Cosmo Launches Campaign to Get Women to Vote Pro-Abortion

Cosmopolitan magazine is not new to the pro-abortion position — it recently called abortion “miscarriage management.” But Cosmo today announced a new push to get women to vote for pro-abortion candidates. The campaign is disguised as one merely to get more women voters to the polls – but abortion activists on twitter let the cat out of the bag but admitting that the modus operandi of the effort is to get women to support pro-abortion candidates.

Politico has more on what’s happening:

Cosmopolitan’s website is making room for something new to the the legendary women’s glossy: the midterm elections.

The magazine known for its celebrity covers, fashion tips and relationship advice is diving into politics on Monday with its #CosmoVotes campaign, a new effort that will include candidate endorsements, stories on women-centric issues by a recently hired political writer, and a social media effort to get readers to the polls and be part of “the party of the year.”

“What we’re trying to say is, ‘Think about the issues that are important to you, and if you want to have a voice, then you need to use your voice. It’s all very well to sit back and complain, but you don’t have a right to complain if you don’t use your vote’,” Cosmopolitan magazine Editor-in-Chief Joanna Coles said in an interview.

Top editors at Cosmo said they didn’t know whether the magazine, owned by Hearst Corp. and first published in 1886 before becoming a women-specific magazine in the 1960s, had ever made candidate endorsements before. The endorsements, made by a board composed of Cosmopolitan.com editors, will span Senate, House and governor races.

Pro-life candidates and pro-life women can forget about any endorsement from Cosmo. The president of the pro-abortion political group NARAL pointed out on Twitter that Cosmo is only for candidates who think it’s pro-woman to back abortion, even if they are strongly pro-woman on other political issues.

Cosmo told Politico that apparently opposing abortion is not in the best interest of women:

The Cosmo endorsement criteria fall squarely into the liberal camp — equal pay, pro-choice, pro-birth control coverage, anti-restrictive voter-ID laws. Asked how a candidate who might line up on certain issues like equal pay but is pro-life would fare, Odell said that would be a deal breaker. “We’re not going to endorse someone who is pro-life because that’s not in our readers’ best interest,” Odell said. “[P]eople say that’s a liberal thing, but in our minds its not about liberal or conservative, it’s about women having rights, and particularly with health care because that is so important. All young women deserve affordable easy access to health care, and that might include terminating a pregnancy, and that’s OK.”

So aborting women and potential future readers is apparently not just in their best interest but it’s “health care.” Naturally, pro-abortion groups are happy abut Cosmo’s new pro-abortion push:

No wonder Cosmo got Planned Parenthood’s top award.

ACTION: Contact Cosmo to complain at http://www.cosmopolitan.com/about/contact-us

LifeNews.com by Steven Ertelt

PBS Child-Killing Propaganda

Molotov Mitchell wants 'left-wing snoozefest' network defunded

National Right to Life will score U.S. Senate vote on Democrats’ constitutional amendment to curb political speech

The proposal would “empower incumbent federal and state lawmakers to restrict and criminalize speech that is critical of their actions,” NRLC warns in letter to senators

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation’s oldest and largest pro-life organization, today warned members of the U.S. Senate that it will “scorecard” the upcoming Senate roll call on a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and each state legislature to restrict or prohibit virtually any type of communications to the public that might “influence elections.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has indicated that he will seek Senate action on the measure on September 8. Fifty (50) Democratic senators have so far expressed support for the measure.

The letter, signed by National Right to Life President Carol Tobias, Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, referred to the proposal as “a radical assault on the Bill of Rights.”

“The dispositive Senate roll call on S. J. Res. 19 will be included in NRLC’s scorecard of key roll call votes of the 113th Congress, with a vote in favor of the amendment accurately described as a vote to empower incumbent federal and state lawmakers to restrict and criminalize speech that is critical of their actions on crucial public policy issues, including abortion,” the letter advised. “. . . One can hardly conceive of language more sweeping than the phrase ‘to influence elections.’ On its face, it could encompass not only communications regarding the actions of individuals who hold or seek elective office – which would be bad enough – but also communications regarding politically charged public policy issues (i.e., issue advocacy). . . . There would be nothing to prevent Congress or a state legislature from crafting restrictions that effectively define one side of a public policy debate as the election-influencing side, and restricting communications to the public that advocate that particular viewpoint.”

The complete letter to the Senate may be viewed or downloaded at: www.nrlc.org/uploads/freespeech/NRLCLetterSJRes19SenateFloor.pdf

NRL News

Waddya Know: A Blastocyst IS an Embryo!

How often have I heard scientists and political hacks lie by claiming that an embryo isn’t an embryo until it is implanted in a uterus. Before that, they have often said, it is just a “ball of cells,” a “pre-embryo,” or just a “blastocyst.”

By lying about the nature of the embryo, pro embryonic stem cell research advocates hoped to manipulate society into supporting their research agendas.

These arguments were always–and remain–false. When you get down to it, we are all just big balls of cells,  so that’s a meaningless term. An embryo, unlike say a tumor, is an organism, in other words, a human embryo is a nascent, developing human being.

Nor is there such a thing biologically as a pre-embryo–as Princeton biologist Lee Silver admitted. That is a political term invented to skew ethical debates and decisions to permit the manipulation of human life.

As for the blastocyst, the term describes an embryo’s stage of development, not a different thing than an embryo. Thus, the, “It’s not an embryo, it’s a blastocyst,” is also junk biology.

In this regard, consider the following scientific finding that identified a gene that may cause the first cell differentiation. From the PhysOrg story:

The blastocyst is an embryonic structure present at early stages of the development of mammals, before implantation in the lining of the mother’s uterus. It is composed of between 64 and 100 cells that surround a central cavity. Before the embryo reaches this stage all its cells are equivalent and totipotent, meaning that each cell is capable of giving rise to all embryonic and extraembryonic cell types.
But the formation of the blastocyst implies the first distinction between cell types.

Did you get that? “Before THE EMBRYO reaches this stage of development…”

I write this here so that the next time a researcher or activist claims that embryonic destructive research doesn’t destroy an embryo, you will know you are witnessing blatant mendacity that disrespects moral deliberation and democratic engagement.

This is biology: At no point in a human life are we not a human life–that started from the time you were a one-cell embryo and has continued uninterrupted until the moment you read these words. And that is true whether your genesis occurred in your mother’s fallopian tube or a Petri dish. 

Life and dignity with Wesley J. Smith.

These Stunning Photos Show You How a Baby Fits in the Womb

Marry Fermont, a photographer in the Netherlands, started taking pictures of babies immediately after their birth to document what they look like in utero. Her pictures testify to the humanity of the unborn child, and show women what their children look like before they arrive.

Fermont answered a few questions about why she started taking these pictures in a Baby Center Blog:

Where did you first see such a photo?
I was the first birth photographer in the Netherlands to start taking these types of pictures. When I documented my first birth it was the midwife who showed the parents how the baby was positioned inside the womb. I also teach birth photography workshops and I always tell my attendees to ask the midwife for this pose. Most of them do, so you see these type of photos more often now in the Netherlands and Belgium.

          Do many parents request you take a picture like this?

Yes, sometimes they do. I always ask the midwife if she wants to show this pose and most of the time they are more than willing to do so. Sometimes it’s also the dad who likes to show. With instructions from the midwife he will hold his baby the way it was inside the womb.

In the photos, the babies look a bit precarious. Have you ever had one start to tumble in any way?
No, this never happened, and if there was a chance of this happening the pictures would never be done. The babies are mostly totally relaxed in this pose. The feel secure and comfortable. They are used to being folded up this way.

Do you ever have a baby who doesn’t want to be scrunched up like they were in the womb?
Actually, no. Most of them go automatically to this pose. You just need to know how to hold them.

Is there anything else you’d like to share with us about these photos?
Most of the parents cannot believe that their baby was inside of the belly when it’s born. It’s hard to imagine how your baby was curled up inside of you after it came out. You see it coming out, but you still cannot believe it was ever inside of you as soon as you have him or her in your arms. This disbelief has been voiced many times, and that’s why midwives started showing this pose — because of the curiosity of the parents. It’s not something that is done with every birth, it depends on the midwife. If I am there, and there is a chance, I always ask if they would like to do it, since it makes a nice photo and a nice memory for the parents.

LifeNews.com by Sarah Zagorski 

This May be the Best Ultrasound Photo Ever

An incredible ultrasound photo has circulated the Internet the last few days. The image started on the social media web site Reddit and has made its way to Twitter and Facebook as well.

In the image, the unborn baby is holding up his thumb to give the thumbs up sign. It’s a fantastic reminder of the beauty and awesomeness of life before birth. Here’s more background on the image:

The ultrasound image on Reddit was posted on August 28 under the username meancloth, saying “ultrasound result looks good.”

Some have nicknamed the baby the “Fonzie fetus,” after the iconic cool guy character in the classic television series Happy Days, according to AOL.com.

The father, Brandon Hopkins, told HLN-TV that his wife is expecting twins and the babies are due to arrive in January. The couple will find out the sex of the babies soon. Hopkins said his brother called and told him, ‘Your babies are famous’!

Marie Boswell expected to get the latest information about the status of her unborn child from her physician. In a rare ultrasound picture showing her baby giving her a thumbs up, she got a progress report from the baby boy himself.

Bosworth was stunned by the ultrasound photo of her 20-week-old unborn baby giving her the popular sign when everything’s all right.

“It was really funny,” the 35-year-old mother said of the ultrasound picture she had at Wythenshawe Hospital, near her home in Manchester.

She told the London Daily Mail newspaper, “I went to the scan with my friend and my mum and we were all just laughing. He was giving us the thumbs up, it was just so clear.”

“We couldn’t believe it. I have big hands, but nothing on the scale of his,” she told the newspaper. “We’re thinking he might make a good goalkeeper. I’ve never seen a scan like this before – but we love it.”

“I’ve been keeping it in a book because I want to show it to him when he is older,” she added.

Boswell already has a 10-year-old daughter named Olivia and the doctors informed her that her baby, expected in September, is doing just fine.

LifeNews.com by Steven Ertel

$28 Million Planned Parenthood Medicaid Fraud Case Can Move Ahead

The lawsuit from a former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic manager who sued the abortion giant accusing it of engaging in massive fraudulent activities can move forward. That’s the ruling an appeals court handed down today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Friday reinstated a former Planned Parenthood facility director’s lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Susan Thayer filed suit in 2011, alleging fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars. A district court judge had dismissed the lawsuit in 2012.

The lawsuit followed a new investigation of Planned Parenthood in Illinois and Planned Parenthood abortion companies in other states having been found to have engaged in overbilling and Medicaid fraud.

Thayer filed the lawsuit against the abortion giant’s Iowa affiliate accusing it of submitting “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements” to Medicaid and failing to meet acceptable standards of medical practice. Alliance Defending Freedom filed the suit for Thayer in March 2011.

“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are abusing it,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “No matter what people believe about abortion itself, everyone can agree that Planned Parenthood should play by the same rules as everyone else. We look forward to continuing our defense of the American taxpayer in this case.”

The lawsuit claims that Planned Parenthood’s Iowa affiliate submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursements” to Medicaid and failed to meet acceptable standards of medical practice.

ADF attorneys filed the suit on behalf of Thayer under the federal False Claims Act and Iowa False Claims Act, both of which allow “whistleblowers” with inside information to expose fraudulent billing by government contractors. Attorney J. Russell Hixson, one of nearly 2,500 attorneys allied with ADF, is assisting with the case.

In its decision reinstating the case, the 8th Circuit wrote, “we conclude that Thayer has pled sufficiently particularized facts to support her allegations that Planned Parenthood violated the FCA by filing claims for (1) unnecessary quantities of birth control pills, (2) birth control pills dispensed without examinations or without or prior to a physician’s order, (3) abortion-related services, and (4) the full amount of services that had already been paid, in whole or in part, by ‘donations’ Planned Parenthood coerced from patients.”

Thayer, former director of Planned Parenthood’s Storm Lake and LeMars clinics, specifically alleges that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud. She claims the abortion giant improperly sought and received reimbursements from Iowa Medicaid Enterprise and the Iowa Family Planning Network for products and services not legally reimbursable by those programs.

Planned Parenthood fired Thayer over her opposition to its “webcam” abortions, which allowed abortion drugs to be prescribed to women without a personal meeting with a doctor. On Aug. 19, an Iowa court upheld the Iowa Board of Medicine’s new ban on “webcam” abortions after Planned Parenthood challenged the restrictions.

“Planned Parenthood repeatedly demonstrates that it cares more about protecting its own bottom line than about protecting the women it purports to serve,” noted ADF Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton. “That’s been a pattern with Planned Parenthood across the county.”

“During my last years working at Planned Parenthood, it became increasingly clear to me that not all of their policies and protocols were completely legal and ethical.  After much thought, I contacted the Alliance Defending Freedom,” Thayer said about the lawsuit. “I believe that it is an important piece in the nationwide effort to shed light on the darkness and deception surrounding America’s largest abortion provider – Planned Parenthood.”

The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, an affiliate now known as Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, filed nearly one-half million false claims with Medicaid from which Planned Parenthood received and retained nearly $28 million.

The lawsuit explains that, to enhance revenues, Planned Parenthood implemented a “C-Mail” program that automatically mailed a year’s supply of birth control pills to women who had only been seen once at a Planned Parenthood clinic and usually by personnel who were not qualified health care professionals. After that, Planned Parenthood mailed thousands of unrequested birth control pills to those clients.

Planned Parenthood’s cost for a 28-day supply of birth control pills mailed to clients was $2.98, but the Medicaid reimbursement Planned Parenthood received for the pills was $26.32. In some cases, the Postal Service returned the pills to Planned Parenthood. Instead of crediting Medicaid or destroying the returned pills, Planned Parenthood resold the same pills and billed Medicaid twice for the same pills. The suit also claims that Planned Parenthood coerced “voluntary donations” for services and then billed Medicaid for them.

Jenifer Bowen, the executive director of Iowa Right to Life, told LifeNews her group is fully supportive of the lawsuit.

“Iowa Right to Life has been exposing Planned Parenthood’s dishonest practices for years,” she said. “That they would rip off low-income women for profit is no surprise.  Their CEO, Jill June, alone makes over $265,000 a year. I cannot wait to see how they spin this.”

ADF has been involved in several lawsuits involving Planned Parenthood secrecy and alleged fraud and recently submitted an updated report to Congress on the abuse of taxpayer money by the abortion giant’s affiliates.

LifeNews.com by Steven Ertelt 

Planned Parenthood Raising Money for Big Push in Fall Elections

Wendy Davis and Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards

Faced with clinic closings and legislative defeats, Planned Parenthood’s political arm (Planned Parenthood Action Fund) is in the process of spending $16 million in this fall’s races. To gin up contributions, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards has sent out a fiery but fact-challenged appeal fundraising letter to would-be supporters.

This massive political involvement may come as somewhat of a surprise to those who imagine Planned Parenthood to be just a  “women’s health care provider,”  the image PPFA so carefully cultivates. But, in fact, the nation’s largest abortion performer and promoter has also long been one of the biggest players on the political scene, spending millions to put politicians in office who will defend the killing of unborn babies and keep the taxpayer dollars flowing their way.

Ironically, while Richards opens with the statement “This has got to stop.  Politics has no place in women’s health care[,]” Planned Parenthood then spends the rest of the letter detailing why folks need to send “a generous contribution of $50, $75, $100, $500 or more” to aid in “changing the political landscape,” to “protect the pro-women’s health majority in the U.S. Senate” (“because the Senate approves Supreme Court nominees, we can prevent the Court from tilting further away from women’s rights”), to “show the power of women’s votes by electing candidates who support women’s health care and Planned Parenthood and defeating those who don’t.”

While there are the usual “sky is falling” pleas about access to birth control and threats to “women’s health care,” it is significant to note that in the four page letter, “abortion” appears no less than 16 times.  Several of these are in complaints about “anti-abortion groups,” “protesters,” or “extremists,” and their actions thwarting Planned Parenthood’s agenda. But others make Planned Parenthood’s profound abortion commitment more explicit.

One of their biggest complaints is about “irrational and often dangerous laws” such as “abortion restrictions” in North Carolina, “so-called patient safety laws” in Virginia, required “counseling” and waiting periods in South Dakota, limits imposed by a state medical board on “telemedicine” (web-cam) abortions in Iowa,  and a new Ohio law requiring abortionists to have “special agreements with local hospitals” (e.g., transfer agreements, admitting privileges which is an increasingly common and necessary requirement ).

Absent from the letter, of course, is anything about the filthy and dangerous conditions discovered at clinics like Planned Parenthood’s Wilmington, Delaware facility, women who’ve died after taking abortion drug RU-486 at Planned Parenthood clinics, or videos showing how some Planned Parenthood counselors ignore or evade informed consent, parental involvement, or statutory rape reporting laws.

Under the circumstances, it seems like it would be “rational” to assume that the more “dangerous” course for women would be to let Planned Parenthood continue to operate its abortion mills unregulated.

In the letter, Richards holds up two states as examples of what Planned Parenthood has done and will do.

Planned Parenthood offers Virginia as proof that “We know how to win for women.”  Without directly mentioning the cool million that Planned Parenthood put into ads in the closing days of last year’s very close gubernatorial campaign, Richards says that “we reached out all across the political spectrum, explaining the stakes to women and making it clear which candidate would protect their health and rights – and which would not.”

Unsaid is how Planned Parenthood manipulated and distorted perceptions of women in the Commonwealth, making it sound like the pro-life Republican candidate wanted to take away women’s birth control and cancer screenings, neither of which were remotely true.

Although carried along by a compliant media and buoyed by a  vast superiority in campaign funds, Terry McAuliffe, the PPFA-backed pro-abortion Democrat , won by just 2.5%.  Planned Parenthood says that “women’s votes made all the difference,” and though there were obviously other factors in play, exit polls did show that young single women – the target constituency for Planned Parenthood’s misleading ads – did go heavily for the Democrat.

While the previous pro-life Republican administration in Virginia had been able to put in place some of the badly needed clinic regulations Planned Parenthood complained about, Richards noted that “the new governor we helped elect has beat back attacks on women’s health care and is working to expand access to affordable birth control, cancer screenings, and safe, legal abortion.”  (No mention of making abortion “rare.”)

There hasn’t been much in the press about the McAuliffe’s efforts to expand “cancer screenings” at Planned Parenthood, but Townhall.com did feature the following headline on its May 14, 2014 website: “‘Bankrolled’ by Planned Parenthood, McAuliffe pushes looser abortion rules clinic rules.”

The other state featured in Planned Parenthood’s fundraising letter is Texas.  Richards declares “In my home state of Texas, for example, the governor and the legislature pulled every trick in the book to push through a wildly unpopular law that fully implemented could close all but a handful of women’s health facilities, leaving hundreds of thousands of women with nowhere to turn for care.”

(For all the handwringing about closing clinics, it should be noted that two Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates have already announced plans to open giant new abortion megaclinics in Dallas and San Antonio intended to be fully compliant with the new law. They, too, are using the passage of the new laws as part of their pitch for new funds.)

In that one sentence from Richards there are numerous errors and misstatements that need deconstructing. Here are just a few.

The law may have been “wildly unpopular” in Planned Parenthood’s circles and among the throngs they bused in from all over the country, but it passed handily among Texas’ elected representatives (male and female) and was signed by a governor Texans returned to office three times.

The law’s focus was not on closing “women’s health facilities” but on halting abortions on pain-capable unborn children; requiring abortionists to follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s prescribing protocol for RU-486; ensuring that abortionists would have hospital admitting privileges so they could accompany women who had suffered complications; and placing safeguards on previously poorly regulated abortion clinics.

As long as they did not perform abortions or met the commonsense requirements, the centers  were unaffected.  If clinics closed, it was due to their insistence on offering abortions without needed safeguards for women, not due to any effort by legislators to conspire against women needing health care.

Richards does take the opportunity to promote Planned Parenthood’s  latest “feminist icon,”  gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, the state Senator who led a “heroic 11-hour filibuster” of a pro-life law that eventually passed anyway. The letter manages not to mention that in opposing HB 2, Davis was, among other things, defending late abortions. Richards described the pro-abortion mob that descended on Austin during the filibuster as part of a “grassroots uproar against the reckless new law” that Planned Parenthood called “the most inspiring fight for women’s health we’ve seen in years.”

Put that in context of plans already announced by Planned Parenthood to spend $3 million in Texas elections in 2014 to elect Davis and other key pro-abortion candidates.

Planned Parenthood says that

 “Now in 2014, we need more boots on the ground.  We need more trained activists engaging in direct voter contact, face-to-face, about what these elections mean in terms of safe, legal abortion… We need women to understand how much their vote matters – to themselves, their daughters, and to women all across the country who are having a hard time getting the care they need.”

The message of the letter is clear.  Planned Parenthood is going to be raising and spending lots of money in this fall’s election, peddling myths about threats to women’s health to get voters to the polls and to defend, fund, and expand their abortion empire.

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research, NRL News

Adult Stem Cells Help Totally Paralyzed Patient Walk, Embryonic Stem Cells? Zilch

I predicted in 2013 that the company which bought Geron would restart its embryonic stem cell product human trial. Indeed, it is.

I could also have predicted the media would hype it to the moon. And so the San Francisco Chronicle has in big headlines on the front page. From, “Stem Cell Industry’s ‘Huge Development’ in Bay Area:”

Almost three years after a Bay Area company shut down the world’s first clinical trial of a therapy using embryonic stem cells, another local company is reviving the therapy. The treatment drew international attention in 2010, when Geron in Menlo Park began testing it in patients with severe spinal cord injuries. But it scrapped the project a year later because of a lack of funds – a move seen as a major blow to the nascent field. The therapy was then sold to Asterias Biotherapeutics, also in Menlo Park. On Wednesday, Asterias said it had gained regulatory permission to test whether the treatment, which is derived from human embryonic stem cells, helps heal patients with a different kind of spinal cord injury…

“It’s a huge development for the field,” said Kevin Whittlesey, science officer at the agency. “We’re starting to realize the potential touted so highly when embryonic stem cell research was in its infancy.”

Let’s deconstruct this. First, the prominence of the story seeks to help California’s boondoggle stem cell agency keep its door open

The trial was also described as a victory by the state’s taxpayer-funded stem cell agency. Created by voters a decade ago, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is authorized to spend $3 billion on stem cell research, and its future rests on the results, including any potential therapies, that those scientists and companies develop. A $14.3 million grant will cover half the costs of Asterias’ trial, the company said.

Secondly, the original Geron study may not have worked all that well:

With some tweaks, Asterias is picking up where Geron left off. Geron treated severe injuries in the thoracic region of the spinal cord, which runs along the back. Asterias is targeting injuries that originate in the neck, citing an outside study that suggests injuries in this area are easier to treat. It will also amp up the doses used to inject patients.

Finally, if this is such a big deal, why do the media constantly ignore far more advanced human trials for spinal cord injury using ethical stem cells? For example this very exciting peer reviewed study of paralyzed subjects treated with olfactory stem cells:

Of the 13 patients assessed by functional studies, 1 paraplegic patient (patient 9) can ambulate with 2 crutches and knee braces with no physical assistance and 10 other patients can ambulate with walkers with or without braces with physical assistance.

One tetraplegic patient (patient 13) ambulates with a walker, without knee braces or physical assistance.

Did you get that? Tetraplegia means paralyzed from the neck down! In this study, one totally paralyzed subject now uses a walker without assistance. Why isn’t that worth a front page story?
Let me answer my own question: Because when it comes to cultural deconstruction, it isn’t the treatment that matters so much as the source of the treatment. Adult stem cells just don’t shatter any moral boundaries.

LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.

LifeNews.com by Wesley J. Smith

ERA passage could undermine new Illinois pregnant mom law

On "Women's Equality Day," Governor Quinn signed pregnant moms bill into law

CHICAGO - Governor Pat Quinn agreed with the Illinois General Assembly Tuesday, "Women's Equality Day" that pregnant women should be allowed special treatment while on the job.

The governor signed into law State Rep. Mark Flowers (D-Chicago) and Senator Toi Hutchison's (D-Chicago Heights) HB 8, which requires employers to set limits on heavy lifting and provide assistance in manual labor; provide access to places to sit, more frequent bathroom breaks, time off to recover from childbirth and break space for breast-feeding.

“Women should not have to choose between being a mother and having a job,” Governor Quinn said. “This new law will provide important protections and accommodations for working mothers-to-be so that they can continue to provide for their family without risking their health or the health of their child. These common-sense accommodations will provide peace of mind, safety and opportunity for moms-to-be and also help strengthen our workforce across the state.”

The common sense provisions are now required by the new law, but giving pregnant and nursing moms special considerations grinds against a renewed effort in the Illinois General Assembly to pass the federal Equal Right Amendment. While the debate is ongoing as to whether the ERA has passed its deadline, there is a question about whether laws like the one Governor Quinn signed into law would then be ruled unconstitutional.

Would an implemented federal ERA strip away these provisions for pregnant working moms, since it applies only to women?

Yes, it would, says Eagle Forum lobbyist and constitutional attorney Sharee Langenstein.

"The ERA would prevent states from making any distinction between men and women. WIC would be gone. Protections for pregnant and nursing women would be gone. Car insurance rates will go up. The cost of dry-cleaning will go up," Langenstein said.

Other unanswered questions being raised are "How much consideration of women's reproductive condition is enough?" "Will these work rules negatively affect the hiring of women child-bearing age?" "And will women not of child-bearing age be expected to bear the burden of their working sisters that are fertile?"

Those are questions that may be answered only in the courts.

Illinois Review

Pro-life laws are reducing the abortion rate

Any time there’s a pro-life law, you can be sure pro-abortion activists will be on-hand to protest with vile and obnoxious signs; dramatic chanting of “abortion-on-demand without apology;” and their go-to symbol, a bloody clothes hanger. I witnessed this behavior firsthand when debates raged over pro-life legislation in Texas last summer.

It’s all a deplorable display. They’re willing to brazenly fight common-sense protections that ensure women’s health and safety. And they fiercely oppose any attempt to give women informed consent and true choice. Make no mistake; these individuals want absolutely nothing to stand in the way of abortion. And pro-life laws are proving to be their number one adversary.

How effective are pro-life laws at lowering the incidence of abortion? A study by Michael New, assistant professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, provides a meta-analysis of 20 years of abortion data compiled by the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His research reveals that pro-life laws are reducing abortion rates. Here’s how:

• Public Funding Restrictions – Some states provide public funding for abortions. In 15 out of 18 cases, abortion rates fell after Medicaid funding was reduced. Specifically in the state of North Carolina, there was not only a decrease in the abortion rate, but an increase in the birthrate was observed months later. The findings concluded that 37% of the women who would have otherwise had an abortion carried their child to term when funding was not available.
  
• Parental Involvement Laws – Pro-abortion activists have denounced laws involving parents, saying you can’t legislate good family communication. Yet in 16 peer-reviewed studies there was a statistical decline in the number of abortions of minors in states where these laws were enacted. The difference ranged from 13% to as high as 42%.
  
• Informed Consent Laws – There are variations in how these laws are enacted. Some require a counseling visit prior to an abortion; others specify how information about development in the womb is communicated. It’s estimated that viewing color photos of the unborn baby’s development results in a 3% to 7% reduction in the abortion rate. In-person counseling can reduce rates by as much as 12%.
  

 The full article published by State Politics & Policy Quarterly is available at this link.

Pro-life laws are proving that abortion-on-demand is NOT the solution women want or need. By offering women life-affirming alternatives, more mothers are realizing that they can choose life for their babies. And the exciting part is we’re at the cusp of seeing more fruit from our efforts. Over 220 pro-life laws have been passed at the state level since 2011. Imagine the lives we’ll see saved in the next 5 to 10 years.

This celebration comes with a caution however. The pro-aborts fight us tooth and nail every step of the way. One recent example is US Senate bill 1696 with the misleading name, “Women’s Health Protection Act.” This is radical pro-abortion legislation that’ll wipe out all pro-life laws ever passed by both the federal and state levels of government. This will leave women completely vulnerable to the abortion industry, without any protections or regulations. They’re determined to make abortion-on-demand the law of the land. Obviously, it’s our responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Take a stand by contacting your senators today and ask them to oppose Senate bill 1696. Let them know that pro-life laws are making a difference and saving lives.

Reprinted with permission from Life Issues Institute, INC.

Brad Mattes, Executive Director, Life Issues Institute via LifeSiteNews.com

Tax-Funded PBS to Air Propaganda Film “Humanizing” Docs Who Do Third-Trimester Abortions

Looking for something to do on Labor Day? The taxpayer-funded PBS has an answer for you:  a move that “humanizes” late-term abortionists who kill unborn children in the third-trimester.

“After Tiller” profiles Warren Hern, Shelley Sella, LeRoy Carhart, and Susan Robinson, some of the last third-trimester abortionists left in the United States.
On September 1, PBS will be showing the pro-abortion propaganda film “After Tiller” that seeks to sanitize the practice of killing unborn children after viability in late-term abortions. The station also provides resources for people to host an at-home viewing party.

That may sound sick to you, but the taxpayer-funded television station prefers to describe the movie this way:

Martha Shane and Lana Wilson’s After Tiller is a deeply humanizing and probing portrait of the only four doctors in the United States still openly performing third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas—and in the face of intense protest from abortion opponents.

It is also an examination of the desperate reasons women seek late abortions. Rather than offering solutions, After Tiller presents the complexities of these women’s difficult decisions and the compassion and ethical dilemmas of the doctors and staff who fear for their own lives as they treat their patients.

The PBS web site even includes a quote from the liberal Washington Post extolling the virtues of the movie.

“After Tiller does viewers the great service of providing light where there’s usually only heat, giving a human face and heart to what previously might have been an abstract issue or quickly scanned news item.”

Promoting abortions after viability as a great service? Your taxpayer dollars at work…

LifeNews.com by Steven Ertelt

Illinois to double funding for IUDs, sterilizations after Hobby Lobby decision

 
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) has proposed a massive increase in the amount of taxpayer-funded subsidies available for the contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs most commonly opposed by religiously faithful employers.

The HFS is also threatening to force faith-based doctors who refuse to provide the drugs and procedures to refer their patients to people who will.

HFS Director Julie Hanos told the Chicago Tribune that Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn and the Illinois HFS were “very concerned” by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.  She said the department is working closely with Planned Parenthood and other groups to develop new guidelines to minimize the ruling’s impact.

The Hobby Lobby ruling came down in response to a challenge to the controversial Obamacare contraception mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance plans that cover contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion-causing drugs without copay, regardless of religious objection.

The high court ruled that closely-held private companies can opt out of providing such coverage if it violates the owners’ religious beliefs.

In response HFS has proposed a doubling in the amount of reimbursement available through Medicaid for IUDs and vasectomies as an incentive for Planned Parenthood and other providers to offer them.
Although the increased funding will be available only through Medicaid – the state-run health care system for lower-income patients – and not employer-based health care, Hamos said the Hobby Lobby ruling fueled the changes and prompted the state to go public with them much earlier than planned.

“It is an opportune time when women across the country are paying attention … that's a time that we can really use that attention to focus on what's available to them through Medicaid," Hamos told the Tribune.

The department has also proposed increases in reimbursement rates for the controversial Essure sterilization method, which is billed as a less-invasive alternative to tubal ligation for women. Essure has come under fire by consumer advocacy groups after thousands of women have complained of dangerous complications ranging from infections, to chronic pain, organ damage and even death.

While the proposed changes in reimbursement apply only to Medicaid recipients, Hamos noted that many women on the lower end of the employment spectrum frequently switch between Medicaid and employer-based healthcare as they cycle through multiple jobs.  She said she hoped the changes would allow such women to obtain sterilization or long-term contraception regardless of whether area employers cover them or not.

As a means to that end, the proposed guidelines would also eliminate the current “step therapy” rules that require women to try less costly methods of contraception before forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for more expensive drugs or procedures.  "It should be all about preventing and respecting the choice that [a woman] makes and how to do that,” Hamos told the Tribune.

Meanwhile, Illinois officials are also examining whether they can circumvent federal conscience protection laws that prevent the state from forcing Catholic and other religious medical providers to provide information about contraceptives, sterilization, abortifacients, or other drugs and procedures to which they morally object.

Illinois’ proposed workaround would force such providers to refer any patients who ask for information about morally offensive treatments to providers who offer them without reserve.

Planned Parenthood praised the proposed guidelines.  "This is a great way to give women access to the contraceptives they need in a timely fashion and have every contraceptive available to them," Pam Sutherland, vice president for public policy and education for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, told the Tribune.

If approved, the new guidelines will go into effect October 10.

Illinois HFS is taking public comment on the proposed changes through September 15.

To comment on the proposed guidelines, you can e-mail Illinois HFS by clicking here.

LifeSiteNews.com by Kirsten Andersen

After Losing to Hobby Lobby, Obama Admin Pushes Crippling Fines for HHS Mandate Violators

After losing to Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court in a case about whether certain businesses who object to paying for abortion-causing drugs for their employees must follow the HHS mandate, the Obama administration has revised the HHS mandate rules.


The revisions target religious nonprofits and those pro-life companies like Hobby Lobby.
The Obama administration released a fact sheet on the newly-proposed HHS mandate rule pertaining to non-profit organizations and closely held for-profit entities, like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The factsheet on the new rules makes it clear that the HHS mandate violates the conscience rights of non-profit organizations and family businesses across the country.
According to the factsheet, the Obama administration will publish two new regulations relating to the HHS preventive services mandate. One is an interim final rule regarding an additional mechanism for non-profits to provide notification of their objection to the mandate. The second is a proposed final rule and request for comment on applying an accommodation procedure to for-profit businesses, like family-owned companies Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.

The upshot of the new rules? As Arina Grossu, Director for the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, tells LifeNews, it’s “the threat of crippling fines on non-profits who stand up for their freedom of conscience.”

“What remains an insulting accounting gimmick does not protect the rights of Americans with sincere conscientious objections. It is simply another clerical layer to an already existing accounting gimmick that does nothing to protect religious freedom because the employer still remains the legal gateway by which these drugs and services will be provided to their employees,” she said. “It’s very disappointing that the Obama administration is doubling down on its plans to punish charities and non-profits that assist the poor and homeless, who in some cases have nowhere else to turn for assistance.”

“Effective immediately, this latest rule still orders charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor, non-profit Christian colleges like Wheaton College, and religious broadcasters like EWTN to violate their consciences simply because they legally contract for health coverage,” Grossu continued. “The government uses their contract as the basis to force their insurers to provide their employees with free contraception and drugs that can kill human embryos, against their sincere conscientious beliefs.”

“If these charities and non-profits follow their conscience and decline to participate in the meaningless accounting gimmick, the administration will make them pay huge penalties accruable on a daily basis — one hundred dollars per employee per day,” she said.

“Additionally, the government is also soliciting comment on new ways to force family businesses to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions due to the HHS mandate in an attempt to address and skirt the recent Supreme Court ruling. However, the government’s actions here still force family businesses to be complicit in what they view as morally wrong,” Grossu added.

Per the CMS factsheet, the interim final rule will create an additional option for how religious nonprofits may register their objection to the HHS preventive services mandate. Instead of filling out the self-certification form (created in the July 2013 final rules), a religious nonprofit may notify HHS in writing of its objection.

Then, as the factsheet provided by CMS goes on to explain, “HHS will then notify the insurer for an insured health plan, or the Department of Labor will notify the TPA for a self-insured plan, that the organization objects to providing contraception coverage and that the insurer or TPA is responsible for providing enrollees in the health plan separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan. Regardless of whether the eligible organization self-certifies in accordance with the July 2013 final rules, or provides notice to HHS in accordance with the August 2014 IFR, the obligations of insurers and/or TPAs regarding providing or arranging separate payments for contraceptive services are the same, as discussed in this Fact Sheet. The interim final rule solicits comments but is effective on date of publication in the Federal Register.”

The accommodation created under the July 2013 final rule remains in effect. Today’s announcement creates another notification procedure, which produces the same effect. There are over 50 cases of religious nonprofits suing in objection to the adequacy of the accommodation created by the July 2013 final rule.

In addition, today’s announcement includes notice of a proposed rule to apply the “accommodation” to certain for-profit companies. This includes a request for comments on a new proposed rule for how to define closely-held corporations and how these for-profit organizations (like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood) will provide notification of their objection to providing contraception coverage.


Grossu, of the Family Research Council, told LifeNews, “The Family Research Council urges the administration to offer a full exemption from the mandate to charities and non-profits that have sincere conscientious objections and to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding family businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.”
Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told LifeNews that charities should not be punished for standing up for their pro-life beliefs.

“Religious ministries in these cases serve tens of thousands of Americans, helping the poor and homeless and healing the sick. The Little Sisters of the Poor alone serve more than ten thousand of the elderly poor. These charities want to continue following their faith. They want to focus on ministry—such as sharing their faith and serving the poor—without worrying about the threat of massive IRS penalties,” she said.

LifeNews.com by Steven Ertelt

Obama administration announces new HHS mandate rules

Also saved in OneNote

The Department of Health and Human Services issued on Friday new rules regarding its contraception mandate, which address both non-profits and closely held for-profit entities.

Sylvia Burwell, HHS secretary, said Aug. 22 that the new rules will ensure access to free contraception, “while respecting religious considerations raised by non-profit organizations and closely held for-profit companies.”

The HHS department has issued a mandate under the 2010 Affordable Care Act which requires employers to offer health insurance covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

It has been particular burden for Catholics and others with pro-life religious and moral convictions. Non-compliance with the mandate is punished by severe fines.

While the mandate includes a narrow religious exemption for houses of worship, non-profit organizations had been offered an “accommodation,” under which a religious employer would sign a form authorizing another company or third party to provide payments for the products they find objectionable.

The new rules announced Friday “are in response to recent court decisions,” the HHS stated.

For non-profits, the newly issued rules “lay out an additional way for organizations eligible for an accommodation to provide notice of their religious objection to providing coverage for contraceptive services,” the Health and Human Services department stated Aug. 22.

“The rule allows these eligible organizations to notify the Department of Health and Human Services in writing of their religious objection to providing contraception coverage. HHS and the Department of Labor will then notify insurers and third party administrators so that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate coverage for contraceptive services, with no additional cost to the enrollee or the employer.”

“The interim final rule solicits comments, but goes into effect upon publication.”

Regarding closely held for-profits, such as Hobby Lobby, the HHS said it is “issuing a proposed rule soliciting comments on how it might extend” to them “the same accommodation that is available to non-profit religious organizations.”

“Under the proposal, these companies would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds. The proposal seeks comment on how to define a closely held for-profit company and whether other steps might be appropriate to implement this policy.”

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that closely held for-profit corporations – such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Services – are protected against the mandate by the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The two closely-held businesses, run by Protestant and Mennonite owners, objected to aspects of the HHS rule that require them to provide coverage for drugs that they believe can cause abortions.

The ruling quickly led to the introduction in the Senate of a bill aiming to thwart the Supreme Court's decision, co-sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

The HHS department's Aug. 22 release noted that the Obama administration “continues to encourage Congress to act to ensure that women affected by the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision have access to the same coverage options offered to others.”

At least 100 lawsuits filed by more than 300 plaintiffs have challenged the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. In the wake of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the closely-held entity Mersino Management Company won an injunction against the mandate from the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court granted a similar injunction to Wheaton College, a Protestant liberal arts college in Illinois.

CNA/EWTN News

Abortion Activist Who Attacked Pro-Lifers Ordered to Pay Restitution

The abortion backer who attacked a pro-life man in a profane rant captured on video last month has been ordered to pay restitution and the case has been closed.

Mark Harrington, founder of Created Equal, whose group held abortion victim signs which enraged the abortion activist, provided the update on the case. Previously, Harrinton and Seth Drayer, who was physically attacked (video below) while leading a group of pro-life students in sharing the pro-life message in downtown Columbus, Ohio, said they would drop the charges if Victoria Duran would meet with them.

“We’re willing to drop the charges,” Harrington told Fox News, “In fact, I’ve asked for a meeting with her – if she’s willing to apologize. Seth and I are both Christians, we believe in forgiveness, we’ve already forgiven her. But, if she’s not remorseful she needs to own up to what she’s done.”
The video shows a woman in a Burger King shirt attacking the pro-lifers.

During the attack, she says, ““You’re just a white f—— privileged racist f—— male who doesn’t stand for women’s rights.” The abortion advocate adds, “No uterus, no right to talk about it. Understand, Mother f—–?”

The abortion backer has been identified as Victoria Duran and she is seen on video yelling at the protestors and kicking down their signs.

ABC6/FOX28 caught up with Duran hours later and asked her about her actions.

“The first amendment protects them from government interference it doesn’t protect them from people basically telling them they’re idiots. But you assaulted them? Assault I wouldn’t necessarily say shoving them aside and telling them to keep the camera out of my face as assault. You think it’s okay to push people? I believe that I had the right to tel them the did not have my consent to film me,” said Duran.


WARNING: The following video contains graphic images and language.


LifeNews.com by Steven Ertelt

Lefty Blogger Starts Taco-Or-Beer Challenge to Fund Abortion

As the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge sweeps the internet, abortion activists have decided to put their own spin on the viral fundraising effort. Instead of encouraging individuals to donate to charities to fight a debilitating disease like ALS, abortion activists are pushing for donations to fund the killing of unborn children. The so-called “Taco or Beer Challenge” calls on participants to enjoy a taco or a beer, or both, and then donate money to pay for abortions.

According to its originator, the “benefit” is that unlike the Ice Bucket Challenge, no one has to dump water on their head and someone gets funding for an abortion.

“Abortion is common. Abortion is normal. And abortion is safest when it is legal and accessible—something abortion funds help to ensure in an increasingly hostile political climate,” says Andrea Grimes at pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check.

However, the reality is that abortion is not safe and never could be. In every abortion, there are two victims; an unborn baby who loses his or her life and a mother who is left to grieve the loss.

Science shows us that by 20 weeks, an unborn baby is capable of feeling pain. As that baby is ripped limb from limb in a late abortion, he or she dies in excruciating pain.

And that horrific tragedy merits “charitable” donations? No, it doesn’t.

It’s pretty sad to watch a cause designed to aid vulnerable individuals struggling with a disease be twisted into an effort to raise money for the destruction of vulnerable unborn babies. Women should be empowered with resources and support to make life-affirming decisions that respect their lives and the lives of their unborn children.

In response, pro-life individuals should take this opportunity to stand up for unborn children and their mothers. While a radical fringe gives money to pay for abortions, we can do our part to support mothers-in-need and advocate for measures that ensure legal protection for unborn babies.

Donate to save lives, not destroy them: http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/donate/

NRL News