"In the severe anti-abortion rhetoric used by many bishops, in the protest against giving the first African-American president an honorary degree at Notre Dame, Church leaders – yourself included – are giving a patina of legitimacy to some of the most destructive voices in America. Continual denunciation of the Obama administration for fostering a 'culture of death' suggests that extreme opposition is legitimate."
An excerpt from a letter sent to Cardinal Francis E. George, posted on the blog of Commonweal magazine.
"President Barack Obama is a 'very gracious and obviously a very smart man' but he is on the 'wrong side of history' when it comes to his fervent support of abortion rights, Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George told the 2009 Louisiana Priests Convention April 21."
Lead sentence of a story that ran in the Catholic News Service.
"One needn't be a dedicated pro-lifer to understand the consternation Obama's invitation has caused. He is more radical than all previous presidents on the life issue, with his loosening of federal funding for abortion and embryonic stem cell research, as well as his campaign promise to pass the Freedom of Choice Act."
From "The Principle at Stake at Notre Dame," by pro-abortion columnist Kathleen Parker, which appears in today's Washington Post.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There would be no point in belaboring the obvious. The "mainstream media's" sycophantic coverage of pro-abortion President Barack Obama has reached new heights/depths in the run-up to today's 100th day of his Administration. So, I won't.
Nor will I offer a detailed list of the initiatives of a man whose vision of finding "common ground" is to wrap abortion's deadly tentacles around every aspect of American culture and export this swine flu-like plague around the world. In lieu of a laundry list of assaults on innocence unborn human life, I'd like to talk about two things.
1) The Catholic News Service (CNS) story that ran this week that covered some of the comments Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George made in a question and answer session at the 2009 Louisiana Priests Convention. 2) The ever-more-explicit warnings that to criticize Obama is "giving a patina of legitimacy to some of the most destructive voices in America," as a quote from a letter sent to Cardinal George excerpted on the blog of Commonweal magazine asserted.
Cardinal Francis E. George
On the issue of abortion, George said, "I think we're up against something a little bit like slavery."
Quoting from the CNS account,
"These are members of the human family, genetically individuated, (with) a human father and a human mother," he said. "What their legal status is, of course, you can debate, and we have. ... John Paul II says you cannot simply live comfortably with an immoral legal system, any more than you could live comfortably with slavery, and therefore you have to work to change the law.
"It's a society-dividing issue, and on this issue, we're with Abraham Lincoln and he's with Stephen Douglas, and he doesn't like to hear that, but that's where he is."
This argument has particular resonance. Obama is the first African-American president and the famous 1858 Lincoln/Douglas debates to which George was alluding had a first-principle debate over slavery at their very core. But whether it's slavery or abortion, you either accommodate yourself to evil or you work day in and day out to eliminate it.
George's most astute observation may have been that when Obama's position is approximately 13,000 miles away from yours [my words], Obama will "always tell you he agrees with you." But the fact of the matter is, "'No, Mr. President, we don't agree (on abortion).'"
This could not be clearer than on the issue of the Mexico City policy. As one of his first official acts, Obama signed an order to direct U.S. funds to organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas.
As NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented at the time, "President Obama's order will put hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of organizations that aggressively promote abortion as a population-control tool in the developing world. Much of this will consist of money diverted away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are the most aggressive in promoting abortion in developing countries."
Again, quoting from the CNS story Obama said we weren't exporting abortion," the cardinal said. "I said, 'Yes we are.' He would say, 'I know I have to do certain things here. ... But be patient and you'll see the pattern will change.' I said, 'Mr. President, you've given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.'"
George added,
"So, we'll see, but I'm not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected."
Many people have expressed their great disappointment that the man they had persuaded themselves was a reconciler is, in fact, "more radical than all previous presidents on the life issue," as pro-abortion columnist Kathleen Parker wrote this morning. This peaceful army of disaffected former Obamamites was brought into being by Obama's militantly pro-abortion behavior.
Then there is the imaginary violence-prone army. Recently a Department of Homeland Security report on "Rightwing Extremism"--without rhyme, reason, or evidence--included pro-lifers. The aforementioned Commonweal blog entry is steeped in a similar paranoia.
Its target was "Catholic leaders." The writer offered a bizarre comparison to something a Bishop said in pre-World War II Poland that "could be used--and was used--as part of a deeper and darker anti-Jewish scenario which, as we know, was to be carried forward in horrifying reality on the Polish soil of Auschwitz." That was not the Bishop's intention, mind you, but that only made the writer's point stronger (in his own mind).
The connection to present day America? Part of what is causing what the writer called "this rancid and destructive environment" of hate toward Obama "is anti-abortion."
In other words, however scrupulous "Catholic leaders" may be in their opposition to Obama's abortion agenda, these subtleties will get lost in the shuffle as the riffraff talks itself into a justification for "extreme opposition."
Obama has a free pass no matter what he says (or doesn't say) and a supplicant media that gives more attention to his dog than to Republican legislative proposals. But because "Catholic leaders" are unafraid to tell the truth about abortion, the next thing you know Hitler will be making a curtain call?
Obama is among friends in the White House. You couldn't drop a Kleenex without it landing on some minion of the Abortion Establishment. It is both substantively important and deeply symbolic that Kansas' pro-abortion-to-the-hilt governor was confirmed yesterday as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
For the short term it's largely heads, Obama wins, tails, we lose. But that only makes me more determined than ever that, in the end, this guy's policies do not prevail.
Contact: Dave Andrusko Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: April 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
President Barack Obama says a bill eliminating state restrictions on abortion will take a back seat to other challenges facing the country.
"The Freedom of Choice Act is not the highest legislative priority," Obama told reporters at a prime time news conference marking his 100th day in office. "I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on."
That stance conflicts with a promise Obama made on the campaign trail.
In July 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do." (See earlier story)
However, since taking office, Obama has had to tackle numerous other issues such as the economic crisis and increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan while drawing down the number of troops in Iraq.
The Freedom of Choice Act would eliminate state and federal restrictions on abortion, including waiting periods, parental consent laws and bans on partial birth abortions.
Obama's response to the abortion question comes weeks before the president is set to give a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic university that has been slammed for inviting a pro-choice president to receive an honorary degree.
During the presidential campaign, pro-life groups also criticized Obama for opposing a born-alive-infants-protection bill while he was a member of the Illinois Senate. The bill would have required medical personnel to try to save babies who survived botched abortions.
Asked during the campaign for his thoughts on when life begins, Obama said the question was "above my pay grade."
But on Wednesday night, he explained his pro-choice stance: "I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations," Obama said. "This is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with. The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that — that position casually."
Obama said it has been his "consistent position" that both sides can find common ground on the abortion issue.
"The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is, I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
"And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that."
Contact: Fred Lucas Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: April 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
President Obama speaks at a press conference marking his first 100 days in office. Credit: White House
At last night's prime time press conference, President Obama responded to a question about abortion by saying that he hopes to "tamp down" some of the "anger" cause by his pro-abortion decisions. Pro-life organizations are doubtful this will happen, saying that "abortion advocates clearly have an open door" at the White House.
Obama, celebrating his first 100 days in office, spoke about the economy, swine flu, and a host of other topics facing the nation. After concluding his speech, he was asked by Ed Henry of CNN about the "controversy" he has caused among Catholics for his pro-abortion stance and his upcoming commencement speech at Notre Dame.
The reporter reminded Obama that he had said during the campaign that it was "above his pay-grade" to comment about when life begins, but now that he is President, his "pay-grade is a little higher."
Obama laughed at the question and then told the reporter that his abortion stance has been "very consistent," adding that abortion is a "moral and ethical issue." He also said that those who are "pro-choice" make a "mistake" when they suggest abortion is "simply an issue about women's freedom."
He went on to further say, "the reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that – that position casually" and that they are in a "better position" to decide to take the life of their child than members of Congress or a president of the United States.
Teen pregnancies were something he said he would like to reduce, since they have "started to spike up again," Obama said.
The U.S. president also told reporters that a "task force" within his Domestic Policy Council is working with both the pro-abortion and pro-life groups to try to work together to reduce pregnancies and gather "consensus."
He concluded his answer on abortion by saying the "Freedom of Choice Act is not [his] highest legislative priority," but instead wants to "tamp down" some of the "anger" around his pro-abortion policies during his first 100 days.
Austin Ruse, Director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNA in an email that President Obama's response shows that he is "very crafty" and "has many Catholic quislings giving him cover on his abortion radicalism."
Ruse cited the fact that just a few years ago Obama voted against giving medical assistance "to a baby gasping for breath after surviving an abortion." More recently, Ruse noted that "against the wisespread wishes of the American people, he has begun to spend taxpayer money on abortions overseas. And his Secretary of State just announced that the full force of the U.S. government will be used to spread abortion around the world."
"By any standard except the abortion lobby, these are radical measures and why he is considered the most pro-abortion president we have ever had," said Ruse.
The women's pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony List took issue with Obama's claim that pro-lifers have a say in the abortion debate.
"President Barack Obama spoke of finding 'common ground' on abortion policy, but abortion advocates clearly have an open door," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told CNA.
"It's only been 100 days, but President Obama has managed to check off ten of the fifteen demands of the abortion industry. From his personnel selections to his exclusion of pro-life voices from the health care debate, the President's actions speak louder than his words. This is the most aggressive, pro-abortion administration in decades.
"Fortunately," she addded, "pro-life activists are more energized than ever to defend women and unborn children at every opportunity. The Obama Administration should be prepared – commonsense abortion policy like the Hyde Amendment will not be repealed without a fight by pro-life Americans."
Mark Stricherz, political commentator and author of the book "Why the Democrats are Blue" remarked to CNA that "President Obama's rhetoric about abortion is that of a moderate. But his record is that of an ally of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. For example, he supports taxpayer funding of abortion, such as efforts to rescind or curtail the Hyde Amendment."
"While signing FOCA into law is not a priority of his now, if he is elected for a second term, it could well be," he added.
Source: Catholic News Agency
Publish Date: April 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
William McGurn addresses the Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life. Credit: The Observer
William McGurn, former speech writer for George W. Bush, spoke at Notre Dame on April 23, to affirm and be a witness to the "sacredness of life." He noted that no human right is safe when the right to life is denied, and that the unborn belong to no political party.
The lecture was sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Culture as well as by the Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life and was attended by 150 students, professors and members of the community.
McGurn explained to CNA that his talk "outlined the kind of witness for life that Notre Dame is called to be, and that in many ways only Notre Dame can be." In light of the recent news that Professor Mary Ann Glendon has turned down the Laetare Medal, McGurn noted that she "has given what we call a teaching moment, and the hope is that courageous action will help call Notre Dame back to the university it was meant to be."
McGurn, an alumnus of Notre Dame began his lecture by acknowledging the university's invitation to President Obama to give the commencement address at this year's ceremony. However, McGurn explained, he did not come to Notre Dame to "rally against a speaker, he came "to affirm the sacredness of life."
"In a nation wounded by Roe, in a society that sets mothers against the children they carry in their wombs … we come here tonight because however much our hearts ache, they tell us this: Our church, our country, and our culture long for the life witness of Notre Dame," McGurn said, launching into his address.
What does being a witness mean? he asked. "To be a witness, an institution must order itself so that all who look upon it see a consonance between its most profound truths and its most public actions." For a Catholic university today, this requires leaders to share in that mission.
We must admit, he said, that there is "no guarantee that the young men and women who come here to learn will assent to her witness – but we must never forget that the university will have failed them if they leave here without at least understanding it."
"This witness is the only real reason for a University of Notre Dame," McGurn continued. Catholics believe that there are "self-evident truths about the dignity of each human life, and that this dignity derives from our" creation in the image and likeness of God.
These beliefs make us "countercultural," he pointed out. However, "One does not need to be a Catholic to appreciate that abortion involves the brutal taking of innocent human life. To argue that this is a Catholic truth, or even a religious truth, is to overlook what science and sonograms tell us – and to insult" non-Catholics and even non-Christians "who appreciate that a civilization which sanctions abortion as a human right is in some essential way writing its death warrant."
He explained that the idea of truth "has been rendered doubtful by the slow advance of a soft agnosticism that has itself become orthodoxy at so many universities." This has not yet occurred at Notre Dame, McGurn argued, but he warned that "without a witness," "our crosses, statues, and stained- glass windows will ultimately fade into historical curiosities."
McGurn also acknowledged that the Notre Dame community has become successful, but with that success comes responsibility.
Notre Dame's Leadership
"So what does it say about the Notre Dame brand of leadership, that in the midst of a national debate over a decision that speaks to our Catholic identity, a debate in which thousands of people across the country are standing up to declare themselves 'yea' or 'nay,' our trustees and fellows…remain as silent as Trappist monks?" he asked.
"At a time when we are told to 'engage and hold 'dialogue,' their timidity thunders across this campus. And what will history say of our billions in endowment if the richest Catholic university America has ever known cannot find it within herself to mount a public and spirited defense of the most defenseless among us?"
He went on to discuss Pope John Paul II who stated that "all pleas for other important human rights are 'false and illusory' if we do not defend with 'maximum determination' the fundamental right to life upon which all other rights rest."
"Maximum determination," repeated the ND alum. "Ladies and gentlemen, the unborn child's right to life represents the defining civil rights issue of our day – and it ought to be a defining civil rights issue on this campus."
"In our culture, so many of our most powerful and influential institutions are hostile to any hint that abortion might be an unsettled question. And in our public life, one of the most pernicious effects of the imposition of abortion via the Supreme Court is that it has deprived a free people of a fair and open debate. Notre Dame remains one of the few institutions capable of providing a witness for life in the fullness of its beauty and intellectual integrity – and America is waiting to hear her voice," he said.
He then recognized the strong witness that is alive at Notre Dame. It can be seen in the pro-life teachers, the new Notre Dame Fund to Protect Human Life and the students who attended the annual March for Life.
"Unfortunately, people across this nation – and perhaps even here at this university – know little of these things" because "in her most public witness, Notre Dame appears afraid to extend to the cause of the unborn the same enthusiasm she shows for so many other good works here."
After acknowledging that war, capital punishment and other issues deserve "more serious treatment," McGurn noted that the "debate over these prudential judgments loses coherence if on the intrinsic evil of abortion we do not stand on the same ground."
McGurn urged prolifers to begin dialogue with professors and classmates. "Say to them: 'Brothers! Sisters! We are not perfect, and we will be much improved by your participation. We are holding a place for you on the front lines. Come join us – and let us walk together in our witness for life'."
He continued: I appreciate that for some people, the idea of Notre Dame as an unequivocal witness for the unborn would be a limit on her work as a Catholic university. The truth is just the opposite. The more frank and forthright Notre Dame's witness for life, the more she would be given the benefit of the doubt on the many judgment calls that the life of a great university entails."
Right now, the former presidential speech writer urged, "America thirsts for an alternative to the relativism that leaves so many of our young people feeling empty and alone. This alternative is the Catholic witness that Notre Dame was created to provide – that Notre Dame is called to provide – and that in many ways, only Notre Dame can provide."
Drawing his lecture to a close, McGurn asked encouraged his audience: "Make yours the voice that affirms life and motherhood. Be to those in need as the words of our alma mater: tender … strong … and true."
He concluded, "let us pray that our beloved university becomes the Notre Dame our world so desperately needs: a witness for life that will truly shake down the thunder."
In a Q & A session following his address, McGurn was asked if he was calling on Fr. Jenkins to resign. He answered that he didn't want to go there. "If Father Jenkins resigned and President Obama did not come, my problem would remain: the school's lack of a witness for life."
Source: Catholic News Agency
Publish Date: April 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama began his death march as the most anti-life president in U.S. history.
Today marks Obama's 100th day in office. This list substantiates Obama's personnel and policies to that end. He actually started way before Day 1:
Day -75: Names pro-abortion Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff, who earned a 100 percent approval rating from NARAL while congressman.
Day -59: Appoints executive director of EMILY's List, Ellen Moran, as White House communications director.
Day -56: Names Melody Barnes, who previously served on the boards of EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
Day -51: Nominates pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Day -51: Nominates pro-abortion Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations; Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards commends her in press release.
Day -51: Nominates pro-abortion Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of homeland security, who vetoed her state's partial birth abortion ban.
Day -41: Nominates pro-abortion and pro-universal health (abortion) care Sen. Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services.
Day -41: Appoints pro-abortion Jeanne Lambrew as deputy director of newly created Office of Health Care Reform under Daschle, which Planned Parenthood heralded as "exciting" in a statement.
Day -41: White House transition team publishes 55-page list of demands from pro-abortion groups.
"The Emerging Brave New World" covers the gradual dehumanization of human beings that has invaded American culture
Day -31: Nominates embryonic stem cell research and human cloning advocates Harold Varmus and Jonathan Moreno to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Day -16: Chooses pro-abortion Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as Democratic Party chairman.
Day -16: Nominates pro-abortion, pro-porn David Ogden as deputy attorney general.
Day -16: Nominates "pregnancy is slavery" and former ACLU and NARAL counsel Dawn Johnsen as assistant attorney general.
Day -16: Nominates Thomas Perrelli, former pro-euthanasia attorney for Terri Shindler Schiavo's husband Michael, to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.
Day -16: Nominates pro-abortion former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan as solicitor general, with the buzz she is on short list as next Supreme Court nominee; she supports taxpayer funding of abortion.
Day 1: At 12:01 p.m. EST, the White House website is instantly and completely transformed from pro-life to pro-abortion. Scrubbed is President Bush's Sanctity of Human Life proclamation issued the week before in commemoration of Jan. 22, the anniversary Roe v. Wade, and all else heralding preborn life. In its place:
President Obama … has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his administration. … He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
Day 1: Signals his intention to fund human embryo experimentation by stating in his inaugural address, "We will restore science to its rightful place."
Day 4: Reverses Mexico City Policy, releasing taxpayer money to international organizations that promote or commit abortions (for which Obama received 35 percent approval in a Gallup Poll, making this his least popular decision to date).
Day 4: Releases statement expressing desire for Congress to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which has previously been found to aid in China's coercive abortion and sterilization program.
Day 17: After attending National Day of Prayer breakfast, signs executive order redirecting the Office of Faith Based Initiatives to include a "focus on family planning," according to NPR.
Day 24: Nominates former House co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, Leon Panetta, as CIA director.
Day 38: Signals commitment to comprehensive sex ed by including it in his 2010 budget.
Day 39: Announces plan to repeal Bush regulations enforcing protection of health care entities and workers not to participate in morally abhorrent practices.
Day 40: After Daschle withdraws as HHS secretary nominee, chooses radically pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has financial ties to late-term abortionist George Tiller.
Day 45: Holds "health care summit" at White House, inviting only pro-abortion groups.
Day 46: Creates new post of ambassador for global women's issues and appoints Melanne Verveer, abortion activist and former chief of staff to first lady Hillary Clinton; according to the Associated Press, she "pledged … 'deep commitment' … [to] slowing the world's population explosion and empowering women … through … the right to choose if and when to become pregnant."
Day 49: Signs executive order providing taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation and overturns Bush executive order funding alternative morally acceptable adult stem cell research.
Day 50: Announces 30-day review period with intent to overturn HHS regulations enforcing conscience protections of health care entities and workers.
Day 51: Signs bill into law restoring UNFPA's funding – to a record $50 million.
Day 51: Signs bill into law (which he sponsored as senator) restoring cut rate wholesale birth control pill prices to Planned Parenthood.
Day 51: Signs bill into law increasing "family planning" funding by $7 million and cutting abstinence funding by $14 million.
Day 51: Signs bill into law increasing international "family planning" funding by $30 million.
Day 51: Announces establishment of the White House Council on Women and Girls, which the National Organization for Women "cheers" in a statement, appoints former NOW VP Tina Tchen to head.
Day 51: Obama administration promotes unlimited right to abortion at U.N. Commission on the Status of Women meeting and denies negative effects of abortion.
Day 54: Nominates pro-abortion Dr. Margaret Hamburg as Food and Drug Administration commissioner.
Day 54: Nominates Joshua Sharfstein as deputy Food and Drug Administration commissioner, who once wrote pro-life laws "undermine women's health."
Day 57: Makes first pro-abortion judicial pick in former ACLU board member David Hamilton as U.S. circuit judge, who previously blocked implementation of an informed consent law before abortion.
Day 78: Nominates pro-abortion Yale Law School dean Harold Hongju Koh as the State Department's legal adviser, who believes in the international right to abortion and was former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the Roe v Wade decision.
Day 85: Department of Homeland Security releases document calling pro-life activists potential domestic terrorist threats.
Day 94: FDA refuses to appeal court ruling ordering over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill to 17-year-old girls and boys.
While President Obama appears addicted to campaign mode audience adulation and maintains an extremely heavy travel schedule, he has left his day-to-day operations, policy decisions, and speechwriting in the hands of serious abortion industry and activist players.
Furthermore, by personnel and policy announcements to date, the Obama administration has signaled its intention to push his abortion agenda on the world.
This is only the start.
Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: April 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
State Lawmakers Clash with Planned Parenthood Officials Over Undercover Footage; Unedited Undercover Videos Submitted to TN Law Enforcement
Following the release of undercover footage from a Memphis Planned Parenthood clinic, state lawmakers have introduced legislation that could divert taxpayer subsidies from Planned Parenthood in Tennessee. In response to Planned Parenthood of Greater Memphis Region's contesting the veracity of the footage, the group responsible for filming, Live Action, has sent the state Attorney General and Memphis District Attorney an unedited version for review. The full footage is also on YouTube for public viewing at http://youtube.com/watch?v=IvAGwJcs6c8
Lila Rose, 20-year-old president of Live Action, says the unedited video further exposes Planned Parenthood's reckless counseling practices. When Lila, posing as a 14-year-old girl impregnated by a 31-year-old man, mentions, "My boyfriend said he could pay for everything--But he shouldn't come here to pay 'cause you'll see him, right?" the counselor replies, "It doesn't matter. As long as your parents are not here and can't identify him, he can just pay and that's it. He could be like your older brother or whatever." Tennessee law states that a minor must have parental consent before undergoing an abortion.
Rose commends the Tennessee state lawmakers, led by Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey and Sen. Jack Johnson, who have questioned the state's over $700,000 funding of Planned Parenthood. "Why would citizens tolerate paying the bills of an organization that protects statutory rapists and victimizes young girls? This is the sad result of the careless abortion-first mentality that has persisted at Planned Parenthood for decades."
On Monday, Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region CEO Barry Chase sent an email to state legislators asking them to stop the bill and claimed that Live Action's president, Lila Rose, refused to send his organization the unedited footage, even though neither Rose nor Live Action received any correspondence from Planned Parenthood.
"We have not received a request from Planned Parenthood for the raw footage, so their efforts to raise doubts about the validity of the tapes are made only to mislead," Rose said in response. "The typical last-ditch effort of Planned Parenthood is to wantonly suggest that the unedited tapes might prove them innocent. But to better illustrate the deliberate cover up of statutory rape and abuse by Planned Parenthood, we have made the entire video public."
Live Action has also responded to gross errors in Mr. Chase's email to legislators: "It is all the more troubling to think that even a novice counselor at Planned Parenthood would know to recommend this law-evasion strategy. How prevalent must law-evasion be at Planned Parenthood clinics when even the 'interpreters' are implicated?" states Live Action's letter to TN lawmakers. See the letter here: www.liveaction.org/memphis/letter.html.
Live Action has released similar footage from five other clinics, located in Arizona and Indiana, as part of its Mona Lisa Project, which shows Planned Parenthood employees as they respond negligently to reports of statutory rape and offer secret abortions instead.
Contact: Lila Rose Source: Live Action Publish Date: April 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
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.
News Video Shows Aborted Baby Photos & Protestors Outside Fox High School for Obama Visit
Around 10:00 a.m., there were several dozen people demonstrating just outside the boundaries of the Fox High School campus, where Obama will hold a town hall meeting. Some of the protestors are using portable loudspeakers, but most are carrying signs, petitions and literature. The demonstrators are voicing their opinions on a wide range of issues including: anti-war, specifically the war in Afghanistan; the government's spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars; and a large number of them are anti-abortion.
Click here for the full article.
Forced Abortions Shake Up China Wombs-For-Rent Industry
With China's rising affluence, increasing numbers of infertile couples have been seeking surrogate mothers to bear them babies. In recent years, officials have largely turned a blind eye to this underground womb-for-rent industry that defies the country's strict childbirth laws. Now, there are signs the authorities are starting to crack down by forcing some surrogate mothers to abort their fetuses.
Click here for the full article.
FDA Plan B Decision Ignites Local Debates
Following a federal judge's "directive", the Food and Drug Administration said it will now allow 17-year-olds to get the Plan B pill - commonly known as the morning after pill - without a doctor's prescription (Editor's note: Federal judges do not make law, and can not order the administrative branch of government to do anything without first usurping the authority of the president (abuse of power) and violating the "Separation Of Powers Doctrine." The FDA should have told the federal judge to stick his opinion underneath the house where the sun don't shine -- but it did not. Instead, the Obama administration decided on its own to push the killer Plan B abortion pill on minor girls without a doctor's prescription. Obama! is the one to blame for this (un-Constitutional) criminal activity). The emergency contraception contains a high dose of birth control drugs that does not interfere with an established pregnancy, and works most effectively when the first of two pills is taken within 24 hours after intercourse. The FDA's decision has sparked an ongoing debate between two northern Nevada organizations with very different perspectives.
Click here for the full article.
Obama Defends Support for Abortions
Obama says abortion is both a moral and ethical issue, and abortion rights backers make a mistake when they consider it solely a matter of women's freedom. Obama told a prime-time news conference Wednesday that he supports abortion rights because he thinks a woman is in a better position to make a very personal choice than a member of Congress or the president. He said he would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies that he said have increased. Obama said the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress, a bill that would protect a woman's right to have a child or end a pregnancy, was not his highest legislative priority.
Click here for the full article.
Antiabortion-Rights Groups Oppose Draft Legislation Allowing Research Into Therapeutic Cloning
The "next big biomedical research debate" in Congress could be about whether to allow federal funding of research into "somatic cell nuclear transfer," also known as therapeutic cloning, to produce stem cells, CQ Today reports. President Obama's executive order easing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research directed NIH to determine guidelines for the research. The draft guidelines issued by NIH restrict federal funding to research involving embryonic stem cell lines derived from unused embryos created for fertility treatments and willingly donated by patients who have given written consent. NIH added that embryonic stem cells derived from other sources, including cloning, will not be eligible for federal funding.
Click here for the full article.
State could take over decisions on health, schooling, abortion
Supporters of a plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to include parental rights are warning moms and dads across the United States they already are losing their rights to make decisions regarding their children's health, education, welfare, finances, sex education, access to abortion and even leisure time.
"The erosion is upon us," said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.
Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"
However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights."
The problem, says Farris, is the growing reach of domestic and international government into decisions about health, education, discipline and other issues that for millennia have been made by parents. In one recent case in the South, the parents of a 13-year-old juvenile were refused access to his medical records because the doctor decided against including the parents in the discussion.
According to Farris, the parents could only be granted access to their son's medical records with their son's permission.
"The Supreme Court has so muddied the waters … the growing practice is to treat parenting as a government privilege," he said.
Read an in-depth profile on Michael Farris, the founder of multiple organizations and campaigns, including the current move to protect parental rights in the U.S. Constitution, here.
In another case that outraged parents, a federal court ruled that parents do not even have the right to withdraw their children from public school teachings that violate their religious beliefs.
Farris says the solution is the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution the description of parental rights as fundamental.
"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."
Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving "faster then we thought we would."
Some of the key leaders in the GOP have signed onto the campaign, citing parental rights as a top concern. Democrat support has been far less, but the group has seen a large number of signs that the grassroots are becoming alarmed, pushing county and state officials to action.
Both the GOP and Democrats will be paying more attention as the groundswell of support expands, he said.
The local alarm is being raised on a number of converging issues, including the Food and Drug Administration's new decision to allow 17-year-old juveniles to purchase abortion pills over the counter. Also among the concerns are a long list of challenges to parents who want to homeschool their own children and medical information disputes.
Critics also point to a developing propensity for U.S. judges in cite foreign law in deciding domestic cases, because of the fundamentally different foundations on which other nations base their laws.
WND reported just this week on a case involving German parents who wanted to protect their daughter from sexually explicit teachings in the local school and were fined for it.
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Roger Kiska said such cases must be fought around the world "to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."
One of the more significant threats to parental rights in the U.S. is the possible vote on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lawmakers have refused to ratify the measure for the 20 years it has existed because of worries over what it could do to the entire structure of U.S. law and practice.
For example, it would turn parents who spank their own children into criminals under international law.
But now there is word that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to impose a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the radical international plan.
The document specifically would create "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which critics say would usurp the role of parents in directing their children's religious training.
Another concern is a congressional report that reportedly analyzed the treaty's provisions and forecast that it would be considered in this session of Congress.
Additionally, a symposium has been scheduled to promote the treaty in June at the Georgetown University law school.
"The reports don't appear by magic," Farris noted. "They come because somebody in leadership has requested it."
The Parental Amendment website notes 30 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court announced the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
But just nine years ago the state of Washington allowed any person the ability to override a good parent's decision about visitation simple by claiming it would be "best" for child.
At the Supreme Court level there was only one justice to state clearly that parental rights should get the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights. One justice, in fact, said parents have no constitutionally protected rights.
The website notes if approved, the treaty would supersede "the laws of all 50 states on children and parents."
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.
"The people are waking up," Farris said.
According to the website, "The goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law. … This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, 'In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.' Every member of Congress who agrees with the president on this principle should be in favor of this amendment.
"The need to protect parents' rights has struck a nerve with the American people. In an era where congressional leadership and the administration offer the federal government as the only solution to the challenges we face, Americans are starting to realize that no sphere of their lives is off-limits from government encroachment. Specifically, parents are recognizing the real possibility of being told by the government how to manage their parent-child relationship," the organization said in a statement.
Contact: Bob Unruh Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: April 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services today in the U.S. Senate after hours of debate, by the vote of 65 to 31.
Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas both voted to confirm Sebelius over the strenuous objections of pro-life, conservative groups.
Most Senators who rose in opposition to Sebelius during the sometimes tedious debate voiced concern for her connections to late-term abortion George Tiller and her lack of candor over campaign contributions she received from him.
Dr. Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma said today that late-term abortion is "barometer for the soul of our nation," and that Sebelius "lacks part of the moral clarity" needed to lead our nation.
"This is obviously a step in the wrong direction for our nation. With Sebelius, we can expect to see increased protections for predatory abortionists, taxpayer funded abortions, and rationed health care that could cost lives," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "With this confirmation, Obama is continuing to build a Culture of Death in our nation.
"However, we are encouraged that 31 senators rose in opposition to Sebelius. That is more that we had first expected and we are grateful to each of them for their efforts to block this pro-abortion nomination. It shows a divided Senate that will be keeping a close eye on Sebelius in the coming term."
Contact: Troy Newman, Cheryl Sullenger Source: Operation Rescue Publish Date: April 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Today (April 28th) the U.S. Senate voted 65-31 to confirm Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services.
"Despite the results of tonight's vote, we're finding that more and more Americans are waking up to the danger of President Obama's nominations of extreme abortion advocates to serve in his administration," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "The high profile Sebelius confirmation battle has generated new interest and brought thousands of new activists on board for the pro-life cause. This grassroots energy will only increase our momentum as we confront the next round of President Obama's extreme pro-abortion nominees, beginning with former NARAL Legal Director Dawn Johnsen. We expect all pro-life Senators will oppose Dawn Johnsen's nomination for Office of Legal Counsel, and their support will be critical to keeping her extreme abortion views out of the White House."
Susan B. Anthony List activists generated over 60,000 letters of opposition to Senators regarding the Sebelius nomination. Already over 37,000 letters have been sent in opposition to the Johnsen nomination.
While Johnsen served as Legal Director for NARAL, she authored numerous legal opinions rejecting any and all restrictions on abortion. Some notable quotes from Johnsen's amicus curiae brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services include:
"Abortion restrictions 'reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.'"
"The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality...and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more 'consent' to pregnancy than pedestrians 'consent' to being struck by drunk drivers."
Johnsen awaits a floor vote by the full U.S. Senate to gain confirmation to head the Office of Legal Counsel.
Contact: Joy Yearout Source: Susan B. Anthony List Publish Date: April 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
State could take over decisions on health, schooling, abortion
Supporters of a plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to include parental rights are warning moms and dads across the United States they already are losing their rights to make decisions regarding their children's health, education, welfare, finances, sex education, access to abortion and even leisure time.
"The erosion is upon us," said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.
Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"
However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights."
The problem, says Farris, is the growing reach of domestic and international government into decisions about health, education, discipline and other issues that for millennia have been made by parents. In one recent case in the South, the parents of a 13-year-old juvenile were refused access to his medical records because the doctor decided against including the parents in the discussion.
According to Farris, the parents could only be granted access to their son's medical records with their son's permission.
"The Supreme Court has so muddied the waters … the growing practice is to treat parenting as a government privilege," he said.
Read an in-depth profile on Michael Farris, the founder of multiple organizations and campaigns, including the current move to protect parental rights in the U.S. Constitution, here.
In another case that outraged parents, a federal court ruled that parents do not even have the right to withdraw their children from public school teachings that violate their religious beliefs.
Farris says the solution is the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution the description of parental rights as fundamental.
"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."
Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving "faster then we thought we would."
Some of the key leaders in the GOP have signed onto the campaign, citing parental rights as a top concern. Democrat support has been far less, but the group has seen a large number of signs that the grassroots are becoming alarmed, pushing county and state officials to action.
Both the GOP and Democrats will be paying more attention as the groundswell of support expands, he said.
The local alarm is being raised on a number of converging issues, including the Food and Drug Administration's new decision to allow 17-year-old juveniles to purchase abortion pills over the counter. Also among the concerns are a long list of challenges to parents who want to homeschool their own children and medical information disputes.
Critics also point to a developing propensity for U.S. judges in cite foreign law in deciding domestic cases, because of the fundamentally different foundations on which other nations base their laws.
WND reported just this week on a case involving German parents who wanted to protect their daughter from sexually explicit teachings in the local school and were fined for it.
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Roger Kiska said such cases must be fought around the world "to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."
One of the more significant threats to parental rights in the U.S. is the possible vote on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lawmakers have refused to ratify the measure for the 20 years it has existed because of worries over what it could do to the entire structure of U.S. law and practice.
For example, it would turn parents who spank their own children into criminals under international law.
But now there is word that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to impose a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the radical international plan.
The document specifically would create "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which critics say would usurp the role of parents in directing their children's religious training.
Another concern is a congressional report that reportedly analyzed the treaty's provisions and forecast that it would be considered in this session of Congress.
Additionally, a symposium has been scheduled to promote the treaty in June at the Georgetown University law school.
"The reports don't appear by magic," Farris noted. "They come because somebody in leadership has requested it."
The Parental Amendment website notes 30 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court announced the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."
But just nine years ago the state of Washington allowed any person the ability to override a good parent's decision about visitation simple by claiming it would be "best" for child.
At the Supreme Court level there was only one justice to state clearly that parental rights should get the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights. One justice, in fact, said parents have no constitutionally protected rights.
The website notes if approved, the treaty would supersede "the laws of all 50 states on children and parents."
According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.
* A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.
"The people are waking up," Farris said.
According to the website, "The goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law. … This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, 'In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.' Every member of Congress who agrees with the president on this principle should be in favor of this amendment.
"The need to protect parents' rights has struck a nerve with the American people. In an era where congressional leadership and the administration offer the federal government as the only solution to the challenges we face, Americans are starting to realize that no sphere of their lives is off-limits from government encroachment. Specifically, parents are recognizing the real possibility of being told by the government how to manage their parent-child relationship," the organization said in a statement.
Contact: Bob Unruh Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: April 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Copies being rushed to Rome, Papal Nuncio, USCCB and ND Bishop John D'Arcy
This morning the first 300,000 names of individuals who signed the petition at NotreDameScandal.com - opposing the University of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Barack Obama at this year's commencement - began to be delivered to Notre Dame president Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the Board of Trustees and the Board of Fellows as they prepare for scheduled meetings on Friday, May 1, at Notre Dame.
As of this morning, more than 344,000 people have signed the petition, but because of the overwhelming number of signers The Cardinal Newman Society says it took them more than 24 hours to prepare the data and print more than 64,000 sheets of paper, double-sided, which were then bound in notebooks and rushed to Father Jenkins and individual members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and Board of Fellows.
Copies of the petitions are also being rushed by The Cardinal Newman Society, which sponsored the petition, to Archbishop Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education; Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to the United States; Francis Cardinal George, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB); Bishop John D'Arcy, of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who presides over Notre Dame; and Bishop Robert McManus, Chairman of the USCCB Education Committee.
"Only the Notre Dame Trustees and Fellows have direct authority over Father Jenkins, so their meetings on Friday are our best hope for an end to this scandal," said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society.
"It is critical for all of us to pray that the Trustees and Fellows charged with safeguarding Notre Dame's Catholic identity will heed the 50 bishops and hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics urging Notre Dame to withdraw its invitation to President Obama."
The University of Notre Dame is governed by a 12-member Board of Fellows, including six Holy Cross priests, who are charged with ensuring "that the University maintains its essential character as a Catholic institution of higher learning." The Fellows delegate most of their governing authority to the 38-member Board of Trustees, comprised mostly of lay people.
The university's charter states: "The essential character of the University as a Catholic institution of higher learning shall at all times be maintained, it being the stated intention and desire of the present Fellows of the University that the University shall retain in perpetuity its identity as such an institution."
Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: April 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Arlen Specter, the pro-abortion senior Republican senator from Pennsylvania, has announced that he intends to switch parties, and will seek re-election in 2010 as a Democratic candidate.
Specter has been a Republican senator since his election in 1980. However, in a statement released today Specter said that since the 1980s the Republican Party has moved too far to the right. "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," he said.
The senator has been a long-term support of legalized abortion, though he has claimed that he is "personally" against abortion. The National Right to Life Committee gave Specter a 0% rating in 2006, meaning that in his voting record he is firmly "pro-choice."
President Obama has reportedly welcomed the news of the switch. "You have my full support, and we're thrilled to have you," Obama told Specter in a telephone call today, according to CNN.
Pro-life leaders have responded to the senator's announcement by observing that Specter's values on life and the family have been more in line with the Democratic Party for a long time.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said that Specter's decision changes little in terms of the fight for the right to life in America, but added that it does help clarify Specter's position.
"It's good when people are forced to pick sides," he said. "I would rather have a handful of good men and women who we can count on, than an entire House and Senate of people that waffle every time it comes to the life issue.
"We need to get rid of people like Specter who never caucused with us, who fought against us."
National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson, agreed that Specter's move isn't a huge game-changer for the pro-life cause. "Specter has a long pro-abortion record," he said. "He voted against us virtually all the time on issues touching on abortion. So it's not going to change the numbers."
However, he did point out that Specter's move from the Republican Party could serve to weaken the party's influence in certain "procedural matters," and could affect the process of confirming judges.
Newman also observed that Specter's switch signals that Pat Toomey, the pro-life candidate who ran against Specter in the 2004 Republican primaries, "is a viable candidate." Specter's move, said Newman, indicates that he believed that Toomey had a good chance of beating him in the primary and forcing him out of the Senate.
Toomey nearly defeated Specter in the 2004 primaries. He has said that he will again seek the Republican ticket in 2010, and with Specter's defection he is currently the only Republican that has announced his candidacy.
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele ripped into Specter in a statement today, saying that the senator's switch was not based upon principles, but upon political expediency.
"Let's be honest - Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind," he said. "He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record."
Steele said Republicans "look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Specter's switch could reportedly serve to bring the Democratic Senate majority to a filibuster-proof 60 vote, if Al Franken holds his lead in the Minnesota Senate race. However, Specter denied in today's statement that the switch meant a change in party control. "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans," he said.
Contact: John Jalsevac Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: April 29, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The secular left is a diverse amalgam of various interest groups and ideologies. Of course, the same is true to some extent on the conservative end of the spectrum as well. But on some issues the secular left is absolutely of one mind and voice, and the promotion of birth control and contraception is one of these issues.
To the left, birth control is central to the modern project of liberation. Pregnancy and parenthood limit other endeavors, to say the very least. The project of liberating sex from marriage and sex within marriage from reproduction is central to the modern quest for autonomy. The Pill allowed a radical expansion in non-marital sex, for example, now freed from concern about pregnancy. The Pill represented a moral revolution of incalculable magnitude.
For the feminist movement, support for birth control and abortion on demand is rooted in the explicit desire to "level the playing field" with men. The Pill, feminists announced, was the liberation of women from the problem of an unwanted and untimely pregnancy. If an unwanted pregnancy did occur, abortion on demand would resolve that problem.
This drive for reproductive control is a central obsession of the left, and it has infected many who would otherwise classify themselves as conservative as well. It also explains what is going on with the decision of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to allow the morning-after pill to be sold over the counter to girls as young as 17.
That announcement came April 22, and is the essence of brevity for a governmental agency:
On March 23, 2009, a federal court issued an order directing the FDA, within 30 days, to permit the Plan B drug sponsor to make Plan B available to women 17 and older without a prescription. The government will not appeal this decision. In accordance with the court's order, and consistent with the scientific findings made in 2005 by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA notified the manufacturer of Plan B informing the company that it may, upon submission and approval of an appropriate application, market Plan B without a prescription to women 17 years of age and older. Plan B is manufactured by Duramed Research, Inc. of Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
"Plan B" is the commercial name of the morning-after pill (levonorgestrel). The tablet is indeed a form of birth control, and some believe it potentially to be an abortifacient. According to the Plan B Web site, the pill works this way: "Plan B contains two pills taken 12 hours apart that contain a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy."
The commercial name of the pill just about says it all. When "Plan A" doesn't work, use "Plan B." Plan A, we should note, means using birth control. No one in these circles would dare suggest that Plan A should mean not having sex.
Last month, a federal court judge in Manhattan ordered the FDA to allow over-the-counter sale of Plan B to girls as young as 17, reversing a Bush administration policy. The left erupted in celebration. The New York Times published an editorial declaring, "Judge Edward R. Korman wisely ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make the pill available without prescription to women as young as 17 and to consider approving it for girls of any age, as major medical groups have long advocated."
That's right, "girls of any age." Today, with the FDA decision just released, the Times celebrates the news with this lead: "Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor's prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge's order and lowered the age limit by a year."
The paper went on to report:
Like their older counterparts, 17-year-old women will now be able to go to almost any pharmacy, clinic or hospital and, after showing proof of age, buy Plan B without a prescription. Men 17 and older may also buy Plan B for a partner.
So females of 17 are now "women" and 17-year-old males are now "men." This is made necessary by the logic of the paper's worldview. They argue that these young people are old enough to make this decision alone, without parental oversight or medical advice.
The paper further explained:
Contraception advocates have pushed for easy access to Plan B for girls and women of all ages because the longer a woman delays in taking the medicine after unprotected sex, the more likely she will become pregnant. Eliminating doctors from the transactions, it was hoped, would lead to far fewer pregnancies and abortions.
Again, note the "of all ages" reference. In the March 24 editorial, the paper included this sentence: "The harder question is whether to remove all age and other restrictions, potentially allowing children as young as 11 or 12 to take the drug without medical supervision." As young as 11 or 12?
Following this logic, 11-year-old girls will now be 11-year-old women, able to purchase Plan B from the pharmacy without a prescription (and long before they can legally drive themselves to the pharmacy).
Today, the paper began its editorial with this:
In a further break from the Bush administration's ideologically driven policies on birth control, the Food and Drug Administration has agreed to let 17-year-olds get the morning-after emergency contraceptive pills without a doctor's prescription. It is a wise move that complies with a recent order by a federal judge, based on voluminous evidence in F.D.A. files that girls that young can use the pills safely.
Here is a clue - whenever anyone (including this writer) claims that a policy reversal means a break from someone else's "ideologically driven policies," it simply means that one ideology is replacing or modifying another. The New York Times is the central media organ of the secular left. It is as ideologically driven as any other sector of this society. Furthermore, the idea that any serious policy discussion can be free from ideology is a farce. The editors of The New York Times merely prefer their own ideology to that of the Bush administration, yet they write this editorial as if they have come from their own private planet of ideological purity.
One key insight into the paper's ideology: Note the references in both editorials and news reports to the claim that evidence proves that young girls "can use the pills safely." Clearly, the paper means to speak of medical safety. But what about other aspects of these girls' lives? Is it morally safe? Spiritually safe? Safe to a tender heart?
No, the main issue in the FDA policy is this - safe from parental supervision. The morning after pill is now a potent symbol of the end of parenthood as we know it.
Contact: R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Source: Christian Post
Publish Date: April 28, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
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.
Mary Ann Glendon to Receive Pro-Life Award for Notre Dame Decision
Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute, announced today that they will present the group's prestigious "Hero at Heart" award to Mary Ann Glendon, former Ambassador to the Vatican. The honor is given annually to individuals who demonstrate outstanding courage or compassion on behalf of innocent human life. Recipients have included Congressman Henry Hyde and former Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline.
Ambassador Glendon recently declined the University of Notre Dame's most revered honor, the Laetare Medal, which was to be presented to her during the university's May commencement ceremony.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Abortion John Kerry Advises Obama to Select a Pro-Life Ambassador to the Vatican
Senator John Kerry, one of the most prominent pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the US, told an interviewer last week that it is only logical for the White House to appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican.
Kerry, a former Democratic candidate for US president, said, "I think that if you're going to have an ambassador who has access to His Holiness and who has the ability to be able to represent all the other things which you want to come together on, it is best not to, you know, make things difficult from the outset."
"And obviously given the position of the Church, that's difficult. And so an honest answer is, you know, I'd try to find someone who doesn't open up that front, so to speak, and has the ability to represent where we find the common ground."
He added, "Does it have to be [a pro-life person]? No, but that would be my recommendation."
Click here for the full article.
Morning After Pill for UK School Girls by Text Message: Catholic Secondary School to be Forced to Participate
A UK Catholic bishop has condemned a plan by Oxfordshire health officials to allow girls as young as eleven to order the abortifacient morning after pill by text message from their school nurse. An auxiliary bishop of the Catholic archdiocese of Birmingham told local news media that the proposed plan by local health authorities and the Oxfordshire County Council "goes against the very central idea the Catholic church has on human life."
Bishop Leonard William Kenney told the Daily Telegraph, "It is sending out the message that it was better to deal with the aftermath of what people do, rather than the causes.
"I don't think this will help solve the teenage pregnancy rate and is taking away responsibility from parents."
Set to begin in July, the pilot program will apply to six secondary schools in Oxfordshire county, including St. Gregory the Great Catholic school in Oxford. Authorities have informed the schools that there will be no opt-out allowed, claiming that the texting service is "outside the governance of the schools" because it is offered outside of school hours.
Click here for the full article.
Court Gives OK to Link Bill on Child Sex Abuse to Abortion Suit
A state representative will get the opportunity to explain how his bill strengthening reporting requirements for child abuse relates to an Ohio Supreme Court case on abortion. The Supreme Court yesterday allowed Rep. Robert Mecklenborg, R-Cincinnati, to join a case in which Planned Parenthood is accused of ignoring evidence of physical abuse against women visiting its clinics for abortions. The case already has scores of individuals and groups filing friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides.
Click here for the full article.
Missouri Legislation Would Let Pharmacies Refuse 'Plan B' Sale
The Missouri House has endorsed a measure specifically allowing pharmacies to decide whether to stock the "morning-after" emergency contraceptive or abortion pills. The House voted 115-43 on Tuesday to amend the provisions to professional licensing legislation that already cleared the Senate. But the House quit for the day before taking a vote on the overall bill. Missouri's pharmacy licensing laws currently don't address whether pharmacies must carry emergency contraceptives or abortion drugs.
Click here for the full article.
Okla. Fails To Ban Embryonic Research
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry has succeeded in having his veto of a prohibition on stem cell research that destroys embryos upheld by the state Senate. The Senate voted 26-19 April 23 to override Henry's veto, six votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for an override. The failure in the Senate to overturn the veto followed the House of Representatives' successful effort. The House voted 68-26 for the override.
Click here for the full article.
Indiana Abortion Bill At Impasse
Indiana lawmakers are deadlocked over an abortion bill, and chances seem slim that they'll find common ground before the legislative session ends Wednesday. A standoff over women's health screenings could kill the legislation, which would require doctors who perform abortions in Indiana to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital. The bill also would inform women seeking abortions that a fetus might feel pain.
Click here for the full article.
Pro-lifers assaulted while collecting signatures against abortion
On Saturday, April 25, three volunteers of the Right to Life organization and a Chilean in the town of El Ferrol were victims a brutal assault by a group of seven young people who attacked them as they were collecting signatures against the law on abortion sponsored by the Socialist government.
Gador Joya, the organization's spokeswoman, is demanding the attack be condemned by federal officials in the province of Galicia and that they bring the assailants to justice.
"Once again we see the lack of arguments of those who defend the most radical positions: intolerance and violence have no place in a state based on the rule of law," she said.
Click here for the full article.
Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano wasted little time in going after President Obama’s most beloved opponents, pro-life Americans.
In a document entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7, 2009, an “intelligence assessment” is provided to the Department of Homeland Security.
What first caught my attention was a little note at the bottom of page two, which reads:
(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
Clearly the Obama administration has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to Americans who want to focus attention on the plight of the preborn, calling abortion by its proper name, and demanding equal rights and equal protection for all, regardless of age, health, place of residence or condition of dependency. Perhaps you are among the extremists this document is discussing.
To my mind, this sort of extremist is an American expressing his freedom of speech in an effort to bring an end to the heinous crime of direct abortion which is, after all, an act of murder.
Well, look out. Things may get very unpleasant, or maybe not. During a couple of interviews I have given on this ridiculousness, I have stressed the reality that acts designed to intimidate are themselves unlawful, and nobody including Ms. Napolitano is going to harass me and get away with it. Of that we can all rest assured.
We can further be grateful that the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) has already stepped in and has filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding to know the basis for the DHS’ recent “intelligence assessment.” The TMLC is working in defense of freedom of speech, and TMLC President Richard Thompson is not pulling any punches.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the law center stated, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of the Gestapo and any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.
“This incompetently written intelligence assessment, which directs law enforcement officials across the country to target and report on American citizens who have the political beliefs mentioned in the report, will be used as a tool to stifle political opposition and opinions. It will give a pretext for opponents of those Americans to report them to police as rightwing extremists and terrorists. You can imagine what happens then.”
Way to go, Dick! You can also view the pdf file of the official complaint on the TMLC web page by clicking here. Jim Clymer of the Constitution Party took a different perspective, shared by many political types, and told his supporters
“This is an egregious case of political profiling. The timing of this report – to coincide with tax protests across the country – should not be lost on Americans. It’s indeed a frightening reality when those who subscribe to a constitutionally based political view are characterized as potentially ‘violent.’
Clymer, among others, claims that the Homeland Security report is designed primarily to suggest that any American who is protesting Obama’s spending policies is involved in an extremist plot.
My view is that there is something more profoundly disturbing about this document than whether or not Americans have the right, if not the duty, to publicly protest high-handed government spending and other policies that literally threaten the family in a number of ways.
I must take note of the fact that this report comes during the same period of time where things have occurred which, I believe, were planned to put President Obama “in the face” of the Catholic Church. My view is that it’s designed to test the waters and see exactly how far the administration can push American bishops.
I say this not only because of his scheduled appearance at the University of Notre Dame, but also because of his appearance at Georgetown University, where public reminders of our Catholic faith had to be covered up. And of course there are the Obama administration’s possible nominations for ambassador to the Vatican, who are all pro-abortion Catholics.
The Vatican has handled the matter nicely, but not so with unanimity among American bishops -- at least not yet.
The Napolitano report is no accident, regardless of which type of political agenda you happen to aspire to, because I don’t think it is about politics, but rather about a world view that does not give a single quarter to Christ, his people or his teachings. Further, I am wondering if the report is the first salvo in an attempt to silence God’s people and the truths so eloquently set forth in natural law.
Is it preposterous to consider the possibility that the report was created based on some contrived definition of extremist that includes people who take their faith into the public square in order to fight against evil?
Let’s not forget MSNBC host Chris Matthews and his opinion of those of us who defend life: On Monday night's "Hardball," [March 2, 2009] Chris Matthews feared Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, in her nomination fight to head HHS, would be a target of "the terrorism of the, of the anti-abortion people." Then perhaps realizing he called all pro-lifers terrorists, Matthews feebly attempted to amend the statement, as he tried to clarify, "I mean verbal terrorism."
Could the Obama administration be taking its cue from Matthews? Terrorists, extremists … what next?
Might we see a day when publicly proclaiming one’s Christianity could be tantamount to subversive activity?
Interesting questions.
Covering the latest DHS document, Catholic News Agency reports:
Under the title “Revisiting the 1990s,” the report claims that “paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members.”
“Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico) and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.”
The report “is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
In other words, if according to one’s understanding of truth and scientific facts, one cannot condone aborting children or the mainstreaming of homosexuality, can we presume that makes such people extremists? Is the embrace of doctrinally sound teachings the equivalent of a terrorist threat?
Lots of questions I cannot answer, but the idea that we have to examine such concepts should trouble every red-blooded American, regardless of his or her political philosophy.
Perhaps the DHS report on “extremism” is not so difficult to understand at all. Perhaps it is far more sweeping than first thought. Only time will tell. But as we all know, to be forewarned is to be conscious of the situation and the possible implications.
For as the Washington Times reported after Secretary Napolitano spoke out in defense of the report, “Ms. Napolitano insisted that the department was not planning on engaging in any form of ideological profiling.”
Further, she said, "We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."
The TMLC’s Richard Thompson said in a letter to Janet Napolitano, as reported in The Washington Times: “As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans – whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not. …” Mr. Thompson said the report "blurred the line."
That’s an understatement, for sure.
Contact: Judie Brown Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: April 20, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
