Feminist Majority Foundation to offer free condom placement

Well, that's all they have left to do.

    

The Feminist Majority Foundation released a remarkably indicting statement today.

Entitled, "Unintended pregnancies linked to ineffective contraception use," it admits "many" baby-averse but sexually active females don't use the contraceptives they know they should or are sloppy or lazy about them. Well, that's not quite how FMF put it…

    A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of over 7,000 women revealed that many women, despite their desire to avoid pregnancy, fail to use birth control or do so improperly and ineffectively. The CDC reports that approximately 50% of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

    Though oral contraception is 92-99% effective when used correctly, many women who rely on this method fail to take the pill consistently – at the same time everyday. Similarly, condoms are reported to be about have a 95% effectiveness rate, but their actual effectiveness is about 85% due to frequent improper usage.

FMF links to a CDC report that indicates by "many" it actually meant "darn near all":

    In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended…. [M]ost women of reproductive age use birth control. In 2002, 98% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one method of birth control. However, 7.4% of women who were currently at risk of unintended pregnancy were not using a contraceptive method.

If half of all pregnancies are accidents, but 98% of sexually active females not only know about but have demonstrated they can use contraceptives, then only 2% of unintended pregnancies are of mothers who are completely ignorant about contraception. These would have to include young girls who are victims of rape and incest.

What, unintended pregnancies are not entirely the fault of abstinence education, or mostly, or even somewhat? Rather, they're predominantly the fault of usually unmarried (83%)  young women (18-29) who have been taught how to be sexually active but lack the maturity or wherewithal to protect themselves?

The CDC adds:

    Since 2000, several new methods of birth control have become available in the US, including the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, the hormonal contraceptive patch, the hormonal contraceptive ring, the hormonal implant, a 91-day regimen of oral contraceptives, two new barrier methods, and a new form of female sterilization.

So there is a wide array of contraceptive options available, something for everyone.

One other point. Guttmacher states "about half" of abortions are repeats. So its post-abortive comprehensive sex ed is also a pathetic failure – at least 50%, not counting mothers becoming accidentally pregnant again who decide against an abortion redo.

Now Planned Parenthood is spearheading a drive for a government panel to declare contraceptives "preventive" medicine, so they'll be provided free as part of Obamacare?

Due to the dismal failure of the 1960s contraceptive mentality social experiment, part of the cost of this "preventive" care will have to be employing workers to physically dispense the Pill every day in little cups woman to woman or stand by for condom placement.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 16, 2010

Driehaus withdraws complaint against Susan B. Anthony List

    
On October 5, pro-life Democrat Congressman Steve Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, accusing the  Susan B. Anthony List of planning to erect a fraudulent billboard in opposition to his reelection campaign.

Driehaus claimed the healthcare bill he voted for in March, sans the Stupak Amendment, did not allow taxpayer funding of abortion, as SBA List maintained.

Driehaus's complaint had a chilling effect, causing the billboard company to refuse to post SBA List's sign, below:

SBA List did get its message out alternatively, via a $50,000 radio ad buy as well as loads of free media, and Driehaus went on to lose to Republican pro-life champion Steve Chabot 52-45%.

As an aside, the ACLU filed an amicus brief on SBA List's behalf, writing that Ohio election law was unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, even after Driehaus's loss, his complaint remained – until today.

SBA List has just issued the following press statement. Note that this won't be over until the OEC says its over, and even then it won't be over, because SBA List is going to go after this unconstitutional Ohio election law in federal court, which is wonderful:

    Today, the Susan B. Anthony List responded to Rep. Steve Driehaus' (OH-01) request for withdrawal of his Ohio Elections Commission complaint against the SBA List. The OEC has been scheduled a hearing for Thursday, December 2 to consider Driehaus' request. SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

    "Rep. Driehaus' decision to withdraw his complaint is a victory for the SBA List and for truth. The SBA List will not object to Rep. Driehaus withdrawing his complaint as we do not want to spend additional time and resources defending what the public already knows to be true – that the health care bill funds abortions with taxpayer dollars. Rep. Driehaus used an Ohio criminal statute to ensure that billboards stating the truth about his vote in favor of the pro-abortion health care bill were never erected. Despite his efforts, Rep. Driehaus could not avoid facing the consequences of his health care vote at the ballot box. On Election Day, Driehaus' constituents sent a clear message by siding with the SBA List and voting him out of office.

    "The SBA List remains gravely concerned that the statute allowing Rep. Driehaus to launch his complaint – and which cost the SBA List tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees – remains law and can be used to silence free speech again. The ACLU of Ohio's amicus brief called the law 'vague and overbroad,' and said 'it cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.' The ACLU of Ohio went on to argue that 'the people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.' The SBA List will continue to pursue its federal case to declare the law unconstitutional in an effort to protect future speech."

    Rep. Steve Driehaus filed a complaint with the OEC on Tuesday, October 6, 2010 alleging that the SBA List falsely accused him of voting for taxpayer funding of abortion as a result of his vote in support of health care legislation. The complaint was spurred by the SBA List's intention to put up four billboards in his congressional district. Rep. Driehaus' attorney convinced Lamar Companies to not to put up the billboards in order to avoid being added to the complaint. The OEC's staff attorney recommended that Driehaus' complaint be dismissed, but a probable cause panel of the Commission voted 2 to 1 to hold a full hearing to decide if SBA List broke Ohio law by putting false statements on its billboards. On October 20, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed an Amicus Brief in support of the SBA List's case. The billboards were never erected.

    On October 19, the SBA List announced a $50,000 radio ad buy across Rep. Driehaus' district to spread its message and, on November 2, Steve Driehaus lost his re-election bid. The OEC must now formally accept Driehaus' request in order for the complaint to be officially dismissed. A hearing has been set for Thursday, December 2.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 16, 2010

UN lobbyists are defending the unborn against anti-life bias

    

Today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Pat Buckley, lobbying on behalf of SPUC, was once again in the forefront of the struggle against abortion and in leading efforts to uphold solemn international human rights agreements which defend the right to life from conception until natural death.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural  Rights (CESCR) during its 45th session (1 – 19 November 2010), held a Day of General Discussion (DGD) on the right to sexual and reproductive health in accordance with articles 12 and 10 (2) of the Covenant. The day was to provide an opportunity to exchange views and to garner insights from practitioners and academic experts. The day consisted of four panels on the following themes:

   1. Definitions and elements of the right to sexual and reproductive health;
   2. Cross-cutting issues and groups in focus;
   3. Legal aspects and State obligations; and
   4. Conclusions.

Pat Buckley was present at this meeting, having travelled from New York where he has been working flat out on behalf of the unborn for three weeks. Several weeks earlier Pat had submitted a paper to the CESCR outlining SPUC's position:

    "The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) asserts that the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has no authority under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) to issue a general comment on the right to sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, even if the CESCR did possess such authority pursuant to the ICESCR, a right to sexual and reproductive health does not encompass a right to abortion."

Pat gave a telephone interview to SPUC headquarters in London about the proceedings of this meeting. Far from being a balanced and fair exchange of views, Pat told us that:

    "4 panels spoke during the meeting. Three panels had 3 speakers, and one panel had 2 speakers. They were all pro-abortion. The panels were completely unbalanced. This is the sort of thing that brings the UN into disrepute. The vast majority of the NGOs who spoke were pro-life."

Pat told us that, due to time constraints;

    "I didn't have time to present the whole statement. I wanted to underline the right to life of the unborn, so I presented these sections (emboldened below) as the most important."

At the time of writing this post, the day of comment is still underway. Pat will be reporting further on this meeting and the final outcomes. We are very grateful to Pat and fellow pro-life NGOs who are speaking up boldly and unequivocally in defence of the unborn and their fundamental and inherent right to life. Below is Pat's statement in full:

    Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick Buckley, I represent the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have already submitted a paper on behalf of my organisation challenging the right of this committee to draw up a general comment on a term not used in the carefully crafted wording of the Convention.

    We say in addition that the right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death, is protected in the bill of rights consisting of the UN Charter, the Universal declaration of Human Rights and the subsequently enacted Covenants and other legally binding Conventions.

    We also say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recognizes human rights during the entire pre-natal period of life.

    First the preamble of the CRC expressly says that children need rights while they are in the pre-natal period of their life-cycle and this follows on from the original 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child:

        "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

        * The CRC having used the term child in its preamble in respect of a human life before as well as after birth in Article 1 defines the word child as all "human beings" who are under 18 years of age (unless the State sets a lower age limit).
        * The right to health, in Article 24 is for the benefit of the child who is the rights holder under the convention and expressly gives children rights during the entire pre-natal period.
        * When Article 1 is read in the light of Article 24, "human being" covers children during the entire pre-natal period, that is to say, from conception onwards. Article 24 reads:

    1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest atainable standard of health …

    2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: …

    (d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal … health care for mothers." (Article 24; italics and underlining added.)

    The child is the right-holder of the right to pre-natal care, not the mother, according to the text of Article 24:  States Parties recognize the right of the child … to pre-natal … care.

        * The fact that the text says "pre-natal …health care for mothers" (emphasis added) does not convert the right into the right of the mother. By definition, pre-natal care is medical care that is delivered to the mother's body. The care to the child is delivered through actions directed at the mother's body.

          In other words, the child has the right to have health care given to his or her mother, for the purpose of ensuring the child's well-being.

    We also say that it is the duty of this committee to implement this Convention in accordance with the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which sets out interpretive norms for all treaties.

    Article 31 of the VCLT says:  "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose."
    In other words, attention must be paid to the actual text of the treaty and, as an aid to interpretation, to its surrounding context.

    We say that there is no such right as a right to abortion, no right to take innocent human life and there never can be such a right. We also call on this Committee to reject pressure from powerful international organizations, which derive huge financial benefit from the taking of human life.

    Finally we reiterate that this committee is not empowered to reinterpret the terms of the Convention and we further assert that there is no room for ideological crusades on the part of the Committee in attempting to expand the scope of the convention whilst ignoring the plight of the most vulnerable human beings, babies once conceived and awaiting birth.

Abortion industry feeling threatened

The nation's largest abortion provider is begging for funding -- and one pro-life activist sees a silver lining in that.

    

In the wake of a conservative tide brought on in the midterm elections, Planned Parenthood pressed its supporters to make an emergency donation as CEO Cecile Richards asked constituents to help fight against the "dangerous politicians who oppose women's health and the right to choose." But former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List is encouraged that Planned Parenthood feels threatened.

Marilyn Musgrave (former Colorado congresswoman)"I think they need to be concerned because I think the pro-life people of this country and pro-life leaders are moving forward every day, and I'm very encouraged that we have had a very successful election," she shares.

Republicans ushered in a large number of pro-life, pro-traditional marriage freshman officials on November 2, and Musgrave says the economic crisis is creating a turning point in the battle for the sanctity of life as taxpayers are revolting against the reckless spending of their hard-earned money.

"Americans are really disgusted with overspending in Washington, and I think that shines a bright light...on taxpayer dollars and what they are being used for," she suggests. "Americans do not want their tax dollars going to provide abortion."

The former congresswoman is excited to see that a majority of women and young people are choosing to take a stand for life in the midst of an administration with the most pro-abortion president. So she predicts the next election cycle will bring more pro-life individuals into the House and Senate, and it may even result in a pro-life president.

Contact: Becky Yeh
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 15, 2010

Fetal Stem Cell Human Treatment Trial for Stroke

    

There have been very bad results in the past using fetal neural cells to treat human maladies–particularly with Parkinson's disease.  But scientists still believe that fetal stem cells could hold promise for treating neurological conditions, and so after successful animal studies, researchers in the UK are conducting a human safety trial on using fetal stem cells as a treatment for stroke. From the story:

Doctors have injected stem cells into a man's brain as part of the world's first clinical trial of the cells in stroke patients. The former truck driver, who is in his 60s, was severely disabled by a stroke 18 months ago and requires continuous care from his wife. Doctors injected around two million cells into a healthy region of his brain called the putamen, close to where neurons were damaged by the stroke. They hope the injected cells will release chemicals that stimulate new brain cells and blood vessels to grow, while healing scar tissue and reducing inflammation.

What to make of this ethically?  It's difficult, but I don't believe using fetal tissue is inherently wrong.

For me, using human cadaver cells–when the cadaver was not killed for the purpose of obtaining those cells–is not the same morally as ending human life in order to obtain the material.  In other words, it is not using human life as an object, a mere natural resource.  In this regard, it seems no different than organ transplantation.  (We see the same issues presented in fetal cells used in the creation of some vaccines.)

Some will say that the fetal cells came from an abortion, and therefore, should never be used.  That charge is probably, but may not be, true.  It could have been from a miscarriage.  But the (im)morality of one act, it seems to me, should not be conflated with the morality of the other.

Assume you believe abortion is akin to murder and utterly unjustified.  Using that analogy, would you say that a murder victim's organs should not be transplanted?  If not, how is using the tissue of the aborted fetus different?  The two acts–cause of death and use of cadaver tissue–it seems to me,  are distinct.  Thus, one can support outlawing murder and abortion, and still accept the use of the cadaver body for beneficial purposes so long as the two events were transactionally unconnected.

Down the road though, we could see a different scenario.  Fetal farming, e.g., creating cloned fetuses and gestating them for the purpose of instrumental uses, is already being advocated in some circles.  That needs to be resisted at all measures.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 16, 2010

Pro-life Democrat Shuler vying to replace Pelosi as House minority leader

     

Pro-life Democrat North Carolina Congressman Heath Shuler announced on CNN yesterday he would challenge renown pro-abort Nancy Pelosi for the position of House Minority Leader:

    Well, obviously if she doesn't step aside then I'm fully aware, I'm going to press forward. You know, I can add and subtract pretty well. I don't have the numbers to be able to win, but I think it's a proven point for moderates and the Democrat Party that we have to be a big tent….

Shuler has acquired an 85% positive rating from National Right to Life. He voted against taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research,  supports the Hyde Amendment, and voted for the Stupak Amendment in Obamacare but against the final version that omitted the Stupak amendment.

One other reason to support Shuler? Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards is pushing to retain Pelosi. Richards knows Pelosi brings home the bacon.

The Republican in me wouldn't mind if Pelosi remains visible in the top spot. It could only help our party in 2012.

But the dominant pro-lifer in me knows Shuler would 1) control pro-aborts from pushing their agenda, even in the minority; and 2) grease the skids for pro-life measures. 

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: November 15, 2010

Krugman Wants 'Death Panels'

     

Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He said, "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes."
 
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
 
It was not necessary for Paul Krugman to "clarify" what he meant yesterday, but he took the opportunity to do so anyway on his blog. He wrote that "health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for—not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care." Indeed, he is calling for death panels. In fact, he even characterized his comments on "This Week" by saying that "the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on 'death panels and sales taxes.'" (My emphasis.)
 
Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning "death panels," almost all of them in a mocking tone. He has spoken of the "death panel smear"; the "death panel lie"; and the "death panel people" as being part of "the lunatic fringe." Similarly, there was a New York Times editorial in September that took to task "the cynical demagoguing about 'death panels.'" Two weeks ago Times columnist Maureen Dowd blasted those who engaged in "their loopy rants on death panels," and one week ago Times columnist Frank Rich talked about "fictions like 'death panels.'"
 
So it turns out that all along Krugman's ridicule was just a smoke screen: he's wanted death panels from the get-go. Whether he speaks for the editorial board, Dowd and Rich is not certain, but it's time for them to stop the antics and tell the public what they really believe. Krugman has. Catholics, especially the bishops, would love to see them all come clean.

Contact: Jeff Field
Source: The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
Publish Date: November 15, 2010

House's shift encourages pro-lifers

     

Dramatic gains in the mid-term election have given pro-life advocates hope they can advance favorable legislation through the U.S. House of Representatives in the next congressional session, though the Senate and White House likely still would stand as roadblocks to enactment.

At least 77 of the more than 90 new members of the House "are committed to defending the unborn," said the chamber's pro-life leader, Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, after the Nov. 2 balloting.

The result is "a net shift in the pro-life direction in the House of 40 to 55 votes, depending on the issue," said Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land and Smith described the House's makeup in 2011 in similar terms.

"This will undoubtedly be the most pro-life House since the Roe v. Wade decision," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe invalidated all state laws prohibiting abortion and, in combination with a companion decision titled Doe v. Bolton, effectively legalized the procedure for any reason throughout all stages of pregnancy.

Smith said in a written statement, "January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House EVER."

The chamber's huge swing to the pro-life side was "an unprecedented statement that voters reject taxpayer-funded abortion and want a more conservative, pro-life legislature moving forward," said Penny Nance, chief executive officer of Concerned Women for America.

The No. 1 legislative effort by pro-lifers in the next Congress probably will be a government-wide ban on federal funding and subsidies for abortion known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. The measure would expand the Hyde Amendment, which prevents funds from the Department of Health and Human Services from being used for most abortions.

The Republicans, who may gain as many as 65 House seats when winners are determined in the close races, endorsed the funding ban in their "Pledge to America" document introduced in September.

Smith, the chief sponsor of the bill in this Congress, has 183 cosponsors, with Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois the lead Democrat. The legislation also provides conscience protections for pro-life, health-care workers.

Other legislative targets for pro-lifers include defunding Planned Parenthood Federation of America and repealing the health-care reform law enacted in March.

Planned Parenthood is the country's leading abortion provider. Its affiliates performed more than 324,000 abortions in 2008, the latest year for which statistics are available. It received about $350 million in government grants and contracts during the 2007-08 financial year.

The health-care law has provisions that will enable health care plans that cover abortion to be subsidized.

The net gain for pro-lifers in the Senate -- four to seven votes, Johnson estimated in an analysis for the National Catholic Reporter -- is unlikely to produce victories for new pro-life legislation but could help protect existing pro-life policies, such as the ban on abortions in American military facilities. Republicans gained six seats in the Senate, but the Democratic caucus will still hold the advantage, 53-47.

If pro-life measures reach his desk, President Obama is expected to use his veto power.

Exit polls demonstrated the difference evangelical Christian voters made in electing pro-lifers to Congress, Land said.

"The exit polling shows that 29 percent of all the votes cast in this election were cast by born-again, evangelical conservatives, and they voted 78 percent for Republican candidates," Land said. "And 52 percent of the people who say they are sympathetic to the Tea Party identify as conservative evangelicals. Consequently, the vast percentage of these new congressmen is pro-life, and it will make a real difference when it comes to passing legislation to protect our unborn citizens."

Land cited results from polling by Public Opinion Strategies for the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

In a survey conducted by The Polling Co. and referred to by Johnson:

-- 30 percent of voters said abortion influenced them, and nearly 75 percent of these voters cast ballots for pro-life candidates.

-- 31 percent of voters said abortion funding in the new health-care law affected their vote, and 87 percent of these voters cast ballots for candidates who opposed the law.

Johnson wrote in his analysis, "The take-home lesson, for lawmakers in both parties, could hardly be clearer: If you vote against the pro-life position -- as defined by the mainstream pro-life groups -- on a major abortion-related public policy issue, you will be held accountable by a substantial bloc of the electorate."

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

Six pro-life heroes to split $600,000 award

         

The Gerard Health Foundation today made the much-anticipated announcement of the 2009-2010 winners of its Life Prizes award. The award is granted every year to six individuals or organizations that "have achieved significant progress in promoting the sanctity of human life and are working to protect and preserve it."

The first Life Prizes awards were presented at a ceremony in 2009. This year's winners of the $600,000 prize were chosen by a Selection Advisory Committee from 90 nominations submitted to the Foundation.   Members of this Committee include Richard Doerflinger of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Peggy Hartshorn of Heartbeat International; Kay Coles James of the Gloucester Institute; and Jack Willke of Life Issues Institute.

"We are pleased to present the second Life Prizes to such deserving recipients," stated Raymond Ruddy, President of the Gerard Health Foundation.  "These six winners are doing some of the pro-life movement's most important work, and it is right to celebrate their sacrifice and dedication.  Each of them is an example to follow and we look forward to their future accomplishments in the cause of life."

The $600,000 in prize money will be divided among the following six winners. Each name is followed by a description from Life Prizes for why that individual was selected by the committee:

- Jeanne Head – A force to be reckoned with at the United Nations, Jeanne Head left her career as an obstetrics nurse to fight for the protection of the most vulnerable members of the human family on the international stage. As UN Representative for National Right to Life Educational Trust and a Representative of the International Right to Life Federation, she debates the most politically powerful – from the Oval Office to members of the UN Security Council.

- Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network – In 2005, the world watched as a young woman with disabilities was deprived of food and water by order of a judge.  Her family has vowed to fight for the right to life of disabled and vulnerable men and women everywhere, and their Foundation has provided assistance to more than 1,000 families through a national network of resources, support, and medical facilities for the medically-dependent, persons with disabilities, and those incapacitated in life-threatening situations.

- Douglas Johnson – The indispensible man behind all of the greatest pro-life victories in Congress since Roe v. Wade is National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Doug Johnson.  His keen strategy and consummate research have served the pro-life movement from behind the scenes for three decades.

- Kristan Hawkins – Young people today are overwhelmingly pro-life, and Students for Life of America and its Executive Director Kristan Hawkins have taken a leading role in engaging young people across the country in pro-life efforts through innovative use of the internet and increasing Students for Life chapters by the hundreds.

- Reverend Alveda King – It is altogether fitting that the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. would become one of the most important leaders in the greatest civil rights battle of our day. As founder of King for America, Dr. Alveda King has been the public face of the pro-life movement in the African American community, speaking and advocating for years against abortion and especially the targeting of African Americans.

- Marie Smith – There is a global pro-abortion agenda and Marie Smith has made it her mission to identify, unite, and strategize with pro-life groups, lawmakers, and religious leaders to advance respect for life in law and policy.  Ms. Smith is the Director of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues, a non-partisan global outreach of Gospel of Life Ministries.

The awards will be presented at a ceremony held in Washington, DC on Saturday, January 22, 2011.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

ESCR Hype: Now They Will Cure the National Debt!

     

I thought I had heard it all in the ESCR debate.  That embryonic stem cells are the "only hope."  Wrong!  That they don't really come from embryos!  Junk biology.  That the reason they have not brought about the cures is they did not receive good funding because of Bush!  Wrong again.  In the USA alone, billions were spent on human ESCR between 2001 and 2008.

But I never thought that embryonic stem cell research would be sold as a cure for the national debt!  From a column by Don C. Reed at the Huffington Post:

    Reducing the national debt is perhaps the one issue everyone agrees on, even in the hyper-political swamp that is Washington today. Stem cell research may have a surprisingly large role to play in that battle…But here comes one more giant number, and it may be the key to everything: $1.65 trillion. This is the cost of caring for the chronically ill, those who suffer from diseases which are (at present) incurable. Three-fourths of every medical expense dollar goes to caring for our loved ones with incurable illness or injury — who are never going to get well. One hundred million Americans suffer disease and disability for which there is no remedy. We can keep them alive, but we cannot make them well. We just maintain them in their misery until they die. Cure is the only way to lessen medical expense. Every time we cure or alleviate a disease, we lessen the national debt, because we don't have to pay for those medical costs. When Jonas Salk ended polio with the Salk vaccine, he did more than save lives and ease suffering — he saved hundreds of billions of dollars for America.

    Without that vaccine, we would be paying an estimated one hundred billion dollars a year to care for the wretched sufferers of polio, in institutions or in iron lung. What if we could use embryonic stem cell therapies to cure even a percentage of another gigantic and ongoing expense — cardio-vascular disease?

This is so 2001!  ESCR is so far away from doing anything of the sort, and the difficulties in bringing treatments to the clinic–one human trial so far–are proving intractable.

Not so with adult stem cells.  They are already being used in treatments in human trials for heart disease.  Ditto other expensive conditions–spinal cord injury, MS, diabetes, fracture healing, repairing damaged corneas, etc.–and at lesser cost overall if the therapies work out.  They may also be used to prevent the need for hip replacements. Not only that, but cell reprogramming is forging along at a tremendous pace, and are already being used in drug testing. And that doesn't include non stem cell pioneering methods for regenerative treatments.

This is not to say that ESCR has no scientific value–the dispute is about ethics–but it is to say that I doubt that sector is from where most of the efficacious treatments will be coming. And they will not be the cure for the national debt. 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

Sarah Palin Warns ObamaCare ‘Biggest Advance’ of U.S. Abortion Industry

     

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told a massive crowd of pro-life advocates at a Dallas fundraiser that the new health care law passed by Congress in March would lead to an unprecedented expansion of abortion.

"The biggest advance of the abortion industry in America has been the passage of Obamacare," Palin said at Dallas's Majestic Theatre to a crowd of 800 people.

"It is even worse than what we had thought. The ramifications of this legislation are horrendous."

Palin was speaking at a fundraising event for Heroic Media, an organization that is seeking to bring down Dallas's abortion rates by connecting women in crisis with hopeful pro-life messages and resources through the media.

The Dallas Observer reports Heroic Media intends to launch a $632,000 media campaign in the area for Spring 2011.

Heroic Media claims that in previous markets where they have launched their pro-life ad campaigns the abortion rate has dropped as much as 24 percent.

Palin, a GOP political icon admired by many Tea Party conservatives, said President Obama's executive order was insufficient to stop the law's expansion of the abortion industry. She cited the abortion mandates discovered by the National Right to Life Committee in some state plans for high-risk insurance pools as an example.

Palin also encouraged the new Congress to repeal or defund the national health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, which she called the "mother of all unfunded mandates."

The former governor also told the audience about her own personal pro-life convictions, and described herself as "unapologetically pro-life." She also said the experiences of giving birth to a child diagnosed with Down syndrome, and having a 17-year-old unmarried pregnant daughter, actually reinforced those convictions.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

NRLC Analysis -- Voters Rebuked 'Pro-life' Supporters of Obama Health Care Law

    

In an analysis solicited by a blogger for the National Catholic Reporter and posted on that paper's website yesterday, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Legislative Director Douglas Johnson asserts that last week's election results represent a strong repudiation of lawmakers who voted for the health care law enacted last March, and discredit the attempts of certain organizations to whitewash the pro-abortion components of that bill.

Hiding behind a hollow executive order signed by President Obama (which, as Johnson points out, even "the president of Planned Parenthood accurately dismissed as 'a symbolic gesture'), two organizations in particular -- Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) and Catholics United -- attempted to provide political cover for a group of Democrat "pro-life" lawmakers who flip-flopped and provided the votes that allowed the law to be enacted without effective pro-life language.  As Johnson writes, the electorate was not fooled: "The bloc of Democrats who abandoned the pro-life movement to satisfy President Obama and Speaker Pelosi suffered severe losses. In all, at least a dozen House incumbents who had taken high-profile stands against federal funding of abortion, but who ended up voting for the health care law, were defeated by pro-life challengers (or, in Stupak's case, suddenly retired)."  He also notes that, "[f]ar greater losses were sustained among the ranks of House Democrats who had seldom or never voted pro-life: upwards of 40 were replaced by firmly pro-life Republicans."

Johnson also points to a post-election poll conducted for National Right to Life by the Polling Company which asked: "'Did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?'  31% of voters responded in the affirmative -- 27% who said they voted "for candidates who opposed the health care law," and 4% who said they voted "for candidates who favored the health care law." In other words, 87% of the voters who said the issue mattered, voted in accord with the NRLC position."

Johnson wrote, "The election results were good in the Senate, as well, where the net shift in the pro-life direction will be from four to seven votes, depending on the issue. No senator is being replaced by a successor who has a weaker position on abortion. . . . "

Click here for the full text of Mr. Johnson's analysis can be found on the National Catholic Reporter blog of Michael Sean Winters. 

Contact: Jessica Rodgers
Source: National Right to Life Committee
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

Planned Parenthood Got $349.6 Million in Tax Dollars, Performed 324,008 Abortions, Paid Its President $385,163

    

Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2008, and it paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.

According to a "fact sheet" published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.

Planned Parenthood's fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.

The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization's fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the group's publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.
Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization's fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization's Form 990 for that year.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards' compensation.
In January 2009, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers that receive taxpayer funding. His bill, H.R. 614, would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit "providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs an abortion."

"Congressman Pence will continue to fight for the unborn and intends to reintroduce his legislation to defund Planned Parenthood this coming Congress," Mary Vought, press secretary for the House Republican Congress, told CNSNews.com.

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Jan. 21, 2009 where it has since languished.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

Planned Parenthood Says Graphic Sex Guide for Youth is a Best Seller

    

The world's leading abortion provider is continuing to promote a graphic brochure advocating casual sex among youth. According to International Planned Parenthood Federation, the brochure called "Healthy, Happy and Hot" has become their most popular publication.

Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.

"Some people like to have aggressive sex," says the brochure.  "There is no right or wrong way to have sex."    It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to "plan ahead by bringing condoms."  Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies. 

The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics.  "You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians."

The brochure criticizes countries with laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners.  Such laws violate the rights of people living with HIV, the pamphlet argues.

Planned Parenthood also distributed the brochure in August at the World Youth Conference in Leon, Mexico.

Originally published in January of this year, "Healthy, Happy and Hot" is now available in a Russian translation.  Russia has the second-highest rate of HIV in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, according to USAID.

The Regional President of Planned Parenthood in Europe is Dr. Elena Dmitrieva, a Russian national who also directs the Healthy Russia Foundation.  Funded by the United States through USAID, the foundation sponsors an ongoing health project there.  Healthy Russia 2020 promotes HIV/AIDS prevention and contraception among youth and other vulnerable populations in Russia.  Its self-proclaimed healthy lifestyles program for youth targets people aged 13-19.

Nearly $77 million in US taxpayer dollars went to programs in Russia in 2008, according to USAID's website.  Part of this $77 million enabled family planning and reproductive health messages to reach more than 25,000 Russians.

This comes despite Russia suffering from a demographic crisis.  The UN predicts that Russia's population will fall by 23 million over the next 40 years.  In response, President Vladimir Putin recently offered $11,000 to reward families who have at least two children.

As C-Fam's Friday Fax reported earlier this year, a Mormon mother spotted the brochure at a closed-door, girls-only meeting sponsored by Girl Scouts USA at UN headquarters in New York. Since then, Girl Scout chapters around the United States have been roiled in a debate about the connections between Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. Girl Scouts USA refuses to denounce the brochure and denies the brochure was in the UN room where the young girls met.

This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org

Contact: Seana Cranston, J.D.
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

Survivors training pro-life generation

    
A former trainee at a pro-life group's training camp explains how the two-week event helped him learn how to be an effective pro-life warrior.
 
Josh Devine and his wife, Elizabeth, both took part in the Survivors ProLife Training and Activist program in Los Angeles this past June. The annual event is sponsored by Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

"We went through training, which basically prepared us to answer difficult questions, prepared us to dialogue with pro-aborts and basically just prepared us to hold demonstrations," Josh Devine explains.

All participants were informed of what they are allowed to do legally, and demonstrations were held every day at abortion clinics and at the embryonic stem-cell research facility at the University of California at Irvine. After seeing that babies' lives were being saved because of the group's work, Devine decided to begin plans to set up a pro-life group that will work with pregnancy centers.

"We want them to make the right decision, so we want to be there as a resource," he shares. "We want to be there spreading awareness, showing what abortion actually looks like, and that's how we're going to utilize what we learned at Survivors."

Devine encourages other young people to participate in the training, then carry the pro-life message forward, because he believes they are part of the generation that can make a difference.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

Report: ‘Real Reform’ at Chicago CCHD Being Dismantled

     

Facing pressure from the old guard at the local and national level, the Chicago branch of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development has begun dismantling the "real reform" that earned it so much praise from pro-life groups in the summer.

"Despite the attempts made by some well-intentioned individuals in the Archdiocese of Chicago's CCHD, the powers-that-be at the USCCB and some local bishops and priests have plans to return to the national CCHD's guidelines with this program," said former Chicago CCHD director Rey Flores. Flores, among others, had initiated the reforms with the initial blessing of Cardinal Francis George.

But a cadre of liberal priests, led by Fr. Larry Dowling, has been calling on the cardinal to reverse the reforms, which included approving grants for the life-saving work of crisis pregnancy centers.  As reported by Catholic World News, Dowling claimed in a recent letter, for example, that it is insulting for grantees to be asked whether they advocate for abortion or same-sex "marriage."

The same group of priests, who sought the removal of Flores last March, were recently also targeting Flores' former boss, Office of Peace and Justice Director Nicholas Lund-Molfese.

"People really need to keep the CCHD program in their prayers, especially the Chicago CCHD staff, priests and bishops," said Flores, who lost his position in the fall.

Under Flores' leadership, Chicago's CCHD had committed to defunding any group opposing Catholic teaching, particularly on life and family issues, as well as funding groups such as crisis pregnancy centres and the Pro-Life Action League, contrary to previous CCHD practice.

The former director told LSN that the rationale for funding such groups, and for ensuring that grantees are in line with Church teaching on life and family issues, is that "the lack of respect for the sanctity of life and the destruction of the necessary societal institutions of traditional marriage and family are the major reason for the moral, physical and spiritual poverty we suffer in the western world."

Cardinal George – under the recommendations of Auxiliary Bishop Francis Kane, who serves on the U.S. Bishops' CCHD subcommittee – has agreed to recommit the diocese to CCHD's long-time policy of not funding groups that offer direct service to the poor, and will also require again that grantees' boards be mostly composed of low-income people.

The Chicago reforms, which were held up by pro-life groups as a model for the nationwide organization, were especially significant because Chicago is where CCHD began and their collection still brings in the most funds of any diocese every year.

"For a brief moment in Chicago, we had everyone on the same page," said Flores. "It was awesome to teach people on the social justice side of things about the value of respect life causes as being social justice issues and teaching the respect life warriors about the God-given human dignity of immigrants and workers. I pray that these efforts were not in vain."

"It's sad that the unborn and the innocent poor must suffer because of our misunderstanding of what true social Catholic justice is as Jesus Christ taught us," he added, saying, "We must never sacrifice our Catholic faith and values for secular humanitarian causes."

LifeSiteNews was refused an interview with Lund-Molfese to ask about the status of future funding to pro-life groups.  According to Susan Burritt, the diocese's media relations director, "There has been no change in the policy of the Archdiocese of Chicago regarding groups eligible for CCHD funding.  Reports to the contrary are mistaken."

"While we certainly pray that the new leaders of Chicago's CCHD have the courage to continue Rey Flores' excellent reform effort, it sounds like they're returning to business as usual," said Michael Hichborn, American Life League's lead researcher on the CCHD. "Given the push to remove Flores from his post by a member of the CCHD's subcommittee, one has to wonder just how committed to reform the National CCHD office really is."

"We really commend Rey for his courage and fidelity to the Church for working so hard to make these reforms as the CCHD director," said Hichborn.  "But the strength and courage it took to go public with what really happened is a sign of his deep faith in Christ."

Contact Information:

Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago
PO Box 1979
Chicago, IL. 60690-1979
Phone: 312-534-8230
Fax: 312-534-6379
E-Mail: archbishop@archchicago.org

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

'Hush Hush' E-Mail Reveals Back-Room Deal to Ignore Illegal Abortions in North Dakota

    
Operation Rescue has learned through an intercepted secret e-mail that the North Dakota State Board of Medical Examiners (NDBME) has notified the Red River Women's Clinic, the only abortion clinic in North Dakota, that the license of abortionist Lori Lynn Holst Thorndike has been restored and is currently in "Active-Unconditioned" status in spite of her operating illegally without an active medical license in that state since June 30, 2010.
 
This news particularly shocked pro-life activists at Operation Rescue and at local pro-life offices because there had been some indication given by the NDBME that a decision would not be made until the Board met on November 19, 2010.
 
The NDBME has attempted to downplay Thorndike's lack of active licensure by indicating that it was an "administrative oversight."
 
"It's unbelievable that the Board would decide to overlook clear criminal activity and make a back-room deal to restore Thorndike's license while leading pro-life supporters to believe that they are still looking into the matter," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "If that's true, that's a dishonest and unethical way to deal with the concerned public."
 
Tammi Kromenaker, Director of the Red River Women's Clinic, expressed relief at the news in a secret e-mail sent to supporters. She told her readers to "keep it hush hush" until after the NDMBE meeting scheduled for November 19th. Referring to the reinstatement of Thorndike's license, Kromenaker wrote, "Whew!...This pretty much made my month [two smile face icons]. We are pretty happy around here & doing some happy dances." Kromenaker included an attachment from the NDBME web site showing Thorndike's newly restored license status.
 
North Dakota law is specific that only licensed physicians may legally do abortions. It is a Class B Felony to commit abortions without a license in that state.
Even the NDBME Executive Secretary Duane Houdek admits that Thorndike operated without a valid medical license. "It could be that she practiced once or twice," Houdek told the local newspaper on October 30, 2010.

The NDBME web site had showed that Thorndike's license status was "Inactive - Expired." Then yesterday, a week and a half before NDBME officials announced they would make a decision, Thorndike's license now appears in good standing.

"While the Board may be trying to sweep this illegal abortion scandal under the rug, there can be no doubt that crimes have been committed. The Attorney General still has yet to decide if criminal charges should be filed," said Newman. "It is time for the public to let the Board know that their protection of illegal abortion activity is unconscionable and to remind the Attorney General that it is his duty to enforce North Dakota laws."

Contact: Troy Newman, President
Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

‘Cheaper Than Free’ Birth Control Spells C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N

    

Next week, an independent agency and a team of "experts" will meet to discuss the issue of contraception and will advise the government about whether contraception should be considered preventive health care. Should this group determine that it is, millions of women could be receiving abortifacients at taxpayers' expense.

Unless there is a loud outcry from the American people, all prescription birth control will very likely be listed as preventive health care under the Obama administration's health care reform act by August of next year—leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill for billions more dollars that will flow into Planned Parenthood's bottomless money pit to pay for deadly concoctions that are neither "preventive" nor "health care."

And, according to the philosophy of the leader of the Institute of Medicine, the non-governmental agency advising the government on this matter, it could result in health care incentives being given to those who use birth control -- incentives that are not available to those who spurn it.

In an e-mail from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in March following the adoption of Obamacare, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards wrote, "Anti-family-planning groups will no doubt try to keep the Women's Health Amendment from covering family planning services. But family planning is preventive health care. … The administration must include all forms of contraception as part of the preventive health care covered under the new law—and it's up to us to make it happen."

To facilitate forcing its agenda down our throats, Planned Parenthood has launched its "Birth Control Matters" campaign, seeking one million signatures on a petition being circulated on college campuses and elsewhere to "make prescription birth control available to every woman without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs…"

Despite all its empty, deceptive rhetoric about expanding health coverage to the poor, Planned Parenthood, in all its diabolic wisdom, realizes something most Americans don't: If it succeeds in getting birth control on the list of preventive services in the health care reform law, not only will new health insurance plans be required to fully cover the cost, but state Medicaid programs will be required de facto to cover the full cost of even the most expensive, invasive forms of birth control, such as implants and IUDs, to millions of women with incomes well above poverty level, providing an instant pot of gold for the abortion and birth control mogul.

For years, Planned Parenthood has been trying to force all health care plans to pay for birth control, to force pharmacists to dispense abortifacient birth control despite conscientious objection, and to force all emergency rooms, including those operated by Catholic hospitals, to dispense abortifacient "emergency contraception."

In 2007, Planned Parenthood touted its Prevention First campaign, also known as the Medicaid Family Planning Option, to try to force its will on those who objected. But when it was dropped from President Obama's stimulus package, Planned Parenthood responded, "We are working with members of Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that the provision is sent to the president in the next possible vehicle."

The abortion mammoth soon found that vehicle with the help of Senator Barbara Mikulski who succeeded in incorporating the so-called "Women's Health Amendment" into the Obama administration's health care takeover. While Mikulski managed to keep the focus of discussion about the amendment on free mammograms, she cleared the way for the listing of anything that HHS, headed by notorious abortion supporter Kathleen Sebelius, decided to list as preventive care.

A "panel of experts" will be convened this month to advise Sebelius on what should be considered preventive care.

That panel will be convened by the Institute of Medicine, whose president, Harvey Fineberg, stated in his October 2009 annual address, Health Reform Beyond Health Insurance, that a great way to remedy the current crisis in health care coverage is to require employees to pay tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance—not suddenly, so as to rile the peasants, but gradually, over a period of years.

According to Fineberg, this would "generate hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenues to ease the public burden of health costs."

This gradual taxing is akin to placing a frog in warm water and slowly turning up the heat so he never notices he's being boiled to death. The American taxpayer must be alert so he does not become that frog.

And on the subject of preventive care Fineberg stated, "I want prevention to be cheaper than free," insinuating that incentives will also be provided. "We should reward individuals with insurance reductions, with access to additional services, and with outright bonuses for doing the right thing for their health," he said.

Taking that to the next logical step, it is easy to foresee that those who use free birth control will receive reductions in the cost of health insurance, access to services those who choose not to contracept cannot access, and other "bonuses" not afforded those who spurn birth control.

The National Academies, which encompasses the Institute of Medicine, was set up by President Lincoln as a non-governmental agency to advise the government on matters of science and technology, and is funded almost entirely by tax dollars. We must send a loud, clear, message to the Institute of Medicine and to our members of Congress that we will not tolerate paying billions of tax-generated dollars to provide free prescription birth control.

The first meeting of the "panel of experts" convened by the National Institute of Medicine will take place on Nov. 16. Please act today to insist that the American taxpayer is not forced to pay the enormous bill and suffer the consequences of "free" or—God forbid—"cheaper than free" birth control.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 12, 2010

NRLC Sets December 7 as Date for State Strategy Conference

   
 
Of course it was huge news last week that the GOP made tremendous gains in Congress, but those election results seem to have drown out an even more impressive wave in state legislatures. Republicans picked up 680 seats which is the largest ever for them. The only other turnover that comes close was the 1974 elections following the Watergate scandal in which Democrats picked up 628 seats in state legislatures.

This is of vital importance to pro-lifers because chances of passing pro-life legislation are dead in the water in legislatures controlled by pro-abortion Democrats. There are a total of 99 state-level chambers [houses and senates]. After the mid-term elections, the GOP has majorities in 58. For some states, this is the first time the GOP has had control of both chambers.

Thus it is immensely important to maintain focus and coordination to ensure that the pro-life movement capitalizes on these conditions to advance the cause. National Right to Life announced yesterday a state legislative strategy conference to be held in the Washington, D.C., area on December 7 (www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov10/nv110910.html). The short advance notice suggests just how urgent both the subject matter and the opportunities are.

With the news out only one day, we have already received a tremendous response through our state offices. Pro-life lawmakers are eager to discuss legislation like Nebraska's "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" bills to ensure that women contemplating abortion can see ultrasound of their unborn children, bills to "opt-out" of abortion coverage in state insurance exchanges mandated by the new Obama Health Care Law, and many others.

These kinds of meetings have always yielded positive results in the past ensuring the protection of unborn children. Is it exciting to know we have so much hard work ahead of us.

Contact: Luis Zaffirini
Source: NRLC

How Dare You Compare Abortion to the Holocaust or Slavery?

    

I have heard many people cry foul whenever any pro-lifer uses the Jewish Holocaust or slavery in America as a comparison to abortion. Many times at my talks someone will scold me during question-and-answer time, claiming to be offended that I would use such a comparison.

The problem they have is not really the fact that a comparison is being made to one of these horrific tragedies; after all, we build museums, memorials and reminders of what happened to make sure something like the Jewish Holocaust will never happen again. The problem really is that we have elevated what they consider to be a blob of tissue to personhood status.

If comparison in and of itself were the problem, then we would not go to such great lengths to educate society about what happened. The reason places like Auschwitz are open for the public is to guarantee that we understand the horror of what took place in the death camps.

This is precisely the reason we use such imagery. We want to the world to understand that what makes us so sick about Jewish Holocaust is precisely what makes us sick about the Abortion Holocaust. We talk about the Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision because we want people to see that Roe v. Wade is just as despicable.

The same reason these people are so upset about pro-lifers using these comparisons is the very reason we use them: personhood. We have a duty to use the tools that history has given us to educate future generations about the bloodshed that has already destroyed the lives of over 52,000,000 innocent American baby boys and girls.

Dred Scott declared that human persons with black skin were not actually human persons, but only 3/5 human. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis decided that human persons who were of Jewish heritage were not actually human persons, but some kind of pest or rodent that needed exterminating. Roe v. Wade pronounced that human persons who were in the first nine months of their human development were not human persons unless their mother decided they were.

How can we not have learned our lessons about trying to redefine personhood? How is it that we still have audacity to play God and strip away personhood rights from another group of people, this time simply because of their age?

We know that skin color does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human no matter what shade their skin is. We know that nationality does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human not matter where they come from. We should also know that age does not determine the personhood of a human being; they are human from the moment they start living until the day they die.

Some try to claim that a human being does not start living until nine months after his or her development starts, which really does not make any sense at all. From the very second the development of a human being starts, the thing developing is a human being. These human persons cannot suddenly become another species; they remain human beings throughout their development. That development starts the moment the sperm and egg unite and ends when that human person dies. From zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teen, adult to senior, the human being cycles through different stages of his or her life, until natural death.

The fact is these comparisons have to be made in order to show the full scope of the tragedy that took place on January 22, 1973. I would argue that we should be offended if we don't compare these events and use these historical tools to show the world the truth about the Abortion Holocaust.

It is obvious that we have not yet learned from the unthinkable acts of human destruction in history and the ignorance that led to such devastation. We are obligated to take these lessons and teach people the truth in hopes we can end the plague of child killing that is abortion.

I would go as far as saying, "How dare we not compare the Abortion Holocaust to the American Slave Trade, the Jewish Holocaust or any other catastrophic evil in history?"

This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from bryankemper.com

Contact: Bryan Kemper
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Cord Blood Stem Cells Significantly Improved Cerebral Palsy Symptoms Claim Parents

    

The condition of a 3-year–old child with cerebral palsy in the UK has been significantly improved after treatment with stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, stored when he was born, the Daily Mail reported Monday. Sasha Browne is thought to be the first British child to be injected with cord blood cells and her parents are reporting that her condition has significantly improved.

Tania and Richard Browne told media that the treatment their daughter received at an unregulated clinic in France has improved her motor control, her ability to speak and her vision.

Mrs. Browne said, "Her walking is streets ahead of what it was before; look at her hand - last time I saw her hand it was really closed and now it is moving more."

"We feel there has been some general improvement in her motor skills and perhaps some improvement in her vision and cognitive ability.

"We can't categorically say this is attributable to the stem cell infusion. However, we and Sasha's therapist feel the improvement has potentially been at a faster rate than it may have occurred, or in comparison with other children with similar abilities."

In the last ten years, leading stem cell scientists have lauded the value of blood taken from the umbilical cord as one of the richest sources of stem cells in the human body. While funding continues to pour in to research using cells derived from human embryos, cord blood research is slowly gaining acceptance as an ethical alternative that is saving lives and curing illnesses.

Professor Colin McGuckin, president and director of the Cell Therapy Research Institute in Lyon, France, recently told Modern Medicare magazine, "Around 20 years ago, only a handful of diseases were being treated with umbilical cord blood stem cells. With the advancement in this field in recent times now over 80 diseases can be treated or supported with stem cells. The advances that have been made are staggering."

In related news, new research has shown a link between the use of IVF for conception and increased risk of cerebral palsy in the child. Researchers at the University of Aarhus in Denmark found that babies born by IVF were more than twice as likely to have cerebral palsy as those conceived naturally.

The journal Human Reproduction reported that the risk was still elevated when the figures were adjusted to account for other factors such as the mother's smoking, or her age.

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Minnesota Judge Refuses to Dismiss Case against Online Suicide Predator

    

A Minnesota judge has rejected a request to dismiss two felony charges against suicide predator William Melchert-Dinkel on Tuesday, preparing the way for the case to go to trial – a decision that a prominent anti-euthanasia activist has welcomed as a sign that "sanity is prevailing."

Melchert-Dinkel, 48, a former Minnesota nurse who admitted to participating in online chats with 15 to 20 people about suicide, and entering into fake suicide pacts with about 10 people, was charged in April with two counts of aiding suicide in the 2005 hanging death of Mark Drybrough, 32, of Conventry, England, and the 2008 drowning of Carlton University student Nadia Kajouji, 18, of Brampton, Ontario.

Kajouji jumped into the freezing Rideau River in early March 2008. It was later revealed that she had been in conversation in an internet chat group with Melchert-Dinkel, who had been posing as a teenage girl. The man had allegedly urged Kajouji to hang herself in front of a webcam so others could watch and promised he would die with her.

In October, Melchert-Dinkel's defense attorney, Terry Watkins, filed written arguments with the court that sought to have the two charges dropped on free speech grounds.

In the document, Watkins argued that the online communications Melchert-Dinkel used when providing suicide advice was a form of constitutionally protected speech, and that the Minnesota statute criminalizing speech assisting suicide is unconstitutionally vague.

In his decision, Judge Neuville said that the protection of free speech does not extend to online speech that encourages activities that are defined as criminal offenses by state statute.

Minnesota State Statute states that, "Whoever intentionally advises, encourages or assists another in taking the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both."

"It is unquestioned that the state has a compelling interest to protect and preserve life. Prohibiting persons from advising, encouraging, or aiding others to take their own life furthers the State's interest in protecting and preserving life," Judge Neuville wrote.

"[The statute] does not prevent people from expressing opinions or discussing suicide. Rather, the statute only criminalizes a narrow and precise type of speech, i.e., speech that intentionally and directly advises, encourages, or aids a specific person to end their own life. Thus, speech that directly encourages and imminently incites the act of suicide ... falls outside the protection of the First Amendment."

In response to Watkins' argument that the Minnesota statute criminalizing speech assisting suicide is unconstitutionally vague, Judge Neuville wrote that the statute "is definitive enough to allow an ordinary person to know what conduct it prohibits ... and it is not written in a way that encourages discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the Court finds that [the statute] is not unconstitutionally vague according to the Constitutions of Minnesota and the United States."

Alex Schadenberg, the chairman of the euthanasia prevention coalition, said that, "William Melchert-Dinkel should be prosecuted and sentenced as if he were sitting with Nadia Kajouji and encouraging or counseling her to commit suicide," and welcomed the judge's ruling as a sign that "sanity is prevailing."

Schadenberg observed that Melchert-Dinkel "is not the only one who is perpetrating these crimes for their own sick gains upon depressed and vulnerable people," and said that the law must deal with internet suicide predators.

"Melchert-Dinkel committed a heinous crime when he took advantage of Kajouji, a depressed first year student at Carlton University, and convinced her that suicide was the best course of action.

"It is the same as pushing a person off a cliff," Schadenberg stated.

Melchert-Dinkel has entered a preliminary plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial. The next court hearing is set for November 19.

Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

Pro-lifers want legislative results

    

As federal funding for abortion was a campaign issue leading up to the recent midterm elections, a pro-life group thinks it is time for the winners to deliver on their promise to block the use of tax dollars for that purpose.
 
Many pro-life women and men won federal office during the elections earlier this month, while some of those who professed to be pro-life, but voted for ObamaCare's federal funding of abortion, lost their positions. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, decides that "large numbers of representatives learned the consequences of their vote for taxpayer funding of abortion in the healthcare bill when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed."

Former Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, who headed the "Votes Have Consequences" campaign for the SBA List, recognizes that her group "had great success," but she says it is now time to claim "some legislative victory."

She explains that the SBA List has two legislative priorities. The first is to see the passage of H.R. 5939, which is also known as the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. That will make the Hyde Amendment permanent and repeal abortion funding in ObamaCare. According to Musgrave, this effort is being "championed" in Congress by "authentic" pro-life Democrat Dan Lipinski of Illinois, who is joined by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) and 160 other sponsors.

 A second critical bill is the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which is sponsored by Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN). That measure would stop tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider.

So while elected officials are working for the passage of these bills, the SBA List spokesperson is encouraging concerned citizens to express their pro-life suggestions at StopAbortionFunding.com.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 11, 2010

Pro-Life President Bush's Interview with Matt Lauer

    
 
When you've had great pro-life Presidents, it reminds you (a) the distance between them and pro-abortion President Barack Obama, and (b) of how much they did for the cause of life.

President George W. Bush was a great credit to our Movement, and stood tall when others would have folded. He has a new book out, "Decision Points," which I will begin reading tonight.

But like many of you, I saw his interview with NBC's Matt Lauer in which he talked for the first time about the miscarriage his mother suffered when Bush was only a teenager.

Bush tells us that he had asked his mother for permission to include what Lauer describes aptly as a poignant story" in the book, and would not have without Barbara Bush's agreement. Lauer notes it would be "impossible not to draw parallels between that moment when you said that was a little brother or sister and your views on life and when it begins."

"No question that it affected me, my philosophy, that we should respect life, Mr. Bush responds. "I was a prolife president."

The following are the paragraphs in the book that deal with this, courtesy of ABC News website, with a word of attribution or two added by ABC's Susan Donaldson James.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One day, shortly after I learned to drive and while dad was away on a business trip, Mother called me in to her bedroom," he writes. "There was an urgency in her voice. She told me to drive her to the hospital immediately. I asked her what was wrong, She said she would tell me in the car.

"As I pulled out of the driveway, she told me to drive steadily and avoid bumps. Then she said she had just had a miscarriage. I was taken aback. This was a subject I never expected to be discussing with Mother. I also never expected to see the remains of a fetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital. I remember thinking: There was a human life, a little brother or sister.

"Mother checked herself in to the hospital and was taken to an exam room. I paced up and down the hallway to steady my nerves. After I passed an older woman several times, she said, 'Don't worry honey, your wife will be just fine.'

"When I was allowed into Mother's room, the doctor said she would be all right, but she needed to spend the night. I told mother what the woman had said to me in the hall. She laughed one of her great strong laughs and I went home feeling much better."

The next day, when the future president picked her up, she thanked him for being so "careful and responsible." His mother also told him not to tell anyone about the miscarriage, which she felt was a "private family matter."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me make two points. First, after the Lauer interview Mr. Bush told ABC News, "I had no intention of creating a national dialogue [on miscarriages]." Yet just by scanning the Internet, you learn that it is clear that his recollection initiated a lot of conversation about just how intensely personal and tragic the unintentional loss of baby can be.

Second, even though Mr. Bush said the primary point of relaying the story in his book was to "help the reader understand why my mother and I are so close," it tells us a lot about him and has wider application to the rest of us.

We can more perfectly understand the beauty and complexity of preborn children through ultrasound. Elsewhere in the book, Mr. Bush writes,

"When I saw [his twin daughters] Barbara and Jenna on the sonogram for the first time, there was no doubt in my mind that they were distinct and alive."

But in a miscarriage we are also reminded how fragile the unborn child is.

In both cases, the lesson is the same one drawn by President Bush in the very next sentence:

"The fact that they could not speak for themselves only enhanced society's duty to defend them."

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 10, 2010

A Post Mortem of Illinois Elections

Some rambling thoughts on why we had minimal gains in Illinois, while there was a major landslide across the nation. The first thought that comes to mind is that the Democrats and their allies like Personal PAC framed the candidates. One has to ask why did the candidates allow that to happen? After all, Personal PAC has been sending nasty mailers in elections for many years. This year was no different. The Republican candidate for Governor was framed as a women hater, one that would even put abortive women in jail. After all, he voted against a mammogram bill that would save women's lives. Probably, worst of all, he didn't like equal pay for equal work. Even a rookie working a campaign knows those were all lies. No abortive woman would ever be put in jail. That is not what the pro-life movement is all about. There's already federal and state laws on the books that mandate equal pay for equal work. As far as mammograms, the vote was not against women, it was simply a vote not to require all insurance companies to cover this procedure. The vote was against government mandates, not women. So, that being said, why didn't the campaign frame the response to Personal PAC's attack. On the other hand, did the pro-life movement as a whole counter Personal PAC's accusations? Personal PAC has been the cause of many conservative candidates losses. Surely the candidates and the movement can counter some of these anticipated accusations before they are made. In other words, did we fail to frame the issue, thereby allowing the other side to frame the issue? As a pro-life movement, have we educated enough? The answer is clear. If a majority of women believe Personal PAC's accusations, the answer is obviously no. The next question comes to mind. What more could we do and why don't people know the truth? I personally don't think the pro-life movement has made Illinois a Democratic state. The voters made it a Democratic state and they hide behind misinformation from various sources, rather than seeking the truth. How about the shepherds across denominational lines - where was the teaching on the sanctity of human life? Where was the teaching on the moral responsibility to vote and to inform ones conscience on the moral issues before voting? If I was a visitor from outer space visiting some churches, I might think they were a Democratic stronghold, rather than a house of God. In Lake County Illinois, there are 404,637 registered voters, however, only 205,507 voted, that's 50.86% of voters in each precinct. You have to be kidding! That is no way to be an American. So, who's to blame. You tell me. Source: Lake County Right to Life Publish Date: November 9, 2010

IVF highly ineffective, study reports

In vitro fertilization (IVF) -- regarded by some as a potential cure-all for infertile couples but controversial among some pro-lifers -- is a highly ineffective process, according to research reported by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Based on a study of IVF treatments from 2004-08, researchers with the Shady Grove Fertility Center in Maryland found the following results: -- 192,991 eggs were retrieved in 14,324 IVF cycles; -- 110,939 of the eggs were successfully fertilized; -- Only 44,282 proceeded to develop into viable embryos. -- Only 8,366 babies will be born from these embryos, and that is based on the premise that all the frozen embryos will be utilized. As a result, only 7.5 percent of the eggs that are fertilized become children born alive, ASRM reported Oct. 26. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Assisted suicide for couples promoted

Swiss euthanasia promoter Ludwig Minelli is calling for lethal prescriptions to be provided legally to the spouses and partners of terminally ill patients even when they are healthy. "A change in the law is required to give dementia sufferers and their families more opportunities," said Minelli, founder of the euthanasia clinic Dignitas in Zurich, according to a report in the Daily Mail in London. "The partner should be allowed to have a prescription for these drugs even when they are not terminally ill. "In such cases the partners are often a similar age and one does not want to remain without the other," Minelli said. Assisted suicide is "a marvelous possibility given to a human being," he said, according to the Daily Mail report Oct. 19. Zurich public prosecutor Andreas Brunner said of Minelli's recommendation, "In my view, no change in the law should be sought." Switzerland allows physician-assisted suicide for those with a terminal illness. Dignitas has become known internationally as a destination for those from other countries seeking aid in killing themselves. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. Assisted suicide involves a doctor prescribing but not administering the lethal drugs. In euthanasia, a physician administers the fatal dose. Contact: Tom Strode Source: Baptist Press Publish Date: November 9, 2010

Post-Abortive Women Report Continuing Distress Years Later

A small but fascinating study examines the feelings of menopausal women about their long-ago abortions, which occurred an average of 24 years earlier. British researchers extensively interviewed eight women about their experiences and published the results in the October 20 Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology.  "The work provides an insight into the very long-term consequences of this procedure for these participants," wrote Kathryn Dykes of Greater Manchester West Mental Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Pauline Slade of the University of Sheffield, and Annette Haywood of the NHS in Sheffield. "It is likely that women may benefit from the availability of post-[abortion] counselling services not necessarily just in the immediate aftermath, but at different points after the procedure." The researchers asked women participating in a menopause clinic to volunteer for the study. The eight women who agreed were interviewed for an average of one hour and asked detailed questions about their abortion experience and their feelings at the time and into the present. The interviews demonstrated several common themes experienced by the post-abortive women. These included a predominantly negative long-term emotional impact, the fear of judgment, greater inner strength and compassion for others, and the attempt to avoid thoughts about the abortion but being unable to forget it. The authors found that some women suffered from "cognitive dissonance," a psychological conflict that occurs when the person has two strong opposing feelings. "Women reported knowing that the [abortion] was 'the right thing to do,' but maintained a negative perspective of the self as 'bad' or 'guilty,'" they wrote. "This explains the inconsistency in some women's self-perceptions, for example split into 'good mother/person' and 'bad person who had [an abortion]' and apparent inability to integrate these opposing views. The justification and contradiction themes illustrate that memories have been 'blocked out' to such a degree that inconsistency remains unresolved." The impact of menopause--the ending of a woman's childbearing years--on attitudes toward prior abortion experiences was also a focus of the research. While most of the woman denied a direct association between menopause and thoughts about the abortion, the time of life did cause many to rethink the choices they made when younger and characterized their abortion as a "loss" that caused vulnerability and stress. The authors included many quotes from the women, identified only by their first names, that illustrate the conflicting feelings that they are experiencing as they grow older. "I wish I'd had the baby now, but my life's a lot happier," said Jenny. "I felt guilty, I thought some people could look at me and see that I were guilty, that I'd done something wrong … sometimes I wish I could not feel this, weight in my chest and this guilt that I feel," Elaine told the researchers. Tina described her attempts to forget the abortion and the negative feelings, but admitted that it is impossible. "Blocking them out and trying to get through things, doesn't work always and you don't realise how deep they are until you realise … they have sort of like had a knock-on effect in your life," she said. Some of the women went on to have more children, although others never did give birth. They all reported a sense of wistfulness and regret as time went on. "I could have had a daughter or a son, a little granddaughter, that's blood, you know, that's my own," said Barbara. Jenny said, "I've always thought of him … wondering how old he'd be, I do wonder about that child." Ann, who did not have more children, said she feels that her childless state is a consequence of her abortion. "I know it sounds a bit stupid but I feel as if it's like, is this my judgement? It's like, it's as if this is my punishment [no more children]," she said. Ann added, "It's haunted me to be honest, I'm ashamed, I think it's just something else I have to hate myself about." The authors call for more research into the long-term impact of abortion. Even decades after an abortion women are suffering psychological harm, and this fact needs to be supported by further study that takes into account their individual experiences. "It is likely that emotional response to [abortion] is complex and more in-depth and detailed understandings may be gained through using qualitative approaches which explore and reflect women's experiences in their own words, rather than in response to predetermined concepts and categories measured by questionnaires," they wrote. "Sound qualitative studies, within a UK setting, are required to fully understand any longer-term impact of living with a history of [abortion]." Contact: Liz Townsend Source: NRLC Publish Date: November 9, 2010