Should pro-life groups be forced to help destroy life?

Another legal challenge to ObamaCare that raises crucial questions related to other pro-life cases awaits a federal court decision within the next few months.

March for Life has challenged the Obama administration's mandate to provide free insurance coverage for contraception and abortion-causing drugs on a pro-life organization. ObamaCare, which forces employers – regardless of their moral convictions – to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs under threat of heavy financial penalties, has been under fire from pro-life organizations and Christian business owners.

Alliance Defending FreedomAlliance Defending Freedom is representing March for Life in the case. Elissa Graves, the ADF attorney on hand for arguments in federal district court in Washington, DC, tells OneNewsNow, "March for Life is an organization that holds 100-percent pro-life views based on science and ethics instead of religion. It advocates for life at all stages which includes from conception until death. Some of these drugs do have effect after conception."

As a pro-life organization, the attorney says, "March for Life should not be forced to help destroy life."

According to Graves, the presiding judge was very engaged during the court proceedings. "The judge was very interested in arguments for both sides and seemed to really know the arguments and asked a lot of great questions of both sides," she offers.

A similar lawsuit was brought by Priests for Life, a Catholic pro-life group that also objects to the mandate on religious grounds. Graves maintains that if courts can force coverage on groups like these two, they can likely compel all to do so.

ADF senior legal counsel Matt Bowman, who presented arguments Wednesday on behalf of March for Life said, "Pro-life organizations must be free to operate according to the beliefs they espouse. March for Life was founded to oppose the tragedy of abortion – the very thing the government is forcing the organization to provide through its health insurance plan."

Hobby Lobby, in a high-profile Supreme Court case ruling in June, won the right to exclude coverage for abortion-causing drugs on religious grounds.

Bowman added: "The government cannot selectively punish organizations that wish to abide by their beliefs."

By Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow.com

“This Time” is a powerful pro-life, pro-adoption video

Oh, my goodness, another incredibly powerful pro-life video, this time from John Elefante, the former lead singer of the group “Kansas.” I learned about “This Time” from Charisma News which explains that the video shares the story of the birth of Sami, Elefante’s adopted daughter, whose 13-year-old mother came perilously close to aborting Sami.

“I can’t imagine life without my daughter, Sami, and it just breaks my heart that pregnant young women much like her birth mother, instead of choosing life for their babies, are denying them the chance to be born,” Elefante tells Abby Carr “If our song can in any way bring attention to this issue and encourage those who are considering abortion to choose life through options such as adoption, then we couldn’t be happier.”

So, why is “This Time” so effective?

For starters, Elefante does a marvelous job setting a real-life stage: a very frightened (barely) teenage girl who discovers she is pregnant. Scared out of her wits, she slams the door on her mother and races to the “solution”: the abortion clinic.

When a girl or woman is at the abortion clinic—let alone in the operating room itself—the pressure to “get this over with” is unfathomable. In this case, the young girl is half-asleep in the waiting room and dreams of being with the little girl she is carrying and about to abort.

It would likely take something as powerful as a “picture” in her mind’s eye to convince her that this is desperately wrong. The abortion clinic staff is shown restraining her from leaving, which is not uncommon. They’ve seen it all before and, to them, this is just routine, last-minute panic.

But Sami’s teenage mother does make it to the phone to call for her own mother. The last scene is of her outside, visualizing her baby at three or four, just as her mother arrives to take her home.

The music, as you would expect from a multiple-Grammy-winning songwriter and producer, is just tremendous. The lyrics tell the story of why she ran to the abortion clinic….and why she chose life. (I will not spoil the delight you will experience by quoting the refrain that makes your heart soar.)

Take four minutes out of your busy day and watch “This Time.”  Believe me you’ll be forwarding this video to all your friends and family.

Garth Brooks’ Tender Ballad “Mom” is pro-life from beginning to end

Garth Brooks

Sundays are always hectic for the Andruskos, but especially yesterday. It was my wife’s birthday. We gathered at our oldest daughter’s home–our kids, our daughter-in-law, and our two grandkids—to celebrate Lisa as a wife, mom, grandmother, and mother-in-law.

Fortunately (I think that’s the right word), I had not had time to dial up some texts and emails that had been sent to me talking about this “tear-jerker of a song.” Well…today I had time to listen to Garth Brooks’ new song, titled simply “Mom.”

Oh, my goodness.

By now, I’m guessing that Garth’s tender performance of this song on Good Morning America has been seen by half of North America. He describes it as his second favorite (second only to “The Dance”) and it is easy to see why. Why it’s one of his two favorites and why every female in the GMA audience was weeping. (Confession: like Garth, I choked up as well.)

So what is “Mom” about? Glad you asked. The Don Sampson, Wynn Varble-penned ballad is a conversation between an unborn baby and (I will assume it’s a girl) her Maker. The “little baby”—considering the glory of where she is confesses that maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to stay with God. That earth down there is awfulllly big and she is awfulllly small. Hey, God, you’re not mad at me, are you?

On the contrary, God responses, but there is somebody special who is waiting for you. Since everybody else has copied this stanza, I will, too.

So hush now, baby, don’t you cry
Cause there’s someone down there waiting
Whose only goal in life
is making sure you’re always going to be alright
A loving angel, tender, tough, and strong
It’s almost time to go and meet your mom.

Pass the Kleenex.

The song just grows more and more tender. God reminds the baby to listen closely. Mom is going to teach her the important stuff she needs to know. But good manners and laughing and loving, important as they are, are only minutiae in comparison to her most important task:

And she’ll put you on the path that’ll bring you back to me

You can watch Garth perform the song on GMA on a gazillion different spots. Here’s one.  The audience reaction is almost as remarkable as the song.

Great pro-life ballad from word one to word last.

On second thought, maybe it would have been a blessing to play Garth in honor of Lisa and all the other great moms who have chosen life. Even if (especially if?) we had all bawled like children, these moms deserve this tribute, and much, much more.

By Dave Andrusko

NRL News Today

Actress Ellen Barkin: ‘Fetuses,’ ‘Infants’ Not People Because They ‘Cannot Talk’

Ellen Barkin

Forget speaking for the voiceless – according to Hollywood.

Actress and abortion absolutist Ellen Barkin took to Twitter Nov. 1 to declare when life begins. (She’s not a scientist, but maybe she played one on TV once.) According to Barkin, a fetuses, babies and infants are not “persons” because they “cannot talk.” A Tony and Emmy award winner, Barkin has boasted roles in movies including, “The Big Easy,” “Sea of Love,” “Ocean’s Thirteen” and “Very Good Girls.”

“News flash…a fetus cannot talk,” Barkin tweeted. “It is not a person. Not even a baby, not even an infant. Nope. Sorry.”

In the past, Barkin proved she had no qualms about arguing abortion over Twitter, saying:

As a “pro-abortion” advocate, Barkin believes she’s really “pro-life:”

Besides warning that “Virginia Regulations Could Shutter Abortion Clinics” in 2012, Barkin is an Obama supporter (“if Obama loses the election,” then “a police state will be just around the corner”) and Wendy Davis advocate.

She also has a thing for mocking Christian conservatives, and her flip pro-abortion attitude compliments some of Lena Dunham’s past comments.

By Katie Yoder

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

Suicide is not Dignity, it is Suicide

(Right) Wesley Smith

Beware movements that word engineer and deploy gooey euphemisms to further their agenda. It generally means there is something very wrong with the agenda.

In the wake of Brittany Maynard’s death, suicide promoters are now using the word “dignity” as a synonym for suicide, more than implying that dying naturally is not dignity.

That is not only cruel, it is wrong.

Dignity is intrinsic. Sick and dying people seeking to be assured they still have it look at us–our faces–like mirrors. If they see us thinking they are less than they once were, it can be devastating.

In the Guardian, Brian Smith–obviously no relation–says his father should have been able to commit dignity rather than die of old age and the effects of post-polio syndrome. From, “What Do You Tell Your Father When He’s Ready to Die?”

But over time, his body began to break down, and breathing became labored. The polio had come back, this time in the form of post-polio syndrome, which weakens muscles that were affected the first time around. Dad’s ailment would slowly strip him of his independence, his ability to move and, eventually, his ability to breathe. If this was death’s door, he was rapping it with what knuckles he could. His decline would last nearly a decade before his doctors gave up on treatments and assigned visits from hospice nurses.

For my father’s disease, there is no cure.

But there is always care–and love–which Smith family apparently gave dad in bounteous quantities. Good.

But Mr. Smith continued to decline:

As his days devolved into a drudgery of pills, bad daytime TV, and constant reliance on a breathing machine, Dad told us he was ready to die. “I’m done,” my father said. But choosing to die, or even assisting someone who wants to die, is a felony in California. Our options to humanely end the suffering were limited.

Self-starvation and dehydration remain the only legal ways to help someone choose when they die in the state. But few of us can muster the strength to starve to death, and caretakers – including Medicare-supported hospice nurses – are not in the business of starving people.

Saying, “I’m done,” isn’t the same thing as saying, “I want to commit suicide!.” Yet, that is what Smith wished for his father. Indeed, Smith never writes that his father asked to be killed.

I have been there. When my dad was dying of colon cancer, a moment came when he was sitting on his bed and we were talking. He suddenly looked up at me and sighed deeply with an expression that said, “I’m done,” more loudly than if he had uttered the words.

That wasn’t the same thing as saying, “Kill me.” Dad wasn’t saying, “Get me the poison pills.” He was saying, “I am done fighting.”

We moved to hospice mode, and he died a few months later–with true dignity. He did not commit suicide.

As the column notes, people can make themselves dead if they really want to. Do we really want to make suicide easier?

And note the consequences of accepting the destructive meme that suicide is dignity. One commenter takes Smith’s advocacy to its logical place:

The Oregon law is a good beginning, but it should apply also to those facing incurable pain, paralysis or imprisonment that could go on for years.

Exactly right. When it comes to assisted suicide, in for a penny, in for a pound.

The question isn’t terminal illness. Many people suffer more and for longer than the dying

The issue is whether facilitated suicide is a right. If it is, it can’t be limited to the dying. Indeed, perhaps other than to those with only a transitory desire to die, it can’t be limited at all.

So, let’s have an honest debate. A right to facilitated suicide? Yes or no. Just don’t call it “dignity.”

P.S. My good friend, the late poet and disability rights activist, Mark O’Brien, contracted polio at age 6 and lived the rest of his life in an iron lung. Mark was adamantly against assisted suicide. He too died from post-polio syndrome. He died with dignity, not by suicide.

By Wesley J. Smith

Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

How Assisted Suicide Advocacy Hurts the Sick

Imagine you have Lou Gehrig’s disease. You know you are dying.

But your struggle is made even more difficult by advocates who claim:

1) You should commit suicide if you want “death with dignity;” and,

2) Your society should help you do it.

That was the circumstance in which my hospice patient–nay, good friend–Robert Salamanca found himself in the late 1990s. As the Supreme Court grappled with whether to create an assisted-suicide Roe v. Wade (it refused 9-0), the media covered the story like they just did Brittany Maynard–with ALS patients used as the bloody flag to create emotional support for doctor-prescribed death.

Bob was devastated by such advocacy. I will never forget coming to his house one day after one of the networks did a high-profile story on an ALS patient who wanted assisted suicide. He was livid: “They are trying to drive me from the well-lit boulevards into the dark alley,” he said angrily. 

Bob also told me that such advocacy made it harder to “keep moving forward,” e.g., to maintain an upbeat outlook and “get every moment that life still has to offer,” while constantly hearing that life with progressing disabilty wasn’t worth living and having to contend with pro-euthanasia fear-mongering that he would die “choking on his own spit” (to quote the lie uttered repeatedly on television by Jack Kevorkian’s odious lawyer, Geoffrey Feiger–including during a debate against me on Good Morning America.)

In fact, Bob had been suicidal. He had wanted to go to Kevorkian, but his family wouldn’t cooperate. And he was so glad! “I came out of the fog,” he told me. “I am so glad to still be alive.”

Bob was so incensed against assisted suicide that he wrote a piece for the San Francisco Chronicle. He told me that he hoped I would make use of his work in the continuing fight against assisted suicide. In that spirit–and as an antidote to all the Brittany Maynard media poison–I reprint his entire piece below:

I DON’T WANT A CHOICE TO DIE

By

Robert Salamanca

I have lived with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS/Lou Gehrig’s disease) for seven years. On January 8, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether terminally ill people have a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. After the two-hour hearing, with its blending of emotion and law, the justices seemed highly skeptical.

I hope so. For as Chicago’s beloved Cardinal Joseph Bernardin wrote to the Supreme Court just before he died: “There can be no such thing as a ‘right to assisted suicide’ because there can be no legal and moral order which tolerates the killing of innocent human life, even if the agent of death is self-administered. Creating a new ‘right’ to assisted suicide will endanger society and send a false signal that a less than ‘perfect’ life is not worth living.”

Euthanasia advocates believe they are doing people like me a favor. They are not. The negative emotions toward the terminally ill and disabled generated by their advocacy is actually at the expense of the “dying” and their families and friends. We often feel disheartened and without self-assurance because of a false picture of what it is like to die created by these enthusiasts who prey on the misinformed.

What we, the terminally ill, need is exactly the opposite — to realize how important our lives are. And our loved ones, friends, and, indeed, society need to help us feel that we are loved and appreciated unconditionally.

Instead, reporting in the media too often makes us feel like token presences, burdens who are better off dead. For example, in a recent ABC “Nightline,” Ted Koppel interviewed a pro-euthanasia supporter with ALS who announced to the world that he was going to take his life on a specific date. He felt he was obligated to do so because of his beliefs and the terminal situation of his disease. I found this act of showboating pretentious and ABC’s presentation of his condition exploitive. Mr. Koppel asked him why he had not yet taken his life and his only answer was… no answer. It was obvious to me that despite what he said, this man really wanted to live. Indeed, the people around him urged him to live. He listened. He did not commit suicide but died a peaceful and natural death with loved ones at his side.

Many pro-euthanasia groups “showcase” people with ALS. They portray us as feeble, unintelligible and dying by slow suffocation. This is absolutely false, and I protest their efforts vehemently. By receiving proper medical care, a terminally ill person can pass away peacefully, pain-free and with dignity. We are not people just waiting for someone to help us end our misery, but to the contrary, we are people reaching out to love… to be loved… wanting to feel life at its best.

Too many people have accepted the presumption that an extermination of some human lives can be just. Are we becoming a society so starved for heroes that we are too quick to embrace the Jack Kevorkians of the world? Where has our sense of community gone? True, terminal illness is frightening, but the majority of us overpower the symptoms and are great contributors to life.

If physician-assisted suicide is legally available, the right to die may become a duty to die. The hopelessly ill may be subtly pressured to get their dying over with — not only by cost-counting providers but by family members concerned about burdensome bills, impatient for an inheritance, exhausted by care-giving or just anxious to spare a loved one further suffering.

In my view, the pro-euthanasia followers’ posture is a great threat to the foundation upon which all life is based, and that is hope. I exhort everyone: Life is worth living, and life is worth receiving. I know. I live it every day.

________________________________________

Robert Salamanca, of Pleasanton, CA, is living intensely with ALS. His article originally appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, 2/19/97, and is reprinted here with the author’s permission.

Bob died peacefully–with dignity–of ALS in his sleep. I was honored to give his eulogy.

By Wesley J. Smith, Human Exceptionalism

Did an out-of-touch abortion stance cause Democrats to lose the Senate?

In the wake of momentous losses for U.S. Democrats on Tuesday, one group said the party’s abortion stance may be isolating voters and hindering candidates on both sides of the issue.

“It was a rough election cycle for pro-life Democrats, largely due to our own party position on abortion,” Democrats for Life executive director Kristen Day told CNA.

“In pro-life states and districts, Democrats, and particularly pro-life women, have a hard time pulling the lever for a candidate who is associated with a Party that not only supports abortion but actively campaigns against providing any reasonable restrictions on a ‘medical procedure’ that takes a life,” Day explained in a press release.

Noting that 21 million Democrats identify as pro-life, Day said that the party’s inflexible stance on the issue is too extreme for most members of the party.

“A large majority of Democrats support reasonable restrictions on abortion. We are alienating a whole new generation of pro-life Democrats.”

Democrats were trounced at the polls on Tuesday as Republicans took control of the U.S. Senate, expanded their control of the House, and won the governor’s mansion in deep blue states like Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Of the eight Democratic candidates endorsed by Democrats for Life, only two won their elections, both incumbent congressmen.

Day said that the Democratic Party’s rigid emphasis on abortion hurt the party overall – both those who adhere to the party’s platform and those who object to it.

In some cases, a singular focus on abortion came across as desperate to voters, she said, pointing to incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall’s loss in Colorado after attacking his opponent’s pro-life stance so heavily that he earned the local nickname “Mark Uterus.”

“He made his whole campaign about abortion,” Day said of Udall.

Democratic Texas governor candidate Wendy Davis also made abortion a focal point of her run for office. She lost the election and failed to gain the women’s vote in the state. Similarly, abortion activist Sandra Fluke, who gained public attention by advocating for employer-funded contraception, lost her bid for California state Senate by a 20-point margin.

Day also pointed to Maine, where the Democratic Congressional candidate Emily Cain “made abortion the foundation of her campaign” and “lost in a Democratic-leaning district that was in Democratic hands since 1995.”

However, Day suggested that the Democratic Party’s “out of touch” platform on abortion harmed not only those candidates who agree with it, but hampered the efforts of pro-life Democrats as well.

In West Virginia, Democratic governor Earl Ray Tomblin – who has previously described himself as “pro-life” – vetoed a Democratic-led effort to pass a late-term abortion ban.

Day thought this helped torpedo the re-election chances of House Rep. Nick Rahall, whom she had endorsed.

She said that Rahall lost in a “guilt by association” race, in which Republicans were able to make the argument that “you cannot trust pro-life Democrats in West Virginia.”

“That just provided everything the Republicans needed to attack pro-life Democrats and say this was their plan all along, they never wanted a 20-week ban,” Day explained.

Democrats must become a big-tent party on life issues to have any hope of re-taking the House and Senate, Day insisted.

“First of all, we need to change the platform,” she said. “We have to have a more inclusive platform and say pro-life Democrats are welcome.”

“At least we need to take steps to not carry NARAL’s water anymore,” she added. “We are a big tent party that wants to help all those who need assistance, all the vulnerable. We need to help the hungry, help the disabled – our traditional values. And the unborn child is part of that. And that’s what our party should be. And we’re not doing a good job.”

“The position that the Democratic Party has on that issue is just not what the rest of the country thinks. It’s the minority position and it’s hurting our party tremendously,” she stressed.

Two Democratic incumbents with strong pro-life records did succeed in the Nov. 4 election. Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Collin Peterson of Minnesota were easily re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Both had been endorsed by Democrats for Life and are known for supporting pro-life legislation.

Still, being a pro-life Democrat today is close to impossible, Day said, and the pro-life group National Right to Life agreed.

“The party strategists say you have to change your position and be pro-choice if you want to move up in the party. Tremendous pressure for that,” Day said.

“There were some Democrats who said ‘I am pro-life’,” acknowledged National Right to Life president Carol Tobias, “but then they voted against pro-life measures. They were saying one thing and doing another.”

“But there’s tremendous pressure on Democrats. They are expected to toe the party line and support abortion with no limits. And taxpayer funding of abortion,” she added.

CNA Daily News

An amusingly confused (and misleading) study of red and blue state knowledge about abortion

(Right) Prof. Danielle Bessett

You simply have to smile and laugh when you read so many “academic” studies that purport to tell you this or that about what Americans believe (or, in this case, know) about abortion. A friend forwarded me reports on a study out of the University of Cincinnati, the primary conclusion of which is to debunk the conclusion that there is a “red state/blue state” divide over abortion.

Here’s the primary finding:

“A new national survey reveals that the political divide among red-versus-blue states does not support the hypothesis that knowledge about abortion and health is shaped by the state in which one lives.”

More specifically, Danielle Bessett, a University of Cincinnati assistant professor of sociology, says she and her co-researchers found that their “data does not support the red-versus-blue state hypothesis: geography does not dictate the world views of Americans. Some individuals in all settings do have accurate information about abortion, regardless of political context.” (Research on the responses of 569 people nationwide, we read, was presented at the 109th Meeting of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco.)

There was no divide because roughly the same percentage of people, whether in the bluest of states, the reddest of states, or those living in more purple states, came to the “correct” conclusion.

So why is this worth our time to review? Because (a) only small portion of people ponied up the “correct” answer, and (b) in fact it was the much larger percentage who gave the “incorrect” answer who were on to the truth!

Put another way, the researchers “knew” what the truth was but most of those poor respondents didn’t have a clue—evidence of a kind of uniformity of ignorance. In fact, the exact opposite is the case.

Here are four of the questions, the responses, and Bessett’s complete mischaracterization of the answers:

A woman who has an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy is more likely to have breast cancer than if she were to continue the pregnancy.

Correct answer: disagree somewhat/disagree strongly. Percentage of respondents with correct answer: 37 percent

A woman who has an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy is more at risk of a serious mental health problem than if she were to continue that pregnancy.

Correct answer: disagree somewhat/disagree strongly. Percentage of respondents with correct answer: 31 percent

A woman having an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy is more likely to have difficulty getting pregnant in the future.

Correct answer: disagree somewhat/disagree strongly. Percentage of respondents with correct answer: 35 percent

Abortion during the first three months of pregnancy is legal in the U.S.

Correct answer: true. Percentage of respondents with correct answer: 83 percent.

Okay, let’s dig in.

#1. This is, of course, about the association between having an induced abortion and increasing a woman’s subsequent risk of breast cancer (the “ABC link”). According to Bessett, the “correct” answer is to disagree somewhat or strongly. Only 37% passed her test. In fact what this answer really shows is that regardless of “political viewpoints,” a whopping 63% agreed (somewhat or strongly) that there is a linkage.

#2. Likewise, only 31% gave the “correct” answer—disagreeing that having an abortion increases a woman’s risk of subsequent serious mental health problems. Almost 70% of Americans of all stripes agreed!

#3. Some 35% gave the “correct” answer—they disagreed that having an abortion means a woman is more likely to have trouble getting pregnant again. That leaves almost exactly 2/3rds (65%) who agreed!

#4. There were 17% who didn’t know abortion is legal in the first three months. That’s amazing and appalling. But just to complete the circle of inaccuracy from Prof. Bessett, while abortion is legal in the first three months, it is not legal only in the first three months, as we have discussed countless times.

Under Roe (and its companion case Doe v. Bolton) no restrictions were allowed prior to “viability.” In 1996, the Washington Post’s Dr. David Brown wrote, “Contrary to a widely held public impression, third trimester abortion is not outlawed in the United States.” He noted that given the expansive definition of “health” in the Doe decision, “life-threatening conditions need not exist for a woman to get a third-trimester abortion.”

Prof. Bessett would no doubt be appalled if she read our conclusion: The results of this survey are very encouraging.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today

Scientific Review Recommends Informing Patients About Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

The real war on women!

A second scientific review in 2014 has strongly urged physicians to warn patients about the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link before an abortion and argued the evidence for a cause-effect relationship is substantial.[1,2] A. Patrick Schneider and his colleagues authored the latest review entitled, “The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts,” for the journal, The Linacre Quarterly.[1] 
 
There are multiple, serious, health risks[3,4] associated with using the birth control pill and combined hormone replacement therapy (CHRT), both of which contain estrogen and progestin, although the former contains a larger dose. The authors of both reviews urged physicians to warn patients about the harms of taking either these drugs.
 
Schneider’s team said, “...having more than one risk factor compounds the risk of breast cancer via synergistic mechanisms,” meaning the risk increase the woman incurs is greater than the sum of the risks for each of her risk factors. They explained:
 
“The strength of the breast cancer epidemiological evidence substantiates the necessity that all females receive full and accurate informed consent before they are provided hormones, induced abortion, or both. This informed consent is especially imperative for a girl (and parent/guardian) or a young woman, who is in the pre-FFTP (first full term pregnancy) breast cancer ‘susceptibility window.’[1,2] As a family history of breast cancer, of which the child may be unaware, increases the risk for the girl considering an abortion, the presence of a parent may provide clinical information critical to accurate informed consent.”
 
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, explained:
 
“The ‘susceptibility window’ is the period between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy (FFTP) when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible. The worst time to be exposed to a cancer-causing agent is during the susceptibility window.”[1,2,5-9]
 
After citing the World Health Organization’s warning about the Pill and CHRT as Group 1 carcinogens for cancers of the breast, liver and cervix,[10,11] and how some physicians use a carcinogen (the pill) to treat benign conditions (i.e. acne, irregular menstrual periods, menstrual pain). The authors declared:
 
“The prescribing of a known carcinogen to a child for any non-lethal disease is problematic. Such a practice without the provision of full and accurate informed consent for the girl, and at least one parent or guardian, is medically, legally, and ethically indefensible.”
 
Schneider’s team cited “evidence of an emerging breast cancer pandemic.” Noting the words of Harvard’s Professor Brian MacMahon, the “founder of modern epidemiology,” who said “many of the prevalent forms of human cancer are preventable,” and citing his landmark research[12], they listed other ways women raise their risk: delay (or avoidance) childbearing, reduced duration (or avoidance) of breastfeeding.
 
Mrs. Malec declared, “It’s despicable that U.S. cancer groups and Planned Parenthood continue to deceive women about the ABC link and downplay the breast cancer risk associated with the Pill.”
 
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. Schneider AP, Zainer CM, Kubat CK, Mullen NK, Windisch AK. The breast cancer epidemic: 10 facts. The Linacre Quarterly 2014;81(3):244-277. Available at:
<http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000027>.
 
2. 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>.
 
3. Combined oral contraceptives (the Pill) can be delivered orally or via skin patch or vaginal ring. The following increased health risks are associated with taking the Pill:
 
Breast cancer
Liver cancer
Cervical cancer
Heart attacks
Strokes
Blood clots
Greater susceptibility to sexually transmitted diseases
 
Schneider’s team wrote the following about progestin-only Plan B, “Although it can now be purchased by a child of any age as easily as candy, Plan B One-Step is equivalent to the ingestion of 40-50 oral contraceptives (the Pill) at one time (FDA 2013). Regrettably, there is substantial evidence that progestin-only contraceptives, including levonorgestrel, are as carcinogenic as (the estrogen plus progestin birth control pill), and likely more so. Yager and Davidson 2006) in their authoritative review state ‘progestins tend to increase cell proliferation (multiplication),’ which is a known mechanism for carcinogenesis.” (emphasis added) They added:
 
“There is, in fact, reason to suspect that the progestins, such as levonorgestrel (Plan B), are more carcinogenic than combined hormone replacement therapy....Similarly, the World Health Organization-IARC (2007, 2876) final version of data released in 2005, although veiled, is revealing: ‘The addition of progestogens appears to enhance significantly the modest increase in the rate of breast cell proliferation caused by estrogen-only therapy. This is consistent with the notion of an increase in risk for breast cancer associated with combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy, over that associated with estrogen-only menopausal therapy.” [WHO-IARC 2007, 2876; Grosse et al. 2009] emphasis added
 
4. The authors listed the following risks associated with taking combined hormone replacement therapy, as reported by the Women’s Health Initiative study:
 
Invasive breast cancer
Increase in total cardiovascular mortality
Increase in “heart attacks”
Pulmonary emboli
Probable dementia for women >65 years old
Abnormal mammograms
Ovarian cancer
Breast cancer mortality (near doubling)
Stroke occurrence
 
5. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: <http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf>.
 
6. Daling JR, Malone DE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1584-1592. Available at: <http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584>.
 
7. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter DM, Severs WB. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302.
 
8. F.M. Biro and M.S. Wolff, Chapter 2: “Puberty as a Window of Susceptibility,” in Environment and Breast Cancer, ed. J. Russo (New York: Springer, 2011), 29-36.
 
9. Glantz S and Johnson KC. The surgeon general report on smoking and health 50 years later: Breast cancer and the cost of increasing caution. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:37-46.
 
10. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Straif K, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.
 
11. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See <http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2005/pr167.html>.
 
12. MacMahon, B, Cole P, Lin TM, Lowe CR, Mirra AP, Ravnihar B, Salber EJ, Valaoras VG, Yuasa S. Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. Bull WHO 1970;43:209-221.

By Karen Malec, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Post-election: Pro-lifers pleased, hopeful about more victories

While pro-lifers are relishing some of the victories in Tuesday's election, at least one national pro-life group says the work now begins to pass legislation in Congress to protect the preborn.

At least seven pro-life-oriented senators will be taking office in January. Marilyn Musgrave of Susan B. Anthony List expects that list to increase with the December 6 runoff in Louisiana between Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy and Democratic incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu.

"And then when you think of legislatively now that there will be a pro-life majority in the United States Senate, we are very hopeful there will be a vote on our 20-weeks' ban – our Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – in the Senate," she tells OneNewsNow.

That measure had passed previously in the House, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) refused to allow a vote in the Senate – so the measure died. Even with passage, President Obama is likely to veto the bill.

"But the good news," Musgrave says, "is that the people in this country in overwhelming majorities are with us on banning late-term abortions. They're with us on no taxpayer funding of abortions. [Those are] promises made – and we need to see these newly elected people deliver on those."

The SBA List spokeswoman says another message from the election is that being pro-life can be a winning issue in elections for Democrats even if their party supports abortion.

By Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

A pre-emptive pro-abortion column to explain away the ineffectiveness of the ‘war on women”

I meant to get to Amanda Marcotte’s post in yesterday’s USA Today, but time got away from me.

You might ask why bother writing about someone who merely parrots the most extreme viewpoint of the most extreme pro-abortionists?

In this case, because Marcotte was writing a preemptive piece, “explaining” why the imaginary “War on Women” was not going to play as well in 2014 as before. Implicitly we were forewarned that when pro-abortion candidates dropped like flies, it would not be because the voters repudiated their extremism.

Naw, it would be because “The Right” was even more devilishly clever than usual.

The gist of her column is that The Right “demonized” single women, which “allows married women to feel superior.” This “helps pit married women against single women, which replaces the ‘war on women’ narrative with a more subtle ‘war between women’ one,” Marcotte pronounced.

What to say about something so unrelievedly condescending/condemning of women? Just two things.

First, the “war on women” always was—and always will be—a war on the intelligence of women, married or single. It is so incredibly patronizing [matronizing?].

It insists that if a woman does not accept the designated role of victim, she has been co-opted by the patriarchy. This caught-in-a-time warp mentality is, by the way, why so many younger feminists roll their eyes. This is 2014, not 1014.

Second, I did not see the programs that Marcotte uses to “prove” her point. So let me say this.

It is not sexist or patriarchial or pitting married women against single women to acknowledge that, just as married men act (and vote) differently than single men, so, too, do married women act (and vote) differently than single women.

Facts are such stubborn things and they drive ideologues like Marcotte crazy when the world does not conform to the pictures they have dancing in their heads.

And it can only get worse for them. Why? Simply because the gap between them and ordinary Americans with no fixed view on abortion grows ever wider.

Marcotte and her associates really believe—really believe—that the way to win over the “mushy middle” is not just to insist on abortion on demand for any reason or no reason throughout pregnancy, paid for with tax dollars. That’s the old playbook. They’ve added new pages.

Which are? Shouting/videotaping/You Tubing their abortions and their abortion “experiences.” Rub the massacres of hapless unborn babies in the faces of the public and—voila—the scales will fall from their eyes. Like magic, they will embrace unlimited abortion today, unlimited abortion tomorrow, unlimited abortion (everywhere) forever.

We posted earlier today about outgoing Texas state Senator Wendy Davis’ overwhelming defeat at the hands of Attorney General Greg Abbott in her bid for governor. After I posted that story, I read a column by Bud Kennedy.

Writing for the Star-Telegram, Kennedy’s piece was not wholly unsympathetic to pro-lifers. In fact there were important nuggets which help us understand Marcotte even better.

His overarching point was that evangelicals (“religious, conservative women”) flocked to Abbott, including many who had never before voted for a Republican. But the larger point surely is that for decades, women (and men) whose families had voted for Democrats for seemingly forever, have left the party. Why?

Because “There just isn’t any diversity of views in that party anymore,” according to a state Representative.

But what makes Kennedy’s column so powerfully illustrative is a revealing anecdote he tells about one family.

Mia Garza McCord grew up as the granddaughter of Democratic county officials in South Texas but now campaigns for Republicans’ Red State Women.

“My whole family in Hebbronville is voting Republican for the very first time,” McCord, 30, of Cedar Park said by phone Tuesday.

McCord and her husband, John, welcomed a baby boy to their family last year at the peak of the Texas Legislature’s abortion debate.

At birth, John Mark McCord weighed 1 pound, 4.8 ounces. It was her 26th week of pregnancy.

McCord’s family never voted for Republicans. But the Democrats she remembers never led filibusters for abortion rights, as Democrat Wendy Davis did in the moment that wrote both her fame and her fate. …

“Younger women embrace technology and see scientific advancements,” McCord said.

“Modern medicine and the power of prayer goes far. Look at our tiny 1-pound baby, healthy and running around.”

“But the Democrats she remembers never led filibusters for abortion.” Yes, indeed.

To the Marcottes of this world, families like the McCords are just throwbacks, even though it is the power of modern neonatal intensive care units to save ever-more premature babies and to reveal (via ultrasound) the common humanity of unborn children that has helped alter the moral calculus.

Pro-abortion feminists have updated an old extremism, making it even more unpalatable, at the same time they dismiss those who differ as out of step with modern times. The irony is enough to practically knock you over.

By Dave Andrusko, NRL News Today