Life Legal Defense Foundation Appear in Federal Court for 'Planned Parenthood v. the Center of Medical Progress' Case

The Life Legal Defense Foundation will appear in federal court on Wednesday, July 6 on behalf of David Daleiden in the case of Planned Parenthood v. the Center of Medical Progress.

Planned Parenthood filed its lawsuit against Daleiden's Center for Medical Progress after Daleiden exposed Planned Parenthood's illegal trade in fetal body parts last year. The court will hear oral arguments on Life Legal's Motion to Dismiss the suit and our "Anti-SLAPP" Motion. The Anti-SLAPP Motion argues that the abortion giant filed the lawsuit only to intimidate and silence Daleiden.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in San Francisco at 2:00 pm on July 6.

Click here for more from Christian Newswire.

Pro-choice activists have hard time condemning sex selection abortions

Abortion rights groups are put in a difficult position by sex-selection abortions. They have said for years that a woman’s decision to abort is no one’s business but her own, and that no one should ever interfere with women’s choices to have abortions, but now, abortion is being used as weapon against baby girls, causing a huge gender imbalance in some countries. From an author who wrote a book on sex selection abortions in China, India and other countries:

“After decades of fighting for a woman’s right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right…”

From one pro-choice activist:

“We have had a challenge making sure that when we communicate we are able to preserve women’s right to abortion but at the same time say that sex selection on the basis of the gender of the future child is incorrect because it amounts to discrimination. How do you hold onto this discrimination tag and at the same time talk about safe abortion and access to it? It’s been a huge challenge for us – we are walking a tightrope.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Supreme Court decision will not deter passage of pro-life laws across the nation

There are other pro-life laws already passed in a number of states which eventually will work their way through the legal pipeline until they reach the Supreme Court. In the AP story they were talking about a ban on dismemberment abortions (the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act) but could also have addressed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act is now on the books in six states– Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana The bill has also been introduced in Idaho, Missouri, and Nebraska, and is expected to be introduced in several other states.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is the law in 14 states– Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas [known as the Preborn Pain Act], West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Pro-abortion Non-Governmental Organizations Request UN to Mark International Safe Abortion Day

Pro-abortion NGOs are petitioning UN officials to mark September 28 as International Safe Abortion Day. The day has been used by pro-abortion activists to protest pro-life laws and stage events promoting abortion since 1990 but now the NGOs are seeking official recognition to aid their agenda.

A letter will be sent on July 4 to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and to the heads of UN agencies stating, “We, the undersigned, are writing to support the proposal of the International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion that you declare 28 September, International Safe Abortion Day, an official international UN Day.”

The letter cites calls by select treaty monitoring bodies, notorious for distorting treaties and instructing countries to overturn pro-life laws, as a reason for officially recognizing a day for abortion

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Gallup’s latest poll on euthanasia and “doctor-assisted suicide”

As tricky–or as deliberately misleading–as polls on abortion can be, those taken on euthanasia can be almost as bewildering and every bit as confounding. Under the headline, “Euthanasia Still Acceptable to Solid Majority in U.S.” here’s the latest from Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs poll” conducted in May.

Here are the “three highlights”:

- 69% say doctors should be allowed to end a patient’s life by painless means
- 51% say they would consider ending their lives if faced with terminal illness
- About half of Americans say doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable

First, the question asked of 1,025 adults is, “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his or her their family request it?” Which, of course, misses the boat on so many grounds (what about patients who are no longer competent? diabetes is incurable) and tilts the answers (“doctors,” “painless”).

The 69% is up from 64% in 2012 but down from 75% in 2010.

Second, what about applying this to themselves? “A hypothetical question–if you personally had a disease that cannot be cured and were living in severe pain, would you consider ending your life by some painless means, or not?”

Given this immensely dreary scenario, 51% would “consider,” 42% would not. But in 2005, 59% would consider ending their life to 38% who would not.

Third, respondents were asked, “Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, tell me whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. How about doctor-assisted suicide?”

According to Gallup, 53% said this was morally acceptable, 41% said it was morally wrong. Despite over a decade of pro-assisted suicide media coverage, that is down slightly from 56%-37% the last time Gallup asked the question.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Congress refers New Mexico to abortion case

Pro-life groups are waiting to see if the New Mexico attorney general moves against two abortion-related entities in the state.

Congress' Select Investigative Panel on Human Life has issued a criminal referral to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas amounting to a legal case in which the University of New Mexico and Southwestern Women's Options abortion clinic in Albuquerque may have violated state and federal law. The case involves the harvesting of aborted baby body parts for the university.

Tara Shaver with Protest ABQ tells OneNewsNow it's not the first time Balderas has heard of the charges.

“We filed a formal complaint with him back in July really hoping that he would dig into the issue because we had compelling evidence from Southwestern Women's Options' consent form showing that the women were not even able to opt out of designating their aborted baby body parts for research,” she says. “It was just mandatory for them to sign this form to get their abortion.”

Click here for more from OneNewsNow.

Supreme Court rejects appeal for pharmacists' conscience rights

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to a Washington state law that requires pharmacists to provide customers with potentially abortifacient drugs.

The Court's decision, announced on June 28, lets stand a state law that was enacted in 2007, obliging pharmacies to provide "emergency contraceptive" bills to women with valid prescriptions. The law had been challenged by pharmacists who had moral objections to dispensing pills that could cause the destruction of unborn children.

Justice Samuel Alito, one of three justices who argued that the Supreme Court should hear the appeal, called the denial an "ominous sign." He wrote in an angry dissent: "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern."

Click here for more from Catholic World News.

Hospital Refuses to Provide Care for Two-Year Old with Brain Injury

Two-year old Mirranda Lawson choked on a piece of popcorn on May 11 and was taken to Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center (VCU) in Richmond In critical condition. Since that time, the hospital has steadfastly refused to provide treatment for the toddler, saying they don't believe she can recover. However, Mirranda has already far outlived her original prognosis. Furthermore, she is moving in response to her parents' voice and requires far less medication now to remain stable than she did when she first arrived at VCU. Even though Mirranda has a serious brain injury, her condition is improving.

Mirranda's parents have made it clear to the hospital that they wish to care for their daughter at home. Home care is a common option for patients with brain injuries like MIrranda's. However, the hospital refuses to provide Mirranda with the breathing tube and feeding tube she needs to be eligible for home care. These are routine procedures that the hospital regularly performs on other patients, yet VCU will not provide them to Mirranda.

Doctors at VCU have said they will agree to allow Mirranda to go home to die, but they refuse to allow her to go home to live.

Click here for more from Christian Newswire.

Woman who murdered newborn baby girl given life sentence without parole

Last week a Zanesville, Ohio, jury convicted Emile Weaver of “aggravated murder, gross abuse of a corpse, and two counts of tampering with evidence for placing her newborn baby girl in a plastic trash bag on April 22, 2015, suffocating her,” according to the Columbia Dispatch’s Jennifer Smola. The jury took less than an hour to reach its verdict.

On Monday Muskingum County Common Pleas Judge Mark Fleegle sentenced the 21-year-old Weaver to life in prison without parole.

Smola initially told investigators she didn’t know she was pregnant until she had her baby on the toilet at the Delta Gamma Theta sorority house where she was a member. However when she testified last Friday, she told a different story.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

The unborn is not ‘living and breathing’?

The unborn is obviously living in a biological sense, exhibiting metabolism, cellular reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and rapid growth. Indeed, the unborn is not only living, but is a distinct, complete, self-integrating, self-developing organism, and a member of the human species. He or she (sex is determined from conception) is a living human being.

Perhaps the pro-choice advocate means “living” in a different sense — a social or moral one. On this view, perhaps, the unborn does not yet possess the qualities necessary for the kind of “life” that is deserving of moral respect and protection. But it seems misleading to use the term “living” in this way, since we commonly use that term in the biological sense to describe living plants, animals, insects, etc.

In any case, one must explain what “living” in this moral/social sense actually means, and offer reasons to think that it serves as a valid criterion for having the right not to be intentionally killed. It is far from obvious that we may discriminate between members of the species Homo sapiens on the basis of age/development and acquired characteristics, permitting the killing of some but not others.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

As expected Supreme Court lets stand court decisions blocking admitting privileges requirement for abortionists in Wisconsin and Mississippi

In light of Monday’s decision overturning portions of Texas pro-life law, it came as no surprise today that the United States Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, let stand lower court rulings that blocked laws in Wisconsin and Mississippi that require abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Wisconsin’s Act 37 was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker and was immediately challenged by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI), Affiliated Medical Services (AMS), and various other parties.

In March 2015, U.S. District Judge William Conley replaced his temporary injunction with a permanently injunction. He wrote, “The only reasonable conclusion is that the legislation was motivated by an improper purpose, namely to restrict the availability of abortion services in Wisconsin.”

In the Mississippi case, “a federal district court judge issued a temporary injunction in 2012 blocking the law because it would have forced women seeking abortions to go out of state,” Reuters reported. “The same judge issued a second injunction in 2013, which was upheld by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014.”

The judge is Judge Myron Thompson whose August 4, 2014 , decision overturning Mississippi’s Women’s health and Safety Act (HB 57) was as expected as it was mammoth (172 pages).

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Why the Abortion Issue hasn’t gone away, Why it won’t go away, Why it can’t go away

Dr. Mohler offers five reasons for the enduring significance of the abortion issue.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a writer of uncommon grace and insight. He sets the stage for why the abortion issue has the same fierce resonance it always has by quoting from a note the author of Roe v. Wade wrote himself as he drafted the final opinion and speculated on the fallout:

Dr. Mohler’s five reasons are:

“First, the radical character of Roe – overthrowing abortion laws in all 50 states – galvanized pro-life forces.”

“Second, Roe also had the effect, surely unforeseen by the Supreme Court, of bringing millions of evangelical Christians into the fight on behalf of unborn life.”

“Third, the death spiral of abortion simply defies adequate calculation.” 1.05 million abortions each year and a 60% abortion rate among African-American women in New York City.

“Fourth, abortion has proved to be exactly what pro-lifers warned it would be: a deadly threat to human dignity that would target specific populations,” a reference to the abortion deaths of 90% of babies found to “less than perfect.”

“Fifth, powerful imaging technologies now allow a look inside the womb – a privilege unknown to previous generations.”

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

The Worst MDs free to be suicide doctors

Lonny Shavelson, a Berkeley emergency-room doctor who hasn’t practiced medicine for two years—and a long-time advocate of assisted suicide, as author of A Chosen Death—made headlines with the announcement that he is opening a death-doctor practice.

For a $200 consultation fee, and $1800 more if he is retained, Shavelson will evaluate and certify people who come to him—I refuse to call them his “patients”—as eligible for death, prescribe the lethal drugs, fill out the required bureaucratic forms, and presumably attend their deaths.

Think about this for a moment: Would anyone in their right mind trust an ER doctor to properly palliate the pain of terminal cancer or treat lethal congestive heart failure? Of course not! The ability to provide excellent care for terminally ill patients requires medical specialization and ongoing professional education in the particular disease. That is why no ER physician worth his salt would assume responsibility for the medical care of terminally ill patients outside of a temporary emergency-room or crisis context.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

Justice Ginsburg recycles Abortion Industry mantras

For whatever reasons of High Court protocol (or politics), Justice Stephen Breyer did the heavy lifting in today’s Supreme Court decision gutting the 2013 omnibus Texas pro-life law, HB 2. His majority opinion ran 40 pages.

It was left to a mere 385-word-long concurring opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to summarize the argument that HB 2 could not possibly be what legislators said it was: a good faith effort to protect women from the likes of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, convicted of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. It was, in Ginsburg’s words, “beyond rational belief.”

The usual in-the-tank suspects provided the medical cover to “prove” that abortion is safer than a walk in the park, an aspirin, or a tooth extraction. But it was left to Danielle Paquette, a Washington Post reporter, to tease out that Justice Ginsburg was rebutting a contention made by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.

Which was? That HB 2 was intended to cause unsafe abortion clinics to close and that it was the absence of active supervision “by state or local authorities or by his peers” that allowed abortionist Kermit Gosnell to run riot. Gosnell, as you recall, delivered three late-term babies alive and then murdered them by severing their spinal cords.

Ginsburg brushed this motivation aside. Or, put more accurately, turned it inside out:

When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux [for lack of a better option ] at great risk to their health and safety.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

In ‘Playboy’ Essay Chelsea Handler Says God Supports Abortion

Pro-life Christians have got it all wrong. God actually wants some people to get abortions.

At least, that’s one way Chelsea Handler justifies the pro-choice movement. The talk show host has always been open about her choice to abort her own teenage pregnancies. She has no regrets about the choice(s) she made at 16. In a recent essay penned for Playboy magazine, Handler wrote that “I’m 41 now. I don’t ever look back and think, God, I wish I’d had that baby.”

(Interestingly, this was supposedly the first time Chelsea admitted to having not one, but two abortions. But on her Netflix show last week, she said she’s had three. When abortion is no big deal, the numbers apparently don’t matter).

It would’ve been one thing had Handler’s article stopped with her own personal story. But Handler wanted to take this opportunity to explain why pro-lifers just need to stop fighting abortion.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

U.S. Supreme Court Decision puts Women at Risk

Today's 5-3 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Texas H.B. 2 means that the women of Texas who choose to abort their children will not have the protection they would have for almost any other outpatient surgical procedure.  This decision puts the health and well being of women throughout the country at risk.  States with similar laws and those trying to pass similar laws will been hindered in their efforts to pass common sense protections for women seeking abortions.  The Illinois Federation for Right to Life laments the double standard under which women seeing abortions are treated as the law now place them in danger in order to protect their right to abort their unborn child.

As Carol Tobias, the President of National Right to Life has stated, "How shabby are these abortion clinics that they cannot meet minimal standards other outpatient surgical centers are required to meet, and just how bad are these abortionists that they can't get admitting privileges at a local hospital?  As we saw with Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, it's clear that the lucrative abortion industry is not able or willing to police itself and allows filthy, deplorable conditions to go unchecked."

The immediate tragedy in today's Supreme Court ruling is that the women and unborn children of Texas and entire nation continue to be at risk at clinics and medical offices which require little or no oversight for their adherence to basic, common sense, medical protocols which would accompany almost any other surgery or major medical procedure.  The long term impact  of this ruling remains to be seen but pro-life people must continue efforts to protect women from those willing to sacrifice them for a political agenda and financial gain.

Action Alert - SB1564 & HB5576 - Call the Gov. tell him to veto these bills

SB1564 Health Care Right of Conscience Act 

This bill is currently on the Governor's desk for his signature.

This bill amends the Health Care Right of Conscience Act  The Act provides that notwithstanding any other law, a health care facility, or any physician or health care personnel working in the facility, may refuse to permit, perform, assist in, counsel about, suggest, recommend, refer for, or participate in health care services because of a conscience-based objection.  

This bill now undermines Healthcare Right of Conscience by requiring pro-life facilities to refer pro-abort services to other facilities thus violating their morals or beliefs.

Although an amendment has been added to bill, the Federation for Right to Life still opposes this bill.

Please call the Governor's office at 217-782-0244, or click here to go to his website and send an email asking him NOT to sign SB1564 and veto the bill.

Click here for more information on this bill.

Click here for the full bill text.

HB5576 Insurance Contraception Coverage

This bill is currently on the Governor's desk for his signature.

This bill provides that an individual or group health policy shall provide coverage for all contraceptive drugs, devices, and other products approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, including over-the-counter contraceptive drugs, devices, and products; voluntary sterilization procedures; contraceptive services, patient education, and counseling on contraception; and follow-up services related to their use.

This bill requires insurance coverage of over-the-counter drugs such as Plan B and Ella.  These drugs prevent a fertilized egg  from implanting to the uterine wall and therefore cause a chemical abortion.

Please call the Governor's office at 217-782-0244, or click here to go to his website and send an email asking him NOT to sign HB5576 and veto the bill.

Click here for more information on this bill.

Multi-Billion Dollar Medicaid fraud lawsuit against Iowa's Planned Parenthood moves forward

This week U.S District Judge John Jarvey ruled that most of the counts in Sue Thayer's False Claims Act case will move forward.

From the Judge's ruling, "We conclude that Thayer has pled sufficiently particularized facts to support her allegations that Planned Parenthood violated the FCA by filing claims for (1) unnecessary quantities of birth control pills, (2) birth control pills dispensed without examinations or without or prior to a physician's order, (3) abortion-related services, and (4) the full amount of services that had already been paid, in whole or in part, by 'donations' Planned Parenthood coerced from patients. Thayer adequately alleges the particular details of these schemes, such as the names of the individuals that instructed her to carry out these schemes, the two-year time period in which these schemes took place, the clinics that participated in these schemes, and the methods by which these schemes were perpetrated. Moreover, she alleges that her position as center manager gave her access to Planned Parenthood's centralized billing system, pleads specific details about Planned Parenthood's billing systems and practices, and alleges that she had personal knowledge of Planned Parenthood's submission of false claims."

"It is with great anticipation that we look to the next phase of this case.  Planned Parenthood's long history of fraudulent billing practices must be exposed. While I am disappointed that even a small part of the case was dismissed, I am thankful that two parts of the suit will proceed to a hearing.  I have always believed that it is every Iowan's right to know exactly where their hard-earned taxpayer dollars go and am confident that the truth will come out," said Sue Thayer, Lead Strategist for Iowa Right to Life.

"We are very pleased with Judge Jarvey's decision to move forward with this historic case," stated Jenifer Bowen, Executive Director of Iowa Right to Life.  "With decades of sustained, systemic fraud occurring, Iowans should be demanding answers from the wholly unregulated largest abortion chain in Iowa, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland," concluded Bowen.

Read more on the history of  Sue Thayer's multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

Source: Quad City Right to Life.

“You can’t sweep your abortions under the rug forever”

James McNeill married a woman who had 2 abortions in her past. He says:

“When I would bring up the idea of having children, Kathleen would say things like, “I don’t deserve to be a mother.” It started to dawn on me that unresolved pain, shame, and grief related to her abortions were at the heart of her reluctance to have children. It was difficult to know how to address what was clearly a painful and sensitive wound in a way that would be helpful.

One time I said, “You can’t sweep your abortions under the rug forever.”

She said, “If I didn’t sweep them under the rug, I couldn’t live with myself.” Kathleen had stuffed the pain and hurt deep down inside herself in order to cope, but in doing so she walled off an area of her heart that could’ve otherwise been used to love herself and me. The price of avoiding the issue was taking a terrible toll on Kathleen and our marriage.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.

‘I was going to abort my baby – but seeing the look on my mum’s face made me realise I couldn’t go through with it’

Stacey Solomon is the latest celebrity to come out and say how glad she is that she chose life over abortion

Singer and reality TV star Stacey Solomon has revealed how close she came to aborting her first child – and how seeing the look on her own mum’s face made her realise she couldn’t go through with it.

The mum-of-two, who finished third on The X Factor and won I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! In 2010 was just 17 when she first became pregnant.

Click here for more from National Right to Life.