July 2, 2009

U.N. Population Agency Receives $50 Million in Taxpayer Money, Despite Its Involvement in China Where Government's Population Control is Coercive


"UNFPA moves quickly when emergency strikes, to protect the reproductive health of communities in crisis," the United Nations population-control agency says on its Web site. This photo shows a UNFPA clinic in an unspecified country, and it comes from UNFPA's Web site.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) received $50 million from the United States government this year, despite its involvement in China, where the government's population program, according to the U.S. State Department, includes a "coercive birth limitation policy" that in some cases results "in forced abortion or forced sterilization."

The UNFPA says its programs in China are voluntary and respect human rights.
 
Funding for the group was included in an omnibus appropriations bill that Congress passed in March, which represents a reversal from the Bush Administration's refusal to fund UNFPA.
 
During a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, UNFPA discussed "the status of family planning in the developing world and its impact on population dynamics and inequality." Geeta Sen, an adjunct professor of global health and population at the Harvard School of Public Health, described UNFPA's mission.
 
"Like our need for food and air and water, sex and reproduction are a hearty perennial of human existence," Sen said. "We are always going to be doing those things and we need be able to do them safely. We need to make sure poor people have the same rights in this area as rich people do. We need to make sure that young people have the same rights and abilities in sex and reproduction as older people do."
 
The fund's Web site repeats the phrase: "No woman should die giving life."
 
But critics of UNFPA say that phrase is a euphemism for population control. Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, says UNFPA is pro-abortion.
 
The Population Research Institute describes its mission as exposing the "myth of overpopulation" as well as human rights abuses committed in population control programs.
 
"Reproductive health is a misleading phrase," Mosher told CNSNews.com. "Their measurement of reproductive health is . . .  how many, what percentage, of women in a population of reproductive age are (using contraception) or have been sterilized."
 
"(T)his is the U.N. Population Fund, this is not the U.N. Maternal Health Fund, or the U.N. Natural Family Planning (Fund)" he said. "This is a population-control group."
 
Mosher said UNFPA's assertion that "no woman should die giving life" can be better met by offering prenatal care, attending to the mother at the time of birth, and providing a means to get to a clinic in the case of complications.
 
"You can reduce maternal mortality down to very low levels, levels that we see in Germany, Sweden and the United States, but that's not the solution offered by the U.N. Population Fund," said Mosher, who first traveled to China in 1979 to interview women there about China's "One Child" forced abortion and sterilization program.
 
"(The fund) is going to ensure that no women die in child birth by ensuring that no women get pregnant," he added. "Well, that's like saying if you prevent people from driving cars, they won't die in traffic accidents. It's true, but who would ever advocate that?"
 
In 1983, the U.N. agency gave its first World Population Award to Qian Xinzhong, the minister of China's State Family Planning Commission, who was charged with overseeing that country's "one-child policy." At a family planning conference the prior year, Xinzhong made it known that his goal was 100 percent sterilization by 1985 for couples that already had two children.
 
A 2001 report Mosher authored for the Population Research Institute details population-control efforts in China, where the UNFPA allegedly supports the one-child policy and even funds programs sterilizing women and aborting additional children.
 
Mosher said little has changed since Xinzhong's tenure: "It's still just as brutal as it was in the beginning, 30 years ago," he said. "Women are arrested and aborted there, sometimes in the (last months) of pregnancy," he said.
 
The PRI report includes interviews that were submitted as congressional testimony in 2001 showing widespread human rights abuses in Sihui County. That county is said to be representative of the rest of the country. Although UNFPA denies any coercion takes place, Mosher says the UNFPA works with China's family planning authorities.
 
The subjects in the 2001 testimony include:
 
-- A woman who was forcibly sterilized after having a second child, but then had a third child after the operation failed. She was sterilized a second time and has not become pregnant again.
 
Asked by the interviewers what would happen if she tried to evade family planning workers who came to sterilize her, she said, "That wouldn't work. They would tear down my house."
 
Pointing at the ceiling, she said, "They would wreck it."
 
-- A woman who was pregnant with her second child and refused to abort it. She went into hiding until three family members were arrested, then was forced to hide with her in-laws, six of whom were then arrested and three of whose homes were destroyed by authorities armed with jackhammers.
 
"Look at this," her father said. "All of the doors and windows destroyed . . . It took forty bags of cement to repair the holes."
 
Local officials also told the PRI's investigative team, according to the report, that "there is no distinction between UNFPA's program in Sihui and the Chinese family planning program (there)."
 
UNFPA, however, maintains that no coercion is happening in Sihui County, and it told CNSNews.com that their programs are entirely voluntary.
 
"(W)e have been found by the U.S government, by the Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton, to not be in violation of any U.S. laws," Sarah Craven, chief of UNFPA's Washington, D.C., office, said. "Our program in China promotes an approach based in voluntarism and human rights."
 
The Kemp-Kasten amendment, regularly found in appropriations bills including the March omnibus appropriations bill, forbids federal money from going to any organization that "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."
 
The Obama administration and Secretary Clinton have found that UNFPA does not violate Kemp-Kasten, and House Democrats also authored language guaranteeing funds to UNFPA.
 
But Mosher finds the certification incomprehensible.
 
"I have talked to literally hundreds of people on the ground in China in the last few weeks, and the program is clearly coercive," he said.
 
"(The fund) is not making a difference in the direction of voluntarism, which it claims to be, and there's no way that Secretary Clinton couldn't know that."
 
Indeed, the State Department's 2008 Human Rights Report on China, published on February 25 of this year, describes China's population control program as sharply coercive.

"The government continued its coercive birth limitation policy, in some cases resulting in forced abortion or forced sterilization," said the State Department.

"Those who violated the child limit policy by having an unapproved child or helping another do so faced disciplinary measures such as social compensation fees, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity, expulsion from the party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of private property," said the State Department. "In the case of families that already had two children, one parent was often pressured to undergo sterilization. The penalties sometimes left women with little practical choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization."

One Chinese woman's case, according to the State Deparment, ended with Chinese officials killing a child who had just been born.

"In March family-planning officials in Henan Province reportedly forcibly detained a 23-year-old unmarried woman who was seven months pregnant," said the State Department. "Officials reportedly tied her to a bed, induced labor, and killed the newborn upon delivery."

According to its annual report, UNFPA spent more than 66 percent of its 2008 Asia budget on "reproductive health."
 
"(N)o one is saying that the UNFPA office staffer in Sihui County is actually out there doing abortions, but does he know about them? Is he complicit? Does he work with the family planning authorities?" Mosher asked.
 
"Do they know what the quotas are, the targets? Do they know that women are arrested and (undergo abortions) sometimes in the eighth and ninth months of pregnancy? Of course they know. Are they funding the program? Of course they are."
 
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell made similar findings when he sent a fact-finding mission to China in May 2002, saying, UNFPA's "support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion."
 
The UNFPA's Craven said: "(W)e are absolutely delighted that the United States has come back as a funding partner and joined the 180 other countries around the world that support (us)."
 
The $50 million from the omnibus bill makes the United States one of the top UNFPA donors, along with the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

Contact: Christopher Neefus
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: July 2, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

You Can't Claim to be "Reducing Abortions" but Publicly Funding them in D.C.


Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote to members of the House Appropriations Committee yesterday urging them not to fund abortions in the District of Columbia. Last week the House subcommittee that is considering the Financial Services appropriations bill for 2010 voted to permit direct public funding of abortion in the nation's capital.

Cardinal Rigali said that the subcommittee's action "effectively nullifies the Dornan amendment," which for a total of 18 years has prevented public funding of elective abortions in the District. He said this move, "presumably the first step in a broader effort to restore such funding throughout the federal government," is misguided for three reasons.

"First, he said, "public funding of abortion is rejected by the American people, as numerous surveys of public opinion have shown." He also noted that Catholics recently sent "tens of millions of postcards to their elected representatives in Congress, opposing   any weakening or reversal of current appropriations riders on abortion."

"Second, no lawmaker or Administration can support such a policy change and still claim to support 'reducing abortions.' The evidence is overwhelming, and universally recognized by groups on all sides of the abortion issue, that the availability of public funds for abortion greatly increases abortions."

"Third, this action takes place as Congress is working to win broad support for a much-needed major reform of our health care system," Cardinal Rigali noted. "This is the worst of all possible times to be injecting the divisive issue of public abortion funding into the debate on government health policy."

Cardinal Rigali concluded by urging the full House Appropriations Committee to reverse the subcommittee's action and retain the funding ban in current law.

Click here to read the full text of his letter.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: July 1, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

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.

Planned Parenthood to Investigate Undercover Actor's Claim That `Baby Killers' Broke Laws

Planned Parenthood of Alabama will investigate claims by a self-proclaimed "undercover actor and investigative journalist" that the organization's Birmingham clinic is failing to report the sexual abuse of minors and "bending rules" on parental consent laws for abortions, a spokesman said Tuesday. The allegations were made by 20-year-old Lila Rose, a UCLA college student who has posted on the Internet a series of audio and video recordings of her visits to Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation.
Click here for the full article.



Alabama AG Seeks Undercover Tape of Planned Parenthood's Sex Abuse Coverup

Attorney General Troy King said Wednesday he's asked for the tape of a Birmingham Planned Parenthood clinic staffer allegedly saying the law about reporting sexual abuse is "bent" by the clinic. "If that tape is an accurate depiction of what's happening, that's very troubling," King said in an interview. "Live Action" undercover reporter Lila Rose, a 20-year-old student, said she posed as a 14-year-old girl at the Birmingham Planned Parenthood clinic a year ago. Rose said she told a staffer she got pregnant by her 31-year-old "boyfriend" and needed a secret abortion.
Click here for the full article.


Arizona Lawmakers Outlaw Planned Parenthood's Killer Nurses

Lawmakers voted Wednesday to make it illegal for anyone other than a physician to perform a surgical abortion. SB 1175 is aimed at a practice used by Planned Parenthood Arizona that allows nurse practitioners with special training to terminate pregnancies in the first trimester. The legislation overrules regulations from the state Board of Nursing, which concluded that those with the specialized training are qualified to perform the procedure.
Click here for the full article.  (scroll down)


Minors' Abortion Records Off Limits for Proving Criminal Pattern, Court Says

In a split decision released Wednesday, July 1, the Ohio Supreme Court said the parents of a Cincinnati teen who had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic do not have the right to other minors' medical records. The parents of "Jane Roe," who had an abortion in March 2004 as a 14-year-old, filed suit against Planned Parenthood, alleging the clinic didn't properly get parental consent for the abortion or notify authorities of suspected sexual abuse of a minor. The lawsuit claimed Planned Parenthood's handling of Jane's case is part of a pattern involving minors who had obtained abortions.
Click here for the full article.


Minn. Health Department News of Abortion Decline Is FALSE, Report Does Not Count `Plan B', `RU-486' and Other Chemically Induced Abortions

False News Report by Winona Daily News:

The number of abortions performed in Minnesota in 2008 fell to the lowest level since the 1970s, and marked the second straight year of declines, the state Health Department reported Wednesday. The annual report said 12,948 abortions were performed in Minnesota last year, down about 6 percent from 13,843 in 2007. There were 14,065 abortions in 2006. Despite a spike in 2006, both the total number of abortions and the abortion rate per 1,000 women of childbearing age have been on a steady decline since 1980. The 2008 total is the lowest since the 10,565 abortions reported in 1975.
Click here for the full article.


Nineteen House Dems Plan To Vote Against Health Reform If Abortion Funding Is Included

Nineteen House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stating that they will not vote for health care reform legislation "unless it explicitly excludes abortion funding from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," CongressDaily reports. In the letter, the lawmakers wrote that they want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend that abortion services be included as part of benefits packages. They wrote, "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government-subsidized health care plan under general health care."
Click here for the full article.

July 1, 2009

ACTION ALERT ! ! !

Help Protect the Pre-Born
 
The House Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee has approved its annual appropriations bill with language to gut the longstanding ban on taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia.

The bill adopted the Obama administration proposal to make public funds available for abortion in D.C.  It represents a removal of what has come to be known as "the Dornan amendment," which prohibits  taxpayer dollars appropriated for D.C. from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

Please take a moment to contact your member of Congress and ask him or her to support the reinstatement of the Dornan amendment into the Financial Services Appropriations bill.  Members are back home in their districts right now, so please contact their district offices.

Click here for your Congressional Member's contact information.

Update: Healthcare Forum

Last night's healthcare forum hosted by 3rd Congressional District Representative Dan Lipinski was attended by a number of pro-life individuals.  Representative Lipinski expressed a clear and strong commitment to fight to retain Hyde language barring the use of any federal funds for abortion in any national healthcare plan. 
 
He did not address whether or not he would ultimately withhold support from any plan that did not include the Hyde prohibitions.
 
In a brief conversation after the public program when I thanked Representative Lipinski for his support for pro-life positions on both abortion and life-destructive stem cell research he said he intends to continue to address both as matters of principle although he does expect to be attacked more aggressively than here-to-fore on these stands because of the combined pro-death positions of city hall and the locally rooted federal administration.  The congressman's legislative director also expressed Rep. Lipinski's committment to these positions and the expectation that the position will be attacked as well.  Although this was not pursued in the public meeting at all neither Rep. Lipinski nor his legislative director professed awareness of the "Dear Colleague" letter to Speaker Pelosi signed by 19 pro-life Democrats last week. 
 
Clearly Rep. Lipinski needs the continued support and encouragement of pro-lifers -- along with our thanks -- for his principled stands on both abortion and life-destructive stem cell research.  For those who may not know Rep. Lipinski suffers from juvenile diabetes and has used his own health status to buttress the importance of opposition to federal involvement in life-destructive stem cell research.

Montana and Colorado Join National Momentum With New Personhood Campaigns

Personhood Campaigns will re-launch this week in two states.



Today, July 1 Montana will launch a new personhood campaign. On Thursday, July 2 Colorado will launch their personhood campaign. Both have the goal of protecting every child by love and by law.

Montana and Colorado will join Oregon and Mississippi in gathering signatures for a citizens' initiative to affirm the personhood rights of all humans. Several more states plan to launch later in 2009.

Montana State Representative Wendy Warburton, working with the Montana Pro Life Coalition and Personhood USA to organize the effort in Montana, said, "This effort is about loving mothers, loving babies, and building a society where every single one of us is valued, no matter how young."

Warburton, the Montana Pro Life Coalition and other supporters of Montana's initiative will hold a rally on the steps of Montana's state capitol on Wednesday, July 1 at 9:00 AM.

On July 2, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA will introduce a similar amendment for Colorado's constitution. A Press Conference will be held Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. Colorado State Capitol in front of the west steps.

Keith Mason of Personhood USA said, "This question should have been settled in 1865. There should be no 'three-fifths of a person' – not in Montana, not in Colorado, not anywhere. All humans are people."

Dr. Annie Bukacek, President of the Montana Pro Life Coalition, said, "Based on their intrinsic value and dignity, every human being, from the moment life begins, deserves equal protection under the law. This is the principle of personhood. It's high time the people of Montana had an opportunity to vote on this fundamental human rights issue."

Click here for a video Promo.

Contact: Dr. Annie Bukacek
Source: Montana Pro Life Coalition, Personhood USA
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Planned Parenthood’s Animated Cartoon Advises Teens on Benefits of ‘Sex Play’ and ‘Outercourse’



"Farmer Tina" in the Planned Parenthood Web cartoon about Sexually Transmitted Infections.

In an animated video cartoon on its Web site, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America advises teens that taking part in "sex play" and "outercourse" can greatly reduce their risk of getting a sexually transmitted infection (STI).

The cartoon features Tina the Farmer who gives viewers a tour of her "Sexually Transmitted Infections Petting Zoo." At the end of the video, viewers are asked to take a quiz.

The second question on the quiz asks about protecting oneself from getting a STI.

"The only way to protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections is not having any sex play at all," the second quiz question asks.

There are two choices to click on to answer: "This Sounds Right" and "This Couldn't Possibly be Right."

If you click on "This Sounds Right," animated creatures representing the SDIs run across the screen and scream "WRONG!"

By clicking on the "correct" answer – "This Couldn't Possibly be Right" – they are rewarded with the visual and audio message "RIGHT-O" and this message appears:

"You can still get it goin' on without having intercourse. Ever hear of outercourse? That's right, outercourse. Outercourse includes body rubbing (people who are less polite might call it 'dry humping'), masturbation, deep kissing, and erotic massage. Outercourse can GREATLY reduce the risk of many sexually transmitted infections – unless body fluids are exchanged through oral sex or anal intercourse."

Planned Parenthood, which, according to its annual report for 2007-2008, got $349.6 million dollars from the federal government, did not respond to repeated calls and e-mails from CNSNews.com asking several questions, including what age group the cartoon is targeting, whether the organization believes the cartoon encourages teens to be sexually active, and if any of the federal funding goes toward producing the cartoon.

In the cartoon, Farmer Tina says nature gives us lots of good things, like cows and pigs. Then she shows viewers a pen filled with sexually transmitted infections.

"But sometimes nature gives things we don't want," Tina says in the cartoon."Yep, these are sexually transmitted infections."

"Let's see, there's herpes and gonorrhea over there. That's Chlamydia and genital warts fighting over a warm place to bred. That's syphilis and HIVover yonder there just waitin' for someone to get careless so they can hop over the fence and put a serious hurtin' on ya," Tina says.

Then the cartoon shows a naked man and woman partially hidden behind a cow.

"And look at this over there," Tina says. "That dude and dudette over yonder just don't get it. They're horsin' around without a condom. Puttin' themselves at great risk for getting one of those sexually transmitted infections."

"STI are bad news," Tina says. "You don't want to catch them and you don't want to pass them on neither. The good news is there are things you can do to reduce your risk. So take this little quiz and the only place you'll see these nasty infections is right here in my overpriced pettin' zoo."

Wendy Wright, executive director of Concerned Women for America, said the cartoon is in opposition to Planned Parenthood's claim of the importance of medically accurate information being used in "comprehensive" sex education programs for teens

"It's medically inaccurate," Wright said about the answer to the Planned Parenthood quiz stating outercourse reduces the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or an STI.

Wright said genital human papillomavirus (HPV)  – one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases and one that is linked to uterine cancer in women -- can be transmitted genital-to-genital or skin-to-skin without intercourse or the exchange of bodily fluids.

"This is very important because Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher (Institute), the whole comprehensive sex-ed crowd insists that the government should only fund sex-ed programs that are medically accurate," Wright told CNSNews.com. "In this case, the information they are putting out there is medically inaccurate."

Wright said she thinks that the cartoon's message also will mislead teens about the risks of being sexually active.

"For a teenager -- and teenagers are the target market here -- they are going to read that and they are going to come away with the deepest impression that as long as you don't exchange bodily fluids, as long as you don't have oral, vaginal, or anal sex then you are safe from getting an STI or an STD and that's just not true," Wright said.

Click here to view the cartoon (not for children)

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: July 1, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

First Clinical Trials Completed of Adult Cardiac Stem Cell Repair



Doctors at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles have announced the successful completion of the first human trials in growing new heart tissue from adult cardiac stem cells, which the researchers hope will be successful in repairing damage due to heart attacks.

In a cutting edge procedure the patient's own heart tissue is used to grow specialized heart stem cells that are then injected back into the patient. The first patient to actually receive the infusion of cells is heart attack victim Ken Milles, who underwent the procedure on Friday.

Milles is part of a 24-patient clinical trial that is the first test in using adult stem cells from a patient's own heart to attempt to heal injured heart muscle.

Dr. Eduardo Marbán, director of the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute who developed the technique, said, "Five years ago, we didn't even know the heart had its own distinct type of stem cells. Now we are exploring how to harness such stem cells to help patients heal their own damaged hearts."

"We seek to actually reverse the injury that has been caused by the heart attack, by re-growing new heart muscle to at least partially replace the scar that's formed."

Healthy heart cells are collected from the patients and coaxed to form up to 25,000,000 stem cells. These cells then create complex cardiospheres which can actually start beating in the lab. The doctors inject these back into the patients and expect to report results within six months.

The Cedars-Sinai treatment follows years of work in using adult stem cells from various parts of the body to treat heart tissue damage. In the UK in 2006, researchers reported that a procedure that was introduced at University College London Hospital in which patients suffering a heart attack will undergo regular treatment of an angioplasty, followed by an injection of stem cells harvested from the bone marrow to help re-grow damaged tissue.

In 2007, Rush University Medical Center reported on the development of Provacel, an intravenous preparation of adult stem cells that has been shown in preclinical animal models to prevent scar formation in the area of the heart after heart attacks.

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Investigation sought into abortionist's practices

Operation Rescue is conducting a research project on Nebraska abortionist Leroy Carhart.


LeRoy Carhart clinic (Abortion & Contraception Clinic of Nebraska)

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman wants to hear from women who may have been harmed or suffered botched abortions and have not spoken out. He also tells OneNewsNow about Carhart's working environment in Nebraska.
 
"Mr. Carhart has a long history of operating a shoddy, slovenly abortion clinic," he explains. "Things like trash piled up in the basement that would cause a fire. After that fire, he actually tried to operate his abortion clinic from a generator."
 
Newman also says an old pickup truck, sitting on its wheel rims, has been parked in front of the building for weeks. The shop was closed down temporarily by local officials. Newman says there are further reasons for his research.
 
"We believe he's breaking the law, but we're also asking for women who have had abortions or have had contact with Mr. Carhart in the last five years to contact us and tell us of some of the miseries or complications that they've had from their abortion," he says. "We want to include that in a report to the attorney general."
 
According to Newman, all information will be kept confidential. The pro-life group will be asking the attorney general to close the clinic, and will ask the Nebraska Medical Association to revoke Carhart's medical license.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

‘Groundbreaking’ invention creates life-sized 3D models of unborn children

'Groundbreaking' invention creates life-sized 3D models of unborn children



An art design student in Britain has developed a new method to use ultrasound and MRI scans to create life-sized plaster models of living embryos. One leading obstetrician has called the invention "absolutely unique" and a "fantastic development."

Jorge Lopes, the Brazilian design student whose invention was part of his Royal College of Art doctorate work, calls the method rapid prototyping, the Daily Mail says. The device used is comparable to a printer that prints plastic powder instead of ink, slowly building a three-dimensional model.

"It's amazing to see the faces of the mothers. They can see the full scale of their baby, really understand the size of it," Lopes remarked.

Lopes is sponsored at the college by the Brazilian government. His research examined the practical use of model-making over the centuries, beginning with mummies then moving to dinosaurs and then fetuses.

His work uses computer techniques first shown by Ron Arad, a designer famous worldwide who heads design products at the Royal College of Art.

Arad called Lopes' work a "ground-breaking new field of world importance."

One reviewer of Lopes' doctoral work said he did not know whether he was looking at science or art.

King's College head of obstetrics Stuart Campbell, who supervised Lopes, said the technology was "absolutely unique" and "a fantastic development."

Campbell, a pioneer in ultrasound use, hoped the development would help mothers, especially blind mothers, bond with their babies, the Daily Mail says.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: July 1, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Planned Parenthood shuts doors on 7 clinics


'One by one, with hard work and prayer, these facilities are closing down'


Planned Parenthood's Eastside clinic, El Paso, Texas

Seventy-two years ago Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger visited El Paso, Texas, delivered a speech proclaiming the need for the acceptance of birth control and helped found the city's first family planning clinic.

But last week, Analinda Moreno, Planned Parenthood of El Paso's interim executive director, announced all seven of the organization's clinics in the El Paso area would permanently close today. She cited financial
reasons.

"There were many factors that came into the decision," Moreno told the El Paso Times. "We knew eight days ago that there was just absolutely no other way other than to close."

Rita Diller, national director of the American Life League's Stop Planned Parenthood project, was encouraged by the closings, and sees them as part of a larger trend.

"We expect many more closures in the days to come as people become aware of Planned Parenthood's sex-crazed birth control and abortion business," Diller said in a statement. "One by one, with hard work and prayer, these facilities are closing down, no matter how entrenched Planned Parenthood may seem to be in a particular community."

El Paso's reaction to the news was mixed:

"I was sick to my stomach," said Kathleen Staudt, a political science professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. "I was shocked. How could the 21st largest city in the United States - El Paso - not have Planned Parenthood clinics?"

Barney Field, an abortion protester and executive director of El Paso for Jesus, however, told the El Paso Times that even though the Planned Parenthood clinics weren't active medical abortion providers, the organization's advocacy for abortion overshadows its other offered services.

"I am sure Planned Parenthood has done a lot of good, but they also recommend and encourage abortions," Field told the newspaper. "From that perspective, it seems very good news that they are closing. It seems miraculous."

Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, further explained to WND why his organization celebrates the closing of the clinics' doors.

"They didn't perform medical or surgical abortions, what the general public considers 'abortions,'" Sedlak said, "but ... they did distribute various drugs and devices that prevent implantation of a conceived child in the womb, which causes what we call 'chemical' abortions.

"Our STOPP project focuses on every Planned Parenthood facility in country, regardless of whether they do medical, surgical or chemical abortions," he continued. "Our objective is to cause such discontent with Planned Parenthood programs that it will have no choice but to close its doors. The reason we do that is Planned Parenthood is the financing behind the abortion industry in the country. They hire the lawyers and bring the cases that keep the abortion industry thriving."

Contact:
Drew Zahn
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

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's New Budget for DC Allows Taxpayer Funding for Abortions

President Obama has issued a budget recommendation for the 2010 fiscal year that would ease the restrictions on taxpayer funds for abortions in Washington D.C., a change that has drawn criticism from pro-life organizations across the nation. Unlike other U.S. states and territories, the budget for the District of Colu
Click here for the full article.



Missouri Judge Clears Proposal on Abortion, Cloning Funds


A Missouri judge has cleared the path for a constitutional amendment banning public money from going to abortion and human cloning to appear on the 2010 ballot. Supporters of the proposal challenged the secretary of state's ballot summary as biased, while critics objected to the state auditor's cost estimate. Opponents said the original petition was not properly drafted and shouldn't have been allowed to proceed.
Click here for the full article.


ACLU of Florida Releasing Guide to 'Help Pregnant Teens Sidestep Parents'

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida is releasing a guide to teach pregnant teenagers their legal options and rights. ''The Legal Guide for Pregnant Teens in Florida'' includes information on legal aspects of abortion, adoption and raising children. Other topics include getting public assistance for housing, health insurance and how to get an immigration status change. Brandon Hensler, director of communications for the ACLU of Florida, said the publication is the first of its type.
Click here for the full article.


MTV Greenlights Season Two of Hit Series '16 & Pregnant'

Reflecting on one of the most controversial and thought-provoking topics, MTV President of Programming Tony DiSanto announced today that after only 3 episodes aired, the network is picking up a second season of the captivating series "16 and Pregnant." The open discussion will provide a platform to address the controversial topics that were shown in season one: birth control, adoption, abortion, marriage, religion, gossip, finances, high school graduation and employment.
Click here for the full article.

June 30, 2009

Pro-Life Democrats Urge Pelosi to Exclude Abortion Funding from Health Care Reform Bill

Pro-Life Democrats Urge Pelosi to Exclude Abortion Funding from Health Care Reform Bill



Nineteen pro-life House Democrats signed a letter last week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressing their opposition to any health care reform that includes abortion funding.
 
"We cannot support any health-care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan," the letter read.
 
The congressmen did not take a position for or against the so-called "public option" feature of the health care reform bill, which involves the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance poll, but the congressmen were blunt about what they do not want.
 
"Plans to mandate coverage for abortions, either directly or indirectly (are) unacceptable," they wrote.
 
"We want to ensure that the Health Benefits Advisory Committee cannot recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of benefits package," the letter further stipulated. "Without an explicit exclusion, abortion could be included in a government subsidized health care plan under general health care."
 
"Nineteen Democrats breaking the fold is a sign that not everybody within the Democratic Party is completely sold out to the abortion lobby," Shaun Kenney, executive director of the American Life League, the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States, told CNSNews.com.
 
The fact is, taxpayer dollars are already going towards programs that fund abortion, Kenney said.
 
"Planned Parenthood alone consumes about $349 million a year in federal and state tax subsidies," he added.
 
According to a report from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, research arm of Planned Parenthood, state policies restrict insurance coverage of abortion in only a few states.
 
"A handful of states prohibit private insurers from covering abortion services, except in cases of life endangerment; more extensive coverage may be purchased at an additional charge," the report said.
 
Kenney told CNSNews.com that an amendment to prevent any and all taxpayer money going towards abortion and abortion-related programs would be a "rational next step" and "entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed in the letter."
 
Either way, Kenney expressed optimism no matter the speaker's reaction to the letter.
 
"What this ultimately is, is the spark, and whether or not Speaker Pelosi listens to them, it certainly is going to encourage the conversation as to whether or not the principles of social justice ultimately coincide with the principles of the abortion lobby," he added.
 
The letter was signed by Reps. Dan Boran (D-Okla.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Colin Peterson (D-Minn..), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Mike Mclntyre (D-N.C.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), James Oberstar (D-Minn.), Bobby Bright (D-Ala.), Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Charlie Melancon (D-La.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa.).

Contact: Monica Gabriel
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obama promotes euthanasia in healthcare plan

Obama promotes euthanasia in healthcare plan

From the LA Times, June 25:



    President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

Read that again. Obama was subtly promoting euthanasia...

    In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

    He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

Or maybe, President Obama, the decision should be left to the patient and patient's family?



This prime-time ratings fiasco was hosted by ABC News, with 164 invited guests, pre-screened questions, and no rebuttal time for the opposing view on Obama's rationed healthcare boondoggle. Thus, this was no surprise:

    The audience - which included doctors, patients, health insurers, students and people with ailing relatives - clearly was unhappy with the current healthcare system. Gibson asked for a show of hands to see how many wanted to leave the system unchanged. No one raised a hand.

This was a set up. It was not media reporting, it was an unpaid infomercial.

Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform blog had this to say about Obama's ominous comments during the "propaganda special extraordinaire":

    Who will decide whether "you're better off" without the surgery? Not your doctor but Mr. Obama. Does Mr. Obama really know "who is about to die" and who "don't stand to gain" from extra care? And what care is "extra?" As usual, Mr. Obama illustrates his point with a very dishonest, false dilemma. Of course you don't do a hip replacement on his very elderly grandmother whose very aggressive and terminal cancer meant she might not have survived the surgery. But the type of treatment decisions often criticized by rationing radicals are seldom that obvious.

    Mr. Obama is willing to interfere in the relationship between a doctor and his patient when the doctor is trying to save a life but not when the doctor is trying to take a life. Is this the most anti-life president in American history?

And this, from the Canada Free Press:

    But who is it that will present the "evidence" that will "show" that further care is futile? Are we to believe that Obama expects individual doctors will make that decision in his bold new government controlled healthcare future? If he is trying to make that claim, it is a flat out untruth and he knows it....

    ... [N]o doctor will be deciding if you are too old or infirm to get medical care. It will be a medically untrained bureaucrat that sets a national rule that everyone will have to obey. There won't be any room for your grandma to have a different outcome than anyone else's....

    Ah, but we are told that Obama's ideas on healthcare are "evolving"... [o]riginally, he said it was "healthcare for all," but... it seems he's "evolved" to say that only those worth the bother should get healthcare. The rest should be left to die and/or suffer....

    And whatever happened to the left's mantra that healthcare is a "right" and that money should never enter into a life or death decision? Now The One is saying it's just too darn expensive to save the old and infirm.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source:
jillstanek.com
Publish Date: June 29, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Undercover Student Video Shows Planned Parenthood in Alabama 'Bending the Rules' of Mandatory Reporting for Sexual Abuse

Undercover Student Video Shows Planned Parenthood in Alabama 'Bending the Rules' of Mandatory Reporting for Sexual Abuse

A Planned Parenthood counselor in Birmingham was caught on hidden camera telling an alleged 14-year-old statutory rape victim that the clinic "does sometimes bend the rules a little bit" rather than report sexual abuse to state authorities. This is the seventh Planned Parenthood clinic implicated in a multi-state child abuse scandal involving the deliberate and unlawful suppression of evidence of statutory rape. (Click here to view the video)



Lila Rose, 20-year-old UCLA student and president of the non-profit Live Action, went undercover at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Birmingham and told a counselor that she was 14-years-old, pregnant by her 31-year-old "boyfriend." Rose said she needed a secret abortion so her parents would not find out about her sexual relationship with the older man.

After telling the counselor that her "boyfriend" is 31, Rose asks, "Is it a problem about my boyfriend?" The counselor, identified as "Tanisha" in the video, responds, "As long as you consented to having sex with him, there's nothing we can truly do about that." Rose then says that her boyfriend "said he could get in big trouble," and Tanisha acknowledges that "he could, especially if your parents find out that he's 31." She then tells Rose that the clinic manager, OB/GYN Dr. Desiree Bates, "sometimes does bend the rules a little bit" and states that "whatever you tell us stays within these walls" and "we can't disclose any information to anybody."

Alabama code 26-14-3 requires health professionals to disclose suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately.

"The law is explicit about a healthcare provider's duty to report, yet Planned Parenthood pretends they cannot say anything," Rose notes of the investigation. "Planned Parenthood increases its business and influence by circumventing state reporting laws, but inflicts terrible harm upon the vulnerable young girls sent back to statutory rapists."

In the video, Tanisha also seems to tell Rose that a signature from an "older sister that's over the age of 18" or someone "with the same last name" could function as a substitute for parental consent so Planned Parenthood could perform an abortion on a minor. Alabama Code 26-21-3 specifies that the written permission of either a parent or legal guardian is necessary before a minor may obtain an abortion.

The new video is sixth in Live Action's "Mona Lisa Project," a nationwide undercover investigation that documents Planned Parenthood's repeated noncompliance with state mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors. Alabama is the fourth state to be implicated in the controversy, along with Arizona, Indiana, and Tennessee. Recently, the investigation of a clinic in Memphis, TN assisted state legislators in their effort to successfully divert nearly $1 million in taxpayer subsidies from Planned Parenthood to law-abiding local health clinics.

"When to 'bend the rules a little' means hiding a case of statutory rape from Child Protective Services and looking for ways around the parental consent requirement, Planned Parenthood becomes directly responsible for ensuring that statutory rapists can continue their abuse of young girls," Rose says.

Click here to view the video.

Contact: Lila Rose
Source: Live Action
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Is ObamaCare the End of Roe v. Wade?

Is ObamaCare the End of Roe v. Wade?

Is ObamaCare poised to extinguish Roe v. Wade?



Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Stated or unstated, a driving force behind modern liberalism takes root in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, in which abortion was legalized. The Court found a "right to privacy" guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, saying that a woman had a constitutional right to abort her child up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." The Court quite specifically defined viability as the point at which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Quite aside from the political acrimony the Roe decision has generated from the day it was issued, the hot debate over President Obama's health care proposal alters the abortion debate in a fashion quite unintended. If passed, ObamaCare could instantly set up a legal confrontation between the principle behind President's health care system -- and the principle undergirding Roe v. Wade. Which in turn would launch a political battle royal between proponents of government health care and abortion rights.

Why?

A reading of the Roe decision leaves no doubt whatsoever of what abortion advocates have claimed ever since the opinion was handed down. To quote the Supreme Court decision directly:

    We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

If, as Roe clearly states, "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health [emphasis mine] of the pregnant woman" -- why doesn't it have "an important and legitimate interest" in protecting the health of the rest us?

Like, say, the President's own late grandmother? Or U.S. Senator Arlen Specter? Or you?

According to the President himself in his recent health-care infomercial with ABC News, his late grandmother was "somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer. There was unanimity about that. They expected that she'd have six to nine months to live. She fell and broke her hip. And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren't sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery."

Stop the tape.

What if the diagnosis of his grandmother's terminal cancer had been wrong?

The U.S. Senate's newest Democrat, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, has vividly written of his own diagnosis with Hodgkin's disease, Stage IVB. Specter's doctor informed him that he should get his affairs in order because his time was short -- Specter was going to die and soon. A stunned Specter decided instead to get a second opinion. By his own account, this decision saved his life and (to the irritation of all sorts of people in both parties) Arlen Specter is still here years later famously running for re-election on the cusp of 80. This was not the case of Obama's grandmother, but a misdiagnosis like Specter's is something that happens all across America every day.

If you don't think so, just check in with those longtime stalwarts of the modern Democratic Party -- medical malpractice lawyers. Indeed, a random visit to the website of lawyers advertising their services as medical malpractice attorneys highlights the fact in detail. Their practice is based on patients who have received a "misdiagnosis" from a physician. Specifically, the law practice seeks clients who have received a misdiagnosis for heart attacks, stroke, and cancer. In the case of cancer patients who have been misdiagnosed, the list of misdiagnosed diseases handled is quite specific: "Breast Cancer, Cervical Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Colon/Rectal Cancer, Skin Cancer." Also listed is "Prenatal Misdiagnosis" resulting in "Cystic Fibrosis, Down Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Spina Bifida/Neural Tube Defects, Thalassemia."

Got that?

It is the self-appointed job of these entrepreneurial lawyers to go to every length available to prove the doctor in question simply didn't do enough to correctly diagnose and correctly treat the diseases listed by the lawyers themselves. The lawyers are thus at one with patients who believe (as did Arlen Specter) that one more test, one more opinion correctly done -- a second or third or a fourth -- is the one that would have resulted in eventually restoring the patient to health. A health that Roe v. Wade quite specifically says is "an important and legitimate interest" of the State.

Yet here is the President on ABC (with anchor Charlie Gibson) responding to the notion at the very core of the medical malpractice profession and, indeed, of most Americans: that Americans want the freedom -- indeed have the right -- to seek the best health care that exists for themselves and their families. Says the President in the transcript provided by ABC News:

    OBAMA: I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.

    GIBSON: But you don't know what that test is.

    OBAMA: Well, oftentimes we do, though. There are going to be situations where there are going to be disagreements among experts, but often times we do know what makes sense and what doesn't.

Let's parse. The "problem" says the President, "is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."

In other words, the President has just said it that his health care plan, what we will call here ObamaCare, intends to insert a third party -- the government -- between you and your doctor. Why? Because the President, a third party, believes "a whole bunch of care...may not be making us healthier." This is in direct conflict with Roe, which says:

    The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

A "woman" as defined in Roe is a person, as in someone who, along with all other Americans of both genders, is entitled to "the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people" and the 14th Amendment's "concept of personal liberty." She may be pregnant, something not doable for men, but that both men and women are "people" is not in dispute. And whatever else one may say of abortion, it is precisely a medical procedure just as everything from brain surgery to stitches.

According to the principle laid down in Roe, every American (except, of course, the unborn) has the constitutionally protected right to have our health care decided on by ourselves and our doctors, without disapproving courts, legislatures, presidents or health care bureaucrats getting in the way. (In the case of Roe, the third party was the state of Texas.) Roe specifically forbids third parties interfering in the patient-doctor relationship. To say, as the President has said, that "every study, every bit of evidence" produced by some third party (an ObamaCare medical bureaucrat, for example) is somehow relevant to the treatment of a patient -- and that it will be mandatory to heed -- is a direct contravention of the two-party patient-doctor relationship legalized by Roe on the grounds of "personal liberty" and the "right to privacy." The President's ambition is simply to insert the federal government into the role played by the state of Texas in the original Roe decision.

Roe is quite specific as well that "the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman." In that one partial sentence every American becomes a pregnant woman, their health protected for the same reason as the pregnant woman's -- because the Court found a constitutional protection that does so. If there's any doubt about the sacredness Roe attaches to this principle, which in political and constitutional shorthand has become known as "the right to privacy," Roe restates it a second way. The State, says Roe, has still another "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." Which it proceeded, to much controversy, to define as the "point at which the fetus becomes viable."

So in ruling out the unviable life -- the fetus -- as worthy of protection, the Court left no doubt whatsoever that "viable" human beings must be protected as the State has a "legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

Read those phrases again: "viable" and "protecting the potentiality of human life."

If you are reading this, you are a "viable" human being as specifically defined by Roe v. Wade. If you have plans for five minutes from now, we are talking about your potentiality for human life.

Whatever else is said about Roe and the argument over the unborn, there is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that the born -- until their last breath is drawn -- meet exactly Roe's standard of "the potentiality of human life." Your beloved spouse, parent, child, relative, friend has at the minimum a potential for something as long as they live. That something could be a Michael Jackson-style 50-concert extravaganza or your 90-year-old mother bringing joy to life by simply holding your hand. Both are physical manifestations of the "potentiality of human life" as specifically defined by Roe. The much publicized exertions to save Michael Jackson are emblematic of the point, and in fact such ministrations go on all across America every single minute of the day. The entire point of frantic efforts to save a life -- Michael Jackson's, yours, your spouse's or the life of someone you have never heard of -- is because of the fundamental belief in that person's "potentiality" in human life.

As long as that question can be answered with any response that implies breathing by a born human, it is very clear that Roe, citing the 14th and 9th Amendments, protects not just the health of a woman but the health of us all. It gives every American with a beating heart a "right to privacy" to make exactly the medical choices they wish to make with their own bodies. Or, in the blunt words of a feminist blogger (the bloggers stylistic phrasing and caps included) over at one very typical liberal site called progressivesonline.com:

    Keep Your Hands Off My Body!

    I'll make it simple for everyone.

    MY BODY belongs to ME

    I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY

    KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!

OK, then! Are we clear?

Well, apparently the President is not.

When it comes to the Roe v. Wade principle that the progressivesonline blogger has stated -- "I make decisions alone (or with the help of my family, my doctor, my God) for MY BODY. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY BODY!" -- the President tells Charlie Gibson "that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier."

In discussing care for seniors, the president is even more explicit: He says that people not of your choosing (Government bureaucrats) "one way or another" are going to be making decisions about your body.

Meaning, contrary to the constitutional language of Roe and the more colorful lingo over at progressivesonline, Obama feels third party "evidence" from "every study" is more important in deciding what goes on with your body than the rights liberals insist have been granted by Roe. This "evidence" in turn is what Obama is using to justify the presence of a Third Party empowered to step between you and your doctor. A Third Party of government bureaucrats authorized to put their medical hands on your body or, notably, to refuse to do so because they -- not your doctor -- have judged you to be too old, too sick or too something else that is not convenient to their system. Not to mention a third party that gets to decide when and at what cost to do or not do. The State of Texas lives, this time as the Obama Administration.

The progressive feminist blogger and her pro-choice friends are being informed by Barack Obama that when it comes to Roe v. Wade versus Obama's desire to have government bureaucrats deciding who puts whose hands on whose bodies, well, Roe loses. "A woman's right to choose" is now made legally vulnerable by the demand of the Obama Administration that, in fact, one does not have any right at all to choose whose hands are going on one's body or what those hands will do once there. In the President's words, (bolded emphasis mine):

"But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Again, let's parse. Let's translate.

• "We" means a third party -- the federal government in this case. The State of Texas in the original Roe case.

"Make sure" means that third party is going to tell you and your doctor what the two of you can or cannot do -- the principle specifically rejected in Roe.

• "..that's not making anybody's mom better" means a third party is issuing a judgment that may or may not be shared by you and your doctor -- or another and another doctor if you choose to go that route. Remember Arlen Specter's rejection of this principle, choosing instead to get a second opinion his own cancer diagnosis -- and saving his life because he did so.

• "….that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care" again implies third party interference in the patient-doctor relationship, deliberate government interference in the "right to privacy" found by Roe.

• "…we can let doctors know and your Mom know…" means a third party -- in direct violation of the right to privacy stated by Roe will be informing both your doctor and you what is and is not permissible. This was, of course, exactly the position of the state of Texas in Roe -- letting Jane Roe "know" what was and was not permissible with her body in a medical procedure. Texas said no to her abortion. The Supreme Court said yes.

• And last but not least, the President said: "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." In other words, not only has the President inserted a third party into your relationship with your doctor, you must now do what that third party -- the government -- tells you to do. Just as the government of Texas was insisting to Jane Roe that, in the President's words, "maybe you're better off not having the surgery."

What does all this mean? It means there will be trouble -- big trouble -- between Obama and a core constituency of his political base when realization dawns on the pro-choice movement about what ObamaCare could do to Roe. Either Roe wins -- or ObamaCare wins. The principles behind each cannot exist in the same universe. One of them must lose.

Contact: Jeffrey Lord
Source: The American Spectator
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Teachers' union to consider abortion issue

Teachers' union to consider abortion issue

Conservative teachers within the NEA will call for the union to drop its support of abortion.



The National Education Association will convene for their national meeting in San Diego July 1-6. Jeralee Smith, one of the co-founders of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus, says one of the items her group has placed on the agenda is abortion.
 
"The union contributes to candidates who will maintain the current Roe v. Wade decision and make sure that the abortion industry is alive and well," she explains. "And this supposedly is done with the portion of union dues that...is optional. But a lot of times we found sneaky ways that the union supports things that we don't believe in."
 
OneNewsNow asked Smith that if the NEA supports issues that some teachers disagree with, then why not just leave the union.
 
"The union, in 30 of the states, is required -- and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get out of the union," say Smith. "And you're told a lot of scary stories...should you try to leave, which most of the time they're exaggerated."
 
A secret ballot vote has been slated for the meeting in which members will have an opportunity to vote that the union take a "no position" stance on abortion.

Contact: Pete Chagnon
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Challenge filed against court order permitting ‘Plan B’ for 17-year-olds

Challenge filed against court order permitting 'Plan B' for 17-year-olds



Several Christian and pro-life groups have filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a court order which requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow the "Plan B" drug to be sold over the counter to minors.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a motion on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the Christian Medical and Dental Association and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International. The groups say that the order disregards parental rights and the safety of minors.

On March 23 a federal court ordered the drug Levonorgestrel—also known as the "morning after pill" or "Plan B" --be made available to girls 17 and older without a prescription. The drug aims to prevent pregnancy when used within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.

Many doctors believe the drug can cause the abortion of a recently-conceived child by preventing its implantation on the uterine wall.

"The life and health of women, especially minors, is more important than the political agenda of pro-abortion activist groups. Minors are least of all in a position to make an informed decision about the life or death of a child, or even about their own safety. It is a lie that over-the-counter sales of this drug increase safety for women, including minors," remarked ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman.

Bowman said the organizations seeking to intervene in the lawsuit represent "thousands of medical personnel" who will be affected by the court's order and believe "strongly" that it will result in excluding parents and doctors from minor children's care.

"The order allows minors to bypass being seen by a doctor who can check for sexually transmitted diseases and other potentially serious medical conditions," Bowman added. "Our motion argues that the case should be dismissed because, under the law, the plaintiffs have not established sufficient reason that they can even ask for an order like this."

In 2005 the pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) successfully sued the FDA to force it to require Plan B be provided over the counter to women age 18 and older. A second suit by the CRR  resulted in the FDA lowering the age limit to 17 years-old and above.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: June 30, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

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.

White House Readies Abortion Plan

As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health [sic] issues and reducing the need [sic] for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion. Many abortion rights [sic] advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. Rachel Laser, who directs the culture program at the Democrat-leaning think tank Third Way and some prominent abortion rights [sic] supporters are pushing the White House to support the Reducing the Need [sic] for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which is expected to be reintroduced by Democrat Reps. Rosa DeLauro and Tim Ryan in coming weeks. The bill attempts to reduce unintended [sic] pregnancies by providing low-income women with better access to contraception and to reduce the need [sic] for abortion by giving women who ask for it information about alternatives to abortion, among other things.
Click here for the full article.



Barack Obama and Margaret Sanger's 'Negro Project'

Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's so-called "Negro Project" is alive and well as the most pro-abortion candidate in American history promises to not only protect Roe v. Wade but to use the presidency and his judicial appointments to push an even more radical social agenda.
Click here to view the video.


Groups to Make Another Try for 'Personhood' Measure

Two Pro-Life Groups, Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, will submit a new "personhood" initiative to the Colorado Legislative Council on Thursday in hopes of getting a measure on the 2010 state ballot. Colorado voters soundly defeated a similar measure, Amendment 48, in the 2008 election. But initiative sponsors say things will be different in 2010 because they will be better-funded and better able to articulate their message and will introduce a measure that's more accurately worded. "The fact that we got over half a million Coloradans to vote for personhood in 2008 shows us that people care about ensuring that all humans are protected under the law," said Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of Personhood Colorado, an arm of the national Denver-based organization Personhood USA.
Click here for the full article.


New Health-Care Conscience-Rights Site
 
Congress will continue its retooling of the U.S. health-care system when members return from their break next week. Committee votes could come quickly, with full congressional action shortly thereafter.

Family advocates are skeptical of the direction the Obama administration and Congress are taking on health care "reform." President Barack Obama has already taken steps to weaken the conscience rights of health-care providers and advance the abortion industry's agenda by overturning key Bush administration policies.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life Youth to Picket Office of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Youth activists will demand that not penny of taxpayer funds be used to pay for abortions while teachers and community services are being cut in California due to budget concerns.
 
The demonstration will take place on Tuesday, June 30 at 11:00 A.M.
 
The location will be at 300 South Spring St., Los Angeles
 
The 65 youth activists will be carrying large signs and banners.
 
This event kicks off a national campaign by Survivors called "Teachers not Abortions."
Click here for the full article.


PETA's lack of tact

Recently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a VA-based animal rights activism organization, proposed that 2 billboards promoting vegetarianism be erected in Wichita, KS, in the wake of the late Dr. George Tiller's death. Tiller, an extreme late-term abortionist, was shot to death May 31 while working as an usher at his church in Wichita.

The Wichita Eagle reported the explanation by PETA's campaign manager Lindsay Rajt...

    While our hearts go out to the family and friends of George Tiller, we are hoping that these billboards will make those who are rightly shocked by his murder sit up and realize that behind closed doors, millions of animals are suffering every day, and that we as individuals can help to reduce the amount of violence and suffering in the world.

Rajt's insulting proposal, which allegedly attempts to equate the manufacturing of beef burgers and animal-tested cosmetics with the tragic loss of human life, was not well-received by the Wichita community.
Click here for the full article.

June 29, 2009

Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility.

Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility.

"The strongest argument for not restricting abortion is personal liberty. Yet liberty always has been constrained when another person is involved. Especially when the other person exists only because of one's free choice. Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from responsibility. Other than in the case of rape, pregnancy results from the decision to have sex, freely made. People are, rightly, legally free to have sex with whomever they desire whenever they desire. That being the case, they also should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions. One of those consequences is a baby."


-Doug Bandow, The American Spectator

Click here to read more of this article from The American Spectator.