June 23, 2009

Planned Parenthood is all About Sex

Planned Parenthood is all About Sex

 

The International Planned Parenthood Federation has just released a document that espouses a right to sexual pleasure. I have asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, who has been fighting Planned Parenthood for over 25 years, to comment on this document as today's guest commentator. Here is what Jim had to say:

In talks around the world over the last 25 years, I have always emphasized that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood based on three underlying philosophies: uninhibited sexual activity to achieve unlimited sexual pleasure; birth control, including abortion, to achieve universal small family size; and eugenics to achieve a human race devoid of any dysgenic stock.

In recent weeks, there has been an event clearly calculated to advance the first of these above-listed philosophies and thus revealing that it is very much alive and well in Planned Parenthood today.

That event is the release, by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, of a document which the news media is referring to as "the world's first declaration of sexual rights."

Specifically, the Inter Press Service reported the following on June 10, 2009:

    LATIN AMERICA: "Sexuality Is an Essential Part of Humanity"
    Marcela Valente

    BUENOS AIRES, Jun 10 (IPS) - In an effort to promote the free enjoyment of human sexuality, separate from reproduction, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) launched the world's first declaration of sexual rights in the Argentine capital on Wednesday.

    "We want states to commit themselves to protecting these rights, and for the United Nations to adopt them in future meetings," Carmen Barroso, IPPF regional director for the Western hemisphere, told IPS.

    "Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration," the result of two years' work by a multi-disciplinary team, proposes that "sexuality is an essential part of our humanity," and that its free expression "is a component of human rights." The Declaration espouses "the entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction."

So, here you have Planned Parenthood clearly stating what we have known to be its intent since its beginning. That the act of sex, in and of itself, with no regard for its procreative powers, should be recognized as a "right to pleasure." IPPF elaborates on this in its 29-page document, Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration, when it states in Principle 4,

    Sexuality is not merely a vehicle for individuals to satisfy their reproductive interests. The entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction, and reproduction independent of sexuality should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement.

    All persons are entitled to the conditions that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality. Pleasure is based on individual and relational autonomy, for which the existence of public policies on sexuality education, health services, freedom from coercion and violence, as well as the development of a field of ethics on issues of justice, equality and liberty must be ensured. Given that pleasure is an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to experience it must not be denied to anyone.

It is clear, then, that Planned Parenthood believe it has reached the right time in its development and the world's moral condition to brazenly proclaim this "right" to sexual pleasure as a goal for everyone. Of course, in typical fashion, Planned Parenthood doesn't see these rights as being just for mature adults. The IPS article quoted above also contains the following:

    [IPPF's] Barroso, an expert on sexual and reproductive health, said human rights in general gained ground in the mid-20th century, and expanded in the 1990s with the recognition of children's rights. In the mid-1990s, the U.N. affirmed reproductive rights, "but sexuality was tagged on as an afterthought," she said.

    "People talked about sexual and reproductive rights, but in fact they meant reproductive rights only," she said. In 1995 at the World Conference on Women in Beijing, sexual rights were introduced in the negative, as "women's right not to suffer harm, violence or coercion" in sexual intercourse, she said.

    "It was a step forward, but no one talked about the positive right to sexual pleasure, which is only now beginning to be discussed," she said. "That's why the IPPF is offering this Declaration as a tool for progress toward a specific concept of sexual rights."

    The Declaration also recognises the sexual rights of persons under 18, who need individual protection based on the idea of their "evolving capacity to exercise rights on their own behalf." According to this idea, parental authority eases off as young people progressively gain in decision-making autonomy.

    In addition, the Declaration says that "all persons are entitled to the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality."

Planned Parenthood takes the position that young children have the so-called right to sexual pleasure in its 29-page document when it says this:

    IPPF understands that the rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen, as a matter of international and national law, sometimes differ from the rights of adults. These differences relate to all aspects of human rights but require particular approaches in regard to sexual rights. IPPF begins from the premise that persons under eighteen are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance.

    Under Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that the direction and guidance provided by parents or others with responsibility for the child must take into account the capacities of the child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf. The concept of evolving capacity of children requires a balance between recognizing children as active agents in their own lives entitled to be respected as citizens, as people and as rights-bearers with increasing autonomy, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their vulnerability.

    The concept recognizes that the levels of protection from participation in activities likely to cause children harm will diminish in accordance with their evolving capacity. In addition, the principle of evolving capacity combines respect for children, their dignity and entitlement to protection from all forms of harm, while also acknowledging the value of their own contribution towards their protection. Societies must create environments in which children can achieve their optimal capacities and where greater respect is given to their potential for participation in, and responsibility for, decision-making in their own lives.

    Several key principles govern the interrelationship between children's rights and other interests. Among these are: the view of persons under 18 as rights holders; the best interests of the child; the evolving capacities of the child; non-discrimination; and the responsibility for ensuring conditions for thriving. In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent's understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.

The key to understanding all this bureaucratic-speak is the last sentence. Let's restate that line and add some emphasis in the form of underlining:

    In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent's understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.

What this means is that your child will not be safe from this ideology. If Planned Parenthood can convince, for example, a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to bring to bear on his or her life, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated in the area of attaining sexual pleasure. It means that that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child's sexual activity.

Perhaps a final quote from the main IPPF document will drive this point home. Planned Parenthood says,

    All persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, which encompasses the opportunity for individuals to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality, to choose their sexual partners, to seek to experience their full sexual potential and pleasure, within a framework of nondiscrimination and with due regard to the rights of others and to the evolving capacity of children.

With this latest document, Planned Parenthood has declared war on our children and on traditional God-given morality. It is doing everything it can to get government approval for leading our children into lives of sexual sin. We must recognize this for what it is: an all-out effort to steal the souls of our children and lead them into lifestyles that will end with an eternity in hell.

We dare not be silent.

Contact: Jim Sedlak
Source: American Life League
Publish Date: June 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Bioethics PR

Bioethics PR



Something that might have been overlooked with all the other big news going on last week: President Obama quietly disbanded the President's Council on Bioethics. This group, formed after President Bush's 2001 executive order on embryonic stem cell research, advised the president on policies regarding stem-cell and other bioethical issues, and drew criticism from the left for being too restrictionist.

One of the Council's members, Peter Augustine Lawler of Berry College (no relation to me), offered some reflections on his dismissal in the Weekly Standard on Friday. He notes a few barbs at Bush's attitude toward bioethics -- one of the few areas where Bush actually did well -- and counters by demonstrating both the Council's diverse makeup and its quality of discourse. Because of this diversity, Lawler writes,

    I want to emphasize that this [the Council's work] was a scientific dispute on the moral implications of what the studies show conducted at the highest level. Socratic dialogue illuminated the disagreement and allowed those involved to remain friends in common pursuit of the truth, but no expert consensus emerged. No Council member was ideological in the sense of having anything but the highest respect for and full openness to what we can learn from science. And if expert means being a genuine scientific authority, they were all clearly among our nation's most formidable experts.

    When even experts disagree, people are stuck with thinking for themselves. And there's a moral basis for compromise.

Lawler fears that Obama plans to replace the Council with a group of "experts" who will have neither the expertise of the outgoing Council nor their intellectual honesty.

    The experts, we have to remember, very often hide their own personal opinions and ideological agendas behind their impersonal claims to merely be following what the studies say. We can learn from them, but as long as they fall short of perfect objectivity based on perfect wisdom, we shouldn't trust them. These days, the people, above all, should distrust meddlesome, schoolmarmish judges and bureaucrats (and presidents who enable them) who want to deprive them of the capacity of thinking for themselves.

Indeed, reading between the lines of the NY Times report on Obama's decision to dismantle the Council, it seems as though, sadly, he intends to replace it with a PR organ and nothing more.

    The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be "a philosophically leaning advisory group" that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

    President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that "offers practical policy options," Mr. Cherlin said.

So the President believes that problems in bioethics require no philosophical consideration, but instead quick and practically developed shared consensus? Obviously the only way to arrive at a shared consensus on these tricky issues is to make sure beforehand that everyone there is ready to tell you what you need to hear to pass the laws that are politically expedient. The article ends:

    Dr. Alta Charo, an ethicist at the University of Wisconsin, said that much of the Bush council's work "seemed more like a public debating society" and that a new commission should focus on helping the government form ethically defensible policy.

    A commission of this kind, Dr. Charo said, "lets the president react judiciously to rapid and often startling changes in the scientific landscape."

I.e., instead of considering very weighty problems with the serious thought they deserve, the commission should quickly turn around recommendations that allow the president to continue judiciously advancing his agenda.

Contact: Joseph Lawler
Source: AmSpecBlog
Publish Date: June 23, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

'Amazing' Grace: Baby Survives 'Incurable' Illness

'Amazing' Grace: Baby Survives 'Incurable' Illness

Baby Grace Vincent, a U.K. baby who was diagnosed with meningitis at six weeks, has miraculously survived after her life-support system was turned off.


Baby Grace was born without complications on April 3 to Emily Ashurst, 26, and her partner, Pete Vincent, 26. Vincent, a marine, had just returned from service in Afghanistan when, on May 16, Ashurst found Grace in a state of distress, covered with the purple patches characteristic of meningitis.

She was diagnosed with late-onset Group B Streptococcus (GBS), a bacteria present in almost a quarter of women, which can be passed on to babies during labor. GBS can normally be discovered prior to labor and its transmission prevented with antibiotics.

Describing the incident, Ashurst said, "Within hours she got poorly. We watched her stop breathing. We watched them put an oxygen mask on her face."

After four days, Grace had suffered what was described as "catastrophic brain damage."

"It was a bleak picture," said Ashurst. "The doctors said they'd never seen a girl as poorly as Grace."

"We came to the decision to switch off the machine. …She was baptized and all the family came to say goodbye."

"Pete and I wanted to say goodbye on our own," Ashurst continued, "and we were told she might gasp for air before she died. They put her in my arms before they disconnected her. We waited for her last breath."

But miraculously, she never stopped breathing. About two weeks ago she was transferred, and doctors still expected she would die. Instead baby Grace stabilized and on Friday was sent home.

"Her breathing has stabilized," Ms. Ashurst said, "showing that her brain stem is not damaged. She has opened one eye but is still blind. Her pupils have begun dilating back to their normal size. I think it is miraculous given the experience of five weeks ago."

"We don't look too far into the future and we are guided by Grace day by day. What she is doing now is amazing. Everyone has been calling her Amazing Grace."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Where's the Choice in This?

Where's the Choice in This?

Funding UNFPA

 

Last year, a young Chinese woman—let's call her Dan Li—ran afoul of the Chinese government. She had become "illegally pregnant." By the time the authorities found out, Dan Li was seven months along. Family planning officials tied her to a bed, induced labor, and, when the baby was born, killed the baby.

What happened to Dan Li is an abomination—one, however, that tragically takes place regularly in China. But now, thanks to the U.S. Congress, you and I will be paying for it.

Last March, without fanfare, Congress passed a bill providing $50 million for the United Nations Population Fund. This organization promotes abortion around the globe—including in China. What makes the bill especially heinous is that it voided Kemp-Kasten, a bill which, for two decades, prevented our tax dollars from funding forced abortions and sterilization.

This blows the lid off the argument that abortion is all about giving a woman choice. If Congress really stands for choice, as they claim, why did they vote for coercion? If feminists are really for choice, why aren't they fighting this law? Why isn't our pro-choice President demanding that this brutalization of women be stopped?

Abortion is a glaring example of the difference worldview makes. Are all children—Chinese babies or inner-city African American babies—worthy of protection?  Are babies just mouths to feed, and a strain on the environment—or are they potential producers and contributors? Do parents have the right under God to have as many children as they desire? Or should governments dictate this decision?

Let's be clear: Coercive family planning is a humanitarian disaster.

Reggie Littlejohn is an expert on China's "One Child" policy for a group called Human Rights Without Frontiers. She points to three negative outcomes of China's policy.

First, "gendercide." Parents who are forced to limit their families to one child overwhelmingly abort girls. For every 120 boys born in China, there are only 100 girls born. So, since China's "One Child" policy began in 1978, she writes, "400 million births" have been "prevented." That's more than the current U.S. population.

Second, China's gender imbalance "is a powerful, driving force behind trafficking in women and sexual slavery from nations surrounding China."

Third, according to the World Health Organization, China suffers the highest female suicide rate in the world—some 500 women per day. As Littlejohn notes, "Forced abortion traumatizes women. Could this high suicide rate be related to forced abortion?"

You and I need to let our friends and churches know about what Congress did—that their taxes being used by the UNFPA to support coercive family planning programs in China. According to Reggie Littlejohn, if there's enough of an outcry, "Congress can pass an amendment blocking . . . funding from going to nations that practice coercive family planning."

Certainly pro-choicers would agree that women deserve better than to be hunted down and tied up while their babies are killed.

Contact: Chuck Colson
Source: Breakpoint
Publish Date: June 23, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

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.

Obama Seeks to Join Global Rights of Child Pact

The Obama administration is reviving efforts to have the United States sign onto a global children's rights treaty ratified by every U.N. member except the U.S. and Somalia, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Monday.
 
Administration officials are actively discussing "when and how it might be possible to join," Rice, a Cabinet-level official, said while visiting a school in Harlem and fielding a teenager's specific question about the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
 
She did not provide a specific timetable for the decision and has said previously only that the administration would conduct a legal review of the treaty.
Click here for the full article.



Are Dependent Elderly Persona non Grata in the UK?

Stories like this continue to mount in the UK, and are a warning to us of the growing utilitarian, quality of life/cost-benefit bent in health care.  A stroke patient, it is charged, was almost neglected to death–if not worse–at a UK hospital.  From the story:

    John MacGillivray, 78, from Auchterarder, was admitted to Perth Royal Infirmary having suffered a stroke on May 22. Two days later, his family were told by hospital doctors he would die within hours. His daughter Patricia MacGillivray told Sky News:…"There were several issues we already had with the level of care he had received in the short while he had been in the hospital, so we started to become suspicious. That's when we started asking about his medication. It was then we learned that the medication we had been told he was going to receive when he was first admitted, which was specifically for stroke, had been changed to medication for treating seizures which we'd never seen him have.

    The MacGillivray family instructed doctors to immediately withdraw all medication and launched a round-the-clock bedside watch.Within two days, Ms MacGillivray says her father had made such a good recovery he was being recommended for stroke rehabilitation treatment and four weeks later he was back home walking around his garden in Auchterarder.
Click here for the full article.


Slovakia Passes Informed Consent Law Despite Pressure from Pro-Abort Groups

Informed consent before abortion has been adopted by the Slovak Parliament, establishing a mandatory counseling requirement, a 3 days waiting period, and mandatory parental/guardian consent requirements for minors within the current Slovak abortion law.

International abortion groups' pressure, coordinated by the US based pro-abortion network "Center for Reproductive Rights," called for rejection of the amendment, claiming that it was "in conflict with women's rights to privacy, physical integrity and autonomy, confidentiality, health, and non- discrimination."
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life MPs, Doctors and Bishops Unite Against UK Abortion TV Ads

The proposal to allow abortionists to advertise on television in Britain and to allow condoms to be advertised at any time of day, will "contribute to a further 'normalization' of abortion" and "encourage the sexualizing of children," according to a recent statement by the Catholic bishops' conference. Other objections to the proposal have come from doctors and MPs who say that the ads will do nothing to lower the teen pregnancy rate.

Labour MP Jim Dobbin, who brought an Early Day Motion against the proposal to the House of Commons, said that the makers and promoters of the ads have a "vested interest" in seeing them reach the airwaves. A group of doctors have said that the ads will encourage young people to take up more causal sex and look upon abortion as an easy "quick fix."
Click here for the full article.

June 22, 2009

The Return of Anti-People Propaganda

The Return of Anti-People Propaganda:

A Comment on the "Return of the Population Growth Factor."



Politically motivated panels rarely produce good science, and the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development, and Reproductive Health of the U.K. Parliament is no exception. The report, Return of the Population Growth Factor: Its Impact upon the Millennium Development Goals, is a mishmash of justifications for the powerful of the world to continue to dictate the fertility of the powerless.i It is even illustrated, in Science magazine's summary of the report, with a picture of a starving African child, presumably to drive home the authors' view that there are already too many Africans.

Having just returned from China, the careful admission, by the authors of the Science article, that in the past, "some Asian policy initiatives incorporated coercive elements" strikes me as risible. I would like to report that in southern Hebei province, according to eyewitnesses that I interviewed, hundreds of pregnant women are being rounded up and forcibly aborted by lethal injection as you read this. It is significant that the authors have in the past applauded China's one-child policy, revealing both their bias in favor of rigorous "family planning" programs run by the state and--what is the same thing--their utter disdain for the universally recognized right of parents to determine the number and spacing of their children.

It may appear to the members of the British Parliamentary Group that family planning programs in developing countries are "entirely voluntary," but I assure you that this is not the case on the ground in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We at PRI have documented serious human rights abuses in what should properly still be called population control programs in over 40 countries.ii To bolster their case, the authors point to surveys which purportedly show a high "unmet need for contraception" but these survey instruments, as I have argued elsewhere, are flawed. They are designed and interpreted to prove what they should instead be objectively assessing.iii

Still, I was pleased to see that the author's have been constrained by falling birthrates worldwide to considerably limit the scope of their population control efforts, chiefly to sub-Saharan Africa. To what other continent can they turn to justify their interventions? The developed world is dying, South America is close to replacement rate fertility, and even Asia has seen dramatic reductions in birth rates over the past two decades. Only in Africa does one still find robust birthrates.

This is not heedless breeding, as many assume. Rather, it is a consequence of persistently high infant and child mortality rates on that continent. If you know that one or more of your children will die before adulthood, the prudent thing to do is to have more children. Anyone who is concerned about lowering fertility rates in Africa should focus their energies on lowering the mortality rate. Fertility rates will follow.

The British Parliamentarians argue that it will be difficult to achieve a number of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) without a "substantial increase" in population control spending. But their justifications in each case seem contorted, even forced. Let me explain what I mean.

They argue that it will be "almost impossible" to achieve the MDG of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger without population control. Does anyone else find it odd that the effort to eliminate poverty and hunger should involve the elimination of the poor and hungry? They ask for bread and we give them contraceptives. They ask for help with malaria and HIV/AIDS and we sterilize them.

Although population control programs are generally justified in terms of helping the poor and downtrodden, other, less presentable justifications lurk in the background. Consider the following assertion of the UN Population Fund, which is quoted by the authors: ". . . almost 1.5 billion young men and women will enter the 20-to-24 age cohort between 2000 and 2015, and if they don't find jobs 'they will fuel political instability'." This sentiment echoes that of the infamous National Security Study Memorandum 200, which in 1974 claimed that high birth rates led to Communist insurrections. Thus was population control made a weapon in the Cold War. Are the authors seriously proposing that we control unemployment by means of birth control, pace Nancy Pelosi? And whose interests are we serving if we do?

Like nearly everyone, I applaud the MDG of universal primary school education for girls as well as boys. But there are surely more humane ways to achieve this than by driving down the birthrate. After all, the chief victims of population control programs are preborn and newborn baby girls, who are aborted and abandoned in large numbers to ensure the safe arrival of their culturally preferred brothers. Also note that the authors advance universal primary education principally as a way of keeping girls from marrying and having children. This is a remarkably constrained view of human potential.

Another MDG is to "promote gender equality and empower women," which the authors argue will be achieved by family planning. It is hard to see how targeting women in foreign-funded fertility control programs in any way empowers them. Instead, it rather treats them as breeding machines to be disabled. We at PRI have carried out surveys in several African countries which show that while women desire many forms of health care, "reproductive health care" is not one of them. If you really want to empower women, health-wise, help them to meet their personal and familial health needs by providing antibiotics, vitamin supplements, malaria tablets, etc.

No one would dispute the importance of reducing child mortality, another MDG goal. It is also one that is, through the provision of primary health care and reasonable nutrition, eminently achievable. Instead the authors take us down the convoluted and indirect path of reducing child mortality . . . by spacing births. Now it may be true that "an estimated one million infant deaths a year could be prevented if all births were spaced a minimum of 2 years apart," but it is disingenuous for the authors to claim that this is either their primary motivation or the most efficient means to this end.

Their real goal, quite obviously, is to eliminate the ten million or so babies each year who are born within 24 months of a sibling. Reducing the infant mortality rate is merely a convenient cover story for their real end. This is, as the article admits, further reductions in fertility rates.

As far as improving maternal health, the next MDG goal they mention, the same objection applies. They claim that "family planning saves lives by reducing unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions," but this is just a side effect of their real goal, which is to reduce the number of children born. As everyone by now knows, if you want to reduce maternal mortality, you address the problem of unattended births. If you do so, you will save not just the 150,000 lives claimed by the authors, but easily 10 times that number.

The report concludes with a breathless plea that echoes back to the original, discredited, population bomb thesis: If population growth is not slowed—in the few remaining countries where it is still a problem--then "hundreds of millions of families will suffer from poverty, hunger, inadequate education, and lack of employment opportunities."

Better, the authors imply, if they had never been born.

i Martha Campbell, John Cleland, Alex Ezeh, Ndola Prata, "Return of the Population Growth Factor," Science 315 (16 March 2007): 1501-2.

ii Steven W. Mosher, Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits (New Brunswick: Transaction Press, 2008), especially Chapter 5.

iii Steven W. Mosher, "'Reproductive Health Care,' the 'Demographic Imperative,' and the Real Health Needs of Women in the Developing World (Part One)," Linacre Quarterly Vol. 76, No. 1 (February 2009), 38-42.

Contact: Steven W. Mosher
Source: Population Research Institute
Publish Date: June 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

“Terrorists”: What Late Term Abortionists Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern Call the Pro-Life Movement

"Terrorists": What Late Term Abortionists Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern Call the Pro-Life Movement



PBS recently conducted interviews with notorious late-term abortionists Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern, in which both men labeled the pro-life movement a "terrorist movement."



"This is domestic terrorism, this is a terrorist movement," said Hern.

"The anti-abortion people have no decency. They will stop at nothing," Hern said. "They'll hurt people that you love in order to hurt you and they do not believe that other people have the right to be left alone."

He continued, saying that the pro-life message is "designed to kill."

"It's part of the message that it's ok to kill a doctor who does abortions. That's the message, that's what [they] want to happen. That's what happened to Dr. Tiller," he said.

"This is not an abortion debate, there's no debate," Hern then stated. "This is a civil war. The anti-abortion people are using bombs and bullets, and they've been doing this for thirty years."

"The message from the anti-abortion movement is 'do what we tell you or we'll kill you,' and that's what they do."



Carhart also commented that he believes the debate about abortion "is a war."



Joe Scheidler from the Pro-Life Action League commented to LSN that he "couldn't help but think how silly their arguments about conspiracy sounded in the face of several dozen prayerful pro-lifers singing outside an abortion mill, and yet are each and every one of them is a terrorist at heart!"

"I wonder that the abortionists don't stop long enough to take a good look at what they are doing, and see it as the worst kind of terrorism imaginable -- terrorism against helpless children -- and mothers," he said.

"Pro-life groups, as such, don't condone the murdering of abortionists, and always regret that it happens," said Scheidler.

In the aftermath of George Tiller's murder, every mainstream pro-life group in North America condemned the murder, saying that violence is not the answer to the abortion issue. Both abortionists, however, still accused the pro-life movement of being complicit in the murder of Tiller.

Carhart said that the pro-life movement may "claim innocence, and they may be, technically under the law, innocent but their heart was certainly with Scott Roeder the day he shot Dr. Tiller."

Hern said he believes that the murder is "what they wanted to happen and it happened."

Hern also accused the pro-life movement of making him a target of this so-called terrorism, "Being a target is not my fault. I am a physician, I'm practicing medicine. I am offering an important service for women who need it. This is what we do."

"It's not unusual for them to have pictures of all our vehicles, and have pictures of all our license plates, preying on the fact that somebody somewhere that's a little bit off will take this information and use it to hurt someone," Carhart said, calling it an "invitation for somebody to do harm."

"There's no reason in the world why I should have to fear for my life or the women should have to be subject to the harassment and intimidation of the anti-abortion protesters in front of my office, just for walking in the door," Hern said.

"This is a whole movement to make abortion unavailable to women," Carhart said, noting that the murder of Tiller was "just one step."

"You don't have to make abortion illegal if you make it impossible, and the point is that if you kill enough doctors then nobody's going to be doing the abortions," said Hern, "so this is part of the anti-abortion doctors, terrorize them and make them afraid to do this."

Scheidler, however, defended the tactics of the mainstream pro-life movement, including pointing out that the intentional taking the life of unborn children constitutes murder. "We who are doing it the right way will continue doing it that way, and if that entails calling a baby-killer a baby-killers once in a while, so be it. That isn't what leads some righteous misfit waiting in the wings to bump off an abortionist."

"While the PBS program was supposed to elicit sympathy for so-called caretakers, I think it failed miserably," Scheidler said, "What most people are asking is, if it's so dangerous to be an abortionist, why do you do it? And softly in the background there is the jingle of coins. It's business."

"I suspect these guys would kill three-years-olds for enough cash, and they'd make up a plausible excuse for doing it," he said. "The whole sob story stinks."

Contact: Alex Bush
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 19, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

“Non Medical Right to Die Organizations” Story Reveals the Non Medical Nature of Assisted Suicide

"Non Medical Right to Die Organizations" Story Reveals the Non Medical Nature of Assisted Suicide



Assisted suicide is many things; abandonment, lethal, dangerous, discriminatory–but to its supporters, merciful and respectful of individual autonomy.  But it is not medicine.  Everyone knows this, of course. But to gain public respectability and thereby gain legalization, advocates know they have to hijack the authority of the doctor in the cause. Indeed, during a public forum about a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide in California about eight years ago, I confronted the sponsor, Sen. Dion Aroner, and accused her of abusing medicine to obtain an ideological victory.  I was impressed by her candid response: She said, and this is a close paraphrase, that she would prefer not to involve the medical system, but politically it was necessary.

Now the Guardian has published a report on "non medical" assisted suicide organizations in Switzerland.  From the story:

    In Switzerland the law allows people to be helped to end their lives as long as the patient is mentally fit to make that decision and the helper is not motivated by self-interest. Dignitas is one of the country's four non-medical right-to-die organisations. But while it and Exit International both help foreign nationals, the other two assist only Swiss people.

The Guardian is wrong about needing to be mentally fit in Switzerland: the Swiss Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to assisted suicide for the mentally ill, demonstrating that legalization eventually will become a very broad license. But beside that point, the Swiss approach demonstrates that assisted suicide is not a medical act. I mean, would there ever be a "non medical appendectomy?" How about a "non medical chemotherapy?"

The evidence is everywhere: Dignitas and the other Swiss suicide clinics, the Final Exit Network's promotion of using helium and a plastic bag to end it all,  Derek Humphry's and Phillip Nitschke's odious books on how-to-commit suicide, family members assisting suicides when they would never perform surgery or prescribe, etc.–all reveal the the act of assisted suicide isn't medicine. Those who pretend otherwise by promoting what they call "a medical model,"  subvert the profession to serve their own ideology.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

League's Message to Obama: "Abortion Is Not Health Care"

League's Message to Obama: "Abortion Is Not Health Care"


Pro-lifers holding baby Malachi signs outside the AMA convention
[Photo by Sam Scheidler]


Seventy activists with the Pro-Life Action League lined East Wacker Drive in downtown Chicago across from the Hyatt Regency during President Barack Obama's address to the physician delegates of the American Medical Association June 15. Obama used the ocassion to encourage doctors to support his health care plan, and the League was there to deliver a simple message: "Abortion is not health care."

The pro-life protestors held graphic abortion signs depicting "Baby Malachi", aborted at 21 weeks, with the caption "Abortion is not health care," as well as Stop Abortion Now signs.

League's Lightning Mobilization


Police protect protesters' 1st Amendment rights
[Photo by Sam Scheidler]


Turnout for the protest was especially high considering the League only learned about the Obama speech late on Thursday morning, June 11, when the A.M.A. put out a press release. League Staff immediately jumped into action upon hearing the news.

While League Communications Director Eric Scheidler drafted a press release, alerted activists of the planned protest through e-mail and designed a flyer, other League staff phoned 200 local activists to invite them to attend the protest.

"The overwhelming response to today's protest is indicative of how energized the pro-life movement is in 2009," Scheidler remarked. "They can see how high the stakes are right now, with the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history in the White House, and a pro-abortion Congres, too."

The heavy turnout by pro-lifers was in stark contrast to the handful of gay marriage and anti-war activists who were also protesting in the barricaded protest on the north side of Wacker Drive.

League Calls on Obama To Keep His Pledge To Reduce Abortion

The League used the occassion of Obama's speach to the A.M.A. to call on him to follow through on his pledge, issued during his commencement address at Notre Dame, to work to reduce abortion. "It is time for President Obama to join the pro-life movement in providing compassion and support to the thousands of women in the United States faced with unintended pregnancies who think abortion is their only option," said Scheidler.

Specifically, the League called on Obama to ensure any reform of the nation's health care system will:

    * Provide support to the 3,000 pro-life pregnancy resource centers across the country struggling to meet the needs of pregnant women.
    * Withdraw federal funding from the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, which receives $349,600,000 of taxpayers' money every year.
    * Maintain strong conscience protections for doctors and other health professionals so they are free to care for their patients without taking part in abortion.

"We invite President Obama to reconsider his position on abortion," said Scheidler. "But whatever his stand, we can still work together to offer women and families the help and hope they need to choose life."

League Gets the Inside Story at A.M.A. Meeting

Representing the League's Action News, assistant communications director Matt Yonke secured a press pass and watched Obama's speech from inside the hotel. He also spoke with several physicians attending the convention and got the inside story on health care reform.

It was clear that the majority of doctors, regardless of political affiliation, saw an urgent need for changes to the current health care system, but most thought President Obama wouldn't get it right, at least not the first time around. Some are certain his plan will only worsen and already bad situation, while others were more hopeful that the plan could succeed with amendments along the way.

One of the doctors Yonke interviewed revealed that the A.M.A. was likely to endorse so-called "comprehensive" sex education at the convention. While a final vote was yet to be taken, the stiff resistance that met previous campaigns for such an endorsement had evaporated, with only three out of eighteen doctors speaking on the measure opposing the endorsement.

Clearly the pro-life movement has a tremendous task ahead convincing both the medical community and our politicians to respect the sanctity of life and the sacred gift of marriage. The June 15 protest was one more step forward in that process.

Source: Pro-Life Action League
Publish Date: June 20, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Angry abortion advocates target pro-lifers

Angry abortion advocates target pro-lifers

Death threats against leaders of the pro-life movement are being reported to authorities.



The threats come in the aftermath of the assassination of abortionist George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. One of the threat victims is Troy Newman of Operation Rescue.
 
"You know, as someone who's been in the public eye for a number of years speaking out against abortion, death threats and threats against our persons, even our family members, has been a constant occurrence -- and unfortunately, that has increased dramatically," he admits.
 
Newman believes there is an anti-Christian, anti pro-life bias in the world, particularly in the media, and adds that some of the people are even more frightening than an abortionist with a knife.Troy Newman
 
"Unfortunately, it's something we have to bear. But it's also something we need to be acutely aware of and take proper security measures to make sure we're not victims of pro-choice violence," he concludes.
 
Violence against anyone cannot be tolerated, says the activist.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June, 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Save Money by Killing the Sick: Euthanasia as Health Care Cost Containment Not Such a Parody as the Author May Think

Save Money by Killing the Sick: Euthanasia as Health Care Cost Containment Not Such a Parody as the Author May Think



Given its source, a publication of Claremont McKenna College, not exactly a hotbed of radicalism, this article urging health care cost containment as a reason to legalize  euthanasia captures a  justification for assisted suicide that is ever lurking in the background of the debate. From "The Economic Argument for Euthanasia," by Charlie Sprague:

    America has serious health care problems, and as Paul Krugman makes clear in a recent column, serious cost control in the health care industry needs to be a top priority in reform. President Obama and Congressional Democrats seem poised to push for major health care reform in the upcoming months. One idea that politicians on neither the left nor the right will touch due to political sensibilities, however, could be the easiest way to save billions of dollars without affecting health care quality at all: legalizing euthanasia.

    As every good CMCer with an understanding of economics should know, those with terminal illnesses are resource sinks for society. End of life care is incredibly expensive due to the frequency of hospitalizations, the increased need for specialists' attention, etc. Those with terminal illnesses have even more expensive health care needs. Obviously, those in the final stages of a terminal illness are no longer in any position to contribute economically to society. Their continued existence may be personally meaningful to the those who love them, but from a economic perspective they are all cost and no benefit.

If this is a parody, it just proves the Smith Maxim on Satire and the Culture of Death: They always catch up to you. Look how Oregon Medicaid has already denied chemotherapy to cancer patients but offered to pay for their assisted suicides.  Moreover, some real euthanasia supporters have already made the argument. Thus, Derek Humphry and Mary Clement adopted the save-money-by-killing-the-sick argument, on page 333 of their book,  Freedom to Die:

    A rational argument can be made for allowing PAS [physician-assisted suicide] in order to offset the amount society and family spend on the ill, as long as it is the voluntary wish of the mentally competent terminally and incurably [note: not the same thing as terminal] ill adult. There will likely come a time when PAS becomes a commonplace occurrence for individuals who want to die and feel it is the right thing to do by their loved ones. There is no contradicting the fact that since the largest medical expenses are incurred in the final days and weeks of life, the hastened demise of people with only a short time left would free resources for others. Hundreds of billions of dollars could benefit those patients who not only can be cured but also want to live.

And don't forget the radical environmentalists are looking toward instituting increased abortion and euthanasia as a way of reducing human population and "saving the planet."  Alas: This article may be a parody, but it is already behind the times.

Also read...

The Left Begins to "Get" The Threat of Futile Care Theory: Mickey Kaus Wants To Decide For Himself

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: June 22, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

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.

Undercover Videos Prompt Tennessee Lawmakers to End Preferential Treatment for Planned Parenthood


Tennessee legislators passed a law Thursday that threatens to strip Planned Parenthood of over $1 million in federal grant funding. Under the new statute, local community health clinics will be given priority for Title X family planning funds instead of Planned Parenthood.

Live Action Films says that the move was inspired by undercover videos by the group from a Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis released earlier this year. The videos show a counselor urging a 14-year-old girl to lie about the age of the 31-year-old "boyfriend" who impregnated her so she can obtain a secret abortion.

"We are very happy that Tennessee legislators saw the harm Planned Parenthood is doing to little girls and took the necessary steps to ensure that the organization's negligence will no longer receive preferential treatment when taking our tax dollars," said Lila Rose, president of Live Action and the UCLA student who went undercover in the videos.
Click here for the full article.



Baby-Killers Are Still Way Ahead

As pro-choice and pro-life leaders mourn the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller on May 31, I think it is fitting to remember that the pro-aborts are still ahead. Fifty million innocent children have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ordered states to de-criminalize abortion in 1973, whereas four abortionists have been fatally shot by radical anti-choicers. The baby-killers are winning.
Click here for the full article.


Missouri Judge OKs Ballot Proposal on Abortion, Human Cloning Funding Ban

A Missouri judge has dismissed conspiracy allegations against three state officials and approved the summary and cost estimate for a ballot proposal to ban public money from going to abortion and human cloning. The Missouri Roundtable for Life proposed the constitutional amendment earlier this year. The secretary of state's office drafted a summary and the state auditor prepared a cost estimate, but supporters and critics challenged them.
Click here for the full article.


Abortion Laws: A Recent Development?

Myth: Abortion laws were of rather recent origin, and were adopted to protect women from dangerous surgery, not to protect unborn children. Reality: Throughout almost all stages of history in nations influenced by Christianity, and in other nations as well, abortion has been strongly condemned by the religious and political leadership of these nations. In early American history, states usually did not pass criminal statutes; rather, they relied upon the body of common law that our Founding Fathers brought to us from England.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-lifers Lay Hundreds of Flowers at Closed Late-term Abortion Mill
 
Undeterred by heavy rains throughout the day and threats of disruption by abortion supporters, pro-lifers gathered Saturday evening at the now-closed late-term abortion clinic once operated by George Tiller for a memorial and prayer service.
 
Under skies that had temporarily cleared, a group of about 35 people laid hundreds of flowers at the clinic in honor of the babies and the women injured and killed there. The group offered prayers for peace and healing for the Tiller family and the community.
Click here for the full article.


Protest by NOW prompts Wichita pro-lifers to move memorial service

Pro-lifers in Wichita, Kansas were planning to hold a memorial and prayer service today at the clinic where George Tiller performed 70,000 abortions. Facing the prospect of a counter demonstration by the National Organization for Women (NOW), the service was moved to maintain a respectful atmosphere.

While the two of the main sponsors of the memorial service both condemned the murder of Dr. Tiller, Operation Rescue and the Christian Defense Coaltion were seeking to highlight another offense against life—the death of 70,000 children at the now-shuttered clinic.

Upon learning of the memorial service, NOW's leaders decided to organize a protest to disrupt the service. Seeking to avoid the jeers of the pro-abortion protesters, the pro-life organizers moved their service to a location near the Operation Rescue offices.
Click here for the full article.


UK Health Rationer Board (NICE) Kicks Mild Alzheimer's Patients Out of Human Importance

This is a warning of what could befall the USA if we allow centralized bioethical planning to become part of health care reform.  In the UK, utilitarian bioethicists control who gets–and who is denied–treatment via the Orwellian named organization NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence). NICE explicitly uses a quality of life judgment (QALY–quality adjusted life year) to determine which patients are worth treating.  It has now denied coverage for anti-dementia medications to mild Alzheimer's suffers.
Click here for the full article.

June 19, 2009

Global "Safe Abortion" Conference Denies Conscience Protections, Risks of Abortion

Global "Safe Abortion" Conference Denies Conscience Protections, Risks of Abortion

 

A year-and-a-half after the "Global 'Safe Abortion'" conference took place in London, abortion advocates Marie Stopes International and Ipas just released the conference report detailing the abortion movement's worldwide strategy.

While organizers claimed that the primary objective of the conference was to "save women's lives and reduce maternal mortality," the report reveals that participants prioritized a so-called "right" to "safe and legal abortion" above all else – dismissing any evidence of its harmful effects on women and even denying the right of conscientious medical professionals to object to participating in abortions.

The 800 conference participants, culled from the world's major abortion advocacy groups, crafted and signed the "Global Call to Action for Women's Access to Safe Abortion" demanding that women everywhere "have full access to legal, voluntary, safe, and affordable abortions as part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care."  The Call to Action also demanded that governments reform their laws and policies "at all levels" to ensure "rights to contraception and safe abortion," and that medical schools provide "physicians, nurses, midwives, and other healthcare workers" with abortion training.

Presenters lamented that even where abortion is legal, there are technical and policy barriers to contend with, such as shortages of trained, authorized healthcare personnel, particularly in rural areas. Strategies to address this lack of access to abortion focused on training non-physician "mid-level providers," such as nurses and midwives, and promoting "medication abortion" to "facilitate" the "expulsion of uterine contents," as well as undermining conscience protections relied on by physicians, nurses and other health care workers opposed to taking unborn life.

Advocates were encouraged to press for greater liberalization where abortion is permitted "to preserve the woman's health" by urging abortionists to argue that abortion was necessary to achieve the World Health Organization's definition of health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."

Apart from pushing for legalization, conference participants were urged to argue for the broadest interpretation of existing laws and policies and attack "other medically unnecessary administrative constraints that hinder access," such as requirements for spousal and parental consent and multiple physician authorizations. They were also urged to combat pro-lifers' success in linking "pregnancy termination" to cancer, infertility and severe psychological trauma. 

While those involved in the conference purported to help women by lowering maternal mortality through legalizing abortion, a new publication from National Right to Life (NRLC) points out that the lack of modern medicine and quality health care, not the prohibition of abortion, "results in high maternal mortality rates." Contrary to "safe abortion" advocates' claims, NRLC argues that liberalization "in the developing world, where maternal health care is poor, [...] would increase the number of women who die or are harmed by abortion."

Indeed, a recent United Nations treaty body submission by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) conceded that the nation of Sri Lanka had made great strides in lowering maternal mortality while retaining laws penalizing abortion that CRR considers among the world's "most restrictive."

Contact: Samantha Singson
Source: C-FAM
Publish Date: June 19, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obama Terminates Bioethics Council

Obama Terminates Bioethics Council



The President's Council on Bioethics is no more. With a one-day notice, the members were told in a letter from the President that their services were no longer required. Pack up, get out. Forget the fact that they had a couple of interesting reports coming out soon, one more meeting, and that the Council's tenure would expire come this September.

Peter Lawler, member of the now-defunct Council, notes that he is reassured when the letter states that "President Obama recognizes the value of having a commission composed of experts on bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological advice to his Administration." Maybe it's because the President wants to change to bioethics. Maybe it's because he's smarting a bit because, when he issued his new executive order opening the door to more human embryo research and cloning, 10 of the 18 current Council members criticized his new policy. But a more likely reason is that he needs a philosophical, well-stacked bioethics rubber stamp.

The National Institutes of Health, as directed by the President, is crafting new guidelines for federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. After a short period soliciting comments on their proposed guidelines, they are scheduled to release the final guidelines no later than July 7. It would be embarrassing to have another round of criticism from an existing "President's Council." Better to show them the door.

The proposed guidelines on human embryonic stem cell research are more limited than what the President proposed. NIH draws the line at using "excess" embryos from fertility clinics, though they note that the guidelines can be changed whenever they want. But President Obama called for much more, including cloning of embryos for experiments. A number of scientists have chafed and whined at the proposed NIH limits on embryo creation and destruction.

Dr. Alta Charo, an ethicist at the University of Wisconsin and member of the Obama transition team, said that a new commission should focus on helping the government form ethically defensible policy.

Translation: rubber stamp.

Look for a new commission soon with members that will be ideologically in line with the White House, Charo to be a member, and the new commission swiftly to consider (and to agree with the President) the issue of stem cells, cloning, and embryo experiments.

The now-former President's Council on Bioethics was constituted in 2001, and chaired first by Leon Kass and then Ed Pellegrino. It's mandate was "Advising the President on ethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology." Pellegrino is quoted on the current site: "To advance human good and avoid harm, biotechnology must be used within ethical constraints. It is the task of bioethics to help society develop those constraints and bioethics, therefore, must be of concern to all of us." You might want to take a look at their accomplishments before their website is erased.

Also read: Obama "Stacked Deck" Bioethics Committee To Push Radical Agenda by Wesley Smith

Contact: David Prentice
Source: FRC Blog
Publish Date: June 19, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Faith, Pro-Life Broadway Play, Irena’s Vow, Receives Critical Acclaim

Pro-Faith, Pro-Life Broadway Play, Irena's Vow, Receives Critical Acclaim

-Offers to donate 15% of each ticket to a pro-life organization

 

Irena's Vow, a Broadway play with a strong pro-faith and pro-life message, has received acclaim from critics across New York.

The play has been called "engrossing and enlivening," "gripping," and "heart-stopping" by critics, while the Star Ledger said that "There's no denying the emotional power of this miraculous story!"

One prominent local figure who has proved to be one of the biggest fans of the production is the newly installed Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who has praised the show in the highest terms.

"This is the best sermon I've heard in a long time," he said.

"All I can say is hallelujah."

"To think that there was a play that vividly expressed something that I felt for a long time; namely, that religion, spirituality, faith, brings forth what is most noble and uplifting in the human project.

"So often we see the tragedy of the abuse of religion today. Here, to have a play, that brings forth the reality of religion and faith, prayer, trust bringing forth reconciliation, forgiveness, solidarity, life, love, hope ... to see a play do that, I thought, I need to hear that, and I think the world needs to hear that. I was not disappointed."

The play centers on the true story of a Catholic Polish woman in World War II who hides a group of Jews in the basement of a German general's house, for whom she was acting as a housekeeper. When one of the Jews gets pregnant, a decision has to be made.

But on top of the solid message of the play, In Support of Life is offering to donate 15% of each ticket purchased through them to a pro-life organization. The donation does not increase the cost of the ticket and a pro-life group is given a donation.

Contact: Alex Bush
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 18, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Provisions Remain in Key Legislation

Pro-Life Provisions Remain in Key Legislation
 
- Congress is working on spending bills, some of which include restrictions on funding for abortions



One such bill before the Commerce, Justice and Science Committee (CJS) contains restrictions, called "riders," that stop the government from using tax dollars to provide abortions for federal prisoners. They also prohibit the patenting of human organisms and block funding for Legal Services Corporation firms engaged in abortion litigation.

The riders remain safe thanks to the efforts of pro-life Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.V., chairman of the CJS subcommittee. Mollohan has managed to retain all of the pro-life provisions in the 2010 budget, a feat not unnoticed by Ashley Horne, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

"The pro-life funding protections are vital to protecting the preborn and must be reauthorized each year if we are going to promote a culture of life in this country," she said.  "We expect that some riders will come under attack as we've seen in the past, but that's where constituents are vital -- tell your lawmakers that you want the government to do what it can to protect the most vulnerable among us."

Up next, lawmakers will debate similar pro-life provisions in an appropriations bill in the Health and Human Services Committee.

Contact: Kim Trobee
Source: Citizenlink
Publish Date: June 18, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-lifers' pitch irks Planned Parenthood

-The Kansas City Royals and Missouri Right to Life find themselves embroiled in controversy.


The western division of Missouri Right to Life has frequently purchased tickets to Royals baseball games as a fundraiser -- and their latest effort gave them positive attention on the Royals' website. But the outcome was different this time around, according to Susan Klein, a spokesman for the pro-life organization.

"Apparently this time a pro-abortion senator's aide got wind of this and created a problem and raised an issue in the public news media," she explains.
 
According to the Kansas City Star, Peter Brownlie -- head of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri -- complained to the Royals that the club was being "insensitive" in light of the recent slaying of Kansas abortionist George Tiller.
 
About 10,000 of the stadium's 38,000 tickets were sold to groups for the game -- tickets that Planned Parenthood also could have used to raise funds. Klein explains her organization sold 319 tickets, meaning only a tiny portion of the crowd will have purchased tickets in support of the pro-life group's fundraiser.
 
Klein says the group will attend the game against St. Louis tonight -- and intends to have a good time, in spite of the unnecessary controversy.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 19, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Against odds, Davis combats abortion

Against odds, Davis combats abortion

- He disagrees with a 36-year-old decision of the Supreme Court. He is far out of step with his own party. Yet, Lincoln Davis still believes he has a way of eliminating most abortions.



The fourth-term congressman from Tennessee is leading the effort in the House of Representatives to enact legislation with the goal of reducing the number of abortions in America by 95 percent in 10 years. His Pregnant Women Support Act takes a multifaceted approach to the challenge by seeking to provide those in crisis pregnancies with information on their unborn child and their options, as well as to offer various forms of assistance.

A Southern Baptist, Davis does this while legislating under an abortion-on-demand regime instituted by the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and within a Democratic Party dominated by advocates for abortion rights.

"[I] am going to do all I can to reduce the numbers [of abortions] that we can," Davis told Baptist Press in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "If we can repeal Roe v. Wade, I'm fine with that.

"I think Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, but it is the law of the land. And we see people take both sides, on the left and the right, the choice and the pro-life folks. And they get embittered and embattled with it."

The Pregnant Women Support Act (PWSA) is an attempt to overcome that divisiveness. In order to reduce abortions, Davis hopes to gain the support of ardent pro-lifers in both parties and of those who have less of a commitment to legal protection for the unborn. Of the 34 cosponsors of his bill, which is H.R. 2035 in the House of Representatives, 22 are Democrats. Among the dozen Republican cosponsors is New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, likely the leading advocate for the unborn in the House.

"I don't think advocates of an unborn child ... should follow a political agenda, Democrat or Republican," Davis said.

He has some hope President Obama will endorse his legislation. The president has talked about reducing the need for abortion and has made that a responsibility of the restructured White House faith-based office, though he also has reversed some significant pro-life policies and indicated he would like to repeal some others since taking office.

The president "is aware that some of us are serious about reducing abortion," Davis said.

The strongly pro-life Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) urged Obama immediately after his election to endorse PWSA. On Nov 5, ERLC President Richard Land asked the newly elected president to place his "full and vigorous support behind" the bill.

Among its proposals, PWSA would:

-- Require abortion providers to obtain informed consent from women before performing abortions.

-- Approve the issuance of grants to health centers for the purchase and use of ultrasound equipment.

-- Establish a toll-free phone number to direct women to organizations that will provide support during and after their pregnancies.

-- Create programs to assist pregnant and parenting high school and college students so they can complete their schooling.

-- Eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in the health insurance industry, thereby providing prenatal and postnatal care for women.

-- Codify a rule providing coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program for low-income pregnant women and unborn children.

"Our churches need to become involved. … [W]e talk about that more from the standpoint of the wrongness of [abortion] than from trying to prevent it," Davis said. "At least give hope to a young lady who may think that she's in a distressed situation."

Davis said he has believed life begins at conception since reading Jeremiah 1:5, which says in part, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee."

Davis' pro-life mindset is reflected in how he talks about his family. "I have five children. I have three girls that are living," he said.

Lynda, his wife of 45 years, had two miscarriages, losing a child about three months into pregnancy and another at about two months. He knows he will meet those children someday, Davis said. "[I] really believe that each of those two children [has] a soul that God has taken care of," the grandfather of five said.

Since taking office in 2003, Davis has gained recognition as a pro-life leader among Democrats. His voting record in the 2003-04 and 2005-06 congressional sessions was 100 percent, according to the National Right to Life Committee's evaluation. His pro-life record in the 2007-08 Congress was 83 percent, but Smith's was only 85 percent -- the result in both cases of their support of a Medicare prescription bill the committee opposed because it determined the measure would prevent the elderly from spending their own money on drugs.

In March, Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) named Davis as its inaugural Pro-life Democrat of the Week.

Davis says he becomes "a little uneasy when I hear folks say the Democrat Party is an abortion party."

The reason? Republican nominees were in the majority on the Supreme Court when Roe v. Wade was decided and have been ever since. Yet, Roe continues in force.

"I have hopes that both Republicans will quit being hypocrites and Democrats will become more pro-life," Davis said.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: BP
Publish Date: June 18, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Colombian House of Representatives Approves National 'Involuntary' Sterilization Program

Colombian House of Representatives Approves National 'Involuntary' Sterilization Program

- Program would be "involuntary" according to U.S. standards



The Colombian House of Representatives has approved a program to convince Colombians to submit to sterilization, and provide the procedure free of charge, according to the Catholic news agency ACI Prensa.

Rewards to be provided to Colombians include expedited government services, preference for government subsidies, and other incentives, ACI Prensa reports. The primary sponsors of the bill are senators Samuel Arrieta and Gabriel Zapata.

News of the Colombian sterilization bill arrives at the same time that Peru 's right-wing government is announcing that it will shelve an investigation into that country's former sterilization program, in which thousands of indigenous women were sterilized against their will in the 1990s, with help from the abortionist United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

The Colombian sterilization bill, should it pass, would be considered an "involuntary" sterilization program according to standards adopted by the United States in legislation known as the Tiahrt Amendment. The amendment regards any program that uses "incentives, bribes, gratuities, or financial reward for family planning program personnel for achieving targets or quotas, or for individuals in exchange for becoming a family planning acceptor" according to the government's USAID program.

Although Colombia is led by a nominally right-wing government, it has pursued aggressive anti-life policies in recent years.

The nation's Supreme Court struck down criminal penalties for abortions in cases of rape in 2006, and the nation's health ministry has fined a Catholic hospital for refusing to do an abortion. Free contraceptives are distributed through the nation's hospitals. And recently, the nation's Supreme Court granted a host of legal privileges to homosexual couples.

Contact:
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date:
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

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-Lifers Relieved with Outcome of Geneva UN Human Rights Council Meeting


The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC), meeting this month in Geneva, Switzerland, has adopted a resolution on maternal mortality and human rights that relieves concerns pro-lifers had during the early stages of negotiations. 

The battle over the final text concerned two points: how broad a reference to "sexual and reproductive health" would the document contain, and whether member states would retain oversight over a report on maternal mortality from the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) called for by the resolution.

As Patrick Buckley, who covered the Geneva conference on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), told C-Fam's "Friday Fax," the reference to "sexual and reproductive health" is qualified by placing it in the context of the right to enjoy "the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," and does not expand the meaning of the phrase nor create any new rights.
Click here for the full article.



Hospital of Horrors in UK Killed Hundreds

An obsession with financial and administrative concerns over the welfare of patients led to such shoddy care at a U.K. hospital that hundreds of patients died unnecessarily. "This is a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients," said Sir Ian Kennedy, who chaired a Healthcare Commission investigation into the hospital, the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust. "Those are words I have not previously used in any report. There were inadequacies at almost every stage in the care of emergency patients. There is no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."
Click here for the full article.


Abortions on Mental Health Grounds a Farce

The Abortion Law Reform Association, [ALRANZ] on 16 June issued a media release in response to the release by Statistics New Zealand of the abortion statistics for 2008. Dr Margaret Sparrow, President of ALRANZ stated: "We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce."
Click here for the full article.


PBS: Abortion Providers Under Siege, Is This The New Face of Domestic Terrorism?

Warning: Pro-Abort influence ahead...

The murder of Dr. George Tiller has reignited the abortion debate, and raised the question: should violence against medical doctors who perform abortions be viewed and prosecuted as domestic terrorism? This week NOW Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa sits down with two of the remaining handful of doctors who publicly acknowledge performing late abortions, including Leroy Carhart, a fellow doctor in Tiller's Wichita, Kansas clinic.
Click here for the full article.


Death Is Upon Us. `Us' Being Doctors

Mortality indeed stalks us all. But I'm talking about the death culture—abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. The death peddlers here and abroad seek to remove legal protection from pro-life doctors who refuse to perform abortion, refer for abortion, or participate in euthanasia. Euphemisms like "reproductive freedom," the "right to choose," and "death with dignity" justify the assault on our patient's lives and our rights of conscience. But in the midst of this inversion of right and wrong, pro-life doctor groups worldwide are banding together to form a Hippocratic Registry of Physicians.
Click here for the full article.


NYT/CBS News Poll Examines Public Opinion On Sotomayor, Shows Support For Abortion Rights

Three weeks after President Obama named Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court, 53% of U.S. adults say they do not know enough about her to determine whether they would support her confirmation, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Wednesday, the New York Times reports. The question was one of many in the national telephone poll of 895 adults, which explored a broad range of issues related to Obama's first five months as president. According to the poll, 48% of participants said that Sotomayor's opinions on issues like abortion and affirmative action are important information that should be known ahead of her confirmation hearing, which is scheduled to begin July 13. The poll found that 74% of participants believe it is very or somewhat important for the Supreme Court to reflect the nation's diversity.
Click here for the full article.