| Abortion Funding Vote This Week -- Disguised as U. S. "Health Care" NOTE: The U.S. House will vote this week on whether to set up a federal abortion-funding program in the so-called "public plan". If you don't want your tax dollars used to fund abortion, call your congressman and ask him to vote "no" on "the Rule" for H.R. 3200.  An upcoming procedural vote in the House of Representatives will determine whether U.S. taxpayers are forced to directly pay for elective abortions. The procedural resolution, generally called "the rule," is one that the House must approve before it can take up the massive health care bill (H.R. 3200). The "rule" will specify what amendments to the bill, if any, may be considered on the House floor. On October 23, the Associated Press accurately reported that the House Democratic leadership, led by Nancy Pelosi, currently does not intend to allow the House to vote on an amendment sponsored by Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), which would, as the AP reported, "include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill." The AP reported: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail … So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it. Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling 'no' votes on a procedural measure [the "rule"] that needs to pass before debate can begin." As approved by Democratic-controlled House committees, H.R. 3200 contains at least two major components that implicate abortion policy. It creates a new program of premium subsidies for health insurance. The AP story discusses pro-life objections to allowing those subsidies to go to private plans that cover elective abortions. The other major abortion-related controversy generated by the bill is the proposed "public plan." Steven Mosher, President of PRI, points out: "The bill explicitly authorizes the "public plan" to pay for elective abortions. Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have claimed that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, but this is not true. The public plan will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. Under this public plan, the federal government would pay abortion providers for performing elective abortions." "The public plan problem and the premium-subsidy problem are two ways that the current bill publicly funds abortion," Mosher said. "Seventy percent of Americans oppose both government funding of abortion and abortion coverage." The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has confirmed that all of the monies spent by the public plan would be federal funds, refuting the claim by Democratic leaders and President Obama that no "federal funds" would be used to pay for abortions. "Congressional Democratic leaders claim that the public plan, a federal program, would pay for abortions with 'private' funds. This is nonsense," Mosher said. "Americans who conscientiously object to having their tax dollars used to pay for abortions will be forced to pay for them." "Remember that during his campaign for the presidency, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would include abortion in his health care reform legislation and in its public plan," Mosher said. "He is keeping that promise to the abortion providers, while misleading and deceiving the American people about his true aims." Contact: Steve Mosher, Colin Mason Source: PRI Publish Date: October 27, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
October 27, 2009
Abortion Funding Vote This Week -- Disguised as U. S. "Health Care"
NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY
| 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.) A United States 'One-Child' Policy?  Should the U.S. join China with a one-child policy? Maybe not through forced abortion, but how about with carbon credits? That's the, um, "interesting" idea from New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin. Reports Cybercast News Service: At the event, Revkin said: "Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that? Click here for the full article. Three UK Babies Murdered Every Day Due to Down's Syndrome  An increasing number of pregnant women are being told their babies have the condition because of a growing number of women putting off having children until their 30s and 40s and improvements in screening, doctors say. And around nine in ten women who are told they are going to have a baby with the problem opt for a termination. The research shows that around 1,100 babies in England and Wales are aborted every year because of Down's syndrome, an increase from 300 in 1989/90. Click here for the full article. Head Of Kansas Medical Licensing Board Resigns; Had Led Charges Against Abortion Provider Tiller  The executive director of the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, which licenses and regulates Kansas doctors, resigned effective Oct. 19, according to board officials, the AP/Kansas City Star reports. Jack Confer, who took the position in June 2008, had received praise from abortion-rights opponents, who previously accused the board of protecting abortion providers from punishment for alleged misconduct. The board denied those charges. The antiabortion-rights group Kansans for Life said it was "distraught" over Confer's resignation. Click here for the full article. Colombian official calls on court to overturn decision requiring schools to teach abortion is a 'right'  Colombia's Attorney General, Alejandro Ordonez Maldonado, announced that he would be asking the country's Constitutional Court to overturn a ruling that would force schools to teach students that abortion is a right. Ordonez remarked that he would challenge the ruling ordering the Ministries of Social Protection and of Education to promote massive campaigns related to sexual and reproductive rights, especially in regard to abortion. Click here for the full article. Pro-life Congressman has 40 Democratic votes to kill health-care bill with abortion funding  Congressman Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who has rallied pro-life forces during the debate on health-care reform, now says that he has 40 Democratic colleagues who will vote against the reform package if it does not include a clear amendment to bar abortion subsidies. Click here for the full article. Seeking Women Who Have Had Abortions In Ohio  Operation Rescue is asking women who have had abortions in Ohio in the past year to contact them. "We are conducting a research project and are encouraging women who are ready to share their stories about their abortion experiences in Ohio to contact us as soon as possible," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. "Of course, all communications with us will be held in strictest confidence." We are especially looking for women who had abortions at Women's Med Center on Stroop Rd. in Kettering (near Dayton), or at Cincinnati Women's Services on Jefferson Ave. in Cincinnati over the past 12 months. If you had an abortion in Ohio in the past year, we would love to speak with you. Your communications will remain confidential and your identity will be protected. Contact Operation Rescue at 316-683-6790, ext. 112, or e-mail us at cheryl@operationrescue.org. Click here for the full article. |
October 26, 2009
Dem Leaders Plan to Block Vote on Pro-Life Health Amendment, Fearing It Otherwise "Certain to Prevail": AP
Dem Leaders Plan to Block Vote on Pro-Life Health Amendment, Fearing It Otherwise "Certain to Prevail": AP Stupak Leads Pro-Life House Dems in Clash Over Health Bill Abortion Funding  A final attempt to block a vast federal policy shift in favor of abortion will not be granted a vote as the U.S. House of Representatives considers President Obama's health care bill, because Democrat leaders fear the attempt would likely succeed, reports the Associated Press today. As the health care bill prepares for a final battle on the House floor, Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan is going head-to-head against his own party leaders, who are steadily pressuring him and about two dozen other pro-life Democrats to fall in line behind the abortion-promoting measure. After his work to include abortion-blocking language in earlier versions of the bill that was thwarted at every turn, Stupak has vowed one more effort at a pro-life amendment on the House floor. But Associated Press writer Erica Wagner reports that, since a pro-life amendment would likely attract support from both parties, Democratic leaders plan to block Stupak from offering it: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail, since it likely would attract the votes of most Republicans as well as some Democrats. So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it." If the vote is blocked, Stupak has repeatedly vowed that he and other pro-life lawmakers will resort to a last-ditch effort to thwart the measure by assembling "no" votes on a procedural measure that needs to pass before debate can begin. Because of an amendment that pro-abortion Rep.s Henry Waxman and Lois Capps pushed through the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July, the House bill explicitly opens the subsidies collected under the public plan to abortion, directs subsidy monies to plans that cover abortion, and requires each U.S. region to have an insurance plan that covers abortion. The Capps amendment largely mirrors language found in the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill. This week, the House Democrats launched its first official survey feeling out how lawmakers will likely vote on the health care overhaul - a traditional time for leaders to focus pressure on lawmakers who have strayed from the party line. Stupak, whose pro-life amendment was rejected in the July meeting, has taken a leading role alongside GOP pro-life lawmakers against the bill's vast expansion of abortion. Stupak lightheartedly referred to his disagreement with Rep. Waxman, with whom he has continued discussing the abortion issue. "I'm a little taller. Our minds don't meet," said Stupak of the shorter Waxman. Waxman, like other Democrat leadership including Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, continued to deny that the money directed to abortion providers under the bill qualifies as "federal funding for abortion services." "We have done everything we can to ensure that there will be no federal funds for abortion services," said Waxman. The Capps amendment contains a provision to segregate federal funds to abortion-covering plans such that none would pay for abortions directly. However, as the funds would nonetheless free up other money to pay for abortions, the National Right to Life Committee's legislative director Douglas Johnson decried the measure as a "bookkeeping scam" designed to give the amendment the appearance of a compromise measure. Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Why Germany is REALLY ahead in stem cell treatments
Why Germany is REALLY ahead in stem cell treatments  A husband and wife pair in western Washington state are trying to raise money for him to go to Germany for a stem cell transplant for his failing heart. Erik and Jenn Gelhar have already raised $40,000 of the $100,000 they need to get him to Germany for the treatment at XCELL Centre in Dusseldorf Germany. So why does an American have to travel to Germany to get such a treatment? Why are they farther ahead than the United States in adult stem cell treatments for heart disease? According to this article that quotes Dr. Charles Murray of University of Washington, it is because of Bush's funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and cloning: Erik Gelhar is unable to get treatment in the United States because they are not as advanced as Germany in stem cell research. Germany has cutting edge technology and the people's view about stem cell therapy is different, Jenn Gelhar said. Dr. Charles Murry, co-director at the University of Washington's Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, said the U.S. is still in the early stages of stem cell research. He said the ban that the Bush administration put on federal funding for the research slowed down the progression since it was a controversial and political issue. Actually, Germany did one better than President Bush's funding ban and has OUTLAWED embryo destructive research and cloning all together. Germany does not fund such research at all because it is illegal to create or use embryos for research. The German Act for the Protection of Embryos states: 1. Anyone who disposes of, or hands over or acquires or uses for a purpose not serving its preservation, a human embryo produced outside the body, or removed from a woman before the completion of implantation in the uterus, will be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. 2. Likewise, anyone will be punished who causes a human embryo to develop further outside the body for any purpose other than bringing about of a pregnancy. The reason Germans are so far ahead in adult stem cell treatments is because they don't waste time or money on stem cell research that does not now, and may never, treat patients i.e. embryonic stem cell research and cloning. (Imagine where the United States would be if millions of dollars that are spent on embryo destructive research were put into adult stem cell research instead.) Contact: Rebecca Source: Pro-Life Blogs Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Radical Environmentalism: Justifying a Chinese Style Population Control Tyranny
Radical Environmentalism: Justifying a Chinese Style Population Control Tyranny  The one child policy in China has led to forced abortion, female infanticide, eugenics, awful heartbreak, and countless other oppressions. But in the world of radical environmentalism, that may be unfortunate–but it is also, apparently, justifiable. How else interpret this statement in the Observer by Alex Renton, which deals with the supposed need to control population to save the planet from carbon dioxide. From the column "Fewer British Babies Would Mean a Fairer Planet:" According to two recent polls, nine out of 10 scientists working in climate change don't believe we will achieve the changes in energy use committed to by the G8 and the EU. If they are right, population is going to start to matter a lot. Don't we need a fallback plan? That fallback plan is radical population control: So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population. The only nation to have taken steps to do this is China – and the way it went about enforcing the notorious one child policy is one of the reasons the rest of us are so horrified by the notion of state intervention. Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far. It was evil! It was accomplished through murder and utter tyranny. Does that not matter anymore? We'be been warned: Either start limiting our families to one child in the developed world–or else! Some scientists, the German chancellor's adviser, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber among them, say that if the cuts are not achieved, we will end up with a planet with a "carrying capacity" of just 1bn humans. [Me: What a crock.] If so, we need to start cutting back population now with methods that offer a humane choice – before it happens the hard way. "The hard way?" as in how they did it in China? Or perhaps, worse? Progressive liberalism used to be about freedom and equality. Increasingly it is about Utopian hysteria and undemocratic control. Perhaps, there's a spot for this guy among the Obama policy czars. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: October 25, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Handheld Ultrasound: A Peek at the Future of the Pro-Life Movement?
Handheld Ultrasound: A Peek at the Future of the Pro-Life Movement?  New technology hailed as a stunning leap forward in modern health care may be about to give pro-life advocates unheard-of power to save a life - in the palm of their hand. At the Web 2.0 summit in San Francisco this week, General Electric unveiled the ultraportable and user-friendly Vscan, an ultrasound machine about the size of a large flip phone. Dubbing it "the stethoscope of the 21st century," the company offered various scenarios in which the device could vastly advance the landscape of diagnostics. For pro-lifers on the front lines, the new gadget could hugely improve abortion-bound women's access to ultrasounds, which have been found highly effective in helping mothers choose life for their baby. In the past, the sheer size of the devices has given pro-lifers a perennial puzzle over how to bring the heavy medical equipment into the paths of such women. Thomas Peters of the American Papist blog was among the first to ponder the new invention as a potential "revolution in sidewalk pro-life counseling technology." Chris Slattery, the founder and president of the New York pregnancy resource center Expectant Mother Care, called the breakthrough "absolutely awesome." Slattery said that his own operation has been actively pursuing smaller versions of the ultrasound - having just crammed his mobile ultrasound into a 15-foot cargo van, a step up from the previous 20-foot mobile home. "Our movement is going more and more mobile with ultrasound," said Slattery. Some pro-life organizers, he said, are so devoted to the life-saving benefits of ultrasound that they have created "a whole sub-segment of the movement" dedicated to providing mobile ultrasound. But while the vision of pro-life sidewalk counselors nationwide packing a personal ultrasound in their back pocket may be an attractive one, the new technology won't be available for general consumption. Ultrasound sonography is tightly regulated by state law as well as national medical guidelines issued by the American Institute in Ultrasound Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Radiology. Still, with equipment and training provided by organizations such as Option Ultrasound and National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), more and more pregnancy resource centers today have been able to open the technology to a life-saving venue. Major pregnancy resource center groups now provide regular and ongoing sonography training for medical clinic affiliates. "[Ultrasound] is the most powerful tool in the movement," said Slattery. "I've been looking for a new ultrasound machine - and I want to find out more about this." Contact: Kathleen Gilbert Source: LifeSiteNews.com Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
End of Life Care Should Not End Life
End of Life Care Should Not End Life Ken Connor The subject of how best to honor and care for those facing death due to terminal illness or old age has always been controversial. As talk of "death panels" and "rationing" stirs debate over the government's proper role in health care, two new studies funded by the National Institutes of Health are lending new weight to the argument that, when it comes to providing end-of-life care for the elderly and terminally ill, sometimes less is better. The studies, featured in the New England Journal of Medicine, document how certain medical therapies implemented in the final months of a patient's life often cause emotional and physical stress and pain, effectively negating any positive benefits associated with such treatments. However, those worried that a government takeover of health care will result in health care rationing in keeping with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's "complete lives" theory view these studies with alarm—and for good reason. In a culture where "quality of life" is increasingly viewed as the predominant justification for abortion, assisted suicide, and even infanticide, there is a legitimate concern that these kinds of studies will be used by the government to advance policies that endanger society's most vulnerable members. The pivotal question is not whether difficult end-of-life decisions must sometimes be made, or whether—as the NIH studies indicate—sometimes the best decision is to forego heroic measures in favor of simply keeping a patient comfortable in his or her final days. The traditions of hospice and palliative care, for example, both work to keep dying individuals in a state of dignity and comfort without resorting to extraordinary, and ultimately futile, measures. The question is who should make these decisions. Government-run health care has ominous implications because it supplants individual doctor-patient relationships with generalized protocols crafted by bureaucrats who have no way of accounting for the particular needs of the human beings affected by them. These protocols are often drafted with cost-cutting goals and resource management in mind—not the criteria most want at the top of the list when it comes to life and death medical care. At many hospitals and nursing homes in the United Kingdom, for example, elderly patients deemed close to death are placed in a "care pathway" designed to ease the dying process and conserve medical resources. Once it is determined that a patient is near death, life sustaining fluids and medicines are withdrawn and the patient is placed under heavy sedation. As bioethicist Wesley J. Smith describes it, "the Pathway misuses the legitimate treatment of palliative sedation, and mutates it in some cases into a method of causing death, known as terminal sedation. This means that sedation is sometimes administered, not because the individual patient actually needs the procedure, but because he or she has been reduced to a category member, and that's how members of the category are treated." When this kind of one-size-fits-all approach is employed, casualties are inevitable. One man has already lost his life due to the misapplication of England's bureaucratic approach to end-of-life care. At the other end of life spectrum, last month a woman in England was forced to watch her premature infant struggle to survive without medical care for hours before finally dying on the delivery room table. The reason? Doctors told the new mother that "national regulations" prevented them from providing medical care because the baby was born two days too early to qualify for life-saving measures. In Canada, the government recently decided to end funding for a medication that adds an additional nine months to the lives of colon cancer patients. Why? "Clinical" evidence suggested that the additional months of life were not worth the cost of the medication. In each of these situations, end-of-life decisions were made without the input of, and sometimes against the explicit wishes of, the individuals involved. These treatments are not being employed as one option among many—they are being imposed uniformly as a matter of policy. Few would deny that some measure of reform is needed in the health care arena. Our country is on the threshold of a veritable Senior Tsunami; an enormous age wave is coming. As America increasingly becomes a mass geriatric society, large numbers of the elderly will soon need acute and long term care. Yet, even as the demand for medical care is increasing, Medicare funds are in short supply, and something's got to give. But if our leaders in Washington are unable or unwilling to come up with a uniquely American solution to this problem, and if the looming health care crisis continues to be exploited by leaders on the Left simply as a means to a greater ideological end, there is good reason to fear that the cold comfort of England's "care pathway" approach to end-of-life care may be coming soon to a hospital near you. Contact: Ken Connor Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: October 26, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
Pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion
Pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) / House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi Washington D.C..- Drawing opposition from pro-abortion politicians and activists, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is leading a coalition of about 40 pro-life Democrats who are petitioning for an opportunity to vote Hyde Amendment-like abortion funding restrictions into the proposed health care reform legislation. Rep. Stupak is negotiating with Congressional leaders to resolve the dispute. He has threatened to block action on the larger health care reform bill unless he is allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde Amendment, the Associated Press reports. The amendment would bar federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered. The amendment applies to Medicaid funding, requiring that states which cover abortion for low-income women can only use state taxpayer money, and not federal funds. In its current form, the health care reform bill would create a new stream of federal funds outside the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment. Rep. Stupak has criticized current language that purports to segregate federal funds and funds used in abortions. "Once you get the affordability credits (subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion. We're not going there," Stupak told the Associated Press. "How do you get past the affordability credits is really the issue. And we can't." Speaking to CNSNews.com on Thursday, Stupak said that his group of "about 40 likeminded Democrats" will vote to kill the health-care bill if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) does not allow a floor vote on his amendment. "We will try to—we, there's about 40 likeminded Democrats like myself—we'll try to take down the rule," Stupak said. "If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win." To block the bill, he must assemble "no" votes on a procedural measure that needs to pass before debate can begin. Stupak says he thinks he can gather about 220 "no" votes. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, claimed that everything possible has been done to ensure abortion services will not be federally funded. He said he is working on the issue with Rep. Stupak. According to the Associated Press, Rep. Waxman said that Rep. Stupak's preferred provision would deny any subsidy money to any insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. This would deny to women what he said were legal and sometimes medically necessary procedures. The pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America has criticized the present form of the bill, arguing that it singles out abortion from "other health care services." "Apparently it was necessary to stop anti-choice politicians from continuing to use health care reform to attack a woman's right to choose," the group's president Nancy Keenan said. NARAL has sent a letter to supporters singling out Rep. Stupak for criticism and asking them to call congressmen to ensure his defeat. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has said it cannot support a health care reform bill unless the pro-life language is strengthened. Commenting on Friday, National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said the proposed bill "explicitly authorizes" the public plan to pay for elective abortions. "Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have claimed that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, but this is a deception, because the public plan will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. The federal government would pay abortion providers for performing elective abortions -- a sharp break from decades of federal policy." "Recent polls show strong public opposition to government funding of abortion and abortion coverage," he added, saying an amendment would be needed to remove abortion from the federal plan. Source: CNA Publish Date: October 23, 2009 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend. |
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY
| NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY (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.) Florida Plans Plug Pulling, Death Panels, Healthcare Rationing  Public health officials in Florida are silently drawing up guidelines that call for "rationed" medical care, admission denials, and even withdrawing essential care from certain patients in the event of a serious spread of influenza, documents show. Led by Florida Surgeon General Ana Viamonte, the state Department of Health's Pandemic Influenza Technical Advisory Committee issued a draft report entitled "Pandemic Influenza: Triage and Scarce Resource Allocation" that purports to offer guidance on how to distribute medical supplies in the event of a flu outbreak or other health emergency. It also identifies a "methodology that enables healthcare institutions to make decisions on patient admission and treatment," according to the introduction. Click here for the full article. Abortion, Birth Control Pill Linked To Breast Cancer, Surgeon Says  After her best childhood friend died from breast cancer, Ruth Deddens began researching the causes of the dreaded disease. The Oakwood woman's investigation eventually led her to Angela Lanfranchi, a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Deddens, active in the "40 Days for Life" movement, decided to bring Lanfranchi to town as part of this year's local pro-life campaign. Lanfranchi — who insists there are proven links between breast cancer, abortion and birth control pills — was the featured speaker at St. Anthony Church in East Dayton and a Sunday afternoon, Oct. 25, public gathering at the University of Dayton. She also spoke at two invitation-only events hosted by Deddens in memory of her friend, Katherine "Kit" Benham England, who died last Easter. Click here for the full article. Colombia's Council of State suspends regulations permitting abortion  Bogotá, Colombia - Colombia's Council of State has provisionally suspended regulations allowing abortions to be performed in the country, thus prohibiting any clinic from performing the procedure until its legal status is resolved. According to several media reports, the decision by the Council of State does not overrule the Constitutional Court's decision in 2006 to legalize abortion in cases of rape, fetal deformation or life of the mother. Click here for the full article. Constitutional Court in Peru admits abortifacient effect of morning-after pill  Lima, Peru - Peru's Constitutional Court has ruled against the distribution of the "morning-after pill" at public health care facilities because the abortifacient effect of the drug has not been ruled out. According to the public relations office of the Court, the justices hold that "the inexistence of the abortifacient effect, the inhibition of the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the endometrium, has not been demonstrated." The court accepted the arguments of various NGOs after evaluating the arguments presented by national and international institutions and found that supporters of the pill could not prove that it does not affect the right to life of the unborn, which is protected by the Peruvian Constitution. The court's ruling bans the free distribution of the morning-after pill in public health care facilities... Click here for the full article. Abortion in Health-Care Reform May Hurt Minorities the Most  Black Americans could be the group most affected by including taxpayer-funded abortions in health-care reform, according to pro-life experts. Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, said studies show one in two African-American pregnancies end in abortion, and the abortion rate for black women is almost three times that of white women. "These statistics show that (health care) is going to wind up paying mostly for abortions for African-American women," Sedlak said. "It's going to be killing off the African-American race in this country." Click here for the full article. View the Entire Pro-Life Petition News Conference Video Nearly 150,000 signatures were delivered to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, representing millions of Americans who do not support taxpayer funding of abortion in health-care reform. Yesterday's Focus Action Update offered a taste of the event, but a video of the entire event is now available. |
U.S. House Speaker Pelosi wants to ram the pro-abortion health care bill through the House
| U.S. House Speaker Pelosi wants to ram the pro-abortion health care bill through the House Telephone your representative in the U.S. House today! This is an urgent congressional alert. Please act on this alert immediately.  Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Ca.) is planning to try to ram the massive health care bill (H.R. 3200) through the House on short notice, without allowing consideration of a critical pro-life amendment. National Right to Life is urging every pro-life citizen to immediately TELEPHONE the office of his or her representative in the U.S. House of Representatives with a clear and firm message urging a NO vote on the so-called "rule," which is the procedural vote that would allow passage of H.R. 3200 with no amendments allowed, and also to vote against the pro-abortion bill itself. Even if you have already called and written your representatives in Congress about the health care bills, it is critical that you call again now. This will just take a few minutes. For guidance on how to make your call, click here. Once there, you will see a box labeled "CALL NOW." Once you enter your zip code in that box, you will be shown the name and phone number of your representative in the U.S. House, along with suggested "talking points" that will help you deliver a crisp, clear message to your representative's staff person in Washington, D.C. |
October 23, 2009
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
HINSDALE, Illinois - A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.
Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.
"I've called her sister several times, and she never responded," local pro-lifer John Bray told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "But it's her."
Amy Keane, a pro-life witness for 11 years, says Quinn has acted as escort for "six years, at least." Keane described one incident in which Quinn began shouting at the pro-lifers as they spoke to a woman about to enter the abortion facility.
"[Quinn] was so angry, and burst out very loudly so everyone could hear: 'Look at these men, telling these women what to do with their bodies!'" said Keane. "She was so angry, that it really took all of us aback." Keane says that the group was peaceful, and that the men present were not among those engaging the woman.
"For those of us who are Catholic, to have a member of a religious order so blatantly - it is so disheartening. It really is," said Keane. "She's participating actively in abortion. That is what is so disturbing for us."
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church's position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
While LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to reach Sr. Quinn for comment, NCAN's Sr. Beth Rindler confirmed to LSN that Quinn is still a member of their group, which favors unrestricted legalized abortion and disagrees with the teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil. "We respect women, and believe that they make moral decision, and so we respect their decisions," Rindler explained.
In a 2002 address to the Women's Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as "immoral": "I used to say: 'This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,'" she said. "Then later I said, 'This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I'd better work to change it.' More recently, I am saying, 'All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations.'"
Quinn called gender discrimination "the root cause of evil in the Church, and thus in the world," and said she remained in the Dominican community simply for "the sisterhood."
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League says Quinn came in contact with his own office in 1982, when she and a group of other pro-aborts picketed his building on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
"She figures it's part of her religion to take these women in and protect them, and get them abortions," said Scheidler of Quinn's recent activity. "Something dreadful has happened to make a Catholic nun become an escort at an abortion clinic - that's the lowest form you can reach, where you escort a woman with a living child in her into a place to have the child killed, and to ruin that woman's soul."
"If I didn't even believe in the humanity of the child - which of course would be crazy - even if I didn't, I would fight abortion for the sake of the women," Scheidler added. "They miss that baby, and they can't get it back. They never can."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
HINSDALE, Illinois - A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently - but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.
Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.
"I've called her sister several times, and she never responded," local pro-lifer John Bray told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "But it's her."
Amy Keane, a pro-life witness for 11 years, says Quinn has acted as escort for "six years, at least." Keane described one incident in which Quinn began shouting at the pro-lifers as they spoke to a woman about to enter the abortion facility.
"[Quinn] was so angry, and burst out very loudly so everyone could hear: 'Look at these men, telling these women what to do with their bodies!'" said Keane. "She was so angry, that it really took all of us aback." Keane says that the group was peaceful, and that the men present were not among those engaging the woman.
"For those of us who are Catholic, to have a member of a religious order so blatantly - it is so disheartening. It really is," said Keane. "She's participating actively in abortion. That is what is so disturbing for us."
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church's position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
While LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to reach Sr. Quinn for comment, NCAN's Sr. Beth Rindler confirmed to LSN that Quinn is still a member of their group, which favors unrestricted legalized abortion and disagrees with the teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil. "We respect women, and believe that they make moral decision, and so we respect their decisions," Rindler explained.
In a 2002 address to the Women's Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as "immoral": "I used to say: 'This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,'" she said. "Then later I said, 'This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I'd better work to change it.' More recently, I am saying, 'All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations.'"
Quinn called gender discrimination "the root cause of evil in the Church, and thus in the world," and said she remained in the Dominican community simply for "the sisterhood."
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn's Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn's public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League says Quinn came in contact with his own office in 1982, when she and a group of other pro-aborts picketed his building on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
"She figures it's part of her religion to take these women in and protect them, and get them abortions," said Scheidler of Quinn's recent activity. "Something dreadful has happened to make a Catholic nun become an escort at an abortion clinic - that's the lowest form you can reach, where you escort a woman with a living child in her into a place to have the child killed, and to ruin that woman's soul."
"If I didn't even believe in the humanity of the child - which of course would be crazy - even if I didn't, I would fight abortion for the sake of the women," Scheidler added. "They miss that baby, and they can't get it back. They never can."
Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
UN Petition for the Unborn Child Re-Launched, Seeks One Million Names
UN Petition for the Unborn Child Re-Launched, Seeks One Million Names
An international coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups has re-launched a petition that is expected to gather one million signatures in support of the unborn child and the traditional family.
Groups from the United States, Poland, Spain and other European counties launched the petition last fall and at that time gathered nearly 500,000 signatures, which were presented to selected Ambassadors at the United Nations (UN) and at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters. The groups included C-FAM, Concerned Women for America, United Families International, all from the United States, along with the Polish Federation of Pro-life Groups and the Spanish Institute for Family Policy. A prominent parliamentarian from Honduras also participated in the press conference.
The purpose of the petition is to persuade UN Member States to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion and also to recognize traditional marriage and the right of parents to educate their children.
Organizers launched the petition partially in reaction to efforts by pro-abortion groups last year to use the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration to promote a right to abortion.
The pro-life petition, which can be signed here in one of 19 languages, specifically references portions of the Universal Declaration that can be interpreted by States in pro-life and pro-family ways. For instance, the Universal Declaration says, “Everyone has the right to life.” Though it is not clear that the drafters meant to include the unborn child in this formulation, States may interpret the document this way.
The Universal Declaration also says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” In recent years social radicals have pushed the UN to call for an international right for homosexuals to marry. Social conservatives point out this is in direct opposition to the intention of the drafters of the aspirational Universal Declaration and its binding implementing covenants promulgated in 1966.
Family-rights proponents also highlight the Universal Declaration's recognition that “Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” There is a push in the West to allow homosexual propaganda in schools even against the wishes of parents. This would be in violation of the Universal Declaration.
Additionally, the petition cites the Universal Declaration where it says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the State.” In recent years efforts have been made to undermine the natural family by redefining it to include homosexual couples, efforts that have been repeatedly defeated in the UN General Assembly.
Organizers were also inspired by efforts of the Catholic St. Egidio Community of Rome who gathered one million signatures calling for a moratorium on the death penalty that resulted in a successful UN resolution calling for a ban on executions.
European Union Parliamentarians Anna Zaborska of Slovakia and Carlo Casini of Italy led similar efforts to the UN pro-life petition in Europe. Their petitions were presented to the European Parliament last year.
(This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Contact: Austin Ruse
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
An international coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups has re-launched a petition that is expected to gather one million signatures in support of the unborn child and the traditional family.
Groups from the United States, Poland, Spain and other European counties launched the petition last fall and at that time gathered nearly 500,000 signatures, which were presented to selected Ambassadors at the United Nations (UN) and at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters. The groups included C-FAM, Concerned Women for America, United Families International, all from the United States, along with the Polish Federation of Pro-life Groups and the Spanish Institute for Family Policy. A prominent parliamentarian from Honduras also participated in the press conference.
The purpose of the petition is to persuade UN Member States to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion and also to recognize traditional marriage and the right of parents to educate their children.
Organizers launched the petition partially in reaction to efforts by pro-abortion groups last year to use the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration to promote a right to abortion.
The pro-life petition, which can be signed here in one of 19 languages, specifically references portions of the Universal Declaration that can be interpreted by States in pro-life and pro-family ways. For instance, the Universal Declaration says, “Everyone has the right to life.” Though it is not clear that the drafters meant to include the unborn child in this formulation, States may interpret the document this way.
The Universal Declaration also says, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” In recent years social radicals have pushed the UN to call for an international right for homosexuals to marry. Social conservatives point out this is in direct opposition to the intention of the drafters of the aspirational Universal Declaration and its binding implementing covenants promulgated in 1966.
Family-rights proponents also highlight the Universal Declaration's recognition that “Parents have the prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” There is a push in the West to allow homosexual propaganda in schools even against the wishes of parents. This would be in violation of the Universal Declaration.
Additionally, the petition cites the Universal Declaration where it says “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the State.” In recent years efforts have been made to undermine the natural family by redefining it to include homosexual couples, efforts that have been repeatedly defeated in the UN General Assembly.
Organizers were also inspired by efforts of the Catholic St. Egidio Community of Rome who gathered one million signatures calling for a moratorium on the death penalty that resulted in a successful UN resolution calling for a ban on executions.
European Union Parliamentarians Anna Zaborska of Slovakia and Carlo Casini of Italy led similar efforts to the UN pro-life petition in Europe. Their petitions were presented to the European Parliament last year.
(This article reprinted by LifeSiteNews.com with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Contact: Austin Ruse
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Nurse entangled in web-based suicide chats
Nurse entangled in web-based suicide chats
A Minneapolis nurse is being investigated for allegedly using Internet chat rooms to encourage depressed people to kill themselves.
Investigators believe the nurse offered specific instructions on how to commit suicide in at least two deaths, but there is a snag in prosecuting this case, or any similar case. Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide notes that a person has a First Amendment right to free speech, but the nurse's professional position is to be considered.
"It wouldn't have been considered free speech if she was acting as a nurse, but she would have really, really stepped over the boundaries," suggests Marker. "So while I'd like to give you a quick and easy answer about this and say it's cut and dried, it really isn't."
Rita Marker (International Tasf Force on Euthanasia and Assited Suicide)Whether legal action will be taken or not, the Minnesota Board of Nursing has revoked the nurse's license. Marker agrees with the reaction of the Board.
"I think that's very, very appropriate because, as a nurse, that would have been totally a non-nursy thing to do," she states, suggesting that "there are certain people who, by virtue of their professions, have certain professional requirements -- and so their profession can and certainly should revoke their licenses in cases like that."
Legal experts agree that prosecuting the case would be difficult because of freedom of speech. However, the Minnesota Board of Nursing said the nurse, 47-year-old William Melchert-Dinkel, did tell at least one person that his job made him an expert on the best ways to commit suicide.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
A Minneapolis nurse is being investigated for allegedly using Internet chat rooms to encourage depressed people to kill themselves.
Investigators believe the nurse offered specific instructions on how to commit suicide in at least two deaths, but there is a snag in prosecuting this case, or any similar case. Rita Marker of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide notes that a person has a First Amendment right to free speech, but the nurse's professional position is to be considered.
"It wouldn't have been considered free speech if she was acting as a nurse, but she would have really, really stepped over the boundaries," suggests Marker. "So while I'd like to give you a quick and easy answer about this and say it's cut and dried, it really isn't."
Rita Marker (International Tasf Force on Euthanasia and Assited Suicide)Whether legal action will be taken or not, the Minnesota Board of Nursing has revoked the nurse's license. Marker agrees with the reaction of the Board.
"I think that's very, very appropriate because, as a nurse, that would have been totally a non-nursy thing to do," she states, suggesting that "there are certain people who, by virtue of their professions, have certain professional requirements -- and so their profession can and certainly should revoke their licenses in cases like that."
Legal experts agree that prosecuting the case would be difficult because of freedom of speech. However, the Minnesota Board of Nursing said the nurse, 47-year-old William Melchert-Dinkel, did tell at least one person that his job made him an expert on the best ways to commit suicide.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Success! Adult stem cells overcome spinal-cord injuries
Success! Adult stem cells overcome spinal-cord injuries
Adult stem cells, which do not require killing a human embryo, have shown success again.
A new report from researchers in Portugal and at Wayne State University documents use of adult stem cells to treat spinal-cord injury patients, none of whom had use of their legs prior to treatment. Dr. David Prentice with Family Research Council summarizes the positive results from the treatments.
"Out of the 20 patients that they treated, 13 of those patients showed significant improvement -- things like being able to walk with the aid of braces or using a walker with no braces, [and] recovering feeling, different sensation, and movement below the old injury sight," he shares.
elderly walker smallPrentice believes that with additional treatment there could be even more improvement. The patients who were treated suffered the spinal-cord injuries 18 months to 15 years ago.
"This was an established paraplegia or quadriplegia where the adult stem cells [were] put in and then the patients did the exercise regime," Prentice explains. "They showed significant improvement." According to one of the researchers, individuals with spinal-cord injuries that happened more than 18 months earlier typically show "little improvement."
In contrast, highly touted human-embryo research has produced no benefit. Adult stem cells, however, are being used to treat more than 70 illnesses or medical conditions so far.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
Adult stem cells, which do not require killing a human embryo, have shown success again.
A new report from researchers in Portugal and at Wayne State University documents use of adult stem cells to treat spinal-cord injury patients, none of whom had use of their legs prior to treatment. Dr. David Prentice with Family Research Council summarizes the positive results from the treatments.
"Out of the 20 patients that they treated, 13 of those patients showed significant improvement -- things like being able to walk with the aid of braces or using a walker with no braces, [and] recovering feeling, different sensation, and movement below the old injury sight," he shares.
elderly walker smallPrentice believes that with additional treatment there could be even more improvement. The patients who were treated suffered the spinal-cord injuries 18 months to 15 years ago.
"This was an established paraplegia or quadriplegia where the adult stem cells [were] put in and then the patients did the exercise regime," Prentice explains. "They showed significant improvement." According to one of the researchers, individuals with spinal-cord injuries that happened more than 18 months earlier typically show "little improvement."
In contrast, highly touted human-embryo research has produced no benefit. Adult stem cells, however, are being used to treat more than 70 illnesses or medical conditions so far.
Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
this article to a friend.
Obamacare: Dems Still Playing Abortion Hide the Ball
Obamacare: Dems Still Playing Abortion Hide the Ball
There is a temporary impasse about abortion funding in the House, with pro life Democrats balking at the current bill because it could have federal money fund abortion. From the story:
House Democrats are at an impasse over whether their remake of the nation’s health care system would effectively allow federal funding of abortion. At least two dozen anti-abortion Democrats believe it would, and while their opposition is unlikely to stall the legislation in the end, they are at odds with Democratic leaders just weeks ahead of anticipated floor action on the bill.
Lawmakers on the other side say they’ve compromised as far as they can to address the anti-abortion lawmakers’ concerns by specifying that people receiving government subsidies to buy health insurance couldn’t use that money for abortions.
Negotiations to find common ground have not yielded fruit. “We have a difference of opinion at the moment we cannot bridge,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where the abortion language was approved. “We have done everything we can to ensure that there will be no federal funds for abortion services.”
No they haven’t. Waxman is so disingenuous. They could spell out explicitly that non therapeutic abortion is not to be covered by any public plan or by any policy which is fully or partially paid for by public subsidies or vouchers. They could require that abortion coverage be a rider, the cost of which would be fully paid for by the insurance policy holder. They could revoke the Capps Amendment that gave the bureaucrats the power to determined whether abortion would be a covered service under the plan. They could make sure that the bureaucrats–who will put in most of the dirty details–cannot cover abortion.
They could, but they won’t. They want abortion to be covered, I think, more than they want a health care bill to pass.
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined, Says CDC Data
Abortion Kills More Black Americans Than the Seven Leading Causes of Death Combined, Says CDC Data
Dr. Freda Bush spoke recently at an event in
Washington, D.C. to recognize the work done by
Pregnancy Resource Centers to help women
who face unplanned pregnancy. She said that
abortion kills more African Americans than many
of the most deadly diseases blamed for killing
blacks each year combined.
(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.
Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.
A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states--except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire--and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race.
Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions--18,325--among African Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively.
Among the large states not reporting abortions by race--and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991--are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City.
According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by "private physicians’ procedures.”
Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure.
However, the “CDC is not a regulatory agency,” Senior Press Officer Karen Hunter told CNSNews.com. “So while we are required by Congress to collect this information, states are not required to provide any data to the CDC, including abortion surveillance.”
In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdication that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report)
The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.”
In Table 9 of the report, it states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.
Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion.
Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said.
“You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said.
“Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress.
“It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added.
Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, said that black women are not inordinately targeted.
It is the high number of unintended pregnancies among black women that explains the disproportionate number of black abortions, she stated in a policy analysis, “Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture (2008),” which was provided to CNSNews.com by Guttmacher Institute spokeswoman Rebecca Wind.
While acknowledging that the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is “almost 5 times that for white women,” Cohen concluded in her analysis, “these higher unintended pregnancy rates (among African American women) reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time."
“Because black women experience so many more unintended pregnancies than any other group—sharply disproportionate to their numbers in the general population—they are more likely to seek out and obtain abortion services than any other group,” said Cohen.
When asked to comment on this report, Dr. Freda Bush, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Jackson, Miss., told CNSNews.com that she found the explanation for the high rate of black abortions “disingenuous.”
“I would just like for them to explain why there’s such a significant proportion of their clinics that are located in minority communities,” said Bush, who is black. “So if you’ll notice, I did not mention that as a factor when I talked to you [earlier], so I was not accusing them of anything.
“I was just pointing out the fact that we have more, but since they brought it up, I would like for them to explain where their clinics are located, and why their clinics are located in that area,” she added.
“I would also like for an explanation of why their founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a known eugenist, also had a Negro project, and an explanation if that was not directed at the ‘undesirables,’” said Bush. “So, I’m not accusing them of anything. I would just like an explanation for the practices that they have continued.”
Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007 she told a meeting of Priests for Life that abortionists “plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
Contact: Karen Schuberg
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Dr. Freda Bush spoke recently at an event in
Washington, D.C. to recognize the work done by
Pregnancy Resource Centers to help women
who face unplanned pregnancy. She said that
abortion kills more African Americans than many
of the most deadly diseases blamed for killing
blacks each year combined.
(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.
Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.
A total of 49 jurisdictions reported their abortion numbers for 2005 to the CDC. These included all 50 states--except California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire--and New York City and the District of Columbia. Of these 49 jurisdiction, only 36 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia reported the number of abortions by race.
Of these 36 states, Georgia reported the largest number of abortions--18,325--among African Americans. Idaho and Montana reported the fewest, 16 and 17 respectively.
Among the large states not reporting abortions by race--and thus where the number of blacks killed by abortions is not included in the national total of 203,991--are California, Florida, Illinois and the rest of New York state outside of New York City.
According to the CDC, the total of 203,991 blacks killed by abortion in 2005 also does not include those aborted by "private physicians’ procedures.”
Every year since 1969, the CDC has amassed abortion data by state or area of occurrence, requesting information each year from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. The CDC attempts to collect data on abortions by the age, race and marital status of the women who undergo them as well as the type of abortion procedure.
However, the “CDC is not a regulatory agency,” Senior Press Officer Karen Hunter told CNSNews.com. “So while we are required by Congress to collect this information, states are not required to provide any data to the CDC, including abortion surveillance.”
In 2005, a total of 820,151 legal abortions were performed in the 49 jurisdication that reported abortions to the CDC, according to the “Abortion Surveillance” report, which is published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, or MMWR, for Nov. 28, 2008. (Scroll up to top of report)
The report states, “Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. pregnancies have ended in abortion,” and also notes some limitations on the data: “The overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions are conservative estimates; the total numbers of legal induced abortions provided by central health agencies and reported to the CDC for 2005 were probably lower than the numbers actually performed.”
In Table 9 of the report, it states that there were 203,991 blacks killed by abortion, which comprises 35.5 percent of all abortions reported for that year.
Rev. Clenard H. Childress, Jr., founder of BlackGenocide.org, told CNSNews.com that according to numbers gleaned from statistics provided by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group, 1,784 blacks are aborted each day. Also, he notes on his Web site that three out of five African-American women will obtain an abortion.
Childress said the information and sources on his Web site have never been challenged by abortion-access supporters. “This is because they can see that themselves, and they know them probably to be far worse than we’re reporting. The facts come from the pro-abort/pro-choice community,” he said.
“You want to go to a reliable source where people can’t dismiss what you’re saying,” Childress said.
“Yet the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP, Urban League, and the National Action Committee of Al Sharpton fail abysmally to report not only the decimation but the health ramifications which are questionably very pertinent and provable,” said Childress.
“It would be one thing if we were talking about something hypothetically, but these are actual empirical proofs. … We simply want the health issues of abortion to be discussed,” Childress added.
Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, said that black women are not inordinately targeted.
It is the high number of unintended pregnancies among black women that explains the disproportionate number of black abortions, she stated in a policy analysis, “Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture (2008),” which was provided to CNSNews.com by Guttmacher Institute spokeswoman Rebecca Wind.
While acknowledging that the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is “almost 5 times that for white women,” Cohen concluded in her analysis, “these higher unintended pregnancy rates (among African American women) reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time."
“Because black women experience so many more unintended pregnancies than any other group—sharply disproportionate to their numbers in the general population—they are more likely to seek out and obtain abortion services than any other group,” said Cohen.
When asked to comment on this report, Dr. Freda Bush, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Jackson, Miss., told CNSNews.com that she found the explanation for the high rate of black abortions “disingenuous.”
“I would just like for them to explain why there’s such a significant proportion of their clinics that are located in minority communities,” said Bush, who is black. “So if you’ll notice, I did not mention that as a factor when I talked to you [earlier], so I was not accusing them of anything.
“I was just pointing out the fact that we have more, but since they brought it up, I would like for them to explain where their clinics are located, and why their clinics are located in that area,” she added.
“I would also like for an explanation of why their founder, Margaret Sanger, who was a known eugenist, also had a Negro project, and an explanation if that was not directed at the ‘undesirables,’” said Bush. “So, I’m not accusing them of anything. I would just like an explanation for the practices that they have continued.”
Dr. Alveda King, niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is a pro-life activist. In August 2007 she told a meeting of Priests for Life that abortionists “plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
Contact: Karen Schuberg
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: October 23, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY
(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.)
Personhood Amendments
Affirmation of personhood rights on the march
Cal Zastrow, who heads Michigan Citizens for Life, notes that the campaign in his state has crossed political boundaries. "Five [Democratic] state representatives led by Jim Slezack [have] joined with 18 Republican co-sponsors to introduce the Michigan Personhood Amendment into the state legislature," he exclaims.
The process in Michigan requires the legislature to approve an issue for the ballot. Zastrow describes what voters will be asked to decide.
"It'll define a person as a human being at the moment of their biological beginning," he says. "So we've got 23 state reps who are committed to ending abortion and ending embryonic stem-cell research and cloning."
So far, Personhood Amendment campaigns are active in about 30 states. At least three more should kick into gear by the end of the year, and a number of campaigns will be launched in other states in 2010.
Click here for the full article.
Nevada Launches Personhood Initiative
Another personhood amendment initiative entered the signature-gathering stage on Wednesday after being filed by a pro-life coalition in Nevada. The proposed amendment would change the Nevada constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being. Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'"
Click here for the full article.
Personhood Educates Millions of Coloradans
Submitted by Gualberto Garci... on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:00 Here is a collection of coverage simply from the launch of the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative. As we continue our petition efforts, remember: the victory is ours, because we know the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and we are carrying it to our brothers and sisters as we are called to do.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Would Be Outlawed Under Proposed Michigan Constitutional Amendment
Abortion would be considered murder under a state constitutional amendment proposed by a Davison-area state lawmaker. The "personhood amendment" -- introduced by Rep. Jim Slezak, D-Davison Township -- would essentially outlaw abortion and possibly some common birth control methods by defining a person as a human being whose life begins at conception. A resolution in support of the amendment was introduced by Slezak last week, as first reported by The Journal on Monday, making Michigan one of 30 states considering such an initiative.
Click here for the full article.
Feminist Organization Pushes Campaign Against Pregnancy Clinics
A feminist organization is trying to warn students about two pregnancy clinics near campus it says misinform women, but the clinics insist they are truthful with their clients. The Feminist Majority Foundation's "Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics" is an effort against crisis pregnancy centers that give women inaccurate information about abortion. The closest center to campus is the Northwest Center, located near Dupont Circle, but another clinic is located on Capitol Hill. Jacqueline Sun, a campus organizer for FMF - a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on feminist issues - said the campaign' goal is to have students be able to discern between a real crisis pregnancy center and a fake clinic, which she said would give clinic-goers inaccurate information about abortion.
Click here for the full article.
FEC Won't Appeal EMILY’s List Ruling
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced Thursday it would not appeal a court ruling vacating key regulations regarding funding certain election activities. The decision not to appeal to an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals means independent political organizations will be able to raise and spend significantly more money on voter registration drives and advertisements that refer to political parties. A Sept. 18 Appeals Court ruling vacated three FEC regulations it said violated the First Amendment by prohibiting political speech. Those regulations required political committees not affiliated with a party or a specific candidate to use federal funds, which are severely limited, for many campaign activities. The suit was originally brought by EMILY’s List, the organization that backs pro-abortion Democrat women running for office.
Click here for the full article.
Using contraception to fight poverty is the result of 'unbridled capitalism'
Archbishop Juan Ruben Martinez of Posadas in northern Argentina remarked this week that groups which seek to solve the issue of poverty by the use of contraception reflect a “sort of ‘selfish and unbridled capitalism’” that does not address the crux of the problem.
According to the AICA news agency, Archbishop Martinez warned that such groups “control large media outlets and denigrate the family. He added, that “amazingly, these groups absurdly portray themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘modern,’ when in reality they reflect the worst of capitalism.”
This “contradiction and hypocrisy of our present-day culture” is in addition to the pressure from many lawmakers and legislatures that support anti-life laws and pro-abortion positions that harm the family.
Click here for the full article.
Okla. District Judge Temporarily Blocks Law Requiring Personal Information About Women Seeking Abortions
Oklahoma District Judge Twyla Mason Gray has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of a state law requiring abortion providers to report personal information on women who obtain the procedure, the Tulsa World reports. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 1 (Hoberock, Tulsa World, 10/21).
The law requires doctors to report to the state a woman's age, marital status, education level and the nature of the relationship with her partner (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/1). It also requires information regarding previous pregnancies, reasons the woman is seeking an abortion, and the cost and method of payment for the procedure.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Corruption Concerns Deepen as Confer Resigns from KSBHA
Will Women and Babies Pay the Price?
It was confirmed yesterday that Jack Confer, Executive Director of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts resigned unexpectedly and without explanation on Monday, October 19, 2009. Circumstances suggest that Confer's resignation may have been related to abortion cases that were before the KSBHA.
"We are sorry to see Mr. Confer go. He seemed to us to be a fair man that was above the corrupt abortion politics in Kansas. He will be deeply missed," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Click here for the full article.
(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.)
Personhood Amendments
Affirmation of personhood rights on the march
Cal Zastrow, who heads Michigan Citizens for Life, notes that the campaign in his state has crossed political boundaries. "Five [Democratic] state representatives led by Jim Slezack [have] joined with 18 Republican co-sponsors to introduce the Michigan Personhood Amendment into the state legislature," he exclaims.
The process in Michigan requires the legislature to approve an issue for the ballot. Zastrow describes what voters will be asked to decide.
"It'll define a person as a human being at the moment of their biological beginning," he says. "So we've got 23 state reps who are committed to ending abortion and ending embryonic stem-cell research and cloning."
So far, Personhood Amendment campaigns are active in about 30 states. At least three more should kick into gear by the end of the year, and a number of campaigns will be launched in other states in 2010.
Click here for the full article.
Nevada Launches Personhood Initiative
Another personhood amendment initiative entered the signature-gathering stage on Wednesday after being filed by a pro-life coalition in Nevada. The proposed amendment would change the Nevada constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being. Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'"
Click here for the full article.
Personhood Educates Millions of Coloradans
Submitted by Gualberto Garci... on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:00 Here is a collection of coverage simply from the launch of the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative. As we continue our petition efforts, remember: the victory is ours, because we know the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and we are carrying it to our brothers and sisters as we are called to do.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Would Be Outlawed Under Proposed Michigan Constitutional Amendment
Abortion would be considered murder under a state constitutional amendment proposed by a Davison-area state lawmaker. The "personhood amendment" -- introduced by Rep. Jim Slezak, D-Davison Township -- would essentially outlaw abortion and possibly some common birth control methods by defining a person as a human being whose life begins at conception. A resolution in support of the amendment was introduced by Slezak last week, as first reported by The Journal on Monday, making Michigan one of 30 states considering such an initiative.
Click here for the full article.
Feminist Organization Pushes Campaign Against Pregnancy Clinics
A feminist organization is trying to warn students about two pregnancy clinics near campus it says misinform women, but the clinics insist they are truthful with their clients. The Feminist Majority Foundation's "Campaign to Expose Fake Clinics" is an effort against crisis pregnancy centers that give women inaccurate information about abortion. The closest center to campus is the Northwest Center, located near Dupont Circle, but another clinic is located on Capitol Hill. Jacqueline Sun, a campus organizer for FMF - a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on feminist issues - said the campaign' goal is to have students be able to discern between a real crisis pregnancy center and a fake clinic, which she said would give clinic-goers inaccurate information about abortion.
Click here for the full article.
FEC Won't Appeal EMILY’s List Ruling
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced Thursday it would not appeal a court ruling vacating key regulations regarding funding certain election activities. The decision not to appeal to an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals means independent political organizations will be able to raise and spend significantly more money on voter registration drives and advertisements that refer to political parties. A Sept. 18 Appeals Court ruling vacated three FEC regulations it said violated the First Amendment by prohibiting political speech. Those regulations required political committees not affiliated with a party or a specific candidate to use federal funds, which are severely limited, for many campaign activities. The suit was originally brought by EMILY’s List, the organization that backs pro-abortion Democrat women running for office.
Click here for the full article.
Using contraception to fight poverty is the result of 'unbridled capitalism'
Archbishop Juan Ruben Martinez of Posadas in northern Argentina remarked this week that groups which seek to solve the issue of poverty by the use of contraception reflect a “sort of ‘selfish and unbridled capitalism’” that does not address the crux of the problem.
According to the AICA news agency, Archbishop Martinez warned that such groups “control large media outlets and denigrate the family. He added, that “amazingly, these groups absurdly portray themselves as ‘progressive’ and ‘modern,’ when in reality they reflect the worst of capitalism.”
This “contradiction and hypocrisy of our present-day culture” is in addition to the pressure from many lawmakers and legislatures that support anti-life laws and pro-abortion positions that harm the family.
Click here for the full article.
Okla. District Judge Temporarily Blocks Law Requiring Personal Information About Women Seeking Abortions
Oklahoma District Judge Twyla Mason Gray has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of a state law requiring abortion providers to report personal information on women who obtain the procedure, the Tulsa World reports. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 1 (Hoberock, Tulsa World, 10/21).
The law requires doctors to report to the state a woman's age, marital status, education level and the nature of the relationship with her partner (Women's Health Policy Report, 10/1). It also requires information regarding previous pregnancies, reasons the woman is seeking an abortion, and the cost and method of payment for the procedure.
Click here for the full article.
Abortion Corruption Concerns Deepen as Confer Resigns from KSBHA
Will Women and Babies Pay the Price?
It was confirmed yesterday that Jack Confer, Executive Director of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts resigned unexpectedly and without explanation on Monday, October 19, 2009. Circumstances suggest that Confer's resignation may have been related to abortion cases that were before the KSBHA.
"We are sorry to see Mr. Confer go. He seemed to us to be a fair man that was above the corrupt abortion politics in Kansas. He will be deeply missed," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
Click here for the full article.
October 22, 2009
NRLC letter to U.S. House on H.R. 3200 and Rule
NRLC letter to U.S. House on H.R. 3200 and Rule
The following letter was presented to members of the U.S. House on October 21st.
Dear Member of Congress:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is strongly opposed to H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” based on the versions reported by the committees which considered the legislation.
Moreover, NRLC intends to oppose the Rule on H.R. 3200 and to score the roll call on the Rule, if – as we anticipate – the Rule fails to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which is the amendment that is necessary to prevent federal funding of abortion through the proposed “public plan” and to prevent federal subsidies of premiums for private abortion coverage. A vote for a Rule that protects the pro-abortion language approved in committee is a vote to establish two new federal government programs that will subsidize abortion on demand.
H.R. 3200 would create (1) a nationwide insurance program run directly by the federal government, “the public plan,” and (2) an “affordability credit” program that would subsidize health insurance for tens of millions of Americans. None of the funds that would be spent by the public plan, and none of the funds that would be spent by the premium subsidy program, would be appropriated through the annual appropriations bills (as the Congressional Research Service has confirmed), and therefore, none of these funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment or any other current law that restricts government subsidies for abortion. The new government programs created by H.R. 3200 will cover elective abortion, unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is added to the bill to prevent this outcome.
The Capps-Waxman Amendment, added to H.R. 3200 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee despite the objections of pro-life members of both parties, would enact not the policy of the Hyde Amendment, but an inversion of the Hyde Amendment. The Capps-Waxman Amendment is an attempt to establish federal government funding of abortion and insurance coverage of abortion by use of misleading, contrived terminology.
The Capps-Waxman language explicitly authorizes the public plan to cover elective abortions. The public plan would be a program within the Department of Health and Human Services, and everything for which it pays will be paid for with federal government funds (as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has confirmed). Thus, under the Capps language, the public plan would be engaged in direct funding of elective abortion, using federal funds. The federal program would pay abortionists for performing elective abortions, out of funds drawn on a U.S. Treasury account. (It is, of course, entirely irrelevant whether or not the agency hires contractors to help process the paperwork.) It is a hoax to claim, as some have, that this federal program would pay for abortions with “private” funds. The public plan is the federal government, and if it pays for abortions, it is federal funding of abortion.
In addition, the Capps-Waxman Amendment explicitly authorizes federal subsidies to pay the premiums of private health plans that cover elective abortions. This, too, would be a break with the policy established under longstanding federal laws, under which federal funds do not flow to health plans that pay for elective abortions. For example, the 260 private plans that participate in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits program are prohibited by law from including elective abortion coverage, because they are federally subsidized. Likewise, in Medicaid, current law prohibits not only direct federal funding of abortion but also federal funding of any fund that pays for abortions – and this ban covers even state matching funds.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment would apply the true principles of the Hyde Amendment to the proposed new programs: No federal funding for elective abortion, and no federal subsidies for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.
Some versions of H.R. 3200 have also contained provisions that could be used as a basis for government regulations to force expansions in the number of abortion providers, or achieve other pro-abortion policy goals through regulatory action. NRLC will carefully examine the final, melded version of H.R. 3200 to determine whether any such “abortion mandate” provisions are retained and, if so, what remedial amendments would be required to nullify them.
NRLC will also carefully examine the final version of H.R. 3200 to determine whether it contains provisions that would result in denial of lifesaving medical care on the basis of disability or “quality of life” criteria or facilitate assisted suicide. Some such provisions were ameliorated by language adopted in at least one committee, but others were not, and it is very unclear to what extent these problems will remain in the bill that is currently being constructed. Separate and apart from the abortion-related concerns, NRLC reserves the right to score the roll call vote on any version of H.R. 3200 that fails adequately to address these concerns, at the conference report stage if not before.
Thank you for your consideration of NRLC’s position on this critical legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to provide additional documentation on any of the points in this letter. Extensive documentation is also available on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/ahc and http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/Index.html
Contact: David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., Douglas Johnson, Burke Balch, J.D.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: October 22, 2009
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)