Protecting Access for Poor Patients, CMA Physicians Support Conscience Provisions in Alternative Healthcare Bill
The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), the nation's largest association of faith-based physicians, today voiced support for the conscience-protecting provisions in the "Empowering Patients First Act," a bill introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA 6th). CMA contended that the protections are needed to avoid a potentially catastrophic loss of faith-based healthcare on which millions of poor patients depend.
In a letter sent to Rep. Price today regarding the bill (HR 3400), CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, "The Christian Medical Association is very concerned that some in Congress and the White House appear to be pursuing a conscience-hostile approach to healthcare legislation, opposing amendment after amendment that would provide solid--not rhetorically deceptive--conscience protections.
"Lawmakers must realize that threatening or minimizing conscience protections holds the potential to create a catastrophic shortage of healthcare access, especially for poor patients. Our national polling (available online at www.Freedom2Care.org) reveals that 95 percent of faith-based physicians are prepared to leave medicine altogether rather than violate their conscientiously held ethical convictions."
Dr. Stevens wrote, "As you know, President Obama has announced plans to rescind the relatively new federal provider conscience regulation, which also provides for such a reporting mechanism. It is imperative, therefore, to enact legislation that protects conscience rights from the whims of any administration that might minimize the opportunity to address civil rights violations related to conscience."
Dr. Stevens thanked Rep. Price for recognizing the need for strong, true and broad conscience protections.
"The bill [Sec. 106 Part (d) of HR 3400] also provides a critical component of conscience protections. Many healthcare professionals encounter pressure to violate ethical codes on many issues besides abortion. HR 3400 addresses this reality by offering appropriately broad conscientious protection 'to accommodate the conscientious objection of a purchaser or an individual or institutional health care provider when a procedure is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such purchaser or provider.'"
In his letter, Dr. Stevens also noted the benefit of designating the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a reporting outlet for healthcare professionals experiencing discrimination for their conscientious stance on ethical issues.
"Besides protecting any individual or institutional health care entity from discrimination 'on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,' the bill also provides the crucial implementation avenue needed to make such protection effective."
Contact: Margie Shealy
Source: Christian Medical Association
Publish Date: September 30, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to Life is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
Judge Blocks 'Informed Consent,' Some Other Provisions Of Ariz. Abortion Law, Allows Waiting Period
An Arizona judge issued a preliminary injunction late Tuesday blocking the implementation of some provisions of a new state abortion law requiring waiting periods and specific disclosures scheduled to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, the AP/Nevada Appeal reports. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton said that Planned Parenthood Arizona's challenge to the law established "a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits" of the case if it goes to trial and that women face "the possibility of irreparable injury" if he did not grant some of the group's requests.
Daughton allowed the law's 24-hour waiting period to take effect but granted PPAZ's request to block a requirement that women receive in-person disclosures from a physician before abortion procedures. Daughton said that the so-called "informed consent" consultation is still required 24 hours prior to the procedure but that qualified staff can provide the disclosures over the phone.
Click here for the full article.
Eugenics Impulse Alive and Well on Supreme Court
As I have observed in these pages before, the United States Supreme Court has a very uneven record on the issue of eugenics. Indeed, one of the justices we lawyers are taught in law school to revere without question, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was an uber-Darwinist and philosophical materialist who also happened to be, not coincidentally, a great admirer of the American eugenics project of the 1920's. In the infamous case of Buck v. Bell the court considered a Virginia law authorizing the forced sterilization of mentally challenged people. The state proposed to use the law to sterilize Carrie Buck on the ground that she was feeble minded and thus a genetic threat to society. The court upheld the law, and Ms. Buck was in fact forcibly sterilized, as were tens of thousands of other people across the nation after Buck v. Bell was decided.
Click here for the full article.
HPV Vaccine Death Raises Wider Issue
The death of a 14-year-old British girl hours after she received the Cervarix vaccine that protects against human papilloma virus, the virus that causes cervical cancer, shows how difficult it can be to assess the risk of vaccines. The problem is especially timely now because of widespread fears about the supposedly untested vaccine against the pandemic H1N1 influenza virus. Although rare, adverse effects can be caused by vaccines. The U.S. government has established a program to compensate such victims. But adverse events also occur often in the absence of vaccination, and the tendency is to attribute these events to the vaccine even though there is no physical link.
Click here for the full article.
1300 March for Life in Berlin
This past Saturday, September 26, 1300 pro-life demonstrators marched through Berlin from City Hall to St. Hedwig's Cathedral hoping to bring an end to abortion in Germany.
The participants marched silently along the route, holding 1000 white wooden crosses as a sign of protest against abortion in Germany. The 1000 white crosses symbolized the estimated 1000 unborn babies killed in Germany each day.
Abortion is technically illegal under Germany's constitution, but the German Parliament passed a law in 1995 that eliminated any punishment for abortion in the first trimester. However, the law stated that before a woman could get an abortion, she must first receive counseling and be informed that the unborn child has a right to live.
The March, which was organized by Bundesverband Lebensrecht, an organization in Germany that acts as an umbrella for other pro-life groups, drew significantly more people than it did last year when reports estimated attendance to be at 800.
Click here for the full article.
Adult Stem Cells for ALSfrom FRC Blog by David Prentice
In the news recently was the FDA approval of a clinical trial for ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Lou Gehrig's disease) by the company NeuralStem. Actually, the recent news was release of the FDA hold on the trial; the FDA hold was placed on the trial back on 20 Feb 2009. NeuralStem uses immature, fetal neural stem cells. The hold was placed soon after news broke about an Israeli boy who developed tumors, four years after receiving fetal stem cells. Fetal stem cell "overgrowth" has been a problem before with other attempts, e.g. experiments at using fetal neural cells in Parkinson patients (published ref from 2001, also see refs from 2003 and 1996.)
All of the recent NeuralStem stories talk about this fetal stem cell experiment being the "first" stem cell trial for ALS. Apparently no one is aware of the adult stem cell literature, only fetal and embryonic.
Click here for the full article.
Civil Rights Battle for Sanctity of Life Expands to Include Marriage, Family and Parenting
On the beautiful campus of Hampton University in Virginia, a valiant group of multi-ethnic leaders gathered this week to discuss the state of marriage in America, specifically marriage in Black America; and to sign a related declaration at the site of the historical "Emancipation Oak" where freedwoman Mary Peak taught children of former slaves in 1981. It was noted by Dr. Alveda King, Director of African American Outreach of Priests for Life and Founder of King for America, that the marriage, family and parenting efforts also have the impact of lowering abortions because women who are supported by men who engage positively in marriage and fatherhood have help in bearing the burdens that parenthood can impose on a woman alone. "This fatherhood support, plus the awareness and support of social systems that support healthy marriages will have positive impact on negating abortions in our current civil right fight for the sanctity of life," said Dr. King.
Click here for the full article.
Senators reject stronger language to protect unborn 
Senators writing a healthcare overhaul bill on Wednesday rejected a bid to strengthen pro-life provisions already in the legislation, in a vote that could have far-reaching repercussions. The 13-10 vote by the Senate Finance Committee could threaten support for healthcare overhaul from some Catholics who back its broad goal of expanding coverage. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, argued that provisions already in the bill to restrict federal funding for abortions needed to be tightened to guarantee they would be ironclad. But his argument failed to carry the day. One Republican -- Olympia Snowe of Maine -- voted with the majority. One Democrat -- Kent Conrad of North Dakota -- supported Hatch.
Click here for more...
Is Chicago Trying to Kill the Free Speech of Pro-Life Advocates
Members of the Pro-Life Action League and attorneys from the Thomas More Society attended the Human Relations Committee meeting of the Chicago City Council TODAY at 9:00 AM (Central) Wednesday, Sept. 30. The Committee is considering an amendment to the Municipal Code to prohibit picketing within 50 feet of any medical clinic.
These organizations strongly suspect this amendment is aimed at preventing pro-life people from praying and reaching out to clients of abortion facilities with information on alternatives to abortion.
Pro-life activists routinely stand on the public sidewalk at the entrances to abortion clinics in Chicago to offer information to anyone seeking services at the abortion clinics. The groups know of no incidents of intimidation, harassment or threats as referred to in the amendment introduced on Sept. 9 by Alderman Vi Daley (43rd Ward).
A copy of the proposed amendment to the Chicago Municipal Code is available upon request. Please call or email Tom Ciesielka at 312-422-1333, tc@tcpr.net.
Contact: Ann Scheidler, Peter Breen and Tom Ciesielka Source: Pro-Life Action League, Thomas More Society and TC Public Relations Publish Date: September 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Historic In-Depth Pregnancy Resource Report Spotlights Contributions of Heartbeat Affiliates
Heartbeat International is proud to partner with Family Research Council and other life-affirming pregnancy center networks in the release of the groundbreaking joint services report, A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life.
"This report shines a light on the positive contributions of pregnancy centers, maternity homes, adoption agencies, and pregnancy help medical clinics," said Heartbeat International President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D. "These faith-based community organizations, 40,000 volunteers strong, brighten a woman's future with the support she needs to bring new life into the world. This is one of the greatest volunteer service movements in the history of our country."
"We are pleased that this report spotlights ten Heartbeat International affiliates through stories that demonstrate sacrificial acts of love and service. These frontline lifesavers are strengthening their communities one heart at a time," said Hartshorn.
This combined services report, available at APassiontoServe.com, traces the history of concern and care for pregnant women in this country. It presents in detail, through statistical summaries, case studies and client stories, the extraordinary social service contributions made by pregnancy resource centers, detailing how centers are meeting the needs of women, youth and families.
Executive director of one of the spotlighted Heartbeat affiliates, Vivian Koob said, "The clients served by Elizabeth's New Life Center are overwhelmingly young, unmarried, impoverished, under educated, and minority. Elizabeth's New Life Center offers emotional support, medical information, spiritual direction, educational classes, material assistance, prenatal care, and mentoring at no cost to the client."
A former client whose poignant story in the report showcases one of Heartbeat's Oklahoma affiliates, Kendra Howerton said, "If it weren't for Stillwater Life Services, I honestly do not know where I would be today. The staff, board, and volunteers at this pregnancy center invested a great deal into my and my family's lives. The results of their investments are priceless."
The report also includes endorsements from public figures such as U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) who said: "The success rates and national expansion of these pregnancy care centers are a testament to their invaluable work in the lives of communities and individuals over the years. These networks provide services that are often unavailable elsewhere to expectant mothers."
According to Hartshorn, "The pregnancy resource movement is dedicated to empowering women with life-affirming alternatives so abortion is unwanted now and unthinkable for future generations."
Contact: Virginia Cline Source: Heartbeat International Publish Date: September 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Charges heat up in Planned Parenthood fraud case
Abortion business accused of 'misrepresenting' record
The arguments are getting hotter in a federal case in California that alleges Planned Parenthood, the nation's biggest abortion business, overcharged the federal government for services it provided in violation of the federal False Claims Act.
The law forbids government contractors from submitting "false or fraudulent" claims for payment and also authorizes private individuals to bring a legal action against the offenders to recover the overpayments.
According to the details of a statement from the American Center for Law and Justice, a district court opinion mishandled several issues in a case brought by a former Planned Parenthood staff member who is now a federal whistleblower.
The lower court dismissed the case, so the ACLJ is bringing the case to appeal, submitting a new brief that challenges Planned Parenthood's statements about the case.
The ACLJ said it filed an additional brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the multi-million dollar fraud case.
"Nationally, Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar operation. We believe this case will show that Planned Parenthood has been soaking taxpayers even beyond the legal limits," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the law firm. "The False Claims Act provides an important weapon in rectifying illegal runs on taxpayer dollars."
The allegation in the case is that Planned Parenthood affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling.
That extra money came from taxpayers' pockets, the case explains.
And the ACLJ confirmed state audits in both California and Washington state have found Planned Parenthood affiliates guilty of overbilling.
The ACLJ brief, filed just days ago, said Planned Parenthood was "misrepresenting" the record in the case and also "improperly" trying to add new arguments to the case as the appeal moves forward.
The newest filing also was posted online.
"This is a very complicated, highly technical area of the law," said Sekulow. "There is no way an ordinary citizen, no matter how just the claim or how egregious the fraud, could afford to take on a prominent law firm in a complex area of the law like this. We're very pleased that the ACLJ was available to provide the high-powered analysis a case like this calls for."
The ACLJ's opening appeal brief was filed in July, and it also has been posted online.
The organization earlier confirmed that the alleged overbilling involves tens of millions of dollars. The case was brought by a former Planned Parenthood worker against the business.
The overbilling reportedly came to light during a state audit of Planned Parenthood several years ago. The business president, Mark Salo, had notified branches about an audit plan, and Martha Swiller of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles told staff members, "This is bad," the report said.
Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: September 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Holdren: Seize babies born to unwed women
Proposed government force adoption if mother refused to get abortion
John Holdren
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook that "illegitimate children" born to unwed mothers could be taken by the government and put up for adoption if the mother refused to have an abortion.
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, argued that "illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged" as a socioeconomic measure imposed to control population growth.
As previously reported, WND has obtained a copy of the 1970s college textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment" that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Anne. The authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."
On page 786, the authors wrote that one way to discourage illegitimate childbearing "might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption – especially those born to minors who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone."
Alternatively, the authors suggested unwed mothers might place their babies up for adoption, writing: "If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it."
While observing that government-imposed coercive measures should be considered "only if milder measures fail completely," the authors acknowledged extreme ecological situations could justify governmental intervention with coercive population control measures,
"It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," they write.
The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 2005, 68.8 percent of all African-American babies were born to unmarried women, while 30.5 percent of all white babies and 48 percent of all Hispanic babies were born out of wedlock.
Regarding teenage mothers, the federal agency reports the figures in 2005 were 16.8 percent of all births for African-Americans, 13.9 percent for Hispanics and 9.2 percent for whites.
'General social deterioration'
The authors' wish to control births to unwed and teenage mothers appears to derive from their concern that overpopulation leads to "general social deterioration."
For instance, on page 838, they wrote the following: "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility – just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns – providing they are not denied equal protection." (Italics in original text.)
Nor do the authors see any constitutional protection for the right to bear children.
"Some people – respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included – have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right," the authors continued on page 838. "Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce."
In a similar fashion, the authors argued that a right to privacy did not extend to an unlimited right to have children, elaborating on page 838 that, "Where the society has a 'compelling, subordinating interest' in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could be required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted."
Coercive population control
Holdren and the Ehrlichs concede compulsory population control measures if implemented to prevent disasters resulting from uncontrolled population growth will be distasteful to those with moral objections.
Arguing that voluntary measures of family planning and birth control might not be enough, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on page 783 that compulsory birth control methods would need to be implemented when "massive famines, political unrest, or ecological disasters make their initiation imperative."
In further defining this "disaster exception" in which compulsory methods including forced abortions and sterilization might become acceptable, if not necessary, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote on the same page: "In such emergencies, whatever measures are economically and technologically expedient will be likeliest to be imposed, regardless of their political or social acceptability."
And again, continuing on the same page, the authors wrote of compulsory population control measures: "Policies that may seem totally unacceptable today to the majority of people at large or to their national leaders may be seen as very much the lesser of evils only a few years from now."
On page 784, the authors conclude the section by commenting: "Given the family size aspirations of people every, additional measures beyond family planning will unquestionably be required in order to halt the population explosion – quite possible in many DCs [developed countries] as well as LDCs [less developed countries]."
In a section of the textbook on pages 786-789 devoted to considering "involuntary fertility control," Holdren and the Ehrlichs discuss a variety of methodologies, including: an effort in the 1960s to vasectomize all fathers of three or more children in India; an effort in China to sterilize mothers after their third child; the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired; the government issuance of a license entitling a woman to a given number of children; and adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.
While in the next sentence the authors are careful to say a "far better choice" would be to control population by the "milder methods of influencing family size," they also insist in the same sentence that efforts should be redoubled "to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time."
In the last sentence of the section on "involuntary fertility control," the authors make clear even the most radical methods discussed in the section are morally acceptable to them under the write conditions of population emergency.
"If effective action is taken against population growth," the authors note, "perhaps the need for the more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries."
"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying," the authors concluded. "As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control."
Among the crises resulting from overpopulation that Holdren and the Ehrlichs saw as justifying government-imposed involuntary fertility control measures were "ecological collapses of various kinds, large-scale crop failures due to ecological stress or changes in climate and leading to mass famine; severe resource shortages, which could lead either to crop failures or to problems or both; epidemic diseases; wars over diminishing resources; perhaps even thermo-nuclear war.
"The list of possibilities is long, and over-population enhances the probability that any one of them will occur," Holdren and the Erhlichs wrote on page 796. "Population control may be no panacea, but with it there is no way to win."
'Sustainable well-being'
The St. Petersburg Times' fact-check website, Politifact.com, argued that in his Senate confirmation hearings, Holdren disavowed "optimal population" targets, a central thesis of the 1970s textbook, as a proper role of government.
While Holdren may have abandoned "optimal population" targets as a principle of public policy, an address he gave as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, subsequently published in Science Magazine in January 2008, shows he has adopted instead the standard of "sustainable well-being" as a guiding principle that could be utilized to set targets for acceptable population growth.
In that article, Holdren listed "continuing population growth" as a hindrance to realizing "sustainable well-being," a point he supported by footnoting Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book "The Population Bomb," thereby linking his current thinking with his 1970s-era thinking.
In that footnote, Holdren wrote that the "elementary but discomforting truth" of Ehrlich's 1968 book "may account for the vast amount of ink, paper, and angry energy that has been expended in vain to refute it."
Holdren's "sustainable well-being" appears a nearly identical concept to what is known as the United Nation's "Agenda 21", articulating the concept of "sustainable development" that is currently institutionalized in the Division for Sustainable Development of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Contact: Jerome R. Corsi Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: September 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
14 Year Old British Girl Dies after HPV Vaccination
Natalie Morton, a 14-year-old girl who attended the Blue Coat Church of England School in Coventry, died today, hours after being given Cervarix - the controversial cervical cancer vaccine manufactured for the UK market by Glaxo SmithKline.
Natalie was injected with the vaccine as part of the UK National Health Service's (NHS) immunization program directed at teenage girls with the purpose of protecting them against strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease.
The NHS started the HPV vaccination program in April last year and has recorded 2,137 reports of adverse effects following the injection.
Health officials said today they are not sure whether Natalie had an extreme reaction to a standard vaccine, or whether the particular dose she was given was from a "rogue contaminated batch."
Either situation raises serious questions about the safety of the vaccine.
Dr. Caron Grainger, director for public health at Coventry city council, said an autopsy will be conducted to investigate if the vaccine played a role in Natalie's death.
"No link can be made between the death and the vaccine until all the facts are known and a post-mortem takes place," Grainger told the UK Daily Mail.
Mike Attwood, a spokesman for Coventry Primary Care Trust said: "An urgent investigation has been launched and while we wait for the results from the post mortem all vaccinations using the drug have been temporarily stopped."
The National Vaccine Information Centre (NVC), a private vaccine-safety group based in the US, reported that from 2006 as many as 11,900 girls and young women had reported adverse events after receiving the Gardasil vaccine, which is manufactured by Merck Pharmaceutical for use in the US and Canada.
These adverse events included such mild reactions as pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching, to serious effects such as Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures. The number of deaths associated with the Gardasil vaccine by the NVC is between 32 and 45 in the US alone.
Contact: Thaddeus M. Baklinski Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: September 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Rockford Abortion clinic mocks pro-life demonstrators
An Illinois group wants the public to learn about some of the abuses pro-life demonstrators face.
The Northern Illinois Women's Center in Rockford is one of the most "anti-life and anti-Christian abortuaries in America." Rockford Pro-Life Initiative produced a video (Warning: Inappropriate for children) of the abortion clinic showing some of the "mocking, hateful, and grotesque" signs and exhibits in the windows of the facility. Frequent pro-life demonstrator Kevin Rilott describes some of them.
"Anything from Jesus hanging by a noose to a rubber chicken placed over the body of Jesus on a cross, to a sign that put the name of the abortion facility and put the number 50,000 under it. That's when they reached the 50,000th abortion and then they put the initials J.C. for Jesus Christ and the number 50, saying that Jesus has only been able to save 50," he says.
IllinoisPro-lifer George Lambert noted there have been streams of "vicious personal attacks, hatred for God, bigotry, racism, ridiculing people with HIV" for years at the facility. Rilott adds there have also been acts of violence as cars arrived at the clinic.
"In fact, the last incident was this summer, but there were two other occasions where abortion facility workers have actually hit pro-lifers on three separate occasions," he says.
Rilott concludes that if people are exposed to the kind of hatred and mocking of God in the video, they will have a better understanding of the steadfast faith and kindness of demonstrators.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: September 30, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
More Pro-Life Voices Plead for No Vote in Irish Lisbon Referendum
Two more Irish pro-life voices have joined the chorus of those urging the Irish voters to reject the EU's Lisbon Treaty in Friday's referendum. Pro-life former MEP Dana Rosemary Scallon and the group Ireland for Life have warned that the Lisbon Treaty, the EU's replacement for the defeated Constitution, poses a threat to the country's constitutional protections of the unborn, as well as national sovereignty.
"I am not afraid to vote No to Lisbon," said Scallon on Tuesday. Referring to a set of promises made to Irish politicians by EU officials, Scallon said, "The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Ireland's Constitution."
"Voting No," she said, "will protect Ireland's constitution in matters such as the definition and protection of the family; children's rights; parent's rights; the protection of life and the child embryo; the right to a fair trial; the right to strike etc."
Click here for the full article.
Pro-Abort County Judge In Arizona Blocks Key Parts of State's New Abortion Regulations
A state judge has blocked implementation of key parts of a new Arizona law restricting abortion. Judge Donald Daughton of Maricopa County Superior Court late Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction granting most of a request by Planned Parenthood, the state's largest abortion provider. Daughton's order blocks implementation of requirements for a 24-hour waiting period and specific in-person disclosures by a physician to a woman before getting an abortion. Other blocked provisions include a requirement that parental consents for a minor's abortion be notarized and a ban on nurse practitioners performing abortions.
Click here for the full article.
96,000 Women Have Abortions Over Medicine
Many pregnant women make the hasty decision to have an abortion because of medication they were taking when they became pregnant. The practice is often based on unfounded fears that the medicine could lead to fetal deformities, says Dr. Kim Tae-yoon, head of the gynecological department of Miz Medi Hospital. "Though doctors assure them that most of the drugs are okay and recommend them to keep the baby, they just ask for the procedure," he said. Kim's remarks came in response to the Korea Food and Drug Administration's report that about 96,000 women, 10 percent of pregnant women, were having abortions for drug-related reasons each year.
Click here for the full article.
Bill Would Require Birth Control Abortion Pill Coverage
At the Ohio Capitol Tuesday, State Senator Teresa Fedor and State Representative Tyrone Yates introduced a bill that immediately generated controversy. It involves birth control, sex ed, and abortion. "These are issues that need to be talked about," Fedor told ONN's Jim Heath. "The more we're talking about reasonable honest sex education it helps people understand it, and make good decisions that put people in charge of their health." Among other things, the Ohio Prevention First Act would mandate schools teach sex education, and that pharmacies sell the morning after abortion pill. Ideas, Yates said, the public shouldn't fear. The legislation would also force all insurance companies to offer birth control, but Fedor admits she's not sure how many companies would be affected.
Click here for the full article.
Planned Parenthood Honors Tiller with Highest Award
The late Wichita abortionist George Tiller was awarded posthumously with the International Planned Parenthood Federation's top honor over the weekend, according to the Wichita Eagle.
The abortionist's widow Jeanne received the group's Medal of Honor for "outstanding individual contribution to sexual and reproductive health" on his behalf. George Tiller was shot and killed May 31 at his Lutheran Church.
Tiller, whose booming late-term abortion business was once the source of national controversy, had boasted of killing over 60,000 children in the womb over the course of his 30-year career.
The award was presented in a Washington, D.C. ceremony by Alexander Sanger, grandson of Planned Parenthood's eugenicist founder Margaret Sanger.
Click here for the full article.
Most Americans favor healthcare reform, excluding abortion coverage
There's more confirmation that the public does not want abortion funded in any healthcare reform.
Deirdre McQuade, assistant director for policy and communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' secretariat of pro-life activities, tells OneNewsNow her organization conducted a poll this month.
"And that survey found widespread public opposition to the inclusion of abortion and any erosion of conscience rights protection for healthcare workers, while at the same time finding that those views are shared by those who favor efforts to pass healthcare reforms," she notes.
McQuade says the public perception that opponents of abortion are trying to kill healthcare reform is not true. But the opposition to financing abortion, she says, goes beyond any government proposals for reform.
Click here for the full article.
Obamacare: Zeal to Cover Abortion Could Kill the Bill
Whenever we have discussed national health care here, I warned that proponents would try to take things too far at too great a cost, and that their desire to cover abortion could kill the bill. That very scenario is playing out. Amendments in the House Committees to explicitly bar abortion funding from the government plan were repeatedly defeated–as politicians promised abortion wasn’t in the bill. Then, an amendment passed that permits the Secretary of HHS to cover abortion, blowing up that myth. And, to make sure that government funding could be added in the regulations, health care was put in a different government account than the usual HHS appropriation–meaning the Hyde Amendment would not be relevant since it only applies to HHS appropriated funds. Tricky and disrespectful of democracy. (More on that particular political ploy here.)
Now, the Senate is taking up the issue. An amendment has been offered to prevent people who receive federal premium subsidies from using those taxpayer funds to pay for policies that cover abortion. From the story:
Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions.
Proponents of government funding for abortion point to an accounting gimmick that they claim means that the current bill would not subsidize abortion:
Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.
But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.
Opponents are right. Money is fungible. The bill, as it currently stands, would permit federally subsidized abortion.
The Hyde Amendment is essential for national comity because it does not impinge on the abortion right, while at the same time, protects abortion opponents from becoming complicit in pregnancy terminations through the use of their tax dollars. But that comity and basic respect is under sustained attack in the health care debate in both the House and Senate versions of the bill. And it just might tear the whole reform effort apart.
Here is where I come down: A healthy pregnancy is not an illness because the baby is unwanted. Tens of millions of people should not have to help fund an elective medical procedure not related to protecting physical health that they find morally abhorrent. On a broader note, the only way this will be even close to affordable is to cover only fundamental medical needs, meaning that the desired extras will have to be paid privately (yes, including Viagra).
Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: September 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Sunstein: Government must fund abortion
Declares 'no problem' forcing taxpayers with religious, moral conflict
Cass Sunstein
The government should be required to fund abortion in cases such as rape or incest, argues President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
"I have argued that the Constitution ... forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases," Sunstein wrote in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution."
In the book, obtained and reviewed by WND, Sunstein sets forth a radical new interpretation of the Constitution. The book contains a chapter entitled "It's the government's money" in which Sunstein strongly argues the government should be compelled to fund abortions for women victimized by rape or incest.
The Obama czar posits that funding only childbirth but not abortion "has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators."
Sunstein argues that refusing to fund abortion "would require poor women to be breeders," while co-opting women's bodies "in the service of third parties" – referring to fetuses.
Sunstein wrote he has no problem with forcing taxpayers to fund abortions even if they morally object to their money being used for such a purpose.
He wrote: "There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections."
Sunstein is not shy about expressing his radical beliefs in papers and books, although many of his controversial arguments have received little to no news media attention or public scrutiny.
WND previously reported Sunstein drew up in an academic book a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new "bill of rights" in a 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.
WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
In his "Second Bill of Rights" book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
* The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
* The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
* The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
* The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
* The right of every family to a decent home;
* The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
* The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
* The right to a good education.
On one page in his "Second Bill of Rights" book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments."
Contact: Aaron Klein Source: WorldNetDaily Publish Date: September 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
38 Babies Saved Since Beginning of 40 Days for Life Campaign
David Bereit,
National Coordinator, 40 Days for Life
While Jackie was praying at the 40 Days for Life vigil in Greenland, New Hampshire, a car slowly pulled up in front of the clinic. The driver rolled down the window and said, "I don't know what you're doing here; but whatever it is, it's working!" The driver went on to say the abortion center had let employees go because business was off.
All Jackie could say was, "Praise God for victories!"
The staff at yet another abortion center has shrunk by at least one. But this wasn't a layoff. This was a clinic nurse who walked out and quit!
Angela of the 40 Days for Life team in Granite City, Illinois, said the abortion facility nurse came out and hugged her. "Thank you for praying for me," she told Angela. "Your witness has been powerful to me. This is my last day! I'm going off to do what real nurses should be doing." With that, she walked to her car and drove away.
This is the second abortion worker to quit during this 40 Days for Life campaign!
And yes, there are amazing stories to share about babies saved from abortion as well.
Thus far in this fall 40 Days for Life campaign, we've received reports of 38 mothers who changed their minds and chose life. And of course, those are just the ones we know of!
Here are just a few of those stories:
In Hartford, Connecticut, Al reported that while people were praying at the 40 Days for Life vigil across from the abortion center, a man came over with a simple message: "Thank you!" His niece had been scheduled for an abortion. But after seeing the group praying, she simply could not go through with it.
In Washington, D.C., Dick tells of a young couple who walked into the Planned Parenthood abortion facility. Volunteers at the 40 Days for Life vigil didn't have much time to talk with them on their way in. But after an hour or so, they came back out. "They said they changed their minds about having an abortion."
In Pensacola, Florida, there was another situation in which just the sight of people praying outside made a profound impact. Ernie said an SUV had pulled up to the clinic entrance, where the 40 Days for Life vigil was in progress. The couple inside just stopped, took another look, and drove away without ever going in.
The 40 Days for Life team in El Paso, Texas received a special blessing. Sandra said a woman drove up to the vigil and wanted to talk about the day she decided not to have an abortion. At the time, she saw her pregnancy as something that would just get in the way of her promising career.
But the day of her appointment, people had been praying outside the clinic. When she saw that, she stopped and asked herself, "What am I doing here? This is not right!"
As she continued her story, the young woman rolled down her car window, pointed to the child in the car seat and began to cry. "Thanks to you all," she said, "I have this beautiful son!"
"You could imagine the feeling," Sandra said. "I believe at that moment everybody was crying with her." The group prayed for the mother, her child and for all her family. "We ask God to continue blessing them and thank Him for this wonderful gift of life."
Prayer does work. And sometimes, you don't have to say a word.
Let's keep it up!
Click here to find out more about 40 Days for Life.
Contact: David Bereit Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: September 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Judge in Case of Arrested Notre Dame Pro-Lifers is Married to Pro-Abortion ND Professor
The attorney representing the pro-lifers arrested while protesting Obama at Notre Dame today repeated his request that the judge in the case, who is married to a pro-abortion Notre Dame professor, be removed from the case.
Attorney Tom Dixon's motion provides detailed support for his assertion in a previous recusal motion that there exists sufficient actual and perceived bias that Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, the judge assigned to the "ND 88" case, is required by Indiana state law to recuse herself in the matter. Dixon states that ever since Judge Manier has known her husband, Professor Edward Manier, he has been a well-known and outspoken advocate of the pro-abortion position.
As his views were well-known and have largely defined his identity at Notre Dame, Dixon argues, it seems implausible that Judge Manier could claim to be unaware of his views on the "ND 88" case, which stem from "the single biggest controversy in the history of the University of Notre Dame."
The case surrounds the arrest of 88 pro-lifers from across America who were charged with trespassing after peacefully witnessing against the presence of President Obama at Notre Dame The university awarded Obama with the commencement speech and an honorary law degree on May 17 of this year. Arrestees were singled out for carrying pro-life messages onto campus - including images of aborted children, a large cross, and images of Mary - while several other trespassers with pro-Obama or pro-Notre Dame signage were allowed to roam the campus.
Dixon argues that the career of Judge Manier's husband at Notre Dame was largely defined by the very same controversies which prompted the pro-lifers to travel across America to ultimately land in the St. Joseph County court room. In Indiana, a judge must recuse himself or herself from a case in the event of actual or perceived bias.
In the original recusal motion in August, Dixon says that Judge Manier refused to answer whether her husband had ever written on the topic of abortion, saying only, "I'm not my husband."
Dixon highlights several ways in which actual and perceived bias exists in the "ND 88" case. In addition to several writings revealing his pro-abortion beliefs, the professor donated "a significant sum of money" to Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, as well as additional donations to other pro-abortion rights candidates in the United States.
Manier, a supporter of the production of "The Vagina Monologues" on Notre Dame's campus, also attacked Pope Paul Paul VI's pro-life encyclical Humanae Vitae as "intellectually stillborn."
"When one analyzes Edward Manier's political contributions to pro abortion candidates and Political Action Committee, when one reads Edward Manier's writings referencing members of the Christian right, calling them 'fundamentalist mullahs' and 'jackleg preachers,'" Dixon writes, "it is hard to comprehend how Judge Manier could derive from her husband's writings the notion that he has no interest in the outcome of these cases."
Last week, University of Notre Dame law professor emeritus Charles Rice issued an open letter to University president Fr. John Jenkins, saying that the school's attempts at reconstructing a pro-life image were a "mockery" while yet refusing to request leniency for the 88 pro-lifers awaiting trial.
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: September 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Council of Europe to Vote on Pro-Abortion Report on the Same Day Ireland Votes on Lisbon
On Friday this week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will vote on a pro-abortion report that says that all states should offer abortion by 2015.
Ironically, at the same time as Irish voters are being told by their government that there is no threat from the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty to their constitutional protections of the right to life, the PACE Committee of Ministers is being encouraged to start the development of a European Convention "to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2015."
The report that PACE will be considering is entitled "Fifteen years since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action."
Pat Buckley, the EU representative of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), Europe's leading pro-life group, said that it is widely acknowledged that 'reproductive health and rights' is the "culture of death code word for 'abortion.'"
Buckley, noting that the PACE vote comes on the same day as the Irish second referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, called the document part of the "creeping agenda of the pro-abortion/anti-life/anti-family agencies in the European Institutions, be it the Council of Europe or the European Union."
The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has rebutted the PACE report, saying in a briefing that the Council of Europe has no authority or competency to promote abortion as a means of family planning and population control which is the underlying purpose of the report.
The ECLJ said the promotion of abortion is "based upon unsupportable concerns regarding the need for greater population control in developing countries." It violates "core values upon which the Council of Europe was built" and offends the "protection of human life and dignity, and respect for national sovereignty." It is based on a "neomalthusianism philosophy" and "unfounded assertions" about the need for population control.
"Attacking the legitimacy of any country's abortion laws is not within the competency of the Council of Europe," said the ECLJ.
The briefing continued, "International law does not provide a so called 'right' to abortion," the briefing says. "Only the right to life is recognized."
The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly contains a provision guaranteeing the right to life.
Contact: Hilary White Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: September 29, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
China's Population Policy Draws Wide Praise
Demographers and scholars worldwide have spoken highly of China's family-planning policy over the past 30 years and more, saying it has helped lower the world population growth. "We know that China, being the most populous country in the world, is especially important in the area of population," said Hania Zlotnik, director of the Population Division of the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Whatever happens in China has a great impact on world population, and certainly on the population in the developing world, she explained.
Click here for the full article.
More from China...
Chinese Babies Stolen By Officials for Foreign Adoption
In some rural areas, instead of levying fines for violations of China's child policies, greedy officials took babies, which would each fetch $3,000 in adoption fees. ... Since the early 1990s, more than 80,000 Chinese children have been adopted abroad, the majority to the United States. The conventional wisdom is that the babies, mostly girls, were abandoned by their parents because of the traditional preference for boys and China's restrictions on family size. No doubt, that was the case for tens of thousands of the girls. But some parents are beginning to come forward to tell harrowing stories of babies who were taken away by coercion, fraud or kidnapping -- sometimes by government officials who covered their tracks by pretending that the babies had been abandoned.
Click here for the full article.
ACORN Sues Young Pro-Life Investigators $1M Each for Sting Operation
The liberal community-based organization ACORN, which was recently disgraced by a series of undercover videos showing illegal activity by the group's employees, is now suing the young pro-life duo who shot the videos. Defendant James O'Keefe, 25, who is being sued together with 20-year-old investigative partner Hannah Giles, is known among the pro-life community for conducting sting operations against Planned Parenthood in conjunction with Live Action Films. In one such investigation, O'Keefe caught a Planned Parenthood employee accepting a donation earmarked for the abortion of a black child.
Click here for the full article.
Man Charged with Double Murder for Shooting 8-Mo. Pregnant Girlfriend Who Refused Abortion
A Tennessee man is facing a double murder charge after his girlfriend and her unborn child were shot to death, in what police say was the conclusion to the couple's disagreement over getting an abortion.
Shelby County detectives say they believe Tarence Nelson, 26, shot schoolteacher Tonya Johnson, 35, as a result of an argument over whether Johnson should abort the child, who was at eight months' gestation. Johnson was found in her home by neighbors who said she had bullet wounds to the right abdomen, chest, and the back of her head.
Click here for the full article.
As IVF Debate Rages in Poland, Doctors Propose Ethical, Natural, More Effective Alternative
As the debate over in vitro fertilization (IVF) rages in the Polish parliament, hundreds of doctors and medical professionals have written an open letter to Polish Parliamentarians urging them to vote against legalizing IVF and opt instead for a more successful, safer, natural treatment for fertility problems.
Although IVF is not officially legal in Poland, it has nonetheless been practiced for years in the nation.
Several Parliamentary proposals have been brought forward to legalize the practice under the guise of regulating the already occurring procedures. The proposals range from taxpayer funding for all IVF treatments without restriction, including for lesbians, and another that would ban creation of human embryos outside the mother's body.
Parliamentarians have ignored a grassroots initiative proposing a complete ban on IVF signed by 160,000 citizens.
Click here for the full article.
'Morning-After' 'Abortion Pill' Available In Spain Without Prescription
The so-called "morning-after" abortion pill was available in Spain without prescription for the first time Monday, in a bid to limit the number of unwanted pregnancies, the health ministry said. "It's important to facilitate access to all women, irrespective of their place of residence, as it is important to take this pill in the 72 hours after sexual relations," said Health Minister Trinidad Jimenez. Pharmacies are now able to sell the morning-after pill to persons of any age. The contraceptive has hitherto been available only on prescription.
Click here for the full article.
Fear grows among pro-life activists
Is a double standard being applied to those in the public debate on abortion?
In the aftermath of the shooting death of pro-life demonstrator Jim Pouillon in Michigan, some members of the movement are hesitant to picket. Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League believes that should stop no one from expressing a pro-life view.
"It's extremely rare for violence to enter into the abortion battle on either side, and there's no reason to be afraid to go out there on the street," he contends.
But Scheidler does wonder if there is a double standard in Washington.
"After George Tiller was shot by a lone goofball up there in Kansas, Barack Obama immediately deplored the event and sent out federal marshals. [But it took him three days to finally get around to responding to the killing in Michigan of the pro-life activist," he notes. And that response, he adds, did not involve sending marshals to protect pro-life organizations.
Scheidler, while conducting a demonstration recently in Naples, Florida, said it was ironic that a federal agent had been dispatched to the abortion center to watch their peaceful pickets.
Contact: Charlie Butts Source: OneNewsNow Publish Date: September 26, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
People Can Opt Out of Listing STDs, Abortions in Gov't-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Patrick Kennedy Says
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.) says people will be able to stop doctors from including records of sexually transmitted diseases and abortions in the new national system of Electronic Health Records that was mandated by the stimulus law enacted in February.
The law says that doctors, hospitals and other health care providers must create an Electronic Health Record (EHR) for every American by 2014 or else face deductions in their Medicare payments. The EHRs are supposed to be integrated into a national health care IT system where health-care providers nationwide as well as the government would have the ability to access them when authorized.
“This is totally going to be up to the individual,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com when specifically asked if these EHRs would include any STDs or abortions in a person's medical history.
Title XIII of the stimulus law provided for “the development of a nationwide health information technology infrastructure” that would include “the qualified electronic health record” of “each person in the United States by 2014.”
The law specifically says that this “means an electronic record of health-related information on an individual that -- (A) includes patient demographic and clinical health information, such as medical history and problems lists; and (B) has the capacity -- (i) to provide clinical decision support; (ii) to support physician order entry; (iii) to capture and query information relevant to health care quality; and (iv) to exchange electronic health information with, and integrate such information from other sources.”
These records--including a person’s “medical history and problems list”--must be put into a national system that allows for “the electronic linkage of health care providers, health plans, the government and other interested parties to enable electronic exchange and use of health information among all the components in the health care infrastructure in accordance with applicable law,” says the law.
The law further requires the secretary of health and human services “to improve the use of electronic health records and health care quality by requiring more stringent measures of meaningful use over time,” according to an explanation of the law published by the House Appropriations Committee in February.
Nonetheless, Rep. Kennedy says individuals will be able to opt out of having doctors and health care providers list any STDs or abortions they have had.
By contrast, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex.), who is a doctor, said completeness may be required in the electronic health records for both clinical and liability reasons.
“This is totally going to be up to the individual,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com last when asked whether the records would have to include any STD or abortion a person might have had.
“So, obviously, for the full effectiveness of the person, it’s to their benefit to have everything on a record, but it’s going to be totally up to the individual,” said Kennedy. “We’re not going to get people to fully buy into this if they don’t feel comfortable with the record--and the one way to not make them feel comfortable with the record is to force everything on them and say, ‘This is a mandate, you’re going to have to do this or that.’ Because if that happens, then people aren’t going to want to buy in and the system’s not going to work.
“So what’s going to happen is this is going to be someone’s--people’s opportunity to choose, because they are going to know there are safeguards, and I think over time they are going to get more and more comfortable that this is in the best interest of them and their personal health,” said Rep. Kennedy. “But absolutely, we are going to make sure that’s it’s all up to the individual, because we are not going to get widespread adoption if people don’t feel that their privacy is protected. Privacy is the cornerstone of making sure this thing works.”
Ashley Katz, executive director of Patient Privacy Rights, a non-profit health policy watchdog group, agreed with Kennedy about the importance of protecting the privacy of electronic health records but said that electronic health records as currently used are not generally designed to allow people to exempt parts of their medical history.
“I agree that privacy is the cornerstone of health care and ultimate adoption of electronic health records,” said Katz. “It is assuring to hear that the congressman’s intent is to ensure people can choose what information would go into an EHR versus mandating all data be dumped in without a patient’s consent.”
“However, most electronic health records today are not designed or used to allow people to make informed choices,” said Katz. “There is tremendous opposition by industry to allowing this kind of patient choice, and industry has a powerful influence on policy. We continue to hear that letting a patient segment or block sensitive information from going in to an EHR and allowing a patient to have control over who can see and use their information is too complicated and not worth doing. We wholly disagree. Patient control is essential with EHRs.”
Katz also said there is no language in the stimulus bill that says a patient can prevent something like an STD from appearing on their electronic health record.
“The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) allows a doctor to use/share the information for any purposes that fall under ‘treatment, payment, and health care operations’ without the patients request,” she told CNSNews.com.
“It actually says that the patient may request a restriction, but the provider does not have to comply with that restriction. It’s a toothless ‘right,’” said Katz.
“The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA, the economic stimulus law] included a provision that would require a provider to not share information with a health plan, if the patient requested it and if they paid in full out of pocket,” said Katz. “The ARRA requires a policy committee to consider how to allow patients to segment sensitive information but there is nothing in the actual law that says you have this right.”
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a physician, drew a distinction between putting information in the record and actually having a person’s physician release that information to a third party. But health care providers, he said, need to know everything about a patient’s medical history.
“I think it should be up to the patient to decide what information is released,” he said. “The patient, of course, is the one who’s ultimately getting control of devoting that information to their doctor.”
“If they release that information to be shared with whoever requests the sharing of information, I think the patient is going to be aware of that,” Burgess told CNSNews.com. “Again, my perspective is different and it’s more from the standpoint of a provider. I think providers do need to have that information. If I refer a patient to a specialist, yeah, that information needs to go along. It is not only unfair, it is probably a liability on my part if I did not disclose that information to the physician to whom I am referring a patient.”
Rep. Burgess and Ms. Katz told CNSNews.com that it is still unknown how information about a patient will be put into the electronic health database.
“I think that’s still mostly unknown,” Katz told CNSNews.com. “But usually it starts with the encounter at the doctor’s office. Also, all the prescription data is/has been collected every time you get your prescription. Most of these systems still don’t talk to each other (not interoperable) and there is plenty of debate over how to make a ‘national’ system.”
Kerrie Bennett, Rep. Kennedy’s press secretary, was not available to answer follow-up questions CNSNews.com.
Contact: Nicholas Ballasy Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: September 28, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Right to health care is grounded in sanctity of human life, U.S. bishops consistently hold
The Catholic bishops of the United States have continually emphasized that the right to adequate health care “flows from the sanctity of human life,” a spokeswoman for the Wisconsin bishops has noted.
Minnesota Catholic Conference policy director Alexandra Fitzsimmons has said that previous documents of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on health care are relevant to the present debate about proposals for reform, the Catholic Spirit reports.
“We cannot let go of the principle that really is why we believe that health care is a basic right,” she said.
Health care reform without respect for life is “empty,” she remarked, which is why Catholics cannot compromise on the abortion issue.
A 1993 USCCB resolution, titled “A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform,” stated that everyone has a right to “adequate health care.”
“This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God,” the document explained.
The bishops’ resolution listed eight criteria for health care reform, including respect for life from conception to natural death, priority concern for the poor, cost restraint, pursuing the common good while preserving pluralism, and universal access for everyone living in the United States, the Catholic Spirit says.
Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, N.Y. in a July 2009 letter to Congress said the bishops want to support health care reform.
“We have in the past and we always must insist that health care reform excludes abortion coverage or any other provisions that threaten the sanctity of human life,” added the bishop, who is chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.
Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis John Nienstedt, writing in his August 27 column in the Catholic Spirit, has said health care reform legislation has “far-reaching moral implications.”
“What it permits and what it disallows speaks volumes about the values that we hold dear and are willing to fight to defend,” he added.
President Obama in his Sept. 9 speech said that his health care proposal will not fund abortions with federal dollars and will leave federal conscience protections intact.
However, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB’s Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said that legislative proposals such as H.R. 3200 and the recent proposal of Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have “the same unacceptable language.”
Rep. Lois Capps’ amendment would require a public health insurance option to cover all abortions eligible for federal funding under the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life.
The proposal would also grant the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services the authority to mandate federally funded coverage for abortions in the public plan not eligible for funding under the Hyde Amendment.
Fitzsimmons said that tax credits designed to help low-income people pay their insurance premiums will also subsidize abortions in private plans that cover abortions, the Catholic Spirit reports.
The Capps Amendment says that these credits should not be used to pay for elective abortions, but Fitzsimmons said that this is merely a segregation of funds that will not achieve its stated aim.
Source: CNA Publish Date: September 27, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
U.S. Birth Rate Sees Biggest Drop in Nearly 40 Years
Birth rates in the U.S. fell 2 percent in 2008, the biggest drop in nearly four decades, Time.com reported.
The Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, suggested the recession may be to blame, as women factor economic anxieties into their decision about having children.
Steve Watters, director of marriage and parenting preparation at Focus on the Family, agreed that the economic environment is tough right now.
"But couples can still embrace the hope of babies even in these uncertain times," he said. "Couples found a way to care for their children back in the days of the Great Depression — including Dr. James Dobson's parents. This generation might have to make sacrifices, but it's by no means impossible to provide the kind of nurturing environment children need.
"It's my hope that Christian couples will be reminded in this time of economic insecurity that God is still trustworthy as a provider and that babies are still one of His best sources of hope."
Contact: Jennifer Mesko Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: September 25, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
The 2009 State-by-State Legislative Report on State Efforts to Protect and Defend Life
Americans United for Life (AUL) today released their 2009 State Legislative Session Report. This year's report confirms that the majority of states continue to successfully pursue and implement a life-affirming legislative agenda.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of Americans United for Life, said: "Clearly, we are making progress at the state level -- law by law and state by state -- to protect and defend life. We are encouraged by the progress that has been made in 2009 and enthusiastically look forward to working with pro-life legislators to advance pro-life legislation and policies in 2010."
Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added: "The promising and life-affirming trends that we have seen in 2009 bode well for the 2010 state legislative sessions and for a renewed culture of life in America."
According to the report, several notable and promising developments and trends emerged in 2009:
* Approximately 60 life-affirming measures were enacted in 2009, a substantial increase from 2008 activity levels.
* The states considered approximately 300 abortion-related measures, the vast majority of them life-affirming, and virtually every state considered at least one pro-life measure.
* Several states introduced resolutions opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), radical legislation that would enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law and override all federal and state laws regulating or restricting abortion. Meanwhile, attempts in five states to enact a state version of FOCA were handily defeated.
* Further, states continued to seek to protect the unborn in contexts other than abortion by enacting protections for unborn victims of violence, encouraging substance abuse treatment for pregnant woman, and providing legal recourse for families whose unborn children are killed through the criminal acts or neglect of others.
* Measures to regulate biotechnologies and to prohibit or restrict technologies that destroy nascent life increased by nearly 20% -- the first increase in such legislation in three years.
* For the first time in three years, measures to protect conscience outpaced measures to violate or compel conscience by a margin of 2 to 1.
Click here for AUL's complete report, "2009 State Legislative Sessions in Review."
Contact: Heather Smith Source: Americans United for Life Publish Date: September 22, 2009 Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
