Colorado Personhood Momentum Expands to the National Scene The first campaign to affirm the personhood of pre-born children in US history has now come to an end, but supporters and organizers are looking to spread grassroots personhood amendments to several other States. The Colorado Personhood Amendment was defeated at the ballot box but organizers knew the victory had already been had in pioneering the State by State Personhood effort. "We may not have captured the majority of the votes, but we have caused over half a million people to think and act pro-life by boldly addressing the core of the issue," said Danielle Jock, Volunteer for Amendment 48 A new pro-life organization, Personhood USA, plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process. The 17 States that allow citizens to place constitutional amendments on ballots will be the target states. Personhood USA will also help with opinion petitions to encourage politicians to run personhood amendments in other states. During the Colorado Personhood campaign, organizers were contacted by individuals in many different states with excitement and the desire to start personhood efforts in their own state. During the Colorado Personhood campaign, Gerard Wilberforce, Great great grandson of human rights champion William Wilberforce, endorsed the personhood effort and said "that is just the way William would have done it." "Personhood USA will emulate the steadfastness of William Wilberforce, in that we will continue to advocate for the preborn regardless of polls or winning or losing elections. If we fail to get enough votes to affirm personhood, we will use it as a baseline and try again, educating while we do, and keep trying until we succeed!" said Keith Mason, one of the Personhood Amendment organizers. "Personhood has changed the abortion debate. Now we are asking, 'When does human life begin?' The opposition can not and will not answer this question, but we can. And when we answer that question, we win." Contact: Keith Mason Source: Personhood USA Source URL: http://www.personhoodusa.com Publish Date: November 5, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
New President Most Pro-Abortion in Nation's History But we are done fighting yet. Voters have made this election a first for America by electing the most pro-abortion president in the history of our nation. Senator Barack Obama will assume the power of the presidency, defined as the most powerful position in the world. During his political career, Barack Obama has consistently voted against innocent preborn children. He has repeatedly voted to deny basic medical care to babies who survive late-term abortions, and voted against efforts to end the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. As a candidate for president, Senator Obama had pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would override any and all restrictions on abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy. It would also force taxpayers to fund abortion-on-demand. Of equal concern is Senator Obama's pledge to appoint only judges who support Roe v. Wade, which could effectively impose the death penalty on future generations of America's innocent unborn children. In addition, pro-abortion Democrats retained control of the US Senate and House of Representatives. Undoubtedly, American citizens can expect a radical pro-abortion agenda from its newly elected leaders. Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute, said, "With federal legislation no longer an option for a minimum of two years, pro-life education is absolutely central and critical to our future efforts of ending abortion. The key to countering this devastating political loss is to change the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion and related life issues. That can only be done through effective pro-life education." Mr. Mattes added, "Pro-life education is the foundation on which we must build future political and legislative victories to protect unborn babies. We will not give up and we will not waiver in our resolve and determination to end this modern-day holocaust of abortion." Contact: Bradley Mattes, J.C. Willke, MD Source: Life Issues Institute Source URL: http://www.lifeissues.org Publish Date: November 5, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
Washington Becomes 2nd US State with Legal Assisted Suicide Pro-life campaigners warn more to come unless resistance intensified The state of Washington voted to allow legal assisted suicide according to the Oregon model in yesterday’s ballot. Initiative 1000, the Washington “Death with Dignity Act,” which allows physicians to prescribe a fatal dose of medication to patients whom a doctor feels is likely to die within six months, passed in the state 59% to 41%. The measure was formulated in imitation of Oregon Measure 16, which was passed in 1994. Euthanasia movement supporters donated enormous sums of money to press Washington’s Initiative 1000 forward, believing that, should it pass, the “domino effect” would soon help to legalise assisted suicide in other states. In their appeal for funds for the Washington campaign, the euthanasia promoting group, Oregon Death with Dignity, said they had “experienced phenomenal success.” “Every piece of the campaign has fallen into place, and we are on the brink of victory on November 4,” the group said. Campaigners against the Initiative said late in the campaign that although they had gained support, a critical lack of funding was likely to dash their hopes of protecting vulnerable patients in the state. In the end, money appears to have won the day, as the Yes on I-1000 campaign was able to purchase key advertising spots with donations that poured in from across the country. Lawyer and author on bioethics issues Wesley J. Smith wrote that the “culture of death once again has the wind in its sails” in the US following yesterday’s vote. Smith warns that now that two states have legalised assisted suicide, the likelihood is great that the movement will spread throughout the Union. In recent years, he said, the euthanasia movement has transformed itself from the “crackpot model” to a more professional level “in which very well tailored, upper middle class or rich activists network with other well tailored, upper middle class or rich professional types, to move the agenda forward - in elections, in the courts, in legislatures.” Pro-life opposition, he said, is “starved for funds” and “marginalized in the popular media” and therefore, “always stuck in reactive mode when we need to be proactive.” “Anyone who still says ‘it can't happen here,’ isn't paying attention. It is happening here, and it will happen here increasingly unless there is a greater commitment shown by those with means who oppose these agendas to reversing the current course.” Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com Publish Date: November 5, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
Major National Pro-Life Campaign Announced by Christian Defense Coalition After Senator Obama's Victory in 2008 Presidential Election Group will launch "The Birmingham Letter Project" in Washington, D.C. on January 21-24, 2009. The focus of the project will be to mobilize a public, prayerful and prophetic witness for life to challenge the radical pro-abortion policies of President-elect Barack Obama. "The Birmingham Letter Project," will be using the principles taught by Dr. Martin Luther King in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and the teachings of Scripture to unleash and empower the pro-life community to publicly stand against the horrific violence of abortion. President-elect Obama will be the most radical pro-abortion President in the history of our nation. The group will be discussing their plans at a news conference on Thursday, November 6, at 11:00 A.M. The location of the news conference will be in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. in front of Lafayette Park. Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states, "Sadly, America has elected the most pro-abortion President in America history. It is clear that Mr. Obama will continue the tragic violence against our nation's women and children which has resulted in over 50,000,000 abortions. "'The Birmingham Letter Project' is about empowering and unleashing the pro-life community to stand against this injustice just as civil rights workers stood against the injustice of segregation, violence and racism a generation ago. "We are taking to heart the admonition of Dr. King when he said from a Birmingham jail, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,' and will passionately devote ourselves toward bringing this war on America's children to an end. "With Barack Obama as President, it is clear there will be no immediate end to abortion through the courts or legislation. Therefore, just as it was during the civil rights movement, it is up to the faith community and people of good will to go to the streets and work diligently to end this war on America's children. "We will be coming to Washington, D.C., as President-elect Obama is sworn in, to boldly stand as public and prophetic witness for life. As the pro-life community, we will not go silently into the night and allow the violence to continue. Instead, we are issuing this national call for the pro-life community to come to the streets of our nation's capital and be a prayerful voice for those who have no voice. "Our message is clear. Now is the time. We are the people. The killing must end." Contact: Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney Source: Christian Defense Coalition Source URL: http://www.Thebirminghamletterproject.com Publish Date: November 5, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
A Grave Mistake and an Abiding Hope Americans have made a grave mistake in electing Barack Obama to the presidency. Yet America herself remains great and is not a mistake, which is why so many of her citizens will continue, with even greater energy and determination, to defend her founding principles. The man elected to the Presidency said during the campaign that he does not know when a human being starts to have human rights. How can one govern from that starting point of ignorance? Governing is about protecting human rights; to do it successfully, you have to know where they come from, and when they begin. The President-elect has already failed that test miserably. The American people do not share Barack Obama’s extreme and offensive views on abortion. They never have and they never will. The coming four years will see a widening gap between the people and their President on this fundamental issue. As Americans come to know how extreme his position is, the intensity of the struggle to protect these children will only increase. The pro-life movement has made significant gains in the courts and in the law in these last eight years. For the next four, the movement will work to prevent the erosion of that progress. It would be a serious mistake for people to think that this election means the pro-life movement has no political power. All politics is local. Political power is about people. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was once told that given the political realities, civil rights legislation would be impossible to pass. “We’ll just have to see about that,” he replied. And the civil rights movement was born, stirring the hearts of the people to lead the nation to the victory of justice. So it is with our movement. The vast majority of Americans are pro-life. They will fight abortion on the local level, opening pregnancy centers and closing abortion mills, activating their Churches and educating their children, proclaiming the message in the media and demonstrating in the streets. The pro-life movement is winning this battle in the hearts and minds of the American people, as opinion polls show and as the shrinking number of abortion mills and abortion providers prove. Political races are always a swinging of the pendulum. As soon as you win, you begin to lose, and as soon as you lose, you begin the ascent again to winning. In the next two election cycles (2010 and 2012) the pro-life movement will make up for political ground lost in this one. It is all right to be disappointed at the end of an election season, but one must never walk away. Amidst disappointment is abiding hope in America, where everything remains possible, and where a new chapter of the pro-life movement has just begun. The efforts that were made, and the sacrifices endured in this election season made a difference, and we will build on that difference to see another day when the work and the ballots of pro-life people will dismantle the Culture of Death. We will keep marching toward that pro-life America we seek, and won’t stop until we get there. Contact: Fr. Frank Pavone Source: Priests for Life Source URL: http://www.priestsforlife.org Publish Date: November 4, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
PRO-LIFE EVENTS Special FREE Movie Preview Starting Now! Mon. Oct 27 through November 4, you can watch a 3 FREE Online Movie Streaming of “Come What May” On GodTube You can help pro-life candidates. Audiences have said "Come What May" can inspire citizens to vote with their heart, mind, and conscience, and not just their "bank account" or "pocketbook." Millions of unborn Americans are at risk depending on how voters cast their ballots. "Come What May" is known to cause people of "choice" to be decisively for life. It also makes a powerful case for "when life truly begins." Watch the movie. Refer everyone you know to do the same. There is no excuse. It's FREE online. We are making this movie available to millions of voters at great expense because it's important. Make Your Vote Count for Life! Click here to Watch a FREE Online Movie Streaming of “Come What May” On GodTube. The Largest Pro-Life Event in the United States This is larger than the Life Chain, larger than Speak-Out Illinois, larger than the National Day of Prayer. This is the Largest Pro-Life Event in the United States. Millions are expected to attend. When: November 4th Where: Local Voting/Polling Sites around the nation, 7 am to 7 pm in most areas. What: Cast your vote for your Local, State and National Pro-Life Candidate Cost: Free Every Pro-Lifer can be heard, but only if they cast their vote! Don’t let the media vote for you. Don’t believe the media when they tell you that your vote won’t count. Don’t let the media tell you who is going to win, YOU tell them who is going to win - make YOUR voice heard – Vote on November 4th. Click here for more information. Also, please view this very moving YouTube Video also letting the candidates in their own words, speak about their positions on life and abortion: Click here or follow this link to view the video. If you know of, or are part of a pro-life organization having an event or attending an event including county fairs, please let us know about it and we will post in this newsletter and our website reaching over 250,000 people a month. E-mail us at: mail@ifrl.org or postal mail us at IFRL Pro-Life Events, 1104 Milton Road, Alton, IL 62002
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information. Pro-life groups denounce economic interests of ‘experts’ on subcommittee on abortion in Spain The Right to Life group in Spain has called for two experts on a congressional subcommittee analyzing a new law on abortion to recuse themselves from the positions because of their associations with the abortion industry. The group pointed to two of the experts on the committee, Santiago Barambio, president of the Association of Accredited Clinics for Pregnancy Termination, and Guillermo Sanchez Andres, president of the Administrative Council of the Dator Clinic—one of the most profitable abortion companies in Spain—as having economic interests in getting on-demand abortion legalized. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14224 2 More Teens Abandoned Under Neb. Child Dumping Law Two more teenagers have been abandoned at Nebraska hospitals under the state's much-criticized safe haven (sic) law, bringing the number of mostly older children dropped off to 26 since July, authorities said. The teens, both 16, were left at separate hospitals, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services. One was a girl dropped Sunday afternoon at Midlands Hospital in Papillion and the other a boy abandoned at Children's Hospital in Omaha late Sunday. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081103/D947N4KO2.html Frozen Mice Cloned - Are Woolly Mammoths Next? Japanese scientists have cloned mice whose bodies were frozen for as long 16 years and said on Monday it may be possible to use the technique to resurrect mammoths and other extinct species. Mouse cloning expert Teruhiko Wakayama and colleagues at the Center for Developmental Biology, at Japan's RIKEN research institute in Yokohama, managed to clone the mice even though their cells had burst. http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE4A26NV20081103?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true Not to Vote Pro-Life Is to Participate in the Culture of Death Regarding his country’s election today, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said in a just released interview with “Inside the Vatican” that “a good citizen must support and vote for the candidate who most supports the inalienable dignity of innocent and defenseless life, and the integrity of marriage.” “To do otherwise, is to participate, in some way, in the culture of death which pervades the life of the nation and has led to so much violence, even in the home and in educational institutions.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110405.html Queen of Spain Denounces Abortion and Euthanasia The Queen of Spain, Doña Sofia Margarita Victoria Frederica, has made headlines in her country by denouncing abortion and euthanasia in a recent book. The book, "The Queen Up Close," which consists of interviews with Doña Sofia, quotes her as saying that she is "absolutely" against abortion. "It is necessary to respect every living child, every child that has begun to live," the book quotes her as saying. "And to be in favor of life is not backward, nor is it something confined to Christianity. It is to follow the natural law." http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110301.html
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (Editor's note: This essay originally ran in the spring of 1983 in the quarterly journal Human Life Review.) The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars. Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled. As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation. Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down's Syndrome. Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children." Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand. Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented. What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn. The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn — for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure? The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have. What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being — one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life" — in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision. Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion. The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence. Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being." A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words, "quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff. Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a "human being." Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained three years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status." Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic. I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind — black people in America — could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said: "This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages." He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings: "I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life." Another William Brennan — not the Justice — has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic: The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect. As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life. The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged this issue. The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion. The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life. I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life. We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours? Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article — the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions — is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don't survive were living human beings before they were killed? Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth. Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them, by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them in the context of loving families. You will not find his former patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic. I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life." Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across the board. Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity. It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again. As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children. The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you don't want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion. I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death. Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened." Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. (This article is reprinted courtesy of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library.) Contact: Ronald Reagan Source: CNSNews Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com Publish Date: November 4, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
"Barak Obama on Abortion" - The Online Book with All the Details The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has released an online book documenting the extreme pro-abortion advocacy of Barack Obama, proving that the Democratic presidential candidate has a spotless pro-abortion record in his years as a legislator. A quote from Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe features prominently on the first page: "On abortion, no presidential candidate has ever been so extreme." The document, entitled "Barack Obama on Abortion," focuses its attack on Obama's radical beliefs, ushering forth a long list of news clippings, speech and press release quotes,and copies of original senate voting records. The book lets the facts to speak for themselves, citing original source material rather than advancing arguments. The book dedicates a chapter to Obama's rejection of the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act - a bill "virtually identical to the federal measure ... passed by the U.S. Senate without dissent." Noting that Obama had earlier accused the NRLC of "lying" about this data, they also quote Factcheck.org, who found that the bills were indeed identical. Another chapter outlines Obama's wholehearted support for the Freedom of Choice Act: "This act, if passed and signed by the President of the United States, would go far beyond even the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. "It would overturn virtually all pro-life legislation, make partial-birth abortion legal again, require taxpayer-funding for abortion, and strike down essentially all limitations on abortion, including parental notice and consent laws." The book highlights other aspects of Obama's radical agenda, including his objection to a law prohibiting the transportation of minors across state borders to obtain an otherwise illegal abortion, as well as his objection to limiting taxpayer funding for abortion. To read the NRLC's book "Barack Obama on Abortion," go to: http://www.nrlchapters.org/obamabook Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com Publish Date: November 3, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
Abortion can Only be Outweighed by an Evil Equivalent "in Number and Kind" Bishop Robert J. Carlson of Saginaw issued a pastoral letter in the eve of the U.S. campaign season, urging Catholics to heed the "special burden on the conscience" imposed by the destruction of innocent life, particularly through abortion. In the first section of his letter, Bishop Carlson poses the question: "Isn't abortion just one issue among others in this election?" He answers, "No. Any serious Catholic voter must recognize abortion as the premier threat to human rights and dignity in our day." Because abortion consists in the murder of about one million unborn children every year, says the bishop, "A Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for a pro-choice candidate only if other issues outweigh this one in number and in kind." For example, the abortion issue outweighs the death penalty because abortion ends a far greater number of human lives than the handful killed by the death penalty; furthermore, abortion is a graver evil since it targets only the most innocent lives, rather than those found guilty of capital crimes in a court of law. Bishop Carlson notes that there are other serious issues voters must weigh in the presidential election; however, "a Catholic needs to recognize that all issues do not have the same weight. "Can any other issue, or combination of issues, attain sufficient gravity to outweigh the directly willed destruction of 1 million children every year?" Turning his attention to Proposal 2, the state ballot initiative to allow the destruction of embryos in embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, the bishop affirms that Catholics have a clear duty to reject the proposal. The bishop condemns Proposal 2 first of all for being "scientifically unnecessary," constrasting the proven track record of adult stem cell research in medicine against the minimal promise of ESC research. He also criticizes the legislation for "going too far" by prohibiting any restraint on such research. But most importantly, he says, Proposal 2 is based on "morally reprehensible" principles. He quotes one commentator who summed up the danger to human dignity in ESC research: "If a principle is established by which some indisputably human lives do not warrant the protections traditionally associated with the dignity of the human person - because of their size, location, dependency, level of development, burdensomeness to others - it would seem that there are numerous other candidates for the application of the principle," including the handicapped and elderly. "Finding cures for diseases is surely a great good," writes Bishop Carlson. "But .. there are some things we must never do, like sacrificing our children's lives to extend our own health and well-being." Last week, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm came under fire from a local bishop when she claimed, as a Catholic, that supporting ESC research is "pro-life." Click here to read Bishop Carlson's pastoral letter in full. Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com Publish Date: November 3, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
Family Denied Permanent Residency in Australia Because of Down Syndrome Child Dr Bernhard Moeller, a German physician who has been helping fill the doctor shortage in Australia's Victoria state, has been denied permanent residency because his 13-year old son has Down syndrome. Down syndrome is a disability caused by an extra 21st chromosome, and has several illnesses associated with it, such as congenital heart disease and chronic ear infections. "A medical officer of the Commonwealth assessed that his son's existing medical condition was likely to result in a significant and ongoing cost to the Australian community," a spokesman from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said. A press release from the department on October 30th stated that Dr Moeller is able to seek a review of this decision, firstly through the Migration Review Tribunal and then by pursuing judicial review or requesting ministerial intervention if the tribunal upholds the department's decision. Meanwhile, the doctor and his family hold a temporary visa until 2010. Moeller says he is disappointed by the department's decision, and will appeal the decision. YahooNews reports that Moeller has "powerful supporters" in the Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, and Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon. "As a government, we understand the importance of having doctors working in our rural and regional communities and we support them in many ways and continue to do this," Roxon said. The department insists that the refusal is not due to discrimination against people with disabilities, but rather reflects the department's responsibility to not financially overburden the state's medical system. "It is long-standing government policy that high-cost medical conditions are a consideration in visa decisions," said the spokesman. As YahooNews reports, the "shortages of medical practitioners in rural parts of Australia have led a number of recent government initiatives to boost the numbers of doctors and nurses nationwide." The hospital where Dr Moeller works "had invested a lot of time and energy in recruiting the German specialist to Horsham, about 100 miles northwest of Melbourne." Contact: Jonquil Frankham Source: LifeSiteNews.com Source URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com Publish Date: November 3, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
Head Knight of Columbus warns Freedom of Choice Act threatens pro-life successes Carl A. Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus, has published a message regarding the upcoming election. Praising the “many small successes” of the pro-life movement, he warns that even these minor restrictions on abortion could be invalidated if the Freedom of Choice Act passes. Calling the work of the pro-life movement a “difficult struggle,” Anderson notes that though the “ultimate goal” of overturning Roe v. Wade “remains somewhere in the future” many small accomplishments have been achieved. Among these, he lists: the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions; the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in April 2007; the “Mexico City policy” which bars the use of federal taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions in other countries; state parental consent laws; state late-term abortion restrictions; state conscience protection laws for pro-life professionals and institutions; laws which require counseling for those considering an abortion; and laws providing for ultrasounds before an abortion. However, Anderson warned: “All of these restrictions on abortion - all of the progress we've made over the past 35 years in trying to limit and reduce abortions in the United States - would be invalidated with the stroke of a pen if the next Congress passes, and the next president signs, the so-called ‘Freedom of Choice Act’.” He asked readers to learn whether candidates for whom they might vote favor or oppose FOCA. In addition, he noted that the Knights of Columbus have provided more information on FOCA and other life issues at their web site at http://www.kofc.org/pro-life “Remember,” Anderson concludes, “all that we've done together since Roe to save the lives of the unborn is at stake.” Contact: None Source: Catholic News Agency Source URL: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com Publish Date: November 4, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
They Couldn't Answer the Question Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among a group of Senators who could not bring themselves to answer a simple question posed by Fr. Frank Pavone recently. Quoting descriptions of how abortion procedures are performed, and using the words of abortion practitioners in their medical textbooks and court testimonies, as well as the words of the US Supreme Court, Fr. Pavone asked key aides to the Senators to bring them the question, "When you say 'abortion,' is this what you mean?" Accompanying Fr. Pavone in asking this question was Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., and several other leaders of Priests for Life. The Priests for Life team gave the Senators' offices six weeks to give a response, but neither in the personal meeting nor through subsequent communication was any response received. "To vigorously support the right to choose abortion, as these Senators do, and then to be unable to admit what it is, demonstrates a gross failure either in understanding what they support or in being honest with the American people about it. In other words, it's a gross failure of leadership," Fr. Pavone concluded. Among quotes used are the following; for more information, see http://www.priestsforlife.org/isthiswhatyoumean First Trimester Suction Abortion Question: "Can the heart of a fetus or embryo still be beating during a suction curettage abortion as the fetus or embryo comes down the cannula?" Answer: "For a few seconds to a minute, yes." (Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Harlan Raymond Giles, an abortionist. He describes legal activity.) Second Trimester D and E Abortion "We would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip. ...Typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece..." (Sworn testimony given in above case by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist. He describes legal activity.) Contact: Jerry Horn Source: Priests for Life Source URL: http://www.priestsforlife.org Publish Date: November 4, 2008 Click here to link to this article.
You still have time to vote! Today is Election day. You have the opportunity to make a change for the better! Pro-Life candidates are running for the Illinois General Assembly, Congress and President. Make sure that you support them by voting.
The Illinois Federation for Right to Life Political Action Committee has published its endorsements for the upcoming 2008 General Election. They are available online (click here) and in print in the IFRL Newspaper (October 2008 Issue) Click here to view the 2008 General Election IFRL-PAC Endorsements
