Scientists Ask Appeals Court Not to Allow Federal Funding of Research Involving the Destruction of Living Human Embryos Pending the Government's Appeal of the District Court's Funding Ban

      

Advocates International (AI), part of the public interest legal team along with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (GD&C) who brought the case on behalf of Americans favoring ethical stem cell research more than a year ago, will argue this morning at 10:00 am before the United States Court of Appeals that the Court should vacate its "administrative stay" and deny the government's request for an emergency stay pending their appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the government's unlawful, unethical and unnecessary federal funding of research involving the destruction of living human embryos.  Counsel will be available for comment following the hearing.

AI's General Counsel, Sam Casey, said "the government pending appeal seeks a stay of a preliminary injunction that enjoins them from  funding research using human embryonic stem cells ("hESC") -- cells derived by destroying living human beings at their embryonic stage of life.  This funding violates the plain language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, in which Congress prohibits federal funding of "research in which" a human embryo is "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, § 509(a)(2), 123 Stat. 3034, 3280-81.  The district court correctly concluded that granting a stay pending appeal, even of short duration, would "flout[] the will of Congress," and that "the public interest is served by preventing taxpayer funding of research that entails the destruction of human embryos."

GD&C's Lead Trial Counsel, Tom Hungar, who has argued this case before the federal district court and the Court of Appeals, points out that the Court of Appeals in this case "has already held that adult stem cell researchers like Drs. Sherley and Deisher suffer 'actual,' 'imminent' injury from competition with hESC research for scarce federal funding.  Mr. Hungar adds: "if further proof were needed, the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") recently confirmed the urgent need for a preliminary injunction to prevent these federal dollars from disappearing forever when it ordered last week that for the duration of this Court's administrative stay, hESC awards be "given priority" over other awards and hESC applications currently scheduled for consideration in January 2011 be expedited to October 2010.   NIH likewise instructed that in-house (or "intramural") research on hESC may resume during the brief period of the administrative stay.   As we have detailed in ourwritten opposition to the government's request for stayThese actions confirm that a stay pending appeal would lead to a flight of federal dollars into hESC research, causing Appellees and other NIH grant applicants irreparable harm." 

Mr. Casey also noted that the government has provided "no explanation based on science or the merits of the competing proposals to justify allowing hESC applications to leapfrog proposals filed by Appellees or any other NIH grant applicants.  To the contrary, there is only one explanation for NIH's actions--an ideological preference for spending as much federal money as practicable on illegal hESC research.  Because the entire purpose of the district court's preliminary injunction was to prevent the evaporation of such funds, a stay pending appeal would irreparably injure Appellants and the public interest by undermining the injunction before the Court of Appeals has an opportunity to consider and rule on the merits of the appeal."  

On September 9, 2010, the plaintiff adult stem cell researchers also asked the federal district court for entry of summary judgment in their favor on their request for declaratory and injunctive relief against the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research ("NIH Guidelines"), 74 Fed. Reg. 32170 (July 7, 2009), because the NIH Guidelines violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3280-81, § 509(a), and are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and were promulgated without observance of procedures required by law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."  GD&C's Thomas Hungar, explains: "We have asked the federal district court to permanently enjoin the government from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the NIH Guidelines or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells as contemplated in the NIH Guidelines. We have also asked the Court to order the government to immediately inform any NIH grant recipients in possession or control of federal funds granted under the Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research that any remaining and unspent NIH-granted funds may not be spent on human embryonic stem cell research but must be returned to NIH to fund lawful research."

Federal district Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, in his 2-page Order, has already denied the government's request for an emergency stay pending the government's appeal of the court's August 23rd decision and preliminary injunction enjoining unlawful federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."  Then the federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a short "administrative stay" order to give it time to review the government's request for the emergency stay that the federal district court has already denied. 

The district court's opinions issuing the preliminary injunction and denying the government's request for a stay of that injunction pending its appeal followed the decision by the United States Court of Appeals earlier this summer finding that doctors doing adult stem cell research have 'competitive standing' to sue. Therefore, the court reinstated the doctors' federal lawsuit, filed last summer that seeks to preliminarily enjoin and ultimately overturn the NIH's controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the NIH issued on July 7, 2009. 

Since 1996, in what has been popularly known as its Dickey-Wicker Amendment to each HHS Appropriations Bill, Congress has expressly banned NIH from funding research in which human embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The plaintiffs contend that the NIH guidelines violate the congressional ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos."  In addition, the plaintiffs also allege that the NIH guidelines were invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research. 

President Obama, in his March 11, 2009 Executive Orderannouncing his Administration's policy stated he was determined to fund ethically "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research…to the extent permitted by law". Sadly, said AI's Casey, "these NIH guidelines while claiming to 'implement' the President's directions, failed his own test because they are not only unlawful, they are based upon an ethically irresponsible misunderstanding of available scientific evidence." 

As acknowledged by Judge Lamberth in his Order denying any stay of his Order, "the length of time this preliminary injunction will be in place should be limited" because, as confirmed by plaintiffs' legal counsel Hungar and Casey, "plaintiffs are hopeful that the federal district court will favorably rule on our just filed motion for summary judgment and issue its permanent injunction before the end of the year."

Contact: Samuel B. Casey

Source: Advocates International
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Contraception is Not a “Basic Human Right”

           

"Rights Inflation," as I call it, is a growing pet peeve. Here's what I mean: Too many policy advocates these days attempt to elevate what they consider to be desirable public polices to the status of basic human rights.

That's not a good thing.  A right is something quite important and relatively rare in the total scope of human behavior and interaction.  From the Political Dictionary:

Human rights are a special sort of inalienable moral entitlement. They attach to all persons equally, by virtue of their humanity, irrespective of race, nationality, or membership of any particular social group. They specify the minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life.

As I see it, this means means that if something is a right, it really can't be opposed because "rights" prevail over "policy" disagreements every time. Thus, some readers don't like what I write here, but they don't contest my right to host this blog as a matter of freedom of speech.

In this regard, I recently groused about declaring access to pain control a right–the aggressive delivery of which I support completely as a proper policy, but not a right. Now, NYT commentator Nicolas Kristof, promoting an international push for new forms of, and access to, contraception as a method of combating poverty, has pumped up the rights volume. Here's the conclusion to his column:

Family planning has long been a missing — and underfunded — link in the effort to overcome global poverty. Half a century after the pill, it's time to make it a priority and treat it as a basic human right for men and women alike around the world.

I don't opposed contraception, nor do I oppose programs that make it widely available to poor people–if it isn't coercive, which is sometimes a big "if."  But should birth control be considered a basic right akin to the rights to life, speech, and personal autonomy, such as freedom from rape? Is access to birth control really so central to the minimum level of human existence that everyone should be legally required to have access to it?  Nope.

Of course, should birth control ever be deemed a basic human right, it would stifle ongoing debates about contraception.  For example, would that prevent people from objecting to taxpayers funding forms of contraception that prevent pregnancies by destroying embryos in some fashion?  Would churches theologically opposed to contraception be prevented from instituting policies within their institutions consistent with their beliefs?  Not if access to birth control is a right, it seems to me.  Would we be able to debate whether making contraceptives universally accessible is the smartest use of our resources?  I don't see how financial considerations trump the exercise of basic rights since human rights claims often trump issues of national sovereignty.

Again, I am not criticizing Kristof's thesis, about which I am not particularly engaged.  But I do oppose the loose use of the term "rights" and am suspicious that its misapplication is intended to embed many policies into the bedrock of universal rights application  And that stifles democratic deliberation–which truly is a basic right.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 27, 2010

Recognition that Many Tea Partiers Do Oppose Abortion

      

There was a good article in the Thursday, September 23rd edition of the Washington Examiner by Timothy Carney.  In this commentary piece ("Tea Partiers Oppose Abortion, Not Just Deficits") Carney points out that pro-life voters were instrumental in the recent defeats of Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle ("But Castle was also vocally pro-choice."), and Arlen Specter.  He notes that "the Senate ringleader of this rowdy [Tea Party] bunch is DeMint, a passionate pro-life conservative."

Here is Carney's most interesting – and correct – observation:  "But on Capital Hill, the divide between fiscally and socially conservative is a theoretical one.  Almost without fail, the strongest advocates of limited government in Congress are pro-life, and vice-versa. Think of DeMint and Tom Coburn in the Senate and Ron Paul and Jeff Flake in the House — they top the scorecards of the National Taxpayers' Union and also have perfect scores from National Right to Life."

Aside from the Tea Party phenomena itself – the most important political development this election cycle involves Sarah Palin.  It hasn't received much press.  Sarah Palin is changing the Republican Party and making it decidedly more pro-life.  The Washington Post described a May 14, 2010 event this way:

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told a group of women who oppose abortion rights that they are responsible for an "emerging, conservative, feminist identity" and have the power to shape politics and elections around the issue of life.

Speaking to a breakfast gathering Friday of the Susan B. Anthony List in downtown Washington, Palin urged more than 500 audience members to back only those candidates for public office who are uncompromisingly opposed to abortion.

Palin is doing this by endorsing pro-life candidates only, and she is endorsing excellent female candidates.  If Carney is correct – these politicians like Carly Fiorina in California will be decidedly more conservative on all issues.  But, after several election cycles there may be a cadre of pro-life women in office who will reshape the debate about abortion.  And, this goes to show that Palin isn't just politicking, she is institution-building.

Contact: Chris Gacek

Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: September 24, 2010

Doctors urged to stop harvesting organs

Serious questions remain in the medical community about how to define death for organ transplant purposes.

      

A group of doctors is asking that others in the profession stop harvesting organs after the heart has stopped because in several cases, the heart can be restarted. Writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, the eight doctors reiterate the standard that ought to be followed.

"That has come up primarily because of the issue of trying to get organs for donation after a patient has been declared dead in accordance with the family's preference and the patient's preference," explains Dr. Nick Yates of the Christian Medical Association (CMA). "But we obviously need to know that the patient, according to the [Donation after Cardiac Death] rule, has been declared dead prior to trying to harvest or obtain the organs."

The problem is deciding at which point a person is deceased. There have been allegations of harvesting organs too soon, and even though Dr. Yates cannot verify whether that does happen, he recognizes that "the suspicion is there." But as a physician, he hopes "doctors and patients have a good working relationship, so with the best of ability, one can define when the patient is dead."

He agrees there is a need for a clear definition for all involved, and that is why medical organizations are working to accomplish that.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 25, 2010

Concerned Parent and Former Girl Scout Leader Explores GSA Relationship with Planned Parenthood and other Pro-abortion Groups

          

Back in March C-FAM broke the news that the Girl Scouts of America (GSA) and their parent organization, World Association of Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), distributed Planned Parenthood sex education brochures — for HIV positive youth — during a meeting for young people at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.  Soon after, C-FAM documented the well-established relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood.

Mariellen Rechtin is a concerned parent and former Girl Scout leader from Ohio who, deeply troubled by the C-FAM reports, began to conduct her own research into the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts.

Below are clips from Mariellen Rechtin's research on the Girl Scouts, as well as links to the sources:

Since the 1990's the Girl Scouts organization (both GSUSA WAGGGS) has migrated in a more radical, feminist, new age direction.  Consider:  1) "God" being made optional in the Oath; 2) various cases of Planned Parenthood invited to do badge work in councils around the U.S. 3) Radical Feminist, pro-abortion, and lesbian speakers such as Charlotte Bunch, Kavita Ramdas, and Dr. Johnetta Cole receiving awards or speaking at conferences 4) the activist involvement by the World Association of Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) at the United Nations.

Most telling about the Girl Scouts position on the issues of sexual education, contraception distribution to adolescents and abortion are the words posted on the WAGGGS website for the Commission on the Status of Women conference.  It states:

"We demand access to comprehensive sexuality information, services and supplies for all young people.  We need it today – and today needed to be yesterday.  The young people from more than 20 countries and every continent collectively demand their sexual and reproductive rights:

•All young people must have access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and emergency contraception….

•Accessible, affordable and safe abortion should be made part of the minimum package of sexual and reproductive services."

When this page is compared to the same coverage of the same day at the conference on International Planned Parenthood Federation's webpage, one will note that the text and photograph are identical.

In some of its badge requirements, WAGGGS clearly is encouraging a permissive sexuality "protected" by condoms.

Consider the AIDS badge which lists as requirements drawing male and female bodies and identifying the body fluids capable of carrying HIV, visiting a Family Planning Clinic, demonstrate putting a condom on a finger or other suitable device, etc.   An Adolescent Health Badge was developed by WAGGGS and Family Health International as a two year pilot program for eventual availability around the world.

On the GSA website, there is also the "Our Rights, Our Responsibilities" Patch .  Under Section 1, The Right to be Me, there is a link to the UK Children's Rights Web site which encourages a "Red Ribbon Party" for AIDS.  One of the suggestions for the party is cake sale, and it even encourages the making of a "condom cake" (NOTE: the link worked in April, but was removed a few months later).

A reasonable person could conclude that while WAGGGS/GSUSA may not "force its position" on any individual troop or Girl Scout in the U.S., it has clearly chosen to "take a stance on the issues of sex education, contraception and abortion".

WAGGGS as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) partnered with the UNFPA, which has a mission to make contraception and abortion available to young people world wide in order to prevent HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancy, the goal being to improve health and reduce poverty.

More recently, WAGGS endorsed and helped to develop the Guantajuato Statement (NGO Position Statement) that emerged from the World Conference on Youth, in Mexico City in August, 2010. The statement included the following: (entire document can be found here)

"We demand governments…guarantee the rights of young people including…the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health and rights"

"We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…evidence based comprehensive sexuality education to achieve Millenium Development Goals (MDG) 5 and 6"  Note:  Evidence based comprehensive sexuality education is sex education that understands that there is no such thing as telling a teen not to have sex and then thinking that they are actually going to listen to you.

"We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…Guarantee the full realization of the highest level of physical mental and social health for young people…above all the target lagging farthest behind, MDG 5b – Universal Access to Reproductive Health by 2015".  Note: MDG5b is all about contraception access for all young people, safe abortion and comprehensive sexuality education.

"We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…Fully recognize young people's sexual and reproductive rights, particularly the right to choose, through achieving universal access to confidential, youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services including access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education, in informal and non-formal settings.  Implement key effective interventions in the continuum of care for maternal health, including access to a full range of contraceptives and safe abortion." (emphasis mine)

"We commit…to continue working to achieve development through…that Governments recognize LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transsexual) as part of the spectrum of gender identities and ensure that young people that identify themselves as such have their Human Rights upheld."

Mariellen ultimately came to the conclusion that her family could no longer be involved with the Girl Scouts. Moreover, she now believes that some agendas promoted within the GSA are incompatible with a Christian worldview.

Contact: Jeanne Monahan

Source: FRC Blog
Date Published: September 24, 2010

“Pro-Choice” Irrationality Points to the Only Question that Matters in the Abortion Debate

     


Danny Burk shared a story about an encounter he had while doing sidewalk counseling outside of an abortion clinic in his community.  While this is anecdotal, and not universally representative of every person who favors abortion rights, it does demonstrate the passion and irrationality that many in this camp have in terms of their position.

She (an escort for the abortion clinic) asked me why I was there "harassing" the women trying to get an abortion. I explained to her that "harassment" was not our goal, but giving these women a life-saving choice was. This still did not allay her concerns, so she asked why I even cared. I replied, "Because these children are created in the image of God, and unborn babies are no less valuable and worthy of life than those that are already born."

She objected arguing that the unborn babies are not persons (are not "ensouled") until they take their first breath and are no longer connected to their mother. This caught my attention. She argued that as long as a baby is physically connected and thus dependent upon his mother for life, the baby can be aborted. So I asked her to play that principle out in some hypothetical scenarios.

I asked, "What if the entire baby has been delivered except for its head? Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?"

She replied, "Yes" (indicating her support for partial birth abortion).

I pressed further, "What if the baby has been delivered completely but is still connected to the mother by the umbilical cord. Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?"

She replied, "Yes."

I pressed still further, "What if the baby has been delivered completely, is still connected to the mother by the umbilical cord, and remains outside the womb for an hour while still connected? Should a woman have a right to kill the baby then?"

She replied, "Yes. If it's still connected to the mother, it's still a part of her body, and she has a right to abort it."

I was astonished and informed her, "That's infanticide, and that's illegal."

It was at that point that I realized that this conversation wasn't about logic. It wasn't about what was reasonable or right. This was just blind passion, and this woman had no ears to hear the cold inhumanity of her own position.

The encounter brought home again how indefensible the pro-choice position is. There is no morally significant difference between a person inside the birth canal and one outside. One is here, and one is there. But there's no basis for arguing that one is human outside but not human while only inches away inside the birth canal (or for that matter in the womb). The pro-choice position is indeed ethically bankrupt.

The right to privacy doesn't matter.  Connectivity to the mother isn't the issue at hand.  The developmental stage of the child doesn't matter.  All of the objections that those who favor abortion are nothing but distractions.  The ultimate question is "when does life begin?"  This woman didn't think life began until after the umbilical cord was cut, so she took that believe to its logical, albeit disturbing, conclusion.

If we are wrong and life doesn't begin until after the cord is cut, then we don't have much of an argument.  If life does begin at conception, however, there is no argument that can justify abortion.

Contact: Shane Vander Hart

Source: Caffeinated Thoughts
Date Published: September 24, 2010

Amendment 62 vs. Colorado Blue Book Hearing Scheduled for Next Week

     

Amendment 62 sponsors and lawsuit plaintiffs received notice today that the suit filed against the Colorado Legislative Council regarding the biased Blue Book will be heard next week.

The Judge assigned to the case, Judge Hyatt, will hold the hearing on September 28th, 29th, or 30th, at which time Plaintiffs hope for a remedy to the anti-62 Blue Book, which is being mailed to voters statewide.

"We believe we have a very strong case," asserted Gualberto Garcia Jones, sponsor of Amendment 62 and legal analyst. "The facts are simple: We were not allowed input into our own 'Arguments For' section, and the 'Arguments Against' section was full of outright lies. Of course we believe that the opposition should have their fair say, but it must be based in fact, not outlandish, impossible conjecture."

The Colorado Legislative Council's website states that the purpose of the Colorado Blue Book is "to provide voters with the text, title, and a fair and impartial analysis."

Amendment 62 sponsors and organizers maintain that the ballot information booklet (The Colorado Blue Book), is not fair or impartial, but in fact glaringly biased against Amendment 62. Sponsors attempted several times to change the prejudiced text, in writing and at the public hearing, yet none of their objections were recognized.

"We are looking forward to this hearing, and to the chance to correct these fabrications with Colorado voters," added Leslie Hanks, co-sponsor of Amendment 62 and lawsuit Plaintiff. "The damage has been done, but we would accept a mailer to all registered voters with the correct information. It looks as if the Legislative Council used Planned Parenthood's arguments in the description, the 'Arguments For' and the 'Arguments Against'. We are only asking to have our say. Over 130,000 people signed the petition to put this on the ballot, and they, along with every other Colorado voter, deserve the truth."

Yes on Amendment 62 is a grassroots organization comprised of Colorado citizens who value all human life, from biological beginning to natural death. Personhood Colorado and Colorado Right to Life have sponsored the Personhood Amendment to the Colorado constitution, which reads: "Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term "person" shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

Contact: Jennifer Mason

Source: Personhood Colorado
Date Published: September 23, 2010

'Planned Parenthood Aborts African Americans': New Mass Media Campaign

     

A new mass media campaign is hoping to shed light on Planned Parenthood's racist roots and continued targeting of black communities. The PPAbortsAA campaign ("Planned Parenthood Aborts African Americans") is aimed at getting the message out to a wide audience through billboards in large cities and TV ads on popular channels.

 "When you look at the numbers, it's absolutely astounding the lie that's been given to African Americans - that this is really good for them," said Kimberly Speirs, a spokesperson for PPAbortsAA.org.

African American babies are three times more likely to be aborted than white babies, according to data from the U.S. Center for Disease Control. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the black population in the U.S. has been reduced by over 25 percent.

Planned Parenthood is accused of targeting black communities because 62-78% of their facilities are in minority neighbourhoods, depending on how the data is interpreted.

PPAbortsAA.org notes that this targeting of blacks was part of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's plan from the beginning. "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated," said the famed eugenicist and leader of the Negro Project, which was designed to curtail the black population.
The campaign organizers have been able to get their ads on BET (Black Entertainment Television), and they are available through their website, but other mainstream media outlets in New York, Chicago, Dallas, and Houston have refused to run them.

"It looks like the mainstream media is more interested in protecting Planned Parenthood than they are in educating African American women about the truth of abortion," said Speirs.

She said it is clear from Planned Parenthood's own statistics that they favor abortion over other options. She noted, for example, that in 2007 they aborted 305,310 babies in the U.S., but only made 4,912 adoption referrals.
"Most women who are abortion-minded, they don't want abortion, they just don't know what else is out there," she said. "Once you let them know all the positive, hopeful, beautiful alternatives available for them ... they almost always choose life."

"It's so heartbreaking that so many African American lives have been snuffed out because of the deception that they've been sold," said Speirs. "We just think that they want to know the truth about this issue. I think Afircan American women primarily want to know that they and their babies are being targeted."
 
Click here to see the PPAbortsAA.org campaign.

Contact: Patrick B. Craine

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 23, 2010

Poll: 77 Percent of Evangelicals Believe Abortion is Morally Wrong

     

The National Association of Evangelicals has released a new poll showcasing Evangelicals' overall commitment to traditional Christian morality and opposition to abortion.

The Gallup poll, commissioned by the NAE, found that 76 percent of Evangelicals believe sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally wrong, 77 percent believe abortion is morally wrong, and 79 percent say that having a baby outside of wedlock is also morally wrong. A high 87 percent of Evangelicals also said that teen pregnancy is morally wrong.

But the NAE also noted that pastors may have a challenge on their hands when it comes to the pastoral care of unmarried women who become pregnant and then fear that having the baby will lead to rejection from the church community.

"We need to encourage couples to courageously and responsibly honor the gifts of sex and life," said Aaron Mercer, NAE Generation Forum Project Director. "The Bible's standard for sex is very clear: abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within it."

"But when unmarried individuals do have sex and end up conceiving, might they fear rejection from their church family whether or not they carry the baby to term? Whether or not this fear is warranted, we need to consider its possible consequences," continued Mercer.

The NAE poll also indicated that church communities have confidence in their pastors, and look up to them to engage the challenges of unmarried and teen pregnancy and abortion within their communities.

Approximately 89 percent said they would go to their pastors or other leaders in their church for advice or counseling if they were having problems in a relationship or marriage.

But at the same time respondents said that national leaders were not doing nearly as good a job at addressing the issues of abortion and unplanned pregnancy as local pastors.

On the issue of unplanned pregnancies, only eight percent said national leaders were doing a "very good job" and 18 percent said they were doing a "good job." National leaders fared little better when it came to abortion: just nine percent said they did a "very good job" addressing the topic, while 21 percent said they did a "good job."
Local pastors got higher marks: 38 percent said their local pastors were doing a "very good job" talking about abortion, while 29 percent said they were doing a "good job."

"This data should be a call to action for national religious leaders to more productively engage on this country's terrible abortion problem," observed Mercer. "It is also a reminder to local pastors that they are on the front lines. They have the confidence of their congregations and the relationships with their neighbors needed for real success in lowering the abortion rate in their local communities."
 
Click here to see the full poll results.

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 23, 2010

On 30th Anniversary of China's One-Child Policy, Former Tiananmen Square Leader and New Christian Chai Ling Calls for End to Gendercide and Forced Abortions with New 'All Girls Allowed' Initiative New non-profit organization reveals injustice of the

     

Saturday marks the 30th anniversary of the formation of China's One-Child Policy, and for millions of fathers and mothers affected by its rigid enforcement, the day is anything but a happy occasion.

Though most Americans are unaware of the hundreds of millions of deaths and abandonments that have occurred as a result of this policy, one organization is on a mission to both reveal the injustice of this policy and restore value to girls in China.

 All Girls Allowed (AGA) was founded by Chai Ling, two-time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee and former chief student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square Movement. The organization works to support Chinese families in villages with the greatest gender imbalance (sometimes up to 100 girls born for every 130 boys), and spreads awareness of human rights violations and the issue of gendercide. Visitors to AGA's website can send a baby shower gift to ensure a baby girl has a chance at life, sponsor orphaned girls' education, sign a pledge to support girls' value, and find resources about the One-Child Policy.

 AGA is co-hosting a press conference to discuss this tragic anniversary today on Capitol Hill, featuring Congressman Chris Smith, former political prisoner Harry Wu, AGA founder Chai Ling and Reggie Littlejohn (Women's Rights without Frontiers).

 Today in China, an alarming gender imbalance exists. Millions of Chinese men struggle to start families but fail to find brides. The Chinese government reports an average of 120 boys born for every 100 girls. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences reports that in 2020, there will be 40 million more young men than women; by comparison, there are currently 40 million young men in the entirety of the U.S. Not surprisingly, China's crime rates and the prevalence of women and child trafficking have risen dramatically. Many respected economists have begun to voice concern over the volatile state of China's "demographic timebomb", and while the policy was originally set to end on September 25, 2010, it remains in place with very little change.

Contact: Tessa Dale

Source: All Girls Allowed

Rockford Police Chase Ultrasound Vehicle from Abortion Clinic

     

The Rockford pro-life community is up in arms after police chased away an ultrasound vehicle from the local abortion facility - even though pro-lifers say they worked for weeks with city police to ensure permission for the life-saving equipment to park near the incoming mothers seeking abortions.

Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott posted a video of Rockford police telling pro-lifers that the city legal department might issue a warrant against them if the motor home, owned by Image Clear Ultrasound, was not moved away from the Northern Illinois Women's Center (NIWC).  The video ends with a shot of abortion clinic owner Wayne Webster smiling as he chats with the officers inside a police car.

    
Click here for the video.

Rilott says that city officials later told him and the ultrasound owners that the vehicle violated a statute against unlicensed charitable solicitation. But Rilott pointed to a city ordinance defining charitable solicitation as "conduct whereby a person solicits ... any article representing monetary value, sells, or offers to sell, a product ... that the proceeds from the solicitation or sale are for a charitable purpose."

"As you can read for yourself, this shows beyond a doubt that the totally free ultrasounds that were being offered to poor women have nothing to do with someone soliciting business for profit," wrote Rilott in a post on the Pro Life Corner blog. "Pro-lifers were offering a completely free service to help poor mothers and children."

The pro-life legal group Thomas More Society, which has engaged an ongoing lawsuit against NIWC and the city of Rockford, said that the ultrasound issue would be added to their suit.

"It's defined so as to cover soliciting for money, and there was certainly nothing of that here," TMS attorney Thomas Brejcha told LSN.

Sergeant Andre Brass of the Rockford Police Department referred LSN to the city legal department for details on the dispute. He confirmed that Rilott had obtained the proper permits, but that apparently there were "some other things that came up with the vehicle and other ordinances that they might be in violation for, that they might need a special permit for."

Rockford city attorney Kerry Partridge told LSN that the ultrasound owners "did not contact the Public Works, Community Development or Legal Departments regarding operation of a mobile ultrasound on city property," and that the city police department would not have known of the "business regulations" pertaining to the vehicle.

"It is the opinion of the City of Rockford that the offer of mobile ultrasound services on the City streets, whether free of charge or for a fee, is a business in violation of the ordinance cited in the letter to the vehicle operator," said Partridge in an email to LSN Wednesday afternoon.  "This operation will generate pedestrian traffic, which could be unsafe on or about the City streets, particularly Broadway, which is a major arterial roadway in Rockford.  The permitting process is designed to maximize the safety of motorists and pedestrians in this type of situation."

Partridge said that a letter warning the vehicle owners of this issue "was to be hand-served on the unit operator on August 20, 2010." An attorney with TLC Pregnancy Services, which owns the vehicle, said that no such letter was received before the September 8 incident.

Rilott reported that pro-lifers later stormed a city council meeting to protest the ultrasound decision, and that "the city of Rockford is being forced to reconsider the position."  The operators of the mobile ultrasound clinic, he said, are currently attempting to gain permission to come back to Rockford.

Rilott criticized the government of Rockford for prohibiting the ultrasound vehicle while allowing another group, the Total Health Awareness Team, to hand out free condoms and clean needles to illegal drug users.

"We have difficulty understanding why this service is promoted by our government, a government who claims to be against illegal drug usage and prostitution," he wrote. "At the same time, the same government interferes with the pro-life citizens offer of free life saving help to mothers in need, that is free ultrasounds."

Contact: Mayor Lawrence J. Morrissey
425 East State Street
Rockford, IL 61104
(815) 987-5590 phone
Larry.Morrissey@rockfordil.gov

City Council members contact information:
http://www.ci.rockford.il.us/government/council/index.cfm?section=wards&id=202

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 22, 2010

Democrat ‘Do Over’: Senate to Vote Thursday on DISCLOSE Act

     

UPDATE 2:05 pm CST:  Democrats will fail to meet the 60-vote threshold, final roll call vote 59-39.

-----

After a dismal attempt topass  a defense bill loaded up with political "gifts" for activist groups, U.S.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D- Nev., will try again with the same bill on Thursday –one day after a high-dollar Democrat fundraiser.

This time, Reid will try to pass the resurrected, free-speech killing DISCLOSE Act that failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to pass on July 27.

The DISCLOSE Act – an acronym for Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections – has been pitched by Democrats as a panacea toward transparency and accountability in elections.

Mattie Corrao, government affairs manager with Americans for Tax Reform, blogged:

"The bill, a blatant attempt by the majority to tilt the political environment in their favor for the fall elections and beyond, penalizes the speech of businesses and grassroots advocacy groups under the guise of responding to the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United(v. FEC)."

All eyes likely will be focused on Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe – longtime supporters of the campaign reform – but who voted against the first attempt to pass the bill.

Collins and Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., have signaled their continued opposition to the bill – leaving Snowe susceptible to Democrat influence.

Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky came out swinging with the news of the vote:

"…After spending the past year and a half enacting policies Americans don't like, they want to prevent their opponents from being able to criticize what they've done. …

"Americans are speaking out. They want us to focus on the economy, on preventing tax hikes, on creating jobs. And what do Democrats do? They turn to the so-called Disclose act which is a bill they say is about transparency in elections, but which was drafted behind closed doors without hearings, without testimony, and without any markups.  A bill that's supposed to be about free speech, but which picks and chooses who gets the right to engage in political speech and who doesn't.  A bill that's back on the floor for no other reason than the fact that our friends on the other side have declared this week `politics-only' week in the U.S. Senate.
…

"(I)n the midst of what Democrats are remarkably calling `Recovery Summer,' the President has devoted two of his weekly radio addresses to the nation to making a personal pitch for this bill.
…

"It seems like the more Americans say they want Democrats to focus on jobs, the more determined they are to press ahead with some piece of legislation aimed either at killing private sector jobs or preserving their own. Here we are, in the middle of a recession, with 27 states yesterday reporting increases in unemployment, 14 million Americans looking for work, and a national debt that's putting the very future of the American Dream in jeopardy, and here we are voting on a bill that amounts to little more than an incumbency protection act for Democrats in Congress."

Contact: Catherine Snow

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 22, 2010

Sneak Federal Funding for Cloning Attack

     
It's baa-ack! Just when you thought the political fight over federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research (ESCR) was over, United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that President Obama's ESCR policy violates the "Dickey-Wicker Amendment," a federal law barring federal funding of "the creation of a human embryo . . . for research purposes" and "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed." In response, a group of lawmakers introduced legislation that would authorize federal funding for human cloning.

I point out that Dickey-Wicker is one of the most bi-partisan laws passed in recent times, which first came into pronounced conflict with the science sector with the derivation of embryonic stem cells.  Clinton, Bush, and Obama all tried to fund ESCR without setting of the Dickey-Wicker trip wire–which if Judge Lamberth is correct, can't be done.  That brought the DeGette/Castle/Specter bills to the fore as a way of overcoming the DW problem.

But, it also seeks to legalize the Feds to fund human cloning research in dishonest manner. Explaining why required a brief step back to explain the difference between ESCR and SCNT cloning:

Human cloning and ESCR are different things. ESCR derives stem cells from embryos. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the scientific term for cloning, creates embryos [Description of the SCNT process] After that, the issue becomes what to do with the cloned embryo. After that, the issue becomes what to do with the cloned embryo. If it is implanted in a womb and brought to birth, the process is popularly called reproductive cloning. If the embryo is experimented upon, the process is often called therapeutic cloning. But these terms refer to the uses of the embryo that was created by cloning, not to the act of cloning itself, which, as stated above, is complete upon successful SCNT.

I then point out how the bills pretend to ban human cloning funding when they would actually authorize it:

Under the disingenuous title "Prohibition against Funding for Human Cloning," the legislation inaccurately defines "human cloning" as the implantation of a cloned embryo, instead of as the creation of such an embryo. From the legislation:

In this section, the term "human cloning" means the implantation of the product [the cloned embryo] of transferring the nuclear material of a human somatic cell into an egg cell from which the nuclear material has been removed or rendered inert [SCNT] into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus.

Thus, if the bills become law, only the implantation of cloned embryos would be barred from being federally funded, rather than actual cloning. In other words, the bills use a phony definition to legalize the very funding that they dishonestly purport to prohibit. No wonder people don't trust the government anymore.

This raises the question, why go to all the trouble of legalizing cash for cloning? I describe the many uses to which cloned embryos–and later fetuses–could be put, and note:

But scientists still haven't figured out how to clone human beings reliably. Overcoming the technical difficulties will take many billions of dollars — both to pay for the research and to draw talented young scientists into the field. With any significant profits to be derived from human cloning probably decades away, it is unlikely that the private sector will provide the resources necessary to develop and industrialize the sector. Thus, if human cloning is ever to be perfected, it will almost surely require significant federal support.

I conclude:

But Dickey-Wicker stands athwart this accelerating drive to clone. Seen in this light, Judge Lamberth's surprise decision not only impacts embryonic-stem-cell research, but has hastened the inescapable fight over the future morality of American science. If we want to stop cloning, we must defeat DeGette/Castle/Specter.

About the last point, whether one supports or opposes human cloning, it seems to me there can be no disagreement.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 23, 2010

Former Notre Dame Official Will Now Testify in ND 88 Case

     
     

Attorneys representing the 88 pro-life demonstrators arrested at the University of Notre Dame for protesting President Barack Obama at the 2009 commencement ceremonies, won the right Monday to require a former ND official to testify under oath about the treatment of the pro-life protestors.

In St. Joseph County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis ruled that Thomas More Society's (TMS) special counsel, Tom Dixon, may depose William Kirk, former associate vice president for residential life at the University about the university's decision to arrest and prosecute the pro-lifers.

"This represents a major victory for the defense, and perhaps even a decisive turning point in this case," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of TMS.

Scopelitis overruled the prosecution's motion to quash the deposition and said he will pass on any objections arising during Kirk's testimony, since it will take place at the St. Joseph County Courthouse.

Dixon argued at last week's hearing that Kirk's testimony would help shed new light on why Notre Dame arrested and prosecuted the pro-life protesters, but has not done the same to other protestors.

Earlier this year, Kirk was removed from his post with Notre Dame after it became public that Notre Dame has not filed charges against gay rights and anti-ROTC activists who have in the past protested on campus without permission. The same treatment was not extended by Notre Dame to the 88 pro-life demonstrators, who were arrested and charged in May 2009.

Earlier in September, LifeSiteNews.com attempted to contact Notre Dame over the circumstances surrounding Kirk's termination. Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown, however, declined and appeared to indicate that the university had instituted a policy against speaking with LSN.

The Thomas More Society has argued that the ND88 were not criminal trespassers but victims of "viewpoint discrimination," a violation of the First Amendment. But Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins has repeatedly maintained that all protesters were and are treated equally.

The pro-lifers face up to a $5,000 fine and a year in jail if convicted.

At last week's hearing, TMS also secured the right of the ND 88 to have their own individual jury trials. The prosecution had sought instead to consolidate the cases, and thus expedite the legal process - a request that was denied by Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis.

The longer the trials continue, the greater the likelihood that Notre Dame exposes itself to negative public relations. TMS says it still hopes that the university will avoid such a drawn out process by requesting the prosecution to drop the charges.

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 22, 2010

Personhood Amendment 62 Files Lawsuit to Stop Distribution of Biased 'Colorado Blue Book'

     

Amendment 62 sponsors filed a lawsuit today against the Colorado Legislative Counsel, attempting to stop the continued publication and statewide distribution of the "Colorado Blue Book".

The Colorado Legislative Council's website states that the purpose of the Colorado Blue Book is "to provide voters with the text, title, and a fair and impartial analysis."

Amendment 62 sponsors and organizers maintain that the ballot information booklet (The Colorado Blue Book), is not fair or impartial, but in fact glaringly biased against Amendment 62. Sponsors attempted several times to change the prejudiced text, in writing and at the public hearing, yet none of their objections were recognized.

"As soon as we saw the text online, we knew we had to do something to stop these lies from going out to Colorado voters," explained Gualberto Garcia-Jones, co-sponsor of Amendment 62 and lawsuit Plaintiff. "First, we were disallowed from including the text of the Amendment in the 'Arguments For' section. The 'Arguments For' section is weak and does not include most of the arguments for Amendment 62. The Blue Book authors didn't stop there, however, and published several falsehoods about Amendment 62. Women could never be denied healthcare for miscarriages with the passage of Amendment 62, yet that is one of the lies our opposition is using as a scare tactic -- and one of the lies propagated by the Colorado Blue Book."

Amendment 62 sponsors even provided letters to Senators from embryology experts and cell biologists, one of whom said that the statements proposed for the Blue book were "political, not scientific", and went on to explain the scientific fallacies of the proposed Blue Book statements, yet the expert statements were disregarded.

"We made several attempts in writing and in person to correct the fabrications in the Blue Book, yet we were largely ignored by the Colorado Legislative Council," declared Leslie Hanks, co-sponsor of Amendment 62 and lawsuit Plaintiff. "Now, our only choice is legal action to keep the State from using our own tax dollars to send lies about Amendment 62 to voters. From recent news articles, we gather that we are not the only group to see the clear bias -- mostly against conservative issues -- in this year's Blue Book. We are only asking for fair and impartial treatment from the governing officials, regardless of their personal feelings."

Contact: Jennifer Mason

Source: Personhood Colorado

Police arrest and jail abortionist Randall Whitney on pro-life tip

        

Police surrounded the Orlando Women's Center last night on a tip from pro-lifers and arrested abortionist Randall Whitney on an open arrest warrant for failure to appear at his criminal trial that was to be held on September 7, 2010. Whitney was also charged with resisting a police officer. At this time, he is being held in the Orlando Jail without bond.

Whitney had been arrested on March 27, 2010, for felony assault on a pregnant woman after he slapped an abortion patient who complained when he repeatedly failed to properly administer an injection into her arm.

Upon his arrest, eyewitnesses said that Whitney threatened pro-lifers and told them they would "be sorry" for notifying the police of his whereabouts.

After his failure to appear has his felony criminal trial, the arrest warrant was issued for his capture. Pro-lifers who often hold vigil at the Orlando Women's Center, noticed that Whitney had taken to sleeping in his vehicle in an apparent effort to avoid apprehension by the police.

Whitney has faced license suspension and probation in the past and has been accused of illegal late-term abortions beyond the limits set by law by improperly using ultrasound to determine fetal age. Whitney defiantly closed his Daytona Beach abortion clinic rather than comply with laws governing clinic safety.

Orlando Women's Center is owned by the notorious abortionist James Pendergraft, who is also no stranger to legal problems. On July 6, 2010, Pendergraft had his medical license suspended for a 4th time for botched abortions, committing illegal late-term abortions, and dispensing drugs without a license.

According to Michele Herzog, the director of Orlando's Pro-life Action Ministries, Whitney has since taken over the work load from Pendergraft, doing an estimated 75% of all abortions at Pendergraft's five Florida abortion mills.

"We will be forwarding documents to the Florida Medical Board today asking for the emergency suspension of Whitney's license based on unprofessional conduct and criminal activity," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Whitney's arrest follows recent news of abortionists nationwide in trouble with the law, including the conviction and jailing two weeks ago of Massachusetts abortionist Rapin Osathanondh on a charge of manslaughter in the abortion death of Laura Hope Smith. Medical licenses of 4 other abortionists were suspended this month in Maryland and New Jersey on charges ranging from wrongful death, illegal late-term abortions, and aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of medicine.

"The dirty truth about the unseemly side of the abortion industry is being exposed like never before and abortionists are finally beginning to be brought to justice after years of abortion abuses," said Newman. "Whitney is by far no exception, but rather the rule when it comes to abortionists who are operating outside the law. Illegal activity by abortionists is systemic in the industry and that places lives at risk."

Source: Pro-Life Blogs and Operation Rescue
Date Published: September 23, 2010

Abortuary has bond with Illinois city

      

Police in Rockford, Illinois, recently confiscated a van used by pro-lifers to offer free sonograms near an infamous abortion clinic. Authorities justified their actions by citing a city ordinance that had no relevance to the situation.
 
A group of Christians raised money to bring an ultrasound truck to Rockford to park near an internationally known abortion facility and provide free sonograms for women entering the clinic. Local pro-life prayer warrior Kevin Rilott of the Rockford Pro-Life Initiative says that was with the full knowledge and permission of the police department.

"Two police officers, who seemed rather reluctant, showed up and served on the technician and the driver a letter from the police chief stating that they're in violation of a city ordinance covering soliciting," Rilott reports.

They were told to leave Rockford or face a possible arrest warrant. Five minutes later, the unit was driven away.

"We worked with the police for a month before, and everything was fine, except there's someone in the city's attorney's office who has a very friendly relationship with those who operate the Rockford abortion facility," the pro-lifer reports.

The cited ordinance -- Article III. Charitable Solicitations -- prohibits "conduct whereby a person solicits property, financial aid, gifts in money, donations, contributions, [or] any article representing monetary value," so Rilott contends that an examination of law reveals no violation since the ultrasounds were free. He notes that legal action is under consideration.

Meanwhile, as word spreads about the latest incident, the Rockford pro-lifer says the city attorney's office is getting e-mails and phone calls from across the nation expressing outrage against the city's action.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 22, 2010

University of Notre Dame announces new coordinator for pro-life issues

      

Continuing its response to the controversy over President Obama's speech at the prominent Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame has announced the creation of a coordinator for pro-life initiatives. The new coordinator says she is honored to hold the position and will work to advance the Catholic identity of the university.

The Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life, which ended its service in May, recommended to Notre Dame president Fr. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the creation of structures to implement its previous recommendations and to continue its work. Fr. Jenkins then created the position of coordinator for university life initiatives and appointed 2010 Notre Dame graduate Mary K. Daly to the post.

Daly served as president of Notre Dame Right for Life and was a spokeswoman for NDResponse, a coalition opposed to the honoring of President Barack Obama. She will coordinate present efforts to implement the task force's recommendations and will serve as a liaison between various university departments and offices to advance collaboration on life issues.

According to the University of Notre Dame, she will also seek ways to "broaden and deepen respect for the sanctity of life" at the university and beyond.

Her office will be located in the Institute for Church Life and she will report to John C. Cavadini, the McGrath-Cavadini Director of the Institute for Church Life who was a co-chair of the task force. She will also organize a faculty advisory committee to be chaired by Cavadini.

Daly responded to an inquiry from CNA in a Tuesday afternoon e-mail.

She said she was "very pleased" that the university created a permanent position dedicated to increasing the institution's "witness to the culture of life."

"I am grateful and honored to have been invited to work with the university on these initiatives," Daly commented. She said her position will also help support and enhance the university's mission and vision "as a Catholic institution of higher education."

The new coordinator explained that fostering "a respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, from conception to natural death" will be one of her priorities, as will be fostering an increase in understanding of "the major life issues."

Daly reported that discussion of possible action and initiatives has been "very lively."

In addition to implementing the task force's recommendations, she said the coordinator will support academic scholarship on life issues from both students and faculty. The coordinator will also create education efforts to inform the campus on life issues.

Daly told CNA her position will strengthen the university's support both for student-led right-to-life initiatives and for pregnant and parenting students.

Commenting in the university's press release, Fr. Jenkins thanked the members of the Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life for their "exemplary" service.

"I look forward to continued progress in this important area as we work together in future years," he commented, according to the University of Notre Dame.

Fr. Jenkins has followed several recommendations of the task force, such as personally participating in the National March for Life in January in Washington, D.C. The task force also recommended both the development of principles for charitable giving and the adoption of a statement on the university's support for Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life.

Notre Dame law professor Charles Rice has been critical of some of the university administration's responses, saying Notre Dame should have had an official presence at every March for Life since 1973. Last year Rice said any changes would be "cosmetic" unless charges are dropped against pro-life protesters arrested at the time of the 2009 commencement.

Source: CNA/EWTN News
Date Published: September 22, 2010

Taxpayers to subsidize referrals to Planned Parenthood

$700 million plan establishes 2-1-1 centers to direct people to abortionists

      

The American Life League is asking constituents to contact a legislative committee in Washington and oppose a pending $700 million plan that could turn tax funds into payments for a special referral service sending women to Planned Parenthood for abortions.

The bill, H.R. 211, has been pending since last year but ALL said it is expected to be pushed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee over the next few days. It would set up nationwide a 2-1-1 phone number for questions about services and agency opportunities.

"In the hands of the Obama administration – Planned Parenthood's very own marketing and outreach team – this number could easily be used to 'help' women find 'comprehensive reproductive health care,'" said Judie Brown, founder of the pro-life organization.

"Translation: This number will probably be used to direct unsuspecting, confused pregnant women to Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills – courtesy of you, the taxpayer," she said.

The bill calls for initial funding of about $150 million per year, with subsequent years allocated $100 million.

The bill calls for the "nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone service for information and referral on health and human services, including volunteer services, and for other purposes."

"Rapid deployment nationwide of 2-1-1 telephone service as a means of access to information about and referral on human services requires collaboration among state governments, comprehensive and specialized information and referral centers, including child care resource and referral agencies, human service organizations and service providers, emergency management and homeland security officials, telephone companies, and other relevant entities," it states.

Under its provisions there would be a "lead entity" that already works with state agencies, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations and others.

The American Life League believes the money would end up being directed by abortion-friendly groups such as United Way to abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood, officials said.

"This bill is a clever attempt to further ensconce Planned Parenthood in communities by disguising it as just another nonprofit social service organization," Brown said. "But the truth about Planned Parenthood is much more insidious: It's an organization dedicated to profiteering from abortion and the sexualization of young people."

ALL said United Way already is a clearing house for such information.

The bill notes that such 2-1-1 programs already are available in some or all of 41 states, but money is needed to expand it comprehensively across the nation.

Contact: Bob Unruh

Source: WorldNetDaily
Date Published: September 21, 2010

Senate Republicans block defense bill authorizing military abortions

      


Per Family Research Council in an email alert yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, September 21st):

While this is not the end of the bill (it will return after the election) this is a major victory for the men and women who sacrificially serve our nation in uniform and their families.

Yesterday afternoon  a vote on the motion to proceed to the Dept. of Defense Authorization bill failed 56-43.

Democrat AR Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor joined a united block of Republicans (sans Lisa Murkowski, who didn't vote) to stop the measure from moving forward. Majority Leader Harry Reid supported the bill before he voted against it (for procedural reasons).

The DOD bill includes IL Sen. Roland Burris's amendment that would force military medical facilities both domestic and overseas to commit abortions.

This means the pro-abortion measure along with the bill has stalled.

Unfortunately, according to my source in the Senate, this fight is by no means over.

The bill contains 2 other liberal add-on amendments that could be removed as bargaining chips in an effort to pass it:

The DREAM Act, which would allow illegal aliens under age 30 to gain American citizenship if joining the military or attending college for 2 years;

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

There is no way to know if and when Democrats will reconsider this bill, as they've already moved on to another.

There is also no way of knowing which amendments, if any, they'll be willing to remove in order to get this thing passed.

The misnomered Republican Majority for Choice blogger complained:

Unfortunately, reproductive rights for women in the military have been pushed aside once again, due to partisan games surrounding 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Although officials on both sides of the aisle are ready and willing to stand up for the protection of women, today's procedural vote has stalled any further discussion on other aspects of the defense bill.

This is a short-term victory. But keep making your calls.

Contact: Jill Stanek

Source: JillStanek.com
Date Published: September 22, 2010

Negative Psychological Impact of Abortion Results from 'Hard-Wiring' in Women's Brains: Scholars

           

"Women are hard-wired for relationships—and a woman's relationship to her baby is one of the most powerful of all, whether she realizes it or not. The hard-wiring of the brain may explain many women's disturbing post-abortion feelings," write Evelyn Birge Vitz and Paul C. Vitz in an article published in the September 20 issue of Public Discourse.

Evelyn Vitz is Professor of French and Affiliated Professor of Comparative Literature at New York University. Paul C. Vitz is Professor Emeritus of Psychology at New York University and Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences.

In the article the authors relate spending a semester with students studying the stories of women who shared their experiences after an abortion.

The authors found that "many of these women are in acute pain; some are almost totally incapacitated" by their post-abortion feelings.

"What is particularly striking is that most of the women who have these powerful emotional reactions to their abortion are stunned by them. They were not opposed to abortion; many were actively pro-choice. They were blind-sided by their own reaction. One woman lamented—and thousands of others echo her mystified anguish—'If this was the right decision, why do I feel so terrible?'"

Noting that "this disturbing phenomenon is so widespread, and found among women from varied backgrounds and different parts of the world," the authors postulate that "it seems likely that the brain itself—in particular, the nature of women's brains—may shed some particularly useful light on this unexpected negative emotional reaction."

The authors cite research into the differences between women's and men's brains, especially as these differences relate to the realms of emotion, stress, and memory.

"A few of these differences can make a very large difference with regard to decision-making and its emotional consequences," the authors say, pointing out that "the part of the brain that processes emotion, generally called the limbic system, of women functions differently than that of men.

"Women experience emotions largely in relation to other people: what moves women most is relationships. Females are more personal and interpersonal than men."

On the handling of stress, the authors note that research has found that "men's behavior under stress is generally characterized by what is called "fight or flight," whereas women respond to stress by turning toward nurturing behavior, nicknamed "tend and befriend."

In post-abortion stress disorder this "tend and befriend" response may manifest itself as depression and anxiety due to the lack of a focal point for the response.

"When responding to the stress of the abortion, she may well be drawn to nurturing, to 'tending and befriending' behavior: this is, we saw, characteristic of women. But one of the key persons she might have tended and befriended—her unborn child—she has just terminated. She therefore has no ready outlet to cope with this significant stress."

"Add to this already toxic mix the very power of the memories involved in most unwanted pregnancies and abortion experiences," the authors write, "such as the nausea or other physical symptoms, often exacerbated by hormonal instability and mood swings; the anxiety over the unwanted pregnancy; the drama of the pregnancy test; often, the difficulty of making the decision, then the waiting before the abortion can take place; perhaps protesters in front of the clinic; the abortion clinic waiting room, crowded perhaps with other emotional women and men; the abortion itself—the doctors and nurses, the stirrups, the vacuum or other machinery—then the recovery room; the pain and bleeding afterward.

"All these dramatic experiences are likely to provide her with indelible memories. A woman may return to them and relive them over and over."

The authors conclude that "though a woman can decide rationally to have an abortion ... a terrible and shocking reaction sets in after their abortion. Often what lasts is not the relief or the power of the logical arguments: these may prove very short-lived. It is, rather, the failed, betrayed relationship between the woman and her fetus—now, in her mind, her dead baby—that has staying power."

The authors call for a greater honesty from the medical profession toward women contemplating abortion "to prevent at least some women from having to experience this painful surprise."

"Women need to be told the truth. They need to be prepared for what may be the consequences of this major life decision. This is what informed choice means."

Click here for the full text of Vitz's article, titled, "Women, Abortion, and the Brain".

Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 21, 2010

Congressman: U.N. Abortion Agenda Undermines Fight against Maternal Mortality

      

In this Sunday's edition of the Washington Post, U.S. Congressman Chris Smith warned that an abortion agenda at the United Nations threatens to derail Millennium Development Goal number 5 of sharply reducing global maternal mortality, by diverting life-saving resources away from mothers and into legalizing abortion.

Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa and global health, said that while health activists and world leaders were convening this week at the UN to discuss the eight Millennium Development Goals and the targets to achieve by 2015, "the most compelling and achievable objectives - huge reductions in maternal and child mortality worldwide - will be severely undermined if the Obama administration either directly or covertly integrates abortion into the final outcome document."

The pro-life human rights leader said that if abortion proponents get their way and make abortion included as a part of "reproductive health" then the "robust resolve required at national levels to deploy the funds needed to achieve the internationally agreed targets will be compromised."

He pointed out that at least 125 sovereign nations have laws or constitutions prohibiting or restricting abortion, and so re-defining "reproductive health" to include abortion would risk their wholly committed financial support to ending maternal mortality.

Smith also pointed out that a Lancet study underscored the point, contrary to what pro-abortion advocates contend, that nations with laws prohibiting abortion "have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world – Ireland, Chile and Poland among them."

"We have known for more than 60 years what actually saves women's lives: skilled attendance at birth, treatment to stop hemorrhages, access to safe blood, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, repair of fistulas, adequate nutrition, and pre- and post-natal care," said Smith. "The goal of the upcoming summit should be a world free of abortion, not free abortion to the world."

Click here to read the rest of Rep. Chris Smith's op-ed in the Sunday's Washington Post.

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 21, 2010

Notre Dame Protesters Win Right to Individual Jury Trials

      
   
The 88 pro-lifers (known as the ND88) who were arrested on the campus of the University of Notre Dame last year during President Obama's controversial visit have won the right to have their own individual jury trials, thanks to the efforts of the Thomas More Society. The prosecution had sought instead to consolidate the cases, and thus expedite the legal process - a request that was denied by Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis.

According to the TMS, the longer the trials continue, the greater the likelihood that Notre Dame exposes itself to negative public relations. The Christian legal society, which is representing the ND88, says it still hopes that the university will avoid such a drawn out process by requesting the prosecution to drop the charges.

"We remain hopeful that Notre Dame will bring these ill-starred criminal misdemeanor proceedings to an early end," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The longer Notre Dame presses these ND88 prosecutions, the more estranged the University will become from the pro-life movement."

In St. Joseph County Circuit Court last Thursday, TMS special counsel Tom Dixon also beat back efforts by the county prosecutor to force all defendants to return to the town one week prior to their trials – a journey that for some would have involved considerable difficulty and expense. Judge Scopelitis' court denied the prosecution's request "in the interest of justice."

Scopelitis also ruled for the defense in holding that the prosecution must turn over documents related to a woman arrested – but not prosecuted – for holding a pro-life sign on Commencement Day, even as many others around her holding pro-Obama signs were not arrested.

The judge said he would also consider whether TMS attorneys will be able to depose Bill Kirk, Notre Dame's former vice president of residential life, who was in charge of campus security.

Earlier this year, Kirk was removed from his post with the University after it became public that, as recently as January 2010, Notre Dame has not filed charges against gay rights and anti-ROTC activists who have in the past protested on campus without permission. The same treatment was not extended by Notre Dame to the 88 pro-life demonstrators, who were arrested and charged in May 2009.

TMS contends that Kirk's testimony could shed light on what prompted the University's different treatment of pro-life protesters, and help prove that the ND88 were victims of "viewpoint discrimination." That alone would violate the First Amendment, as campus police who made the arrests were exercising statutory authority vested in them by state law.

Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins has repeatedly maintained that all protesters were and are treated equally.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 20, 2010

Senate to Vote this Week on Allowing Abortion on Military Bases

      

Leaders of the right to life movement are calling on pro-life voters to contact their senators before the body of legislators votes on a Defense Authorization Bill this week that includes a provision that would allow abortions at military hospitals.

Top conservative groups including the Family Research Council (FRC), the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List, and the American Family Association are warning that the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill, if passed, would "turn every U.S. military hospital in the world into an abortion clinic."

"Military doctors did not want to perform abortions for the few short years this practice was legal during the Clinton Administration, and they don't want to now," wrote SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser.  "In fact, before the law was overturned, they were about to hire outside doctors to perform abortions because no military doctors would participate."

The amendment in question strikes a section of the U.S. Code, which has prohibited Department of Defense facilities from being used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother. Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) successfully introduced the amendment during an Armed Services Committee markup in May.

FRC president Tony Perkins noted that, because it is not an appropriations bill, the controversial authorization measure is "not necessary to fund our military," and urged efforts to block the bill.

In July, 180 members of Congress urged leaders in both houses to strike the language allowing military abortions.

"[Department of Defense] medical facilities should remain focused on providing the best possible care for our military service members and their families, not providing abortion on demand," said the letter, authored by Republican Congressman Todd Akin and Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor.

The defense spending bill will face a tough battle for passage thanks to other factors, including a controversial repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuality. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is expected to lead a filibuster attempt on account of the repeal effort. Even should the bill pass, it may run up against a veto if it maintains weapons spending provisions that the Obama administration opposes. 

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 20, 2010

Pro-Life Groups Warn of Dangers of ‘Emergency Contraception’ Drug

      

A drug touted as the "next generation" in emergency contraception actually causes abortion, pro-life groups say.

In August, the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug called ella for emergency contraception, but during experimental stages, this drug caused abortions in all of the rats it was tested on and half of the rabbits, according to the FDA and the drug's labeling.

Further, of the six women who took the drug in clinical trials and had live births, one of the babies had optic nerve hypoplasia and developmental delay, according to the FDA.

The prescription drug – meant to prevent pregnancy if taken five days or 120 hours after unprotected sex or "contraceptive failure," is "not intended for routine use as a contraceptive," according to an FDA news release after the Aug. 13 approval.

Ella will be available on the market in the last quarter of 2010, beginning in October, according to manufacturer Watson Pharmaceuticals. It has been available in Europe since May 2009 under the brand name ellaOne,  according to the FDA.

A coalition of 20 pro-life groups first sought to block FDA approval of the drug. Now these groups are working to inform pharmacists and the public of the possible dangers both to women and babies they are carrying. They started a website called ellacausesabortions.com.

"The goal is to continue educating the public," Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council. "We believe women have the right to informed consent. Women deserve the right to know the difference between preventing life and destroying life."

The drug's manufacturer respects the concerns, a company executive said Monday, but he added there is a need to help women prevent unintended pregnancies.

"Watson believes that there remains an unmet need for a 'next generation' emergency contraceptive product and we are committed to working with women, healthcare providers, physicians and pharmacists to educate them about the availability of the ella emergency contraceptive option," Watson Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs Charlie Mayr told CNSNews.com in a written response to questions.

Though not responding directly to questions about clinical trials and experiments on animals, the Watson statement from Mayr addressed the need for patients to consult doctors.

"As with any prescription drug, Watson encourages consumers to review patient information material, and to ask their physician or pharmacist any questions about the product and its use," Mayr told CNSNews.com.

"However, we believe the product labeling as approved clearly defines the indication for ella, provides information on the mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate, and provides complete details of the responsible use of ella as an emergency contraceptive," Mayr added.

The drug marketed as ella, known as Ulipristal Acetate, is a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) similar to the abortion drug RU-486. An SPRM starves the unborn baby of nutrients it needs to survive.

"No ectopic pregnancies were observed, although the number of pregnancies was too limited to draw any meaningful conclusions about the risk of ectopic pregnancy if ulipristal is not effective," according to a June 17 FDA document.

That same FDA report said in the clinical trials, "6 subjects (6.5%) had live births: one infant had optic nerve hypoplasia and developmental delay; the remaining 5 infants were reported as normal."

Meanwhile, the labeling of the drug will include information about experiments on animals, according to the FDA.

"Ulipristal acetate was administered repeatedly to pregnant rats and rabbits during the period of organogenesis Embryofetal loss was noted in all pregnant rats and in half of the pregnant rabbits following 12 and 13 days of dosing, at daily drug exposures 1/3 and ½ the human exposure, respectively, based on body surface area (mg/m2). There were no malformations of the surviving fetuses in these studies," the ella labeling says.

The labeling also states that women who are pregnant or who are breastfeeding should not use ella.

Further study should explore whether ella is safe for women, Monahan said, referring to numerous adverse health problems caused by RU-486, which has a similar chemical makeup with ella. RU-486 problems have included severe bleeding, ruptured tubal pregnancies, serious infections and even death.

"We would expect similar health effects," Monahan said.

The FDA news release says that clinical trials only showed side effects including headache, nausea, abdominal pain/discomfort during menstruation, fatigue and dizziness. Watson had 2,600 women in the clinical trials, according to a news release on Aug. 13 after the FDA announced the approval.

Leading pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood applauded the approval of ella.

"Given the fact that half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, it is vital that women have an array of choices available to prevent unplanned pregnancy," Planned Parenthood President Sarah Stoesz said in a statement. "Ella will become an important option for women."

Contact: Fred Lucas

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 21, 2010