You'll be Amazed at How This Couple Announces Their New Baby in this Coke Ad

As many of you may know, Coke’s summer marketing campaign, launched in June, has people searching the soda displays at stores for their own personalized Coke bottles. According to a press release from the company, Coke bottles around the world have the 250 most popular names among teens and millennials.

 

 

One couple used these Coke bottles to make a very cute and clever video to announce their pregnancy.

 

Known only as the McGillicuddys, this young couple is seen drinking Diet Cokes and quickly realizing that their voices change according to the names on the cans.

 

They first swap each other’s voices. Then they go on to hilariously take on famous voices, varying from Morgan Freeman to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

Their voices finally come back to normal, and when they look at the cans to see why, their pregnancy is announced.

 

Such a creative and sweet way of announcing such an important event in their lives. Best of luck to the McGillicuddys and their baby on the way!

 

Click here to view the video

 

LifeNews.com, Steven Ertelt

LifeNews Note: This post originally appeared at Live Action News.

 

Planned Parenthood Does Abortions and Wastes $115 Million of Your Tax Dollars

You work hard for your money, and as a good, upstanding citizen, you pay your taxes, trusting that those dollars will be used to benefit the greater community. They should not be wasted. They should not be abused. And it’s reasonable to believe that any organization that benefits from those dollars should not be caught up in potential fraud.

But, if actions speak louder than words, that’s clearly not how Planned Parenthood sees it.

We recently released our Annual Report on Planned Parenthood Affiliates and State Family Planning Programs. So, what did we find?

A large number of federal and state audits have documented that improper practices from Planned Parenthood and state family planning agencies have resulted in a minimum of $115 million in losses to American taxpayers.

A minimum of $115 million…lost.

What else could those tax dollars have gone to? They could have been used to help the homeless, improve education, or support foster or adoptive families. Perhaps they could have been used to help the economy or support our veterans. Instead, they went to support waste, abuse, and potential fraud by Planned Parenthood and other state family planning programs.

Is that where you want part of your paycheck to go?

Much of Planned Parenthood’s potential fraud was found in their unlawful billing practices, including: duplicate billing for examinations and products, billing for services that weren’t medically necessary, billing for services that weren’t really provided, and more.

You read that right. In some circumstances, Planned Parenthood was paid for services they didn’t even provide! Could you imagine paying your doctor for an annual physical without him actually giving you an annual physical?

Ridiculous.

The potential fraud goes even deeper. As the report indicates:

·     “At Planned Parenthood of Southwest Michigan (PPSWMI), a May 2010 audit revealed bank statements accumulated for up to six months before being reconciled, and personal expenses such as household bills being paid as company expenses.”

·     “In Vermont, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England Action Fund agreed to pay a $30,000 fine to the Vermont Office of the Attorney General for failing to comply with political committee reporting requirements relating to $119,437 it spent in the 2010 gubernatorial election.”

·     “Planned Parenthood affiliates have also been fined or settled in cases involving wrongful death / medical malpractice, failure to report child sexual abuse and rape, and regulatory violations.”

These are just some of the stories. But, don’t just take it from me. You can read about it all in our annual report on Planned Parenthood.

Take Action

It’s time to hold Planned Parenthood accountable. We must investigate their plan.

Spread the word to your friends, family, and followers on social media. And be sure to contact your local congressman or senator to investigate Planned Parenthood for waste, abuse, and potential fraud.

Question: What other ways can $115 million be used to benefit society? Share in our comments section below.

LifeNews Note: Eric Porteous is Director of Digital Marketing for Alliance Defending Freedom

LifeNews.com by Eric Porteous

 

Amazing New "Pea Pod" Invention Helps Premature Babies Survive

Barbara Kozol, a Medford pediatric therapist, has invented a “pea pod” for preemie babies to assist them during the first month after their arrival. Most premature infants struggle through a unique set of challenges before leaving the hospital and require constant monitoring. One of obstacles they may face is the inability to experience healthy and complete bone growth. Sarah Lemon, a freelance writer, said the following in The Mail Tribune about bone growth and preemie babies:

“An increased risk of fracture accompanies preemies‘ poor bone growth and density, leading to diminished height as adults. Consequently, the past decade has seen providers focus on physical-activity programs for infants in neonatal intensive care to stimulate the skeletal system.”

However, inventions like Kozol’s peapod give preemies a greater chance of developing normally and in a comforting environment. The therapeutic pod is designed to imitate the secure, stretchy, and warm womb of a pregnant mother.

At the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and Special Care Nursery at Rogue Regional Medical Center in Oregon, Kozol is conducting a federally approved study of the pods’ affect on premature infants. The most recent recipient of the benefits of her invention is a little boy named Colton Shaw. Lemon describes Colton’s experience in the peapod this way: “Unless he is being handled by family or care providers, Colton resides 24 hours per day in the pea pod, where he pushes against the elastic material much as he did for 30 weeks in utero.”

She continues, “Pulling the pod’s hood up over Colton’s ears elicits a squall from the 3-pound, 5-ounce boy. But for the most part, the pod is a soothing mechanism as much as a therapeutic tool.”

The pod is an alternative to stimulation and joint compression that many pediatric therapists use to facilitate healthy bone growth. Although these therapies have positive outcomes, preemies are often irritated by the manipulation and unnecessary stress is put on the infant.

Additionally, Lemon said that the pod allowed Colton to stretch his limbs and strain against the confinement at his own pace and comfort level. “A month of this therapy is the goal of Kozol’s study, but some subjects do so well that the hospital discharges them from care before they can finish,” Lemon concluded.

This past year, 10 preemies have completed Kozol’s study, and many more are expected to be beneficiaries of the new pea pod.

LifeNews.com by Sarah Zagorski

The devastating reality of Post Abortion Stress Syndrome

 

She sat across from me, tears streaming down her face. The subject of abortion came up and this woman struggled to discuss it. ‘Emotionally damaging’ was the phrase she used to describe the procedure.

 

She thought about her child. She wondered how old he or she may be. As she reflected on her past she wrestled with feelings of regret. She admitted to choosing abortion without knowing all of the facts. She felt rushed into the decision, wishing now that she would have gathered more information before she decided.

 

This woman’s story is all too common. In the decade I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement I’ve heard similar tales. I met a woman who was so affected by her abortion that she couldn’t talk about it for 20 years.

 

Another lady shared a chilling story of using the RU-486 pill and the absolute horror she faced witnessing her unborn baby pass. I remember the African-American woman who pulled me aside and whispered her confession. The pain of her choice etched upon her face.

 

Susanne Babbel is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist who has a P.H.D in Psychology. She is also a psychotherapist with an emphasis on trauma and depression. In an article for ‘Psychology Today’ titled, ‘Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS) – Does It Exist?’ she writes: ‘No matter your philosophical, religious, or political views on abortion, the fact of the matter is, the actual experience can affect women not only on a personal level but can potentially have psychological repercussions.’

 

Babbel refers to this as Post Abortion Stress Syndrome. (PASS) is based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD). It’s the name given to the psychological aftereffects of abortion. Babbel notes that the disorder is real, although the term has not been recognized by the American Psychological Association.

Sadly those who support abortion often refuse to acknowledge that long term negative effects that it can bring to many women. The National Abortion Federation calls (PASS) a ‘myth‘ and the popular liberal Ms. Magazine says it’s a ‘bogus affliction invented by the religious right’.

 

However Babbel asserts “any event that causes trauma can indeed result in PTSD, and abortion is no exception.” Babbel is not declaring this because she’s a pro-life therapist. She further states, ‘Believing that PASS exists does not mean that one does not believe in a woman’s right to choose; it simply means that one believes in supportive and constructive counseling around the trauma symptoms’. Babbel lists ‘guilt, anxiety, numbness, depression, flashbacks, and suicidal thoughts as symptoms of PASS.

 

Babbel makes no claim that these symptoms will follow after every abortion. She writes: While abortion can induce post-traumatic stress in some, others will suffer no repercussions at all. I can understand that statement.

 

I personally believe there is an undeniable, emotional, physical, and even spiritual connection between a mother and a child. However, I’ve met a number of post-abortive women who have a range of experiences. I don’t oppose abortion solely because I believe it will cause trauma to a woman’s soul. I oppose abortion because it’s morally wrong to destroy the life of a fetus. Some women will make that destructive decision with little sorrow, regret, or negative emotional consequences.

 

We live in a society that views abortion as a private decision which women need not regret. Therefore women with seemingly ‘positive’ abortion experiences are often encouraged to share them with pride. However women with negative experiences find themselves in a difficult place. They suffer from the pain of their abortion, all the while living in a society that tells them that pain isn’t real or necessary.

 

Thankfully organizations are here for that very reason. They are safe places for women who need healing after their abortion. If you or anyone you know has suffered emotional or physical pain from an abortion, there is help available to you. You are not alone. You don’t have to carry the secret or live in shame. Check out resources like Afterabortion.org and take a step towards freedom.

 

Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

By Christina Martin

 

Illinois Congresswoman attempts to play down her pro-abortion record

This week the national pro-life Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund blasted Illinois Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (photo above) for concealing her support for abortion on-demand up until the moment of birth.

Last summer, Bustos voted against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a bill to stop late abortion after 5 months, more than halfway through pregnancy. The Wall Street Journal has reported that, nationwide, candidates endorsed by the pro-abortion EMILY's List are avoiding the issue of abortion this election cycle. Yesterday, the New York Times also reported that the abortion lobby is purposefully changing its messaging to avoid the subject of abortion and "shunning" the term "pro-choice."

When asked by the Sauk Valley News, Rep. Bustos previously refused to explain her position on taxpayer funding for abortion, parental notification laws, and third-trimester abortions.

"According to the Lozier Institute, the U.S. is one of only seven countries to allow brutal abortion after 5 months – a distinction we share with China and North Korea. Cheri Bustos wants it to stay that way," said SBA List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "Last year, Congresswoman Bustos was part of the extreme minority to vote against a modest, compassionate measure to protect babies after 5 months – when science shows the child feels excruciating pain. Bustos' views have earned her the endorsement of EMILY's List and the support of America's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, but what about Illinois voters? Her silence on this issue is evidence that she is aware her fringe position drives away her constituents."

The SBA List Candidate Fund previously endorsed Bustos' opponent, Bobby Schilling, in March 2014.

Source: Illinois Review

US senator introduces bill to see taxpayers cover cost of abortifacients for military women

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, has introduced legislation that would require all FDA-approved birth control and abortion pills and devices be made available at no cost to women in the military. Sens. Patty Murray, D-WA, and Harry Reid, D-NV, also acted as sponsors.

"Female service members deserve access to the same basic health care as the women they protect and it's unacceptable that they don't," Shaheen, whose amendment to expand abortion coverage for military women became law in 2013, said in a statement this week.

The 2014 bill, called the "Access to Contraception for Women Service members and Dependents Act of 2014," requires no co-pay for military women for all 20 FDA-approved birth control and abortifacient drugs and devices.

"Giving women in the military access to basic preventative health care, including contraception and family planning counseling, will strengthen our military as a whole," she says. "And it will make sure that women who get their health insurance from the military never have to worry about how they're going to pay for their contraception."

Currently, female service members are required to provide a co-pay if they order contraceptives and abortifacients at retail pharmacies and by mail.

Abortion groups and several retired military officials have supported the bill. The heads of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, among others, praised the expanded contraception access, with NARAL President Ilyse Hogue declaring,"Senators Shaheen, Reid and Murray have come to the defense of our military servicewomen and families with legislation that will ensure access to the comprehensive health care they deserve, including birth control and accurate family-planning counseling."

In their statements of support for the Act, Shaheen, Hogue, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, and others failed to differentiate between the 16 contraceptives approved by the FDA and the four abortifacients and potential abortifacients also approved by the FDA. Coverage of these four drugs and devices were what the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood opposed in their recent lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

Likewise, a coalition of supporters for the Act -- including Catholics for Choice, the ACLU, and a number of Jewish and Protestant organizations -- failed to mention abortifacients and potential abortifacients in their support. Contrary to this portrayal of abortifacients as contraceptives, Just Facts President James Agresti recently pointed to both scientific and government sources that show intrauterine devices end the life of an unborn child, and morning-after pills "may block implantation."
Agresti noted that implantation takes place more than a week after fertilization, and thus anything that blocks implantation is destroying an unborn child.

Shaheen's office did not respond to LifeSiteNews' request for clarification as to whether the senator finds this concerning.

LifeSiteNews also asked Shaheen, who has been an outspoken proponent of changing how the military handles sexual assault, if she had concerns about the potential for rapists to cover up their crimes with abortifacients. Pro-life groups such as Life Dynamics, Inc. and Students for Life of America have shown such cover-ups occur with underage girls who are raped by adult men.

The bill had more than 15 Democratic co-sponsors as of publication time. The Democratic-controlled Senate may be able to get the bill past a Republican filibuster, but the GOP-controlled House is considered more pro-life than the Senate. However, some are concerned in light of the fact that in 2013 the House approved the defense authorization bill that included Shaheen's abortion amendment.
Congress goes on recess at the end of this week until September, which means the bill would only have a few weeks to pass before elections in November, and a few weeks after the elections in a lame-duck session.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

Did a Federal Court Just Rule That Every Single State Has to Have an Abortion Clinic?

Earlier this week, in a transparent act of judicial slight-of-hand, two judges on the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a pro-life bill in Mississippi unconstitutional.

They enjoined the law not because of what it says — it merely brings abortion regulations back in line with state standards for ambulatory surgical centers — but because holding abortionists to standard medical standards would shut down the last abortion facility in the state. In other words, two unelected justices decided that keeping abortionists in business is more important than the safety of women. Even more amazing is that the same Circuit ruled in favor of a very similar law in Texas.

At issue in Mississippi is a 2012 law removing a special exemption for abortionists from the state's requirement that all doctors at ambulatory surgical centers — medical clinics, dental offices, etc. — maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Thirteen other states already require abortionists to have either admittance privileges or some other agreement with a local hospital.

This common-sense requirement ensures that out-of-state abortionists cannot come into the state, perform a rapid series of abortions, and move on to another state . A traveling abortionist leaves women at greater risk for life-threatening medical complications requiring them to seek emergency care. Sometimes these women have had little or no help in the hand-off to hospital physicians.

Mississippi's last remaining abortion clinic sued to have the law enjoined because no local hospital would give admittance privileges to two of their abortionists. Private hospitals can deny physicians admittance privileges for a variety of reasons — type and volume of practice, medical malpractice history, etc. — but five of the seven hospitals cited abortion as one of the reasons. On Tuesday, two justices on the 5^th Circuit put the abortion agenda ahead of women's safety and ruled that the law cannot be enforced because it would shut down Mississippi's last abortion facility.

This is a dangerous and novel attempt to rewrite judicial precedence to require at least one abortion facility in a state. What if that abortionist is like the "house of horrors" revealed two years ago at abortionist Gosnell's Philadelphia clinic? We sure hope other states continue to pass these regulations and that any similar laws will be upheld for what they are, common sense regulations aimed to help women.

Source: LifeNews.com
LifeNews Note: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.

Abortion Costs US Over $16 Trillion in Federal Revenue

Mark Olson, a former liberal activist, has published research demonstrating the devastating economic impact abortion-on-demand has had on the American economy. Olson's research finds that more than $16 trillion in federal revenue, roughly the size of our national debt, has been lost due to abortion.

"The figure of 55 million persons aborted, typically reported by pro-life groups, is a significant undercount," says Olson, a pro-life political consultant. "Abortions did not magically begin occurring in 1973 [when the Supreme Court allowed them], yet that is when everyone starts counting."

Using widely accepted pre-Roe v. Wade estimates, Olson's research additionally accounts for the compounding nature of population by including the generations of offspring that would have been born to those persons otherwise aborted. The result: The United States has suffered a population loss of over 125 million persons due to abortion.

When the per-capita individual federal tax burden for each respective year is applied to the population loss model, the result is a statistically significant correlation between our current national debt and federal revenue loss due to abortion.

Basic macroeconomics says that any such loss in population will result in a collapse of the necessary aggregate supply and demand to sustain long-term national economic growth. The population loss due to abortion would have the same negative economic impact as any population loss due to war, epidemic or natural disaster.

Olson adds, "We can argue over a balanced-budget amendment or tax-and-spend policies, but the reality is that we have lost over 125 million persons—no liberal or conservative economic policy can make up for that loss. We need to stop destroying our most precious economic resource, our people."

Olson additionally introduces "The Reagan Plan," an informed method for legally ending abortion in America. In 1980, Ronald Reagan laid out an achievable plan to accomplish the legal abolition of abortion. Unfortunately, the pro-life movement has yet to follow this plan.

By Mark Olson
Source: CharismaNews

Pregnancy Support Phone Line Has Helped Two Million Moms Save Their Babies From Abortion

Last Monday night I was contacted by a friend who turned to me for assistance with adoption. It was not for herself, but rather for a resident of her city who came to her looking for help while she was working for her local government.

I felt a sense of appreciation that this friend recognized the mindset I have when it comes to women facing pregnancies which may not be planned and that women may want options other than parenting. I looked up pregnancy centers from Option Line and was able to find a close by location to refer her to.

That same week, on Thursday, Life News was contacted by Heartbeat International, the organization which runs the Option Line service. Option Line was writing to share that they had reached 2 million contacts!

The e-mail sent out shares the story of one of those 2 million contacts, an 18 year old named Morgan.

Morgan was 18 and facing an unplanned pregnancy, which came to be while she was living with her father. While her father wanted her to get an abortion, and even scheduled her an appointment, Morgan was able to fly to her mother in Washington state. Fortunately, Morgan not only had her mother to turn to, but a pregnancy center.

The friend who reached out to me is not the first person to contact me for information regarding pregnancy centers or the forms of assistance they provide. I have gladly referred others to Option Line to look up pregnancy centers in their area, or have done the looking up for them. And just as Morgan turned to the same pregnancy center for assistance where she once volunteered for, I would turn to one should I ever face an unplanned pregnancy. I would know that I would be met with dignity and respect while being assisted.

Secular Pro-Life Perspectives featured a piece from an anonymous blogger  in April, in which the author discussed how thinking she could have been pregnant affected her pro-life views. One such view point of hers specifically mentions the pregnancy center she turned to:

7.       The attacks that crisis pregnancies are under seem even more shameful and unnecessary. I turned to a pregnancy center for a pregnancy test. The staffer there was kind, helpful and non-judgmental. I was also promised confidentiality. The test was explained to me, and was free. My partner, who is neither pro-life nor a Christian, felt being at the center went positively. (This blog just recently reported on the hypocrisy of the legal trouble pregnancy centers have to endure when abortion clinics are allowed to operate without being inspected and under deplorable conditions.)

As the point on pregnancy centers mentions, pregnancy centers are subject to battles in court, their first amendment, as well as their ability to best help those women who turn to them, being threatened. Fortunately, the courts ruled in favor of pregnancy centers in Austin and Baltimore. However, pro-abortion groups still continue to attack these centers, as NARAL Pro-Choice America did so by sharing an article on their Facebook page just earlier this month. And, Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have pages "warning" women about them. Despite these shameful attacks, pregnancy centers, such as those which Option Line assist women in finding, pregnancy centers continue to operate to truly help women, women just like Morgan.

By Rebecca Downs | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

Abortion's grim reality may explain 'pro-choice' label drop

A woman looks at a sonogram image of her unborn baby. Credit: Katy Senour/CNA.

Abortion advocates' recent shift away from the term "pro-choice" could be due to improving medicine and technology showing the harsh reality and effects of the procedure.

"Health is a popular buzz word for abortionists, but is much weakened as medical science shows women's health is harmed by abortion," Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, told CNA.

A July 28 article in the New York Times detailed how abortion rights activists are beginning to change the pro-choice label to more vague terminology, saying that they do not want to limit the abortion spectrum to the term. The issue has been transferred to the general labels of "women's health" and "economic security," but advocates have still not found a suitable alternative name.

Yoest believes that abortion rights supporters are seeking another term as they are working to normalize abortion by creating the misconception that – since it is publicly funded – abortion is healthcare.

"The abortion industry is moving from choice to coercion, changing their strategy from mainstream abortion in culture to integrating it into healthcare," she said.

Planned Parenthood released a video in January 2013 promoting the change in terms, called "Not In Her Shoes." This production discussed how abortion advocates do not want to be limited to the pro-choice label because they hold that the issue encompasses more than just a choice.

However, pro-life activists see this shift as a victory, noting that after a forty-year battle, abortion advocates are needing to change their strategy. Advances in medical science and technology have also been viewed as dismantling abortion advocates' cause.

"Thanks to the miracle of the ultrasound, generations are able to see what the abortionist's 'choice' is – the death of an unborn child. And thanks to a growing body of medical research, we know that 'choice' hurts women as well," Yoest said.

According to the Times, various polls have shown that many women – when asked if they are pro-life or pro-choice – will answer pro-life, even if they supported the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S.

"As exposure to the horror of abortion grows, more and more people identify as pro-life based on their concern for both mother and child," Yoest noted.

"Today, the abortion industry has moved from 'choice' to coercion, attempting to use the force of government to force compliance with an abortion agenda, or face dire consequences."

Yoest added that Americans are increasingly aware of this phenomenon, and that it is making them rethink what the term "pro-choice" really means.

"Pregnancy is not a disease 'cured' by the death of a child," she reflected. "Real health care respects life."

By Maggie Lawson
Source: CNA/EWTN News

UN committee’s abortion attack renders it unfit for its purpose

Even in the increasingly bizarre parallel universe of the United Nations, you would expect a Human Rights committee to understand this fundamental principle: human rights are inherent for all members of the human family, they are not bestowed by any government, and cannot be denied by any self-styled Council.

This is Human Rights 101: the basic level of understanding required before any discussion of human rights can commence. By that measure then, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has shown itself to be unfit for its purpose by attacking the rights of a section of the human family and seeking to deny the most vulnerable human beings on the planet their fundamental rights.

Their behaviour in Geneva earlier this month was shameful. The UN is often criticised for its inability to deal with international conflicts, for being a 'toothless tiger', and for failing to investigate fraud and corruption and more. However in demanding that Ireland make abortion even more widely available, the UNHRC has failed in its primary mission, and its entire raison d'être is called into account.

A human rights committee that argues some human beings can be denied a right to life is not fit for its purpose. They have shown themselves to be driven by an ideology that chooses to discriminate and destroy human beings who are so helpless that they can't even raise their eyes in their own defence. It's always easy to attack the weak and the voiceless – but that a so-called human rights committee would choose to do so is simply reprehensible.

Worst of all, the UN committee deliberately misrepresented genuine human rights covenants to try to justify the killing of unborn children, and to argue that unborn children are 'not fully human'.

In fact, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, used by the UNHRC members to push for abortion, never mentions abortion at all, but does say in Article 6 that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

In order to sidestep this Article, the committee claimed that the unborn child was not a human being nor fully a member of the human family, a position so ignorant of basic biology or any scientific understanding that is actually laughable.

Equally astonishing, but not remotely humorous, is the UNHRC's claim that Ireland's protection of unborn children amounted to "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," when they understand very well that abortion, the deliberate killing of an unborn child, is the most extreme form of torture imaginable.

What needs to be understood here is that this committee of so-called human rights experts know exactly what abortion is: they know very well that it is not medically necessary, that it kills children and hurts women, yet they still choose to try to foist it on sovereign nations who protect both mother and baby.

Lined up against the unborn child in Geneva was the usual gaggle of abortion pushers, mostly funded by US billionaires who want to browbeat and bully Ireland into accepting abortion. Then the Irish media were on standby as usual to report and endlessly repeat the UNHRC's demand that Ireland legalise abortion for children with disabilities or who have been conceived through rape and incest: this despite the fact that the UN is urging countries to ratify their Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In fact, no 'right' to abortion exists in international law, while the right to life of every person is widely accepted and well established.

Of course, this latest debacle at the UN is wholly expected and the callous hypocrisy in their targeting of innocent children is what we have come to expect from the pro-abortion bureaucrats at the UN riding an endless gravy train of cushy appointments and taxpayer-funded expense accounts.

Their shameful attack on Ireland has shown that the UNHRC are not fit. A real human rights body recognises the rights of every human – without exception.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com

“Chloe’s Law” stands for providing expectant mothers with information about Down syndrome, not for denying them evidence-based information

By Mark Bradford, President, Jérôme Lejeune Foundation, USA

Chloe Kondrich prays as Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett signs "Chloe's Law" (used with permission of Kurt Kondrich)

On July 18, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law the "Down Syndrome Prenatal and Postnatal Education Act" commonly known as "Chloe's Law." Pennsylvania became the 7th state to implement legislation intended to provide to new and expectant parents "Up-to-date, evidence-based information about Down syndrome that has been reviewed by medical experts and national Down syndrome organizations" and also "contact information regarding First Call programs and support services."

Pennsylvania's law, as is true with the majority of other state laws, reflects the common ground first established in the 2008 federal legislation, the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. That Act was co-sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Brownback, again showing the common ground agreement that women should receive all of the information recommended by professional guidelines.

The need for Chloe's law is two-fold: [1] the Kennedy-Brownback Act has never been funded or implemented, which is why states have taken on state-level measures; and [2] while professional guidelines recommend offering prenatal testing for Down syndrome to all patients, those same guidelines recommend that patients receive up-to-date, accurate information about Down syndrome and referral to parent support organizations, but that is not happening with the same regularity as the offering of prenatal testing.

Author Tara Murtha responded negatively to Chloe's Law in an editorial published at RealityCheck.org on July 25. At its website, RealityCheck describes itself as a "daily publication providing news, commentary and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and justice issues" that claims to contribute "to the global effort to empower people with the information, services and leadership they need to safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights against false attacks and misinformation."

It is peculiar that a site dedicated to countering misinformation would criticize and make false attacks against a law whose very purpose is to ensure that women are fully and factually informed with accurate information regarding the outcomes of a prenatal diagnosis, should that diagnosis reveal the child has Down syndrome.

Ms. Murtha has made Chloe's Law about something that it is not. In citing the bill's sponsors positions on abortion she implies that the purpose of the law is to, in some way, restrict a woman's right to abort a child following a prenatal diagnosis. There is no language in the law that would imply even an incremental move toward restricting access to abortion. The sole purpose of the law is to provide to women evidence based information on the outcomes of having a child with Down syndrome. After that, they are free to make whatever decision they choose.

She also joins the Pennsylvania Medical Association in criticizing the law because it requires physicians to provide information to women prepared by a third party, thus "interfering" in communications between the patient and physician. Murtha misleads her readers by claiming that the law requires that doctors read a script to patients developed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

On the contrary, the law states that it will be the Department of Health's responsibility to make available on their website information reviewed by medical experts, including information on physical, developmental, educational, and psychosocial outcomes, life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual development and treatment options. Dangerous and intrusive information, to be sure.

A true reality check reveals why provision of this information may be necessary. During debate over the Maryland law earlier this year, Heather Sachs gave testimony that 9 years ago when she received the result of her prenatal diagnosis she was simply given a pamphlet entitled So You've Had a Mongoloid: Now What?

Stories like hers are not uncommon. For too long, study after study, and parent testimony after testimony, has demonstrated that prenatal testing for Down syndrome has never been administered according to the full professional guidelines because too often parents are simply told the test result and that is it. In a recent study, women reported negative experiences of receiving a prenatal diagnosis outnumbering positive ones 2.5 to 1.

Chloe's Law implements the guidelines physicians were supposed to be following but have not done so consistently. This law is a caring law that will improve patient care. That is why it has received the broad, near unanimous bipartisan support it deserves.

Let's stand for providing women information, not for denying them information about a condition that remains too often misunderstood – even within the medical community.

Source: NRL News

Scientific Review of 72 Epidemiological Studies, Biological Evidence Supports Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

A scientific review conducted by Angela Lanfranchi, MD and Patrick Fagan, Ph.D. found that support for an abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link exists in current knowledge of breast physiology (as it is presented in standard medical texts), as well as epidemiological and experimental research. The review, published in Issues in Law and Medicine, is entitled, "Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors."[1] Lanfranchi is Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Fagan is the Director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute.

 Among 72 epidemiological studies they reviewed, the authors explained: 

 "...21 show some positive, statistically significant relationship. Seven studies show a positive, marginally significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Of three meta-analyses on the subject, two show a positive, statistically significant link between induced abortion and breast cancer. Two ecological epidemiological studies show a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer. These studies have been conducted over fifty years across multiple cultures and countries...."[2]

 The authors explained that surging pregnancy hormones (mostly estrogen) stimulate breast growth during the first months of pregnancy, leaving the breasts with an increase in cancer-susceptible Type 1 and Type 2 lobules (where most cancers are known to originate). If the mother carries her pregnancy to 32 weeks, her risk sharply declines because she has matured a sufficient number of lobules into permanently cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules; and she has acquired 90% of the risk reduction associated with a full term pregnancy. The authors said this evidence explains why other well-accepted reproductive risk factors raise risk including childlessness, premature birth before 32 weeks and second trimester miscarriages.[3]

The authors identified methods that are being used in gravely flawed studies that result in either an underestimate or the elimination of the risk: i.e., failure to follow women for a minimum of eight to 10 years after an abortion so that cancers are detectable; excluding breast cancer patients and women with histories of breast cancer; excluding consideration of women who died of the disease; confining their analyses to young women in their reproductive years; only comparing childless aborting women with childless never-pregnant women, instead of making the comparison with childbearing women (who are at reduced risk for breast cancer); and ignoring the effects of highly carcinogenic abortions (i.e., abortions occurring before first full term pregnancy, before age 18 or after age 30; abortions among women with a family history of breast cancer; and second trimester abortions).

 The National Cancer Institute concluded after its 2003 workshop that abortion is not associated with breast cancer, but Lanfranchi and Fagan said the NCI's conclusion contradicts not only epidemiological evidence of a link, but also accepted reproductive risks for breast cancer listed in standard texts including premature birth before 32 weeks gestation, delayed first full term pregnancy and childlessness.[4]

The authors analyzed the evidence in light of the nine criteria that Sir Austin Bradford Hill recommended in 1965. These guidelines are used to help determine whether a cause-effect relationship exists between a potential risk factor and a disease. After demonstrating that all nine criteria have been met, Lanfranchi and Fagan concluded: 

 "We see that many studies of induced abortion demonstrate significant associations, across multiple cultures and with some apparent specificity of cause (hormone exposure). The association manifests itself in the appropriate order, demonstrates a dose effect, is biologically plausible and coherent with existing science and has been demonstrated by analogy."[5]

 ABC link critics claim that recall bias is a flaw in research supporting a link, but they conveniently ignore studies that are free of any possibility of recall bias, including a prospective study on women in New York and two ecological studies.[6-8] Lanfranchi and Fagan called the recall bias hypothesis "unproven."

 In order to expand knowledge of the link, the authors recommended the establishment of a tissue bank and the development of a research data network located in existing mammography screening centers that would collect standardized data on forms concerning women's reproductive, hormonal and breast histories that would include all potential risk factors.

 The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

 References:

1.  Lanfranchi A & Fagan P. Breast cancer and induced abortion: A comprehensive review of breast development and pathophysiology, the epidemiologic literature, and proposal for creation of databanks to elucidate all breast cancer risk factors. Issues in Law and Medicine 2014;29(1):1-133. Available at: <http://abortionbreastcancer.com/docs/Breast-cancer-and-induced-abortion-Lanfranchi-Spring-2014.pdf>.

2.  Ibid, p. 101.

3.  Ibid, p. 102.

4.  Ibid, p. 100.

5.  Ibid, p. 103.

6.  Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P. Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40. Int J Epidemiol 1989;18:300-304.

7.  Remennick L. Reproductive patterns and cancer incidence in women: A population-based correlation study in the USSR. International Journal of Epidemiology 1989;18(3):498-510.

8.  Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

Peter Breen, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society Thomas More Society

This pro-life, first-time candidate will be elected, guaranteed

A prominent pro-life, pro-family activist is running unopposed for the Illinois State House after the state's Speaker of the House dropped a lawsuit that would have illegally placed a candidate against him.

Peter Breen, Senior Counsel and Vice President of the Chicago-based pro-life, pro-family Thomas More Society, announced in an e-mail to supporters that Speaker Mike Madigan "voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit" to place a candidate on the general election ballot against him. Madigan had, according to Breen, "asked a judge to ignore [state] law and give a pass" to a candidate of Madigan's liking. Breen is running to represent the 48th District of Illinois in Springfield.

Madigan is a leading Democrat in the state, while Breen is a first-time Republican candidate for office. Madigan's lawsuit came earlier this month, after the DuPage County Election Board took Breen's opponent off the ballot.

Breen has long been known for his strong stand in favour of marriage and life. Last year, he accused the IRS of targeting a client of the Thomas More Society, the Coalition of Life for Iowa after the federal agency questioned them about the content of their prayers and what words were on pro-life signs held outside of Planned Parenthood clinics.

Two congressional committees are investigating the IRS for illegally targeting pro-life, pro-family, and Tea Party non-profits for years. The Coalition is one of the organizations that says it was targeted.

Madigan is a senior Democrat in a state that has a Democratic governor and a supermajority of Democrats in the state legislature. His daughter, Lisa, is the state's Attorney General, and was until recently considered a top candidate to run against Gov. Pat Quinn. Madigan's influence is enormous across the state's political structure, and just last week Breen said about the lawsuit that Madigan "never goes down without a fight."

Breen told LifeSiteNews his campaign has "been able to talk about" the issue of life because he is running in a pro-life district. He said that while he will represent the interests of his constituents, "you've got legislators in assemblies, and Senates, and the Congress, who are very much to the left of their constituencies on the life issue." He said this puts many politicians "out of step with their constituencies."

Breen also discussed the candidate controversy that ended last week. He said that DuPage County Democrats failed to "follow....these simple rules that are laid down by the state of Illinois." Those rules, as Breen explained, allowed Democrats to "slate a candidate," but "for whatever reason, they didn't follow the rules."

After the Election Board unanimously stood with Breen, Democrats appealed. However, the appeal to the Circuit Court "has been dismissed," something Breen called "great news."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Contact: Dustin Siggins

Congratulations Amazon, You Sold Out Women’s Health for Money

By Emily Zender - 

Amazon has now wiggled its way in to receive a cut of the abortion industry's multibillion-dollar profits. In January, Amazon began quietly selling Plan B, an abortion-inducing drug taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Amazon began selling the abortion drug for about $17 – well below the $32 manufacturing cost according to a Princeton research study.

Today, the average price of Plan B on Amazon is about $44. Selling the abortion drug isn't the only way Amazon is making money off of women's bodies. While investigating the ability to purchase Plan B from Amazon, advertisements for a plan… "C" appeared below the product. The advertisements, strategically shown to customers who are viewing Plan B on Amazon, are paid advertisements for Illinois abortion clinics. 

If your $44 Plan B doesn't work, here's your plan C: an abortion that on average costs $421. Couple the advertising income from the abortion industry with the profits from selling Plan B and Amazon has a brand new income stream.

How can Amazon sell Plan B without a minor girl or a woman needing a prescription?

In 2011, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was about to approve Plan B over-the-counter (without a prescription). In a shocking last minute move, Former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, an outspoken abortion advocate, halted the FDA's attempt. In what some experts called an unprecedented move, Sebelius issued a letter to the FDA challenging the validity of its data that called prescription-less Plan B "safe" for any age. Sebelius called the FDA's data "inadequate to support approval." President Obama supported Sebelius' refusal to legalize prescription-less Plan B saying, "as the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine."

The abortion industry immediately sued the Obama Administration and won a ruling from U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman to sell Plan B to all ages without any restrictions. After the Obama Administration's initial appeal was rejected by a three-judge Court of Appeals, the Administration dropped its defense. Thus, one year ago on June 20, 2013, Plan B became legal to sell to a person regardless if she or he was 11 years old or 51 years old. 

Plan B is a painful, abortion-inducing drug with serious health side effects to girls and women. Side effects (from the Plan B website) include: menstrual changes, nausea, lower stomach (abdominal) pain, tiredness, headache, dizziness, breast pain, spotting, bleeding, and vomiting.

By eliminating a woman's contemplation process: a discussion with her doctor about the risks, side effects, and proper administration, the abortion industry has also effectively removed any thought into the ramifications of the abortion drug. With the click of a button, Amazon delivers to your doorstep the little pill that can end human physical life. Children under the age of 17 cannot be admitted to a rated R movie without parental accompaniment but Planned Parenthood, a child sexual abuser, or now Amazon, can administer a drug to your 11-year-old daughter, niece, or goddaughter without you ever knowing.

If you think teen pregnancy isn't an issue think again. According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, from 1995 to 2011, 67,928 abortions were performed in Illinois on girls 17 years old and younger. That's 11 abortions performed on a minor girl every day in Illinois.

Now, because of Amazon's partnership with the abortion industry, a sexual predator can order Plan B and never have to show his face in public. He can even order ahead and keep the drugs in his medicine cabinet if he'd like.  Just like that, Amazon can claim "innocence" in aiding and abetting a sexual abuser in covering up his crime because of negligent regulations. And not only did Amazon get paid for its "innocent" assistance in the crime, it did so all with the Amazon smile.

Congratulations Amazon on becoming a corporation that places greed above the concern for teenage girls.  Congratulations Amazon, on becoming the latest corporation to throw moral responsibility and ethics to the wind in the interest of "growing profits."

Some things are more important than money. Children and women's health are two of them.           

Emily Zender is executive director of Illinois Right to Life.
Source: Illinois Review

IRS Strikes Deal With Atheist Group to Monitor Content of Sermons

The next time your pastor delivers a pro-life sermon or urges the congregation to stand up for pro-life values in the political or public arena, he could be taken to task by the IRS.

Alliance Defending Freedom asked the Internal Revenue Service Tuesday to release all documents related to its recent decision to settle a lawsuit with an atheist group that claims the IRS has adopted new protocols and procedures for the investigation of churches.

ADF submitted the Freedom of Information Act request after learning of the IRS's agreement with Freedom From Religion Foundation in a press release the group issued on July 17 concerning its lawsuit Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, which accused the agency of failing to investigate churches the way the atheist group would like.

"Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups," said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. "We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day."

The IRS claims it is temporarily withholding investigations of all tax-exempt entities because of congressional scrutiny of its recent scandals, but no one knows when it will decide to restart investigations based on any new or modified rules that it develops.

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation press release, "The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations."

The release mentions the ADF annual "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" event as one that promotes activity by churches that violates the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that activist groups often cite in an attempt to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status. The Johnson Amendment authorizes the IRS to regulate sermons and requires churches to give up their constitutionally protected freedom of speech in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

"The IRS cannot force churches to give up their precious constitutionally protected freedoms to receive a tax exemption," explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley, who heads the Pulpit Freedom Sunday event. "No one would suggest a pastor give up his church's tax-exempt status if he wants to keep his constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, no one should be asking him to do the same to be able to keep his constitutionally protected freedom of speech."

This year's Pulpit Freedom Sunday will be held on Oct. 5.

Source: LifeNews.com

What the numbers are telling us about the outcome of the November mid-term elections

Let's put together a Gallup summary of President Obama's popularity over the last three months (which ran yesterday) and an analysis of what might happen this fall, provided today by Josh Kraushaar at the National Journal and see what they tell us.

Gallup's Jeffrey Jones tells us

"President Barack Obama averaged 43.2% job approval during his 22nd quarter in office, from April 20 through July 19. That is a minimal increase from the prior quarter's 42.4% average, but still ranks among the lowest for Obama to date. His worst quarterly average thus far is 41.0% in quarter 11."

Those numbers for the 22nd-quarter are higher than only two presidents, one of whom was Richard Nixon just before he resigned in August 1974.

Jones added

"Obama may be able to keep his ratings above the 40% mark as long as he maintains strong levels of support among Democrats. Although Democrats' approval ratings of Obama are down from earlier in his presidency, they still consistently approach 80%."

Let's move on to Kraushaar's "The Odds of a GOP Wave Are Increasing: This year's political environment is shaping up to be nearly as bleak as 2010, and that's ominous news for Senate Democrats."

A fair portion of his intriguing piece is an explanation/rebuttal over what's constitutes a "wave." As would be obvious, if you make the bar high enough, it's almost impossible for the GOP to secure a wave ("shorthand for a landslide victory for the winning party," as Kraushaar explains).

An important point made early: in the second midterm election, historically, the president's party suffers high loses. "But Clinton's and Reagan's relatively high popularity likely helped mitigate midterm seat losses for their parties in the elections."

With Obama striving to stay about 40% in job approval, vulnerable Democrats don't have that life-preserver to cling to. Especially given "that the right-track/wrong-track numbers [whether the country is on the right track or the wrong track] are near historic lows."

Here are two quick observations.

First, the caveat we always offer. Politics and electoral fortunes can change in a heartbeat. But that turnabout should be less of a problem for Republicans in 2014, given the high caliber of their candidates, including challengers to sitting Democratic senators.

Second, as Kraushaar observes

"If anything, this year's environment for Democrats is shaping up to be as bleak [as 2010]. Sizable majorities oppose the Obama administration's handling of nearly every issue, including the economy, health care, and foreign policy. The administration looks out of its element, lurching from foreign policy crises to domestic scandal over the past year. Even out of the headlines, Obamacare is still a driving force for Republicans and for unfavorable poll numbers. This week, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg released new data showing Obama's disapproval at a whopping 60 percent in 12 Senate battlegrounds, with half strongly disapproving of his performance. Overall, Republicans held a 2-point edge on the battleground generic ballot, 46 percent to 44 percent."

Please keep that conclusion about ObamaCare in mind. We are constantly told that the importance of this issue has "peaked," and will not play a major role come November. That simply is not true.

In addition, there is the "generic ballot" gap. That is the response when people are asked whether they would vote for a generic Democrat or Republican (as opposed to naming a specific candidate).

Kraushaar informs us in his first paragraph that running even (or in this case, 2 points ahead) "usually translates into a clear GOP edge" when people actually vote.

Please take five minutes and read the analysis.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News

Senate May Approve Disability Rights Treaty That Could Promote Abortion

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) this week. While this treaty has a warm and fuzzy name, it could have a dangerous impact on abortion laws in this country.

Pro-life Americans should be especially concerned with the inclusion of the term "sexual and reproductive health" under the list of required areas for which signatory nations must provide "free or affordable health care."

The term "sexual and reproductive health" is not defined. This provides an opportunity for anti-life activists within UN agencies and treaty monitoring bodies to distort its meaning to serve their agenda. Although abortion is not mentioned in the treaty, abortion-activists within the U.N. want this phrase to be interpreted to mean a right to abortion.

The United States already has one of the most radical abortion policies in the world. Our country is in the company of North Korea, China, and Canada as the only four nations in the world to allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.  However, there is a desire on the part of Senate Democrats to further radicalize America's abortion policies—as evidenced by their efforts to advance a new "FOCA" bill, S. 1696–disingenuously named the Women's Health Protection Act.

If the United States were to ratify CRPD, a U.S. court could cite the recommendations of its treaty monitoring body as evidence of customary international law in order to further liberalize the abortion policies in this country. There are examples of this happening around the world. In the last decade, courts in Columbia and Argentina have allowed their nations to be pressured by the recommendations of UN treaty monitoring bodies to liberalize their laws in favor of abortion.

The United States is already one of the world leaders regarding legal protections for people who have disabilities. Ceding this nation's sovereignty to an international body will not increase rights for disabled Americans, but it will create a dangerous opening for policy making by abortion activists within UN bodies.

Now that CRPD has passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee it will be eligible for a vote on the Senate floor. The treaty will need the votes of two-thirds of the Senate in order to be ratified. Pro-life Americans should be on guard against CRPD and any UN treaty that does not expressly prohibit the agreement from being interpreted to mean a right to abortion.

Legal Group: Planned Parenthood Continues to Commit Fraud, Misuse Taxpayer Funds

A Christian legal group made public today its latest annual report. It shows alleged wastes, abuse and potential fraud by the nation’s largest abortion seller. The report, issued to Congress, urges federal lawmakers to continue investigating Planned Parenthood’s alleged misuse of taxpayer money.

“The government should use American tax dollars responsibly and for the common good,” said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Litigation Counsel Catherine Glenn Foster.

“The taxpayers who provide that hard-earned money deserve to know if it’s being funneled to groups that are abusing it.”

The report, “Profit. No Matter What,” reviews audits of the abortion seller and its affiliates for the fiscal year 2013. According to ADF, these audits show a total of more than $115 million in waste, abuse and potential fraud in federal and state family planning funding programs—most of which goes to Planned Parenthood.

The report also highlights other alleged billing violations. Some of them include overbilling for contraceptives and Plan B products.

“When it comes to accountability and transparency, Planned Parenthood’s publicly-funded, billion-dollar abortion empire cannot be given a pass,” Foster explained. “It has to play by the same rules as everyone else.”

Planned Parenthood continues to receive government funds to end the lives of preborn babies. The nation’s largest abortion seller also continues to overlook the safety of women and girls. Ask your lawmakers to stop using our tax dollars in this way.