opinion piece appearing in an Alabama newspaper over the weekend reminded me of this truism. However what made J. Pepper Bryars’ argument particularly helpful is that he used one of those harangues as a way of addressing the question of men and abortion.

We all know that being the good liberals that pro-abortion feminists are, they insist that the voices of men should be censored. (They are not big on diversity of opinion to begin with.)

And it’s not just that abortion is “a woman’s issue” (as we are told incessantly) and therefore men have no voice. It’s that men have nothing to contribute to the conversation (other than perhaps to affirm that they will go along with whatever her decision is). They are the equivalent of potted plants.

Bryars’ opinion piece reminds us that many, if not nearly all men, who are a party to a crisis pregnancy, have bought this lie. Consequently they say (or imply) that whichever direction she is headed, they will follow.

Which, of course, misses the crucial other reason the Abortion Establishment is so loathe to allow men to utter a peep. Women in the midst of a crisis pregnancy understandably see passivity as a sign either of indifference or (worse) a signal that everyone would be “better off” if she eliminated the “problem.”

But if the man speaks up on behalf of his baby and the mother of their child, it can make all the difference in the world.

“The man has a huge influence in the woman’s decision to choose life,” Susan Baldwin, executive director of the Women’s Resource Center, which operates crisis pregnancy centers in Mobile and Saraland, told Bryars. “If he is 100-percent for the baby and offers to support their child, then we almost never see the woman choose abortion.”

Bryars asked her what if the father resorts to the “I’ll-support-her-decision” line?

“If he says that he doesn’t care what she does, or it’s her decision and he doesn’t want to interfere, she takes that as quite a negative and then the chances are 50-percent,” Baldwin said. “If he wants nothing to do with her or ‘her’ baby…then the woman is extremely vulnerable.”

Bryars then brought up something I’m embarrassed to admit I’d never considered. Let’s say the father wants to do the right thing, not the convenient thing.

What exactly does he say?

“Baldwin said that her counselors and medical staff have observed that men don’t know how to talk to women about pregnancy, birth, their needs as mothers and alternatives such as adoption,” Bryars writes. “Her center’s website shares a list of basic dos-and-don’ts men should know when facing an unplanned pregnancy.”

Kathy Hall is executive director of Choose Life of North Alabama, a crisis pregnancy center in Huntsville, Alabama. They run a program called “MENistry.”

Its target audience is men who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy. A dozen trained men serve as counselors and mentors “to show fathers how important they are in the decision-making process and how they can grow to become the strong men that their situation requires,” Bryars writes. “They also offer post-abortion healing to men who have had a child aborted in their past – an untold yet painful part of the overall abortion tragedy.”

While men are still largely on the outside looking in, an author of a book about men and abortion sees hope.

“Today, many fathers facing an unplanned pregnancy are still shrugging their shoulders,” Kirk Walden wrote. “But…at pregnancy help centers everywhere, dads are making a comeback.”

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

 

Does Your Senator Support Abortion Up to Birth With No Limits?

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a radical pro-abortion bill (S.1696) sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) and promoted by major pro-abortion advocacy groups.

If enacted, the law would nullify virtually all limits on abortion nationwide, including protective measures that enjoy broad public support, including informed consent laws, waiting periods and laws that protect pain-capable unborn children from excruciating abortions late in pregnancy.

The bill, which has been characterized as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” Act, currently has 35 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

With nearly two thirds of Senate Democrats on board with Blumenthal’s plan to expand abortion, the question must be asked: Where do the Democratic candidates running for Senate this fall stand on this legislation?

In the competitive race for Senate in Alaska, incumbent Sen. Mark Begich’s position is clear. He supports tearing down virtually all limits on abortion nationwide as indicated by his signing on as a cosponsor.

Congressman Bruce Braley, who is running for the open Senate seat in Iowa, is a cosponsor of the House version of the bill.

In Kentucky, Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes told the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman in 2013 that she was “pro-choice down the line on abortion.”

EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion PAC that backs only female Democratic candidates who embrace abortion-on-demand, is one of Grimes’ biggest financiers, according to the Washington Post.

EMILY’s List is also investing heavily in Michelle Nunn’s candidacy in Georgia. Nunn ran sponsored Facebook posts touting the endorsement from the pro-abortion PAC.

However, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, Democrats running in traditionally red states, like Georgia, have deliberately downplayed their positions on abortion.

Nunn’s campaign has only offered the tired platitude that she would like to see abortion “safe, legal and rare.”  Voters in Georgia deserve to know where she stands on this bill.

Like Nunn, Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina is abiding by a similar playbook on abortion. She has not commented on Blumenthal’s bill and has generally dodged the abortion issue.

However, it’s not difficult to draw conclusions based on her record. Hagan, another EMILY’s List beneficiary, has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating solidly pro-abortion voting record. Most recently, Hagan joined Planned Parenthood in advocating for a bill taking aim at pro-life conscience protections.

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, another Southern Democrat facing a tough reelection in 2014, has come under fire for saying one thing on abortion and doing another. Pryor’s opponent, pro-life Republican Tom Cotton, has put the issue front and center in the campaign.

Cotton spokesman David Ray said, “Senator Pryor says one thing in Arkansas, and votes the opposite way in Washington. He says he’s pro-choice, then he says he’s pro-life. He says he’s against late-term abortion, but he won’t do anything about it. He says he’s against taxpayer funding of abortion, but he’s voted for it repeatedly. Senator Pryor simply can’t be trusted on this issue.”

Thus far, Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana has avoided discussion of Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill. But she has been in the hot seat after indicating she would not support legislation to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing pain.

Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who is running to challenge Landrieu, said she is “clearly pro-abortion rights.” It’s time for Landrieu to inform voters how she would vote on Blumenthal’s bill if brought to a full Senate vote.

In Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall, who is engaged in a tough race against pro-life challenger Rep. Cory Gardner, has not signed on as cosponsor of Blumenthal’s legislation. Udall has repeatedly hit his opponent on abortion in the campaign, attempting to characterize him as extreme on the issue. Voters should demand to know where Udall stands on his colleague’s extreme bill to invalidate longstanding protective measures for unborn children and their mothers.

Sen. Blumenthal told Roll Call in a November interview, “As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues.”

In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the bill, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias urged the Senate’s Democratic leadership to agree to a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that the Senate hold two votes, one on Blumenthal’s S.1696 and one on Graham’s S.1670, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

“We challenge you, and the leadership of the majority party, to allow the American people to see where every senator stands on both of these major abortion-related bills. Let the American people see which bill reflects the values of each member of the United States Senate—life or death for unborn children?,” said Tobias.

As Americans in key states prepare to elect lawmakers to be their voice in Washington, it’s vital that candidates engage in an honest discussion of where they stand on important issues. No candidate running for Senate should be given a free pass to dodge answering where they stand on Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill and Graham’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Source: LifeNews.com

Kirk votes with Democrats to reverse Hobby Lobby Decision

 

 

 

 
Wednesday, Illinois U.S. Senator Mark Kirk, along with two other Republican senators, supported a failed Democrat-backed measure that would have manuevered around the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.
 
The act, sponsored by Senate Democrats Patty Murray of Washington and Mark Udall of Colorado would have kept for-profit businesses from dropping birth control coverage. The "Not My Bosses' Business Act" would have clarified that no federal law allows companies to refuse follow Obamacare's contraception mandate - even if the owners have strong religious convictions against abortifacients.
 
All Senate Republicans - except for Illinois' Kirk, Alaska's Murkowski and Main's Collins - voted to block the bill, keeping the legislation from advancing.
 
Source: Illinois Review

Senate rejects bill to end employer conscience protections

 

 

 

 
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill that opponents warned would have stripped conscience protections for businesses, drawing a response of cautious relief.

"While the outcome of today's vote is a relief, it is sobering to think that more than half the members of the U.S. Senate, sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States, would vote for a bill whose purpose is to reduce the religious freedom of their fellow Americans," said the U.S. bishops' director of government, Jayd Henricks.

The procedural motion to move the bill along fell four votes short of achieving the 60-vote majority needed to continue. Sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the bill would have forced employers with group health plans to provide all "health items" mandated by federal law, including all FDA-approved contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

This would counter the Supreme Court's recent decision that closely-held businesses like Hobby Lobby are protected by federal law from the federal birth control mandate, given their religious objections.

The controversial mandate requires employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions. It has been the subject of religious freedom lawsuits from more than 300 plaintiffs across the country.

Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore and Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston – heads of the bishops' religious freedom and pro-life committees, respectively – had cautioned against the proposed legislation in a letter to all U.S. Senators. They said that it "does not befit a nation committed to religious liberty. Indeed, if it were to pass, it would call that commitment into question."

The bishops had argued that the bill would go far beyond the Hobby Lobby decision. If health care mandates were expanded in the future to include the abortion pill RU-486 or late-term abortions, employers would be forced to cover those and would have no recourse to conscience protections, they said.
 
Source: CNA/EWTN News

U.S. Senate Democrats launch push for “the most radical pro-abortion bill ever considered by Congress”

 

 

 

NRLC President Carol Tobias was one of two non-congressional witnesses who testified against the so-called "Women's Health Protection Act" (S. 1696)

 
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 was one of two non-congressional witnesses who testified against the so-called "Women's Health Protection Act" (S. 1696), at a hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.
 
"This bill is really about just one thing: it seeks to strip away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their pre-natal development," Tobias told the committee. "Calling the bill the 'Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act' would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards."
 
The bill has been heavily promoted by pro-abortion activist groups since its introduction last November, although it has been largely ignored by the mainstream news media. The measure has 35 Senate cosponsors, all Democrats, including nine of the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chaired today's hearing.
 
The 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.
 
"We believe that many voters will be appalled to learn that nearly two-thirds of Senate Democrats have 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," Tobias said.
 
However, in her testimony Tobias also issued a surprising challenge, calling on the leadership of the Democrat-controlled committee, and the Democrat leadership of the full Senate, to allow a floor vote on the bill – but at the same time, to allow a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 1670), sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) "In the spirit of 'pro-choice,' why not give the Senate a choice as well?," Tobias said to Blumenthal.
 
"We challenge you, and the leadership of the majority party, to allow the American people to see where every senator stands on both of these major abortion-related bills," Tobias said. "Let the American people see which bill reflects the values of each member of the United States Senate."
 
The Graham bill, which has 41 Senate cosponsors, 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 (20 weeks), by which point they are capable of experiencing great pain during abortions.
 
Video from today's hearing is available on C-SPAN's website here.
 
The complete text of the opening statement and challenge by Carol Tobias is posted here.
 
The written testimony of Carol Tobias, which includes detailed discussion of the radical scope of the "Women's Health Protection Act," with numerous citations, is posted here.
 
Source: NRLC