Abortion Policy and "Health Care Reform"

Abortion Policy and "Health Care Reform"
 
   National Right to Life: "Any House member who votes for the Senate health bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote"
 


HOW IMPORTANT IS THE HOUSE VOTE ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL?
 
On abortion policy, the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought to the House floor last November was extremely bad (before the House fixed it by adopting the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) -- but the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590) is worse.
   
The Senate health bill is a 2,407-page labyrinth strewn with the legislative equivalents of improvised explosive devices --  disguised provisions that will result in federal pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for abortion.  The so-called abortion limits that are in the Senate bill are all very narrow, riddled with loopholes, or booby-trapped to expire.  Some of them were drafted more with the intent of misleading superficial analysts (which unfortunately includes some media "factcheckers") than actually effectuating a pro-life policy.
 
When all of the pro-abortion provisions are considered in total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote, since Roe v. Wade.  Any House member who votes for the Senate health bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote.  A House member who votes for the Senate bill would forfeit a plausible claim to pro-life credentials.  No House member who votes for the Senate bill will be regarded, in the future, as having a record against federal funding of abortion.
 
All of those statements are true regardless of how many assurances or denials are disseminated by President Obama or by Speaker Pelosi, both of whom have sought throughout their political careers to undermine limits on government funding of abortion.  House members who vote for the Senate bill will be accountable to their constituents for what the Senate bill contains.
 
When he ran for president, Senator Barack Obama promised that abortion coverage would be "at the heart" of his health care proposal.  (See the PolitiFact examination of Obama's promise here.)  Throughout this Congress, President Obama has tried to deliver on this promise, even while hiding behind deceptive verbal formulations and outright misrepresentations regarding the content of legislation.
 
During the latter half of 2009, the White House backed phony "compromise" language that Speaker Pelosi put in the bill she brought to the House floor -- language written by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) (the so-called "Capps Amendment").  This language explicitly authorized coverage of elective abortions under two major new government programs.  It was this pro-abortion language that the House jettisoned on November 7 through adoption (240-194) of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which was supported by one-fourth of all House Democrats (64 Democrats), joined by all except one House Republican.  The Stupak-Pitts Amendment contained a bill-wide, permanent abortion fix (it begins, "No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act . . ."), which was the approach needed to prevent any provision of the vast bill from being used as a basis for pro-abortion federal mandates or subsidies.
  
Although President Obama often has claimed he wants his health care legislation to reflect bipartisan consensus, he lamented the bipartisan adoption of the Stupak Amendment, and he contributed to keeping the Stupak language out of the Senate bill.  As a result, the 2,407-page Senate-passed bill contains at least six separate abortion-related policy problems, any single one of which would dictate a negative vote for any lawmaker who wishes to maintain a record against federal abortion mandates and abortion subsidies.  These problems are summarized below, and discussed in detail in a January 14 letter sent by NRLC to members of the House and other materials posted on the NRLC website.
 
BLOOD OATHS AND RABBIT HOLES
 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi in recent days has reverted to repetitious denials that there is a problem -- for example, saying at a March 4 press conference, "I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion) . . .  There is no change in the access to abortion.  No more or no less:  It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access."   This is the same deny-and-evade approach that Pelosi employed throughout 2009.  It will not suffice now any more than it did then.
 
Indeed, some of the more recent utterances by Speaker Pelosi and other top House Democrats suggest that they have stumbled down some sort of rabbit hole into a fantasy world in which lawmakers can vote to enact the Senate bill without being accountable for its contents.  For example, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) on March 3 suggested that the House should pass the Senate bill after receiving a "blood oath" from Democratic senators that they would later pass a specific list of changes to the bill.  Lawmakers who are considering voting for the Senate bill based on a "blood oath" or any other promise should first call to mind the once-popular comic strip "Peanuts," in which Lucy frequently teed up a football and enticed Charlie Brown to take a run at it, solemnly promising not to snatch the ball away at the last instant.  Charlie Brown inevitably ended up flat on his back wondering how he could have been once again so foolish.
 
House members who vote for the Senate bill will be accountable to their constituents for what the Senate bill contains, including its pro-abortion mandates and subsidies, without regard to blood oaths, secret handshakes,  solemn assurances that Congress will revisit the issue in future legislation, or any other artifice or gimmick.
 
(Pelosi has also repeatedly implied that the longstanding "Hyde Amendment" would somehow prevent the heath care bill from subsidizing abortion.  Such utterances are highly misleading.  The Hyde Amendment only applies to funds that flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill, and would not affect funds directly appropriated by the health care bill itself.  As the Associated Press accurately reported in a story dated March 5, 2010:  "The Democratic bills created a new stream of federal money to help working households afford health insurance premiums. And those funds were not subject to the Hyde restrictions."  For further discussion of this point, see the memorandum posted here.  Moreover, the Hyde Amendment is a patch that must be renewed annually -- not an acceptable approach when Congress proposes any large new federal program that implicates abortion policy.)
 
THE LIST
 
What follows is a thumbnail sketch of the major abortion policy problems in the Senate-passed health care bill (H.R. 3590).
 
 -- The Senate bill departs from longstanding federal policy by authorizing tax subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy private health plans that could cover abortion on demand.  Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Ne.) attached to this provision a badly flawed requirement under which anyone enrolling in such plan would be required to make separate payments into an abortion fund.  In a recent statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (which strongly opposes the bill) said, "The bill requires each American purchasing such a plan to make a separate payment to the insurer every month, solely to pay for other people's abortions.  This is an enormous imposition on the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose abortion."   In its first analysis of the Nelson language, NRLC recognized it as a convoluted bookkeeping scheme inconsistent with the principles of the Hyde Amendment.  In January, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), a pro-abortion leader in the Senate, assured McClatchy News Service that the abortion surcharge requirement is only an "accounting procedure," and DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also assured pro-abortion listeners that the Nelson language was of no consequence.  Yet today, in an effort to entice pro-life Democrats in the House to vote for the bill, the White House and Democratic leaders are working on "convincing as many as a dozen antiabortion Democrats in the House that abortion language in the Senate bill is more stringent than initially portrayed," according to a report in the March 5 Washington Post.  The bottom line is that a vote for the Senate bill is a vote to subsidize the purchase of health plans that cover abortion on demand -- a sharp break from the principles of the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment.
 
-- The Senate bill would establish a new program under which a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), would administer private "multi-state" plans.  It has been reported that the bill guarantees that one plan will be available everywhere that does not cover abortion.  In fact, it guarantees no such thing, because even this narrow requirement is rigged to depend on annual renewal through a separate appropriations bill.  Moreover, other plans in the federally administered program would be allowed to cover all abortions -- a break from the policy that has long governed the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which is also administered by OPM.  A vote for the Senate bill is a vote to put the federal government in the business of administering health plans that cover abortion on demand.
 
-- The Senate bill would empower federal political appointees to expand access to abortion by federal administrative decrees.  The bill contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.  One analyst recently wrote that the Senate bill "contains more than 2,500 references to powers and responsibilities of the secretary of health and human services," to say nothing of other federal authorities.  Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as authority for pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it.  One clear example is the Mikulski Amendment, under which any service listed as a "preventive" service by the Department of Health and Human Services must be provided (without copayments) in all types of private health plans.  (Sec. 1001, pp. 20-21.)  Sen. Mikulski refused to modify her amendment to exclude abortion from the scope of this mandate authority.  (The Nelson-Hatch-Casey Amendment, similar to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, would have prevented abortion mandates or subsidies under any provision of the bill -- but that amendment was tabled, 54-45, on December 8, 2009.)  A vote for the Senate bill is a vote to empower federal political appointees to mandate unlimited abortion coverage in most private health plans.
 
-- The Senate bill would reauthorize all federal Indian health programs, without including language to prohibit funding of elective abortion, even though such an amendment (the Vitter Amendment, similar to the Stupak Amendment) was approved by the Senate when it last considered Indian health legislation on February 26, 2008.  There is a clause in the Senate health bill [Sec. 10221, pp. 2175-2176] that has been misrepresented as an abortion restriction, but it actually contains no policy standard on abortion funding -- it merely "punts" the question to the annual appropriations process, an unacceptable approach.  A vote for the Senate bill is a vote to open the door to future federal funding of abortion on demand through all Indian health programs.
 
-- The Senate bill lacks language to protect health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions (known as the "Weldon language"), even though such language was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and was included in Speaker Pelosi's original bill even before adoption of the Stupak Amendment.  (See Section 259 of the House-passed H.R. 3962.)  Yet, because such language is offensive to the pro-abortion lobby, it was excluded from the Senate bill.  A vote for the Senate bill is a vote to abandon the strong position that the House took in favor of protecting the conscience rights of pro-life health care providers.
 
-- The Senate bill, due to a last-minute amendment, provides $7 billion for the nation's 1,250 Community Health Centers (CHCs), without any restriction whatever on the use of these federal funds to pay directly for abortion on demand.  (These funds are both authorized and appropriated by the bill, and thus would be untouched by the "Hyde Amendment" that currently covers Medicaid funds that flow through the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill.)  Two pro-abortion groups, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, are already actively campaigning for Community Health Centers to perform elective abortions.  In short, the Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers.  A memorandum documenting this issue in further detail is posted here:  http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoCommHealth.pdf
In a recent statement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops noted that this provision alone could lead to "hundreds of thousands of abortions per year that taxpayers would be forced to pay for." In a story published in the March 4 Washington Times, Congressman Diana DeGette (D-Co.) called this concern "patently false," but White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass took a different tact, admitting at least the possibility of what she referred to as a "drafting issue that requires a technical change . . ."
 
-- The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180).  Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, can ensure that none of the vast amounts of federal money authorized and appropriated through the Senate bill are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion.

Contact: Douglas Johnson
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 5, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Live tweeting an abortion

Live tweeting an abortion

Be careful what you attempt to demystify.



At 4:08 p.m. on Feb. 18 micro-blogger Angie Jackson began posting the blow-by-blows of her RU-486 abortion on Twitter. "I took the first pill a little under 2 hours ago," she tweeted.

The 27-year-old's intention, she later told ABC News, was to "demystify" RU-486 abortions.

Jackson had announced her pregnancy on Twitter Feb. 13, even before telling the boyfriend ("BF") she and her 4-year-old son have been living with since last December.

BF was on board with aborting his offspring, so when it came down to which type, four-weeks pregnant Jackson chose the RU-486 at-home medical abortion, which the FDA states can be prescribed up to 49 days, or seven weeks, after the first day of a mother's last period.

RU-486 abortions are the coming rage, much less hassle for abortion profiteers than surgical abortions. The mother takes an RU-486 pill (aka mifepristone or mifeprex) at the clinic, which kills the baby, and follows up at home with one or two doses of cytotec (aka misoprostol) pills to cause contractions to expel the baby. All for $480, as Angie tweeted.

The bonus for abortion clinics is if an RU-486 abortion doesn't work, which occurs 7.9 percent of the time according to RU-486's label, there is no guarantee, so mothers must then undergo and pay for surgical abortions – abortion double-dipping.

Notwithstanding that, along with serious, life-threatening complications that can lead to death, as has happened at least eight times in the U.S. since RU-486 was legalized in 2000, are RU-486 abortions generally less hassle for aborting moms?

Jackson thought so, basing her decision on the fact her abortion would "be over in 4-8 hrs," as she initially tweeted, and done in the comfort of her home, since she was frightened of surgery.

After visiting her local Planned Parenthood, Jackson again tweeted her abortion experience would be a "4 hour bleed-out," so this was apparently the official teaching Angie received.

But the first rule of demystifying is one must herself be demystified before attempting to demystify. If not, the demystifying process may not go as anticipated, which is what happened in Jackson's case.

Only because Angie decided to live tweet her RU-486 abortion did we learn in actuality it's a long, drawn out, painful process. For that reason I thought Angie's exposé was a worthwhile educational experience for us all.

Here are some common adverse reactions, according to the RU-486 packaging:

Nearly all of the women … will report adverse reactions, and many … report more than one. … 80 to 90 percent of women reported bleeding more heavily than they do during a heavy menstrual period. … Women also typically experience abdominal pain, including uterine cramping. Other commonly reported side effects were nausea, vomiting and diarrhea … pelvic pain, fainting, headache, dizziness … fatigue … back pain. …
That's sobering enough on paper, but how does reality play out?

For nine days, from Feb. 19-27, Jackson tweeted about such severe cramps she had difficulty walking across the room. She went through 17 Vicodin in six days and at a point soon after requesting a prescription for another 20.

Jackson tweeted nausea, vomiting, backaches, headaches and bleeding. Five days into her abortion experience, Angie commented on another blog, "Honestly I had no idea this would go on so long. I thought the entire abortion would take a few hours, as I'd read in a few stories. ..."

At the bottom of this column you can read what Jackson's suffering looked like in real time, where I've synopsized nine days of her tweets.

Planned Parenthood obviously did not explain the reality of an RU-486 abortion to Jackson, nor did any of her other sources.

But Edouard Sakiz, former chairman of Roussel Uclaf, the company that developed RU-486, stated:

As abortifacient procedures go, RU-486 is not at all easy to use. ... True, no anesthetic is required. But a woman who wants to end her pregnancy has to "live" with her abortion for at least a week using this technique. It's an appalling psychological ordeal.
Dr. Etienne-Emile Baulieu, who invented RU-486, stated:

It's insulting to women to say that abortion now will be as easy as taking aspirins. It is always difficult, psychologically and physically, sometimes tragic.
Jackson stopped tweeting her symptoms on Feb. 27, when she realized I was reposting them on my blog. But she wrote the evening of March 2, "In real life, I had a terrible day & don't wanna talk about it."

So whatever the physical, emotional, psychological toll Jackson has endured up to this point, it's not over. How many millions of other mothers have undergone the same ghastly experience?

My intent here is not to drive mothers to undergo surgical abortions rather than RU-486 abortions. They're no picnic, either.

All of this was just to say RU-486 is no abortion panacea, except for those selling it.

Following are some of Jackson's tweets detailing her ordeal.









Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: March 5, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Illinois Considers 'Presumed Consent' Organ Harvesting Bill

Illinois Considers 'Presumed Consent' Organ Harvesting Bill



An Illinois senator is pushing legislation that would allow doctors to harvest organs from citizens who have not explicitly given consent for the procedure.

The Journal Star reported Monday that a hearing was scheduled this week for Sen. Dale Risinger's bill that would establish a "presumed consent" policy governing organ donation for individuals 18 and older.

"This is an important first step to getting a law in Illinois that helps us have more organ donors," said Risinger, a Republican. Risinger said he was open to public input suggesting revisions to the bill, and that it was not "in its final form."

Under the proposed legislation, individuals who wish to avoid donating their organs would have to explicitly opt-out of donating their organs prior to becoming incapacitated. If passed, the law would be the first of its kind in America.

Stephen Drake of the anti-euthanasia group Not Dead Yet pointed out the grave implications of such a bill, given the flexibility of the definition of brain death, which can vary from hospital to hospital.

Vital organs such as the heart become unusable after an extended period of complete cessation of bodily functions. Therefore, "brain death" is used as a parameter to determine when an individual is extremely unlikely to recover, even as functions such as the heartbeat continue, so that usable organs may be removed.

But the flexibility of that definition has raised considerable controversy.

"Most people assume that since the state they live in considers them a corpse if they're declared 'brain dead,' then the state also imposes some sort of uniform standards regarding how that determination should be made," wrote Drake.

"That's a comforting thought, but it's not the reality." Drake pointed to a 2008 article in the medical journal Neurology that discovered "wide disparities" in hospitals' determinations of brain death.

Drake also pointed to the well-known case of Zack Dunlap, who "miraculously" became responsive after being diagnosed brain dead, but minutes before his organs were to be harvested.

Prominent bioethics commentator Wesley Smith predicted that the legislation would only serve to breed mistrust between an already-strained doctor-patient relationship.

"Think about it: We already have bioethicists advocating for futile care theory, that is the right to refuse wanted life sustaining treatment based on quality of life judgmentalism, resource allocation, or both," wrote Smith on his Secondhand Smoke blog.

"Add in the motive for taking organs to this volatile field – and wary families will become even less trusting, and medical issues will become even more likely to end up in court," he continued. "Square that if we ever enact explicit health care rationing, or redefine death to include a diagnosis of PVS – as many luminaries in the transplant field advocate.

"If doctors ever start taking organs without explicit permission – even if allowed by law – there will be hell to pay."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Philly abortionist breaks silence

Philly abortionist breaks silence



A suspended Philadelphia abortionist has broken the silence and is speaking out about the allegations he is facing. (See earlier article)
 
Abortionist Kermit Gosnell's westside facility was raided by state authorities who found filth and blood, as well as frozen aborted babies dating back three decades and body parts from aborted babies in jars. Philadelphia's Fox 29 WTXF spoke with Gosnell about the complaints lodged against him.

"I haven't seen any of the negative comments that a patient has been dissatisfied with the services that I've provided," he contended, even though court records show that the abortionist has faced as many as 40 lawsuits over the years.

Gosnell referred to previous times when he has experienced "negative publicity," but he comments that negativity is merely "something that I personally have experienced several times before, where my surgical abilities have been challenged, where the choices that I have made have not always been perfect." And while he admits to having made some mistakes, he believes, "if you're not making mistakes, you're not really attempting to do something. So I think that my patients are aware that I do my very best by them."

The latest investigation was launched after an abortion patient died from an overdose of pain killers authorities believe was administered by an unlicensed staff member. The latest salvo is that Gosnell was misrepresenting two staff members as doctors when they were not.

Nevertheless, he assures, "the standard that I share with everyone, and I frequently say, is that I provide the same care I would want my daughter to receive."

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 5, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

'Catholic' King of Spain Signs Abortion Bill into Law

'Catholic' King of Spain Signs Abortion Bill into Law



The King of Spain, Juan Carlos I, has signed a bill into law legalizing abortion on demand for the first fourteen weeks of pregnancy.

The law, which was recently passed by the Spanish Congress and Senate, also declares abortion as a "right," allows minors as young as 16 to obtain abortions without their parents' consent, and requires abortionist and homosexualist education in the nation's schools.

The king, a professed Catholic, ignored pleas from a number of theologians and pro-life activists to withhold his signature from the bill, which would have prevented it from being promulgated and applied.

Over 62,000 Spaniards signed a petition asking the king to withhold his approval to the law, through the website www.majestadnofirme.com/ ("majestydonotsign.com").

Although the Spanish constitution apparently requires the king to sign and promulgate laws that are passed by the Parliament, it is unclear if any mechanism can force him to do so.

Catholic moral doctrine prohibits any cooperation in the procurement of abortions, under pain of excommunication.

Human Life International, the world's largest pro-life organization, has condemned the act and said that the king excommunicated himself by signing the law.

Also Read: King of Spain Excommunicated Himself by Signing Abortion Law: Human Life International

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 5, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Extremely Graphic Sex-Education Video Garners Mother’s Wrath

Extremely Graphic Sex-Education Video Garners Mother's Wrath



An extremely graphic cartoon video being used in Britain's primary schools for sex education has generated the wrath of at least one parent. The Daily Mail reports that the Channel 4 sex education DVD, "Living and Growing", prompted Lisa Bullivant, from Legbourne, Lincolnshire, to take her seven year-old daughter out of East Wold Primary School and place her in another school.

Mrs. Bullivant said, "The cartoon was very graphic. My daughter was frightened and children have unfortunately been copying what they have seen."

The video clearly shows a naked man and woman having sexual intercourse on a bed, while a female narrator explains what is going on. The video also shows two children fully nude.

"When grown-ups find someone they like a lot, they might decide to have a sexual relationship with each other. This means they sometimes have sexual intercourse together, or sex for short," says the narrator.

"Sex is one of the ways grown-up people show they love each other. That's why it's sometimes called 'making love'… It's very exciting for them both." The video goes on to explain the mechanics of intercourse.

Mrs. Bullivant told the Mail, "Seven to nine-year-olds should not possess this knowledge. There is no educational or psychological benefit or need for children of this age to have full knowledge of what sexual intercourse actually entails."

She has complained to the school, which said a letter had gone round to parents about the video before it was shown to children. Now Mrs. Bullivant is seeking a meeting with the director of education at Lincolnshire County Council.

A spokesman for BBC Channel 4 defended the video, saying it is one of their most popular, and that it was "age appropriate."

 "Living and Growing has been in the marketplace for nearly ten years and has been very well-received by the educational community."

The video has been recommended for use in primary schools by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the same department that is ushering legislation through Parliament to make sex education compulsory in all grades. The legislation proposes to remove the right of parents to withdraw children over 15 from classes.

In related news, a report issued last month, commissioned by the Home Office, blames sexually graphic and violent material in the media, for "sexualising" children and recommends greater parental controls.

Dr. Linda Papadopoulos, the author of the report issued late last month, said there is a "clear link" between graphic images and "a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm."

The report recommended greater parental control on video game content and that material available over the internet and mobile phones should be filtered.

"Music channels and videos across all genres have been found to sexualise and objectify women. Women are often shown in provocative and revealing clothing and are depicted as being in a state of sexual readiness. Males on the other hand are shown as hyper-masculine and sexually dominant," the report said.

Meanwhile, a leading condom manufacturer in Switzerland has announced that it will make Britain a "top priority" market for a line of condoms specially sized for use by boys under 14. The announcement comes after a study by the Swiss Federal Commission for Children that showed boys between 12 and 14 were not using "sufficient protection" during sex.

Nysse Norballe, a spokesman for the company Lamprecht AG, said the "hotshot" condom is only produced in Switzerland, but "the UK is certainly a very attractive market since there is a very high rate of underage conception. The UK would definitely be top priority if we marketed abroad."

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 5, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

Making Buckets of Adult Stem Cells



Growing lots of adult stem cells in the lab, for study or for a patient treatment, has been difficult in the past. While some groups have successfully grown large numbers of adult stem cells, many labs have difficulties keeping the cells growing for more than a few days. Now scientists at Weill Cornell have shown that culturing adult stem cells with endothelial cells, the cells that compose the innermost linings of blood vessels, is the key to growing unlimited amounts of adult stem cells. The research group reasoned that because endothelial cells line blood vessels and are often in contact with adult stem cells, these cells might play a significant role in the growth and maintenance of stem cells. Using a mouse model, the scientists were able to grow adult stem cells for weeks at a time and increase the number of cells over 400-fold. They also showed that even after one year, there was no indication of tumor formation from the adult stem cells. Senior author, Dr. Shahin Rafii, noted:

"This study will have a major impact on the treatment of any blood-related disorder that requires a stem cell transplant."
Click here for the entire article from FRCBlog.


Editorial Criticizes Idaho Bill To Increase 'Conscience' Protections For Health Care Workers



"Last week, 21 Idaho senators injected themselves into private, painful decisions about conception, abortion and euthanasia" by advancing a bill (SB 1353) that would shield health care professionals from liability if they "decline to provide services that violate their conscience," an Idaho Statesman editorial states.

The bill -- sponsored by State Sen. Chuck Winder (R) -- "speaks innocuously, but misleadingly, about the 'freedom of conscience' of health care professionals," the editorial continues. In practice, it would "limit patients' freedoms to explore their legally and constitutionally protected options."
Click here for the entire article from Medical News Today.


Colo., 'Personhood' Measure Fails To Qualify For Ballot; Colo., Wyo., Finalize Bills On Violence Against Pregnant Women



Colorado: The Colorado secretary of state said on Wednesday that supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment to define fertilized eggs as people failed to collect enough signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot, the AP/USA Today reports. Colorado voters rejected a similar "personhood" amendment in 2008. In other news, the state Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Wednesday rejected a bill (SB 113) that would have allowed criminal charges for causing the death of a fetus while committing another crime. Thirty-seven other states have adopted similar laws.
Click here for the entire article from Medical News Today.


Stupak reiterates he will not support Senate health bill over abortion funding



In a March 4 interview, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), the Catholic author of an amendment barring the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions in health care reform, made clear he would not support Senate health care reform legislation that provides for such public funding.

Under the "reconciliation" process that is taking shape, members of the House of Representatives are expected to vote on the Senate bill, which Stupak says will "go nowhere" in the House in its present form because of the deals made with senators to secure their votes. Noting that his pro-life amendment was the only health care reform amendment to pass with bipartisan support, Stupak called upon President Barack Obama to show flexibility on the issue.
Click here for the entire article from Catholic World News.


Two States Pass Pro-Life Bills
 


The West Virginia Senate approved a bill on Tuesday that would allow a woman an opportunity to see an ultrasound of her preborn child before an abortion.

Jeremiah Dys, president of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, said the legislation helps protect innocent life.

"Laws like this empower women with the information about what's going on inside of them," he said. "Making life-and-death decisions, without all the facts, leads to regret and disaster."

SB 597 is expected to go to committee before moving to the House floor for passage.

Also on Tuesday, the Oklahoma House passed HB 2780, which requires an ultrasound and an explanation prior to an abortion. It now goes to the Senate.

A dozen other states are considering bills that would offer, or require, ultrasounds before a woman gets an abortion including Illinois.
Click here for the entire article from CitizenLink.


Pro-life pharmacy in D.C. area closes due to financial difficulties



The only pro-life pharmacy in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area has announced that it is closing because of financial difficulties.

The business' pharmacist Robert Semler, quoted at the Save DMC Pharmacy website, said he could not stay open past March 4.

He reported that he needed "a couple of hundred thousand dollars and 5,000 customers" to stay open, five times as many customers as the business had at present.
Click here for the entire article.

Linda Schmidt (one of the ND 88) dies of Cancer

Linda Schmidt (one of the ND 88) dies of Cancer

Prosecutor Fails to Drop Charges Despite Proof of Terminal Illness

Thomas More Society Mourns the Death of ND88's Linda Schmidt



TMS renews call for Notre Dame President Fr. Jenkins to prefer human rights to property rights and ask the prosecutor to drop all charges against the ND 88 Chicago, Ill.-Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Chicago's Thomas More Society-the national public interest law firm whose legal team is defending the Notre Dame 88-is sad to report the death of ND88 client Linda Schmidt who died after a courageous battle with terminal cancer.
 
"It is with a heavy heart that we report that Linda Schmidt died early last night.  While she will be missed by her family and loved ones, as a woman of tremendous faith she will no doubt spend eternity with our Lord," stated Brejcha.  "But our grief at losing this dedicated pro-life heroine is greater given the grim truth that she lived her final days under this cloud of criminal charges instigated by Notre Dame, which remained pending even as she departed this life."
 
Tom Dixon, lead attorney for the ND 88 and a Notre Dame Law alumnus, first sought a voluntary dismissal of the charges against Mrs. Schmidt on February 9, 2010.  Late Friday, February 19, St. Joseph County's prosecutor requested documentation proving the claim of illness.  Medical documentation proving that Mrs. Schmidt had terminal cancer was provided to the prosecutor's office by early morning February 23.  It was also confirmed that Mrs. Schmidt had been given less than two months to live.  To date, there has been no response or communication from the prosecutor's office.  "This sad turn of events puts a very human face on the plight of these courageous men and women, most 55 or older, whose lives have been turned topsy-turvy with their futures left in limbo because they had the courage to assert their civil rights and stand for truth," observed Brejcha.
 
Repeated overtures have also been made to the Rev. John Jenkins, C.S.C., president of Notre Dame, urging that he request that the charges be dropped.  "Sadly, our requests have been met with legalistic, disingenuous responses that attempt to pass the buck from Fr. Jenkins to the prosecutor.  While only the prosecutor can move the court to drop the charges, those charges were initiated by Notre Dame, whose campus police exercised state powers by arresting the ND88 and hauling them to the county jail," Brejcha said.  "As the crimes charged were all for alleged trespassing in violation of Notre Dame's property rights, there is little doubt that the prosecutor will drop the charges if the 'campus landowner'-Notre Dame-asks for dismissal.  Once again, we urge Notre Dame to put human rights ahead of property rights and publicly request that the prosecutor drop these obnoxious charges."

Source: Thomas More Society
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Time is of the Essence as Obama Calls for 'Up-or-Down' Vote on Health Care Restructuring

Time is of the Essence as Obama Calls for 'Up-or-Down' Vote on Health Care Restructuring



Well, here we go. According to the New York Times, vis a vis health care "reform,"  "On Wednesday, after 12 months of legislative hearings, town hall meetings, speeches, polls and debates, Mr. Obama made clear he expects Democrats to line up behind him, no matter how skittish they feel about their re-election prospects in the fall."

Talk about a jam-packed sentence! Let's unpack a few of the implications.
 
President Barack Obama shakes hands with Registered Nurse Julie Babich after delivering remarks on healthcare reform.

For your typical politician, the most important presidential admonition is if you have to take one [lose] for the team [Obama], so be it. Nothing –not the vocal resistance of massive numbers of people or polling data that shows the public is dead-set against the current iteration of health care "reform"--will be allowed to get in the way of plans to offer a financial bonanza to the abortion industry while engineering a massive restructuring of 1/6 of the entire economy.

In his speech today to a group of medical professional, the Times reports that President Obama "avoided using the word 'reconciliation,' the name for the parliamentary tactic that Democrats must now use to avoid a Republican filibuster of the bill. But senior advisers to the president made clear that is his plan."

For those of whose heads swim at the many alternative ways "reconciliation" can play out, what does it boil down to? (1)That even though many Americans see "reconciliation" as legislative legerdemain to circumvent the normal legislative process, the pro-abortion congressional Democratic leadership is willing to take the risk. (2) That the well will be poisoned for whatever hope there remains for "bipartisanship."

Having said that, however, it remains true--as NRLC has pointed out many times--that no bill (or bills) can reach the president's desk without first receiving majority approval in the House. With or without a reconciliation "sidecar," the Senate-passed health bill, with its multiple major abortion-related problems, cannot pass the House so long as Rep. Bart Stupak and his allies stand their ground.

Just one other quick point. The abortion issue is absolutely pivotal, largely because of the expertise and hard work of National Right to Life. "Of the remaining issues with the potential to bring down the entire health overhaul effort, the one that lawmakers fear most is abortion," as NPR's Julie Rovner said yesterday.

Why is NRLC working so hard? Because "By the conclusion of the amending process in the Senate, H.R. 3590 was the most expansive pro-abortion piece of legislation ever to reach the floor of either house of Congress for a vote, since Roe v. Wade," according to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The Senate bill would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand, including some federally administered plans, and would authorize federal mandates that could require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."

The pace is rapidly picking up. Please go regularly to http://nrlactioncenter.com. There you can be kept up to date about the latest twists and turns and be shown how you can contact your member of the House and your two U.S. Senators.

Time is of the essence: It appears that Speaker Pelosi will make every effort to ram the legislation through the House before the end of March.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Stupak has 12 votes: "We're prepared to take responsibility" for demise of Obamacare

Stupak has 12 votes: "We're prepared to take responsibility" for demise of Obamacare



Ed Morrissey at HotAir has a list of the Stupak 12 - which includes the lone Republican who voted for the House version when it contained the Stupak amendment. And here's a Hardball clip from last night wherein Stupak confirms the #12 to Chris Matthews that he reiterated this morning on GMA...
Popout


Click here for the video.

10:15a: All signs point to President Obama and Democrat congressional leaders attempting a process called reconciliation to pass a socialist healthcare bill that includes public funded abortion. This means only 51 votes would be required rather than 60. How times have changed....

Click here for the video.

But what else have we come to expect from Obama other than lies and Chicago style political coercion and thuggery? And he's quite imaginative. Yesterday the Weekly Standard reported Obama nominated the brother of a Democrat rep who previously voted against Obamacare to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But I digress. The complicated reconciliation process means the House would have to pass the Senate's healthcare plan, which includes public funded abortions.

This morning on Good Morning America pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak said he has 12 votes against the Senate version as it currently stands, adding, "We're prepared to take the responsibility. I mean, I've been catching it ever since last fall. Let's face it, I want to see health care. But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

Here's what those 12 votes would mean, according to the ABC headline...



The 2nd video below is that GMA interview. Pro-abort DHHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius speaks 1st and proceeded to tell a whopper by claiming public funded abortion isn't in the Senate healthcare plan.

So I'm reposting the 1st video, from the White House website December 21, which shows Sebelius explaining how public funding of abortions will work under the Senate healthcare plan, equally paid by all. Read the transcript here. Sebelius appears to have a cold. People around her must not be coughing in their armpits.


Click here for the video.

The reconciliation attempt to pass healthcare is their last chance. Pro-lifers must pull out all stops now to urge their House representative to vote against this bill. Go here, type in your zip code, and make your call. You can also send an email by typing in your zip here.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Battle Over “Presumed Consent” in Illinois

Battle Over "Presumed Consent" in Illinois



I am sympathetic to the motivation of those who argue that each of us should be presumed by law to want to be an organ donor–increasing the organ supply–but not the method.  Known as "presumed consent," these laws assume silence means consent, making each of us potential donors unless we explicitly opt out–instead of, as now, allowing us to opt in (although family can consent to organ donation even if the deceased did not fill out a donor card, and can usually veto donations if they did ).  From the story:

    Presumed consent eliminates the need for people to elect to become potential organ donors. Everyone is considered a potential donor, and anyone who objects can opt out. Historically, countries that adopt the policy find only a small percent of the population opts out. When the policy was adopted in Belgium in 1987, less than 2 percent of the population opted out. Risinger, R-Peoria, said people concerned about individual rights clearly have the right to refuse to allow any organ transplantation after their death. He said his legislation is not in final form, and he expects it will be refined with additional input from the public and the medical community. He is planning to hold public hearings on the bill.

The USA is not Europe.  We are more individualistic here, and besides, I can think of few things that will sow distrust in the health care system more than presumed consent.  Think about it: We already have bioethicists advocating for futile care theory, that is the right to refuse wanted life sustaining treatment based on quality of life judgmentalism, resource allocation, or both.  Add in the motive for taking organs to this volatile field–and wary families will become even less trusting, and medical issues will become even more likely to end up in court.  Square that if we ever enact explicit health care rationing, or redefine death to include a diagnosis of PVS–as many luminaries in the transplant field advocate.  Indeed, I am convinced that with presumed consent, the entire field could become discredited in the people's minds, whether or not the actual conduct of the transplant professionals warranted the cynicism.

If doctors ever start taking organs without explicit permission–even if allowed by law–there will be hell to pay. And the biggest victim will be transplant medicine itself and the tens of thousands of sick people whose lives are renewed by this important area of medicine.  In fact, if laws like this pass, I believe we might even end up with fewer organs, while unquestionably reap much more arguing.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

CWA Opposes U.N. Women's Super-Bureaucracy

CWA Opposes U.N. Women's Super-Bureaucracy



The radical feminist plan to gain control of the United Nations (U.N.) gained momentum today when President Obama endorsed a new overarching agency that will unite feminist organizations in a bureaucratic take-over called, The Gender Equality Architecture Reform Campaign (GEAR).

Penny Young Nance, Chief Executive Officer of Concerned Women for America, said, "This new agency suddenly is becoming a reality. With President Obama's support the radical feminists will have unprecedented power and clout throughout the world.  They will determine what it means for nations to have 'gender equality' and insist on programs that will 'empower women.'  In the past, such efforts have prompted the U.N. to slap nation's hands for celebrating Mother's Day or because husbands aren't helping enough around the house."

Janice Shaw Crouse, head of CWA's think tank, The Beverly LaHaye Institute, has written extensively about the GEAR takeover. Crouse said, "Establishing a U.N. agency for women's rights would dramatically strengthen the already-incredibly strong radical feminist influence at the U.N., and it would virtually ensure that abortion would become a human right around the world. Having a high-level, high-profile, highly-funded agency to promote the 'women's rights' agenda would establish yet another roadblock to addressing the real needs of women."  See her article here.

Contact: Demi Bardsley
Source: Concerned Women for America
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Baby Saved as Pro-Abort Mantra Crumbles under Scrutiny

Baby Saved as Pro-Abort Mantra Crumbles under Scrutiny



I had to smile when I read a California blogger's post that described 40 Days for Life as a "babies-saving, moms-helping, 'round-the-clock prayer-and-fasting- outside-abortion-businesses effort that's been saving thousands of babies' lives."

I really loved that breath of fresh air! Far too often lately, I've see strings of other adjectives connected to 40 Days for Life that are -- to put it mildly -- inaccurate.

Just this week, I saw 40 Days for Life described as "a nasty campaign of anti-women harassers" who "get their jollies at this time of the year by swarming women's reproductive health centers and abortion clinics for 40 days."

Really?

Unfortunately, others can often be taken in by these inaccurate representations. One 40 Days for Life vigil participant saw first hand how such misstatements can have an impact.

A young woman drove up to the abortion center and sat in her car. She seemed to be waiting for someone. Finally, the person she was waiting for arrived -- a policeman. The woman wanted to be escorted into the building because people were outside praying.

A 40 Days for Life vigil participant said the officer was aware that "there had never been any complaints about us and how we conduct ourselves." But he also didn't seem to understand why people were praying.

The volunteer saw an opportunity to do a bit of educating, and explained that two dozen lawsuits were pending against the abortion center and there had been reports of three abortion-related deaths. "He didn't know any of that."

The officer said, "The woman was scared to get out of the car with you here." The volunteer responded, "She should have been scared to go inside."

Other people have fallen for the common "pro-choice" mantra that a woman's abortion decision should be "honored and respected."

A 40 Days for Life participant in Lake County, Indiana was shocked to see a pro-life bumper sticker on a car in the parking lot at Planned Parenthood. The driver explained that she didn't like abortion, but it was her friend's choice to have one.

She was told that such an argument wouldn't wash if her friend were to rob a bank; the driver of the getaway car is considered an accomplice.

With that, the woman went inside the building to tell her friend she was about to make a terrible mistake.

It wasn't easy. Voices were raised. It was quite emotional. At one point, the driver came out crying, saying she had failed.

But the vigil participants encouraged her to try again. They kept praying and "decided to let the Holy Spirit work."

The driver went back into the abortion center.

Later, her friend came out in tears, saying she had changed her mind: "I couldn't do it."

Thank you for your faithfulness and your commitment. And thank you, Holy Spirit!

Contact: David Bereit
Source: 40 Days for Life
Publish Date: March 4, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

Obama 'Health Plan' Forces Taxpayers to Pay for Abortions



Details Of Obama's Health Care Plan: Obama's health care overhaul proposal builds on legislation passed Christmas Eve by the Senate and makes some changes to placate Democrats in the House. ABORTION: Obama did not change the abortion language in the Senate bill, which is opposed by anti-abortion groups that say it allows federal funding of abortion. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for the procedure. INSURANCE MANDATE: Like the bills approved last year by the House and Senate, the proposal would require almost everyone to be insured or pay a fine. There is an exemption for low-income people.
Click here for the entire article from HeraldNet.


Unique pro-life video demonstrates potential of the unborn

What is the potential of an unborn child who is given a chance at life? One Spanish pro-life organization has answered this question in a television commercial featuring both Mother Teresa and Jamaican Olympian Usain Bolt.

The commercial also promotes the upcoming pro-life rallies in Spain which will be held March 7 to give citizens the opportunity to voice their opposition to the government's new abortion law.


Click here for the video.
Click here for the entire article.

UPDATE and ACTION ALERT on HB6205 -- the Reproductive Health and Access Act or "Illinois FOCA"

UPDATE and ACTION ALERT on HB6205 -- the Reproductive Health and Access Act or "Illinois FOCA"

HB6205 -- the Reproductive Health and Access Act or "Illinois FOCA" is on the move in the Illinois House. Last week it was pushed forward into the Human Services Committee.

That committee will be meeting TOMORROW, so we have to call all the committee members TODAY and tell them to drop this horrible bill!

Please do your part to defeat Illinois FOCA by calling all seven members of the Human Services Committee and urging them to reject this abortion expansion bill.

Click here to get all the contact info you need AND talking points for your call. 

IMPORTANT: If one of the members of the Human Services Committee happens to be YOUR state rep, make sure you emphasize that when you call. Calls from constituents carry much more weight.

HB6205 would permanently established Illinois as the Abortion Capital of the Midwest. Thanks for joining the fight to keep that from happening!

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618-466-4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Interview: My Mom's Abortion Failed, so I'm Alive to Talk about it

Interview: My Mom's Abortion Failed, so I'm Alive to Talk about it



Abortion kills a living child.  But this simple fact is often too easy to ignore since the victims of abortion - even when they survive - rarely ever speak about it.  But one victim who did survive an abortion and who is set to address the Canadian March for Life Youth Conference this May 14 in Ottawa recently shared her thoughts about the issue with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

"It is the very problem of abortion, itself, which is typically shrouded in secrecy and ends the life of the very person who could share the truth with the world, that makes statistically examining abortion so difficult," Melissa Ohden told LSN. 

Ohden’s biological mother had an early induction abortion in 1977. However, Melissa was later born alive – a not uncommon occurrence in this type of abortion - and showed too many signs of life to go unnoticed by nurses attending the abortion.
 
According to a 2007 UK study on abortions due to diagnosed disability, babies continue to struggle for life after being forced from the womb in 1 out of 30 cases. The study said the children, sometimes gasping for breath and crying weakly, survive for an average of 80 minutes - with some clinging to life for as long as six hours.  Most of the children were aborted between 20 and 24 weeks' gestation.

"The sheer number of survivors really is overwhelming," Ohden told LSN.

During her travels speaking on the subject, Ohden said she continues "to learn of more and more children like me" who have survived an attempt on their life in the womb.

"Unfortunately, they have faced their own fair share of struggles with shame and embarrassment, limitations from disabilities, that have silenced them from sharing their stories with the world - just as I was silenced by my own shame, guilt, and embarrassment for so long," she noted.

While she says the response to her story has generally been "very positive," Ohden points out that "there are certainly still many people who 'can't believe' that children survive abortion attempts, and try to discredit us or deny our reality."

In 2002, then-U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The President noted that the legislation was intended to ensure "that every infant born alive - including an infant who survives an abortion procedure - is considered a person under federal law." No similar law exists in Canada.

“What a sad statement about how our world currently operates," Ohden commented.

"If we were talking about anything else other than abortion, and the research told us that children were being harmed at high rates by something, you know that legislators and medical associations would step in to protect these children.

"Where are they now?" she asked.

"In my opinion, people deny the existence of aborted children, like those in the article who lived, because the reality of abortion is truly too much for them to bear, and because, if they let themselves admit that we live, then they will have to admit that abortion is wrong.  So, they avoid that 'slippery slope' by ignoring the facts about abortion and holding onto their safely held assumptions."

Ohden will address the Youth Rose Dinner after the Canadian National March for Life on May 13, and will also be available the following day at the March for Life Youth Conference for more intimate discussions with youth in workshops.

For more information on the March for Life and related events click here.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert and John-Henry Westen
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: February 26, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618-466-4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Woman Conceived in Rape Takes Message to the United Nations

Woman Conceived in Rape Takes Message to the United Nations



March 7-12, 2010, Juda Myers, conceived in an eight man rape, will be sharing her powerful story at the United Nations Conference on the Status of Women. International speaker, singer/songwriter, author and paint artist, Myers seeks to empower women with knowledge of better choices, offering life as the better choice for all involved. Her message translated into Chinese, French, and Spanish, will be distributed to U.N. delegates.

The U.N.'s focus is to advance and empower women. While equal rights, education and health will be discussed, abortion "rights" is a hot topic. Myers' argument for life is powerfully moving, changing lives. Speaking at Harvard University in October 2009 with Harvard's largest pro life attendance in years, Myers' witnessed brilliant minds turn from the acceptance of abortion in any case to the reality of the gift of life. She speaks to all people from within the walls of prisons to the halls of the United Nations. "One can count the seeds in an apple but not the apples in a seed." Myers says referring to future generations that we may lose to abortions.

Placed for adoption at birth, she found her birthmother, Ann and her story, four years ago. Bursting into tears Myers' mother quickly patted her, "Honey stop your crying. I've forgiven those men. Look what God's done. He's brought you back to me. God is faithful." Ann said that Juda was just an innocent baby.

Myers' passion for people compels her to help others find joy in life. She's found that many women who are raped are usually talked into an abortion. Myers' own grandmother insisted she be aborted. Ann refused. Today Ann has no regrets, but it isn't the case for so many who have aborted rape babies or any other baby.

Myers' does training on forgiveness at conferences believing anyone can forgive any offense to gain health and happiness. She speaks on life, incorporating her original songs from her CD, God is Faithful. One song on the CD, called War Cry, challenges the listener to "love your enemy." Her new book, Hostile Conception Living With Purpose, along with her story, also offers practical steps to forgiveness with an entire chapter with stories of many other people who forgave horrific offenses.

Contact: Juda Myers
Source: Freedom Ministries
Publish Date: March 3, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618-466-4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

13-Year-Old Pro-Life Superstar Tackles Euthanasia

13-Year-Old Pro-Life Superstar Tackles Euthanasia



13-year-old Lia Mills, who wowed judges and garnered widespread international attention last year for her bold speech on abortion (a video of that speech has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times), has taken on euthanasia this year.

In another powerful and articulate address, the young Toronto native explores the devastating consequences Canada would face if it welcomed euthanasia, and implores Canadians to find ways of caring for suffering patients rather than killing them.

"Imagine a society where people live in constant fear of their lives,” she begins, “where hospitals don't treat people for their illnesses, but kill them instead, because someone determines that their lives are no longer worth living, where we no longer struggle with accommodating people's disabilities because the disabled are simply disposed of before they become a problem.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, it is precisely this kind of society that is waiting for us if we openly embrace the concept of euthanasia,” she continues.

Lia then gives a clear definition of euthanasia as the direct and intentional killing of a patient, “originally suggested as a compassionate means to end pain and suffering.”

Lia's speech on abortion last year, which won her school's public speaking competition, has now been viewed over 850,000 times on Youtube.  The story was LSN's most popular good news story of 2009, and she shared a revised version of the speech at last year's National March for Life in Ottawa.

A description attached to the Youtube video of her speech on euthanasia notes that Lia did not win the school's competition this year, but that she got an A nevertheless.

Explaining that euthanasia advocates argue “we should end lives that are no longer worth living,” Lia asks, “what makes your life worth living?”

"Does suffering or pain make life not worth living?” she continues.  “If so, how should we define pain and suffering?  You see, for those who support euthanasia, the categories known as 'pain and suffering' have grown and continue to grow.”

"Why should we resort to treating the mentally and physically ill by killing them?" she asks further, emphasizing that “we need to pursue advances in palliative care.”

Throughout the speech, she focuses on the example set by the Netherlands, which legalized euthanasia in 2002.  In particular, she highlights the fact that a large percentage of victims in that country have been euthanized without their consent.

She also relates how Dr. Els Borst, the “architect” of the Dutch euthanasia laws, as she says, has admitted recently that palliative care in the Netherlands is so inadequate that "patients often ask for euthanasia out of fear of dying in agony."  Dr. Borst, the former Dutch Health Minister, has stated that the Netherlands should have focused on improving palliative care rather than on legalizing euthanasia.

"We need to learn from the Dutch,” says Lia.  “As a nation we need to kill the pain not the patient.  If euthanasia is allowed, the frail line of trust between doctor and patient would be destroyed.”

She also refers to the experience in Nazi Germany, where the practice of euthanasia eventually led to greater atrocities, such as the Holocaust.

Euthanasia advocates, she explains, have framed the practice as being about “death with dignity.”  "To be honest, I must admit that I am a death with dignity advocate,” she concedes.  “I believe that every person has the right to die knowing that she's loved and that his doctors did everything they could to make him well and comfortable.  I believe that palliative care is the best option for patients who truly want to die with dignity."

Euthanasia is a threat to Canadians' Charter-protected rights to life, liberty, and security of person, she concludes.   "If euthanasia is a threat to even one person, it is a threat to us all,” she says.  “When will someone else decide that your life is no longer worth living?"


Click here to view the Youtube video of Lia's speech on euthanasia.

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 2, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618-466-4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Denial of abortion funding in health care bill ignores 'abortion tax,' say pro-lifers

Denial of abortion funding in health care bill ignores 'abortion tax,' say pro-lifers



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) denied there was public funding of abortion in proposed health care legislation at the White House Health Care Summit on Thursday. However, critics said her comments ignored proposed "abortion tax" requirements for members of some federally subsidized insurance plans.

Speaker Pelosi’s comments came in reply to charges from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) that the bill would fund abortions.

“For 30 years, we’ve had a federal law that says that we’re not going to have taxpayer funding of abortions,” he commented.

After “a very serious debate” in the House, Boehner said, the House upheld “the language we have had in law for 30 years that there will be no taxpayer funding of abortions.

“This bill that we have before us... for the first time in 30 years allows the taxpayer funding of abortion.”

President Obama first responded to Rep. Boehner's charges:

“John, the challenge I have here -- and this has happened periodically -- is every so often we have a pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics, and then we go back to the standard talking points the Democrats and Republicans have had for the last year. And that doesn't drive us to an agreement on issues. There are so many things that you just said that people on this side would profoundly disagree with and I would have to say, based on my analysis, just aren't true, that I think the conversation would start bogging down pretty quick.”

Speaker Pelosi later replied:

“Leader Boehner, the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills.”

Americans United for Life Action (AUL Action) in a Thursday statement charged that President Barack Obama’s health care plan creates an “abortion tax” for individuals participating in the health insurance exchange.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in a Jan. 14 letter to Congressmen, explained that under the House proposal’s Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a citizen who wished to purchase abortion coverage would have to purchase it separately and with non-federal funds. This could be done through the proposed exchange.

The Senate bill, according to the NRLC, would allow private plans that cover elective abortion to qualify for a federal subsidy. However, every enrollee in such a plan would be required to make a separate monthly payment “into a fund used exclusively for elective abortions.”

The NRLC characterized this as an “abortion surcharge.”

Source: CNA
Publish Date: February 26, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618-466-4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org