'Abortion Changes You' Ads Reach St. Louis Commuters

'Abortion Changes You' Ads Reach St. Louis Commuters
 
Five billboards convey message of hope, support after abortion



St. Louis commuters will view five billboards stating 'abortion changes you' over the next few weeks. The billboards are part of the same outreach appearing this month in New York City subways. The billboards echo some of the experiences of men and women after an abortion. A woman shares, "I thought my life would be the way it was before", while another says, "We made the decision together but I've never felt so alone". An ad featuring a male shares, "I thought I was helping my girlfriend".

The billboards refer viewers to AbortionChangesYou.com. The Web site is a safe place separate from politics, labels, and debate. The site includes an interactive grief and loss healing model developed with the help of psychologists. Men, women, and family members can begin the healing process by journaling, exploring emotions, posting artwork and more. Visitors can also connect with support groups and counseling in their local area through the 'Find Help' section.

"One in three women will have an abortion in the United States -- and many women and men feel isolated and alone after their experience," says Michaelene Fredenburg, creator of the ads and author of Changed: Making Sense of Your Own or a Loved One's Abortion Experience, "When I had my abortion I kept it a secret for a long time because I was afraid of how people would react. Few people know how to talk about abortion in a safe way."

Individuals can experience a range of emotions after their own abortion or the abortion of someone close to them -- from feelings of relief, to confusion, to profound grief. The grief associated with reproductive losses (such as abortion, miscarriage, and stillbirth) is often minimized, denied, and considered to be outside the normal "grieving rules" of society -- especially when it comes to abortion.

"I believe that women, men, and family need a safe place to experience their own range of emotions apart from controversy and debate. That is why I started the Abortion Changes You outreach," says Fredenburg.

The Abortion Changes You outreach images will remain on billboards on the I-207, Highway 367, I-270, US 40, and I-64 through the first week of April.

Contact: Suzanna Kennedy
Source: Abortion Changes You
Publish Date: March 16, 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

 

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

Morning-After Abortion Pill Does Not Cut Teen Pregnancy In UK



Providing the morning-after pill in advance does nothing to cut teenage pregnancy rates, researchers claim. The use of emergency contraception doubled in just six years, but the latest data shows it has failed to slash rates of conception or sexually transmitted infections. The findings by the respected Cochrane Library Review cast serious doubt over the Government's decision to promote emergency contraception as part of its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. Ministers hoped easier access to morning-after pills through pharmacies and even schools would bring down rates of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. In 1996, six per cent of women who requested an abortion had tried emergency contraception first. By 2002, this figure had doubled to 12 percent.
Click here for the entire article from the Daily Mail.


Tennessee Killing Regulation Would Require 'Abortion Coercion' Signs



A House committee on Tuesday delayed a vote on legislation that would require abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs because of concerns from some lawmakers. The state House Health and Human Resources Committee decided to put off the vote for a week to give lawmakers more time to review the measure sponsored Rep. Susan Lynn. The Mt. Juliet Republican said she was expecting House Bill 3301 to move forward. "We ... worked really hard on this bill in subcommittee and really tried to work with everyone involved to make everyone happy," she said. "I am disappointed it was rolled a week, but hopeful next week will be the final week." Any type of coercion to have an abortion is prohibited under current law. But Lynn said some women may not know that and the sign simply spells out what's in the law.
Click here for the entire article from the Tennessean.


Some Black Pro-Lifers Say Abortion Is Genocide



It used to be that the pro-life movement was associated with the white religious right, the most extreme elements of which were bent on saving women from hell and damnation for killing their fetuses. Now as more black women seek abortions, the banner has been taken up by some black pro-lifers. The Root spoke with several pro-life black clergy to find out what's behind the shift. Members of the black clergy say their pro-life message is nothing new, and they have been sounding the drumbeat for over two decades. What is new is that people are finally paying attention to them. That may have something to do with shifting attitudes.
Click here for the entire article from The Root.


Meet Two Babies Saved from Abortion



Over the last few days, I was on a whirlwind tour of Southern California -- from Fresno down to San Diego. In addition to speaking at two pregnancy center banquets, I was able to visit numerous 40 Days for Life sites and meet for dinner with several dozen local 40 Days for Life campaign leaders. It was a very hope-filled trip!

I brought along my pocket camcorder and shot footage all along the way -- and just posted a highlight video online for you (click here for the video)
Click here for the entire article from LifeSiteNews.


Publicly funded eugenics



In motion is a dizzying array of both legitimate and nefarious factors that might sway some votes. But the Democratic pro-life caucus is key, one way or the other.

Pro-abort Democratic leadership stopped trying to strike a compromise with Stu-PAC late last week, finally realizing, as House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner put it, abortion is "one of those issues that, literally, can't split the baby." (Well, pro-aborts wouldn't mind, but pro-lifers do.)

But along the way, pro-abort Democratic leadership apparently engaged Stupak in some interesting conversations....
Click here for the entire article from WorldNetDaily.


Alaskans to Vote on Abortion Initiative
 


The Alaska election board has certified that pro-lifers have enough signatures to put a parental involvement initiative on the state's August primary ballot.

The measure would require parental notification before a minor could get an abortion.

Petition-gathers collected more than 36,000 signatures.  They needed approximately 33,000 to put the measure to a vote. The signatures were certified last week.
Click here for the entire article from CitizenLink.

 

 

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

 

House Budget Committee Votes Against Including Stupak Amendment in Health-Care Reconciliation Bill

House Budget Committee Votes Against Including Stupak Amendment in Health-Care Reconciliation Bill

    

The House Budget Committee voted 19-17 Monday night against recommending that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment be included in the health-care reconciliation bill that the full House is likely to consider later this week. The amendment would ban funding of abortion through federally subsidized health care plans.
 
While debating the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio)—who was not present—and others who took his position that the Senate health-care bill needed to be amended to prevent federal funding of abortion had "willfully continued to repeat falsehoods about" the status of abortion funding in that bill.

DeLauro contended that the Senate bill did not allow federal funding of abortion. "Holding up this bill to play politics on the abortion issue is emphatically not a pro-life stance," she said.
 
The reconciliation bill is designed to amend the full health-care bill that passed the Senate in December and, together with that bill, enact the dramatic restructuring of the nation's health-care system sought by President Obama and the Democratic leadership.
 
The Senate health-care bill would allow people to use federal subsidies to buy health insurance plans that cover abortions, while insisting that everyone who buys such a plan must pay at least one dollar of their own money in a special supplemental premium, under the theory that this particular dollar—and not the many federal tax dollars flowing into the same insurance plan—would cover any abortions the plan funds.
 
The version of the health-care plan that passed the House in November included an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) that would ban any federal funds from paying for any part of any health care plan that covers abortions. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment mirrors the language of the Hyde Amendment that has been included in various annual federal appropriations bills for more than three decades. The Hyde Amendment itself will not apply to the new health-care programs initiated under the Senate health-care bill because they will not be funded through annual appropriations.
 
The Budget Committee met Monday afternoon and evening to consider amendments to a draft of the health-care reconciliation bill. The amendments approved by the Budget Committee are considered non-binding recommendations to the House Rules Committee, which is expected to approve a final version of the reconciliation bill later this week.

If the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is not included in the reconciliation bill, and the reconciliation bill becomes law, the new federal health-care system created by the combination of the Senate bill and the reconciliation bill would in fact allow tax dollars to fund health care plans that cover abortions.
 
Three Budget Committee Democrats voted to recommend that the Rules Committee include the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the final version of the bill. They were Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D.-Ohio), Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) and Rep. Jim Langevin (R.I.). One Republican, Rep. Scott Garrett (N.J.), did not vote on the amendment.
 
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced the amendment in the committee. The Senate health-care bill, Jordan said, "represents the largest threat to innocent human life since Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court."
 
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment, he said, "simply says that no federal dollars can go to pay for abortion or subsidize a plan that covers abortion. This continues the current policy under the Hyde Amendment, and makes sure that it is permanently applied to any health care reform law."
 
Rep. DeLauro spoke adamantly against the amendment, insisting that the Senate health care bill already barred abortion funding. "I will say it one more time, since for some reason too many of our colleagues have not gotten the message, or like Congressman Boehner, have willfully continued to repeat falsehoods about it," said DeLauro. "Other than the situations excepted by the Hyde language as has been the case for years now, no federal funds are used for abortion, or can be used for abortion in this health-care package."
 
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has sided with Boehner not DeLauro (both of whom are Catholic) on this question.
 
"Disappointingly, the Senate-passed bill in particular does not meet our moral criteria on life and conscience," the bishops said in a Jan. 26 letter to members of the Senate.

"Specifically, it violates the longstanding federal policy against the use of federal funds for elective abortions and health plans that include such abortions—a policy upheld in all health programs covered by the Hyde Amendment as well as in the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and now in the House-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act. We believe legislation that fails to comply with this policy and precedent is not true health care reform and should be opposed until this fundamental problem is remedied."

Contact: Terence P. Jeffrey
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 16, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion, the United Nations, and CEDAW

Abortion, the United Nations, and CEDAW
    
Last week, I had the opportunity to attend part of the 54th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the United Nations in New York. The CSW is a UN body with power for global policy-making on issues related to women and gender. Every year delegates from member states meet at UN headquarters in NY to evaluate progress and draft policies to promote women and gender equality. The question of abortion is always hotly debated and presented in a variety of creative forms from anti-life advocates.

With the memory still fresh from my first CSW (five years ago) I was much encouraged this year with the number of pro-life lobbyists present. Most lobbyists fell into two categories: generous college students on Spring Break or fed up pro-life moms from the Midwest! Both groups "made their presence felt;" there was no question that they were a viable force. There were also a significant number of pro-life, pro-family side-sessions, with speakers including Miriam Grossman and Pam Stencil, as well as researchers, MDs, and ObGyns. In particular, one session about the importance of motherhood was attended by approximately 500 persons.

Unfortunately, though not surprisingly, representatives of the Obama Administration weren't tuned into the pro-life U.S. citizens present (you know, the American people whom they represent). They were more concerned about advocating for things like the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Ratification, among other things.

CEDAW is a women's rights international agreement of the UN that was first adopted in 1979. Worthy of mention is the fact that this agreement would also advance such policy areas as abortion rights; same-sex marriage; legalization of prostitution; gender re-education; and would negate parental rights. Out of 192 member countries, the U.S. is one of eight not to ratify; ratification would require 67 senators to vote affirmatively.

Despite efforts from previous Democrat Administrations, proponents have not been successful in achieving ratification. But the Obama Administration is actively working to change that. In her remarks to the CSW, Secretary Clinton named CEDAW ratification as a major priority for the Obama Administration. Karen Richardson, Senior Advisor on International Organizations to State Department Ambassador for the Global Women's Issues Bureau Melanne Verveer, spoke at a number of CSW workshops and affirmed that the Obama Administration and in particular Amb. Verveer are working actively with the Hill to ratify CEDAW.

Interestingly, Secretary Clinton also noted in her remarks to the CSW the recent issue article on Gendercide in The Economist, noting that sex selection abortion has left the world with 100 million fewer girls than it should have. While I appreciated the fact the Secretary noted this tragedy in her remarks, I only wish she would make the necessary connection between the abortion rights she so aggressively advocates and the societal ramifications that follow, such as this appalling gendercide reality. Abortion never has been — and never will be good for women.

Contact: Jeanne Monahan
Source: FRCBlog
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, New England Journal of Medicine Says

Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, New England Journal of Medicine Says

    

Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
 
The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to "deteriorate" and it could be the "final straw" that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.
 
More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent.
 
The medical journal published the results in its March and April edition, saying: "While a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform."
 
Kevin Perpetua, managing partner for the Medicus Firm, reported that a reform bill could be "the final straw" in an already financially precarious industry.
 
"Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases," Perpetua said in the study. "The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine."
 
"With an average debt of $140,000, and many graduates approaching a quarter of a million dollars in school loans, being a doctor is becoming less and less feasible," Perpetua said. "Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down."
 
The survey shows that many doctors already find their situations difficult:
 
-- 36 percent said that they would not recommend medicine as a profession to others, regardless of whether health-care reform passes;
-- another 27 percent would still recommend medicine as a career, but not if the current reform proposal passes.
 
In total, 63 percent of doctors would not recommend the profession after health-care reform passes. Just 12 percent do not recommend becoming a physician now but think they would if current reform proposals pass.
 
Primary-care physicians, those who work in the critical fields of family and internal medicine, not only feel that they would want to quit but that they might be cast out of medicine. 46.3 percent of those physicians said that they would either want to leave medicine or that they would be "forced out" by the changes to the system.

Despite all the opposition to the bill as it stands, only a little more than 3 percent of respondents said the status quo was best, with the vast majority (62.7 percent) saying they believe changes are needed.
 
The sane 62.7 percent said they wanted reforms made, but that they "should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in (the) legislation."
 
Andrea Santiago, a spokeswoman for the Medicus Firm, said those numbers were the most striking.
 
"Please allow me to emphasize that 96 percent of the physicians surveyed in our report are in favor of health reform, in some form or fashion," she told CNSNews.com in an e-mail. "To me, the fact that so many physicians surveyed want health reform, but relatively few are in favor of the current legislation, was one of the most significant, telling results."
 
Congressional Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have said that doctors favor the bill and are part of an "unprecedented coalition" of doctors rooting for its passage. The claim is based on the American Medical Association's endorsement of the legislation in Congress.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008 there were 661,400 physicians and surgeons within the United States. Of that number, 250,000 are members of the American Medical Association (AMA) -- and nearly 100,000 of those are medical students.

Santiago explained the AMA could not claim to represent all doctors, nor perhaps could any other group, and said the potentially massive shortage of physicians has stayed largely out of the debate because public figures have been trying to speak for doctors instead of speaking to them.
 
"I think the reason it hasn't become a big issue in the political debate is maybe because no one else has really thought about the effects of health reform on the physician workforce. Or, maybe people didn't want to think about it, but as recruiters we can't help but think about it and take notice," she said.
 
"If you are not talking to physicians every day about their career plans, it may not occur to someone that it would even be an issue.  Plus, many public figures, media, and organizations are speaking for doctors in professional associations and groups, proclaiming 'doctors want this.' Without surveying each and every doctor, no one can claim that all doctors want this particular version of health reform, including us."
 
Santiago said one problem with a comprehensive bill was all the uncertainty about its effects that comes along with it.
 
"When you're on the phone with doctors each and every day, discussing their career plans, like we are as recruiters, you start to notice hot-buttons that are related to their career decisions, and health reform was increasingly and repeatedly coming up as an issue that was causing doctors apprehension when making career plans," Santiago explained.
 
"Many seemed frustrated by it.  Part of it, I think, is fear of the unknown -- the current health reform bill is so large and all-encompassing, no one really knows for sure what will happen when/if this bill passes, so how does a physician make major career decisions when so much is hanging in the balance?"
 
Click here for the key findings of the survey.

Contact: Christopher Neefus
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 16, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Final Vote on Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill Likely Days Away

Final Vote on Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill Likely Days Away

    

With a crucial, perhaps determinative vote on Obamacare likely only days away, not only is the action fast and furious, you can't tell the players without a score card. Let's go through a partial list of who is saying what, beginning with pro-life forces.

National Right to Life has sent out an Urgent Action Alert (click here for the alert). It is reproduced as Part Two. The H.R. 3590 referenced in the alert is the Senate health bill, "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."

All of the information is important but none more than the following:

"The vote is too close to call. All House Republicans oppose H.R. 3590. The outcome will be determined by whether undecided Democrat lawmakers recognize sufficient opposition among their constituents to convince them to vote against the urgings of the President and their party leaders. Each House Democrat is ultimately accountable to his or her constituents -- not to the Speaker, who represents part of San Francisco. "

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Obama Administration continues to attempt to pretend that the Bishops can live with the Senate health care bill as it presently stands. Nothing could be further from the truth as was explained in a statement the Bishops asked parishes to post or read aloud yesterday. (click here for teh Bishop's statement)

    

In the first paragraph of the Bulletin Insert/Action Alert, we read, "Genuine health care reform is being blocked by those who insist on reversing widely supported policies against federal funding of abortion and plans which include abortion, not by those working simply to preserve these longstanding protections."

The Alert notes that the Senate bill, passed last December, "requires federal funds to help subsided and promote health care plans that cover elective abortions." It offers words of praise to be sent to House members for the pro-life House version. Catholics were asked to urge their senators "to support essential provisions against abortion funding, similar to those in the House bill."

The Bishops have also produced a four-page rebuttal of an analysis offered by Timothy Stolzfus Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Jost argues the opposite of the position taken by the Bishops and by NRLC--he contend "that there are no "significant differences" between the House and Senate bills on abortion.

Click here for this very important critique.

Pro-life House Democrats. Bear in mind that there's been a slew of articles and opinion pieces the last few days which portray failure to pass health care "reform" as Obama's Waterloo. True or false, a ploy or an implicit threat to Democrats who refuse to buckle, there is no mistaking the heavy-hand of Obama and the pro-abortion Democratic leadership.
As explained in the NRLC Action Alert,

According to a March 12 report in National Review Online, Stupak said that pro-life Democrats in the House "are coming under 'enormous" political pressure" from the White House and Pelosi. "I am a definite 'no' vote," he says. "I didn't cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we're all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions."

These Democrats need to hear from you (click here).
 
Other players include, of course, the pro-abortionists on the Hill and the Obama Administration. You can read a hundred different accounts, and they run from total confidence the Democrats can pass their abortion-laden Senate bill in the House to what is no doubt the truth: that the margin either way is razor-thin. All the more reason for you to contact your member of the House of Representatives to vote against the Senate bill.

And in case there was any confusion, last week Cong. Stupak described a conversation he had with pro-abortion Cong. Henry Waxman about the Senate health care bill. According to a transcription from WKQS's Mark & Walk morning show, Stupak said

"I gave him the language. He came back a little while later and said, 'But we want to pay for abortions.' I said, 'Mr. Chairman, that's -- we disagree. We don't do it now, we're not going to start.'

"'But we think we should,'" Stupak said Waxman told him.

"I said, 'Well, I'm sorry but the House has spoken. We had that debate. We won 240-190. You forced the vote, a vote we won fair and square and we're not gonna, this is what it is. If you want to move health care keep current law,'" Stupak continued.

Subsequently, in a phone interview with National Review Online Stupak characterized the position of Democratic leaders as follows:

"If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

There are many others who are playing a role in shaping the last-week struggle. To name just one, over the weekend the Catholic Health Association reaffirmed its support for the Senate health care bill.

"The time is now for health care reform," Sister Carol Keehan, CHA President, insisted. She wrote, "On the moral issue of abortion, there is no disagreement"--that whether the bill "prevents federal funding of abortion" is but a "technical issue," and "we differ with Right to Life." (click here)

But as NRLC has pointed out repeatedly since last December, this is not a question of "on the one hand but on the other hand." The Senate bill was clearly rife with pro-abortion provisions three months ago. Since then, on further inspection NRLC found even more.

That is why NRLC said unequivocally, "Any House member who votes for the Senate health bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote." (click here)

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Problems accompany legal euthanasia

Problems accompany legal euthanasia

Assisted suicide has been legal for a year in Washington, and the state health department has issued its first report.

      

During the first year, 63 people requested and received lethal prescriptions to kill themselves. 47 have since died, while 36 are confirmed to have used the poison to accomplish it. Although 79 percent suffered from cancer, few cited pain as the reason for seeking end of life treatment as the main concern was the cost for alternate treatment.

Rita Marker (International Tasf Force on Euthanasia and Assited Suicide)"What is and has been the reality of this [is] that when you transform assisted suicide into a medical treatment, it makes it just like every other medical treatment, except it's lots cheaper. And people begin to see it as a benefit for the family," comments Rita Marker, attorney and president of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (ITF).

Many of the patients had insurance, but Marker says that means nothing. It does, however, serve as a reminder of an Oregon cancer victim whose treatment was rejected by her insurance. She was told, though, that they would cover her drugs for assisted suicide. The report shows there are too many unknowns, and the possibility of murder is an example.

"After that individual got the prescription, we don't know if once they got it home they put it into the medicine cabinet and then decided, 'I don't think I'll take this' and then whether someone else thinking maybe it would be a good idea for them to take it, mixed it into their food," the ITF president poses. "There's no way of knowing."

There is an open chance for elder abuse, but no way to track it or prosecute those responsible since the law requires prosecutors to treat the death as natural.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 16, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Debate Thwarts U.S. Fight Against China’s One-Child Policy, Activist Says

Abortion Debate Thwarts U.S. Fight Against China's One-Child Policy, Activist Says

     

Feminist and human rights activist Nicole Kempton says the contentious abortion debate in America partly explains why American leaders are reluctant to denounce China's "one child" population-control policy.
 
"It's hard for any American administration to address the one-child policy in China, number one, because when it's talked about in this country, it winds up being portrayed as part of the abortion debate," Kempton told CNSNews.com. Forced abortion and forced sterilization are not a choice, she added.
 
Kempton is the Washington director of the Laogai Research Foundation, which was founded in 1992 by a Chinese dissident to investigate and document human rights abuses in China's prison camps (laogai).
 
Kempton said environmentalists and zero-population-growth advocates also share responsibility for discouraging American criticism of China's one-child policy. "There are people who don't understand the human consequences of the policy, who say that the world should have the one-child policy, and we should be applauding China for their draconian approach to population control," Kempton said.
 
As CNSNews.com reported in December, even Chinese government officials tout the "one child" policy as a successful way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are blamed for global warming.
 
Speaking on the sidelines of the Copenhagen climate conference, Zhao Baige, vice minister of China's National Population and Family Planning Commission, said developing countries should consider adopting similar policies in the pursuit of "sustainable development."
 
But according to Kempton, environmentalists may not realize the extent of human rights violations China's one-child policy engenders through its institutionalized violence against women.
 
The United States also is reluctant to jeopardize its trade relationship with China, Kempton said. "I think probably our economic relationship probably does have something to do with it and probably is the reason why we don't speak out at a national level against the policy."
 
CNSNews.com asked Kempton why feminist organizations such as National Organization for Women (NOW) and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPF) do not express more outrage about the oppression and violence directed against women in China.
 
Kempton reiterated that objections to China's one-child policy should focus on human rights and should not be turned into an abortion debate.
 
"Personally, I am pro-choice, and I don't know why these organizations don't get more involved in this issue. I mean, it is something that affects one-fifth of the world's women," Kempton said.
 
"I would really like to see—particularly in the United States—I would like to see us put aside our differences on pro-life or pro-choice and just agree that this is not a choice and that we need to help the Chinese women and speak out against the policy," Kempton said.
 
CNSNews.com asked Kempton if she thought feminist organizations are concerned about the selective abortion of female babies due to the traditional Chinese preference for sons. Presently, men outnumber women in China by 37 million.
 
Although Kempton said she could not speak for NOW or Planned Parenthood, she speculated that in opposing all violence against women, they would condemn brutality against "women who are trying to have children or violence against baby girls."
 
"I think that those organizations, they oppose violence against women in any form, and this—the one child policy—whether it's violence against women who are trying to have children or violence against baby girls and the gendercide that's currently going on in China -- I would assume that they would be against both of those," Kempton said.
 
Kempton said one unintended consequence of the one-child policy is a "tsunami of human trafficking" in Asia, where women and girls are brought into China from North Korea, central Asia, Vietnam, Guyana, and Eastern Europe to meet demand for brides.
 
In a Jan. 7 article posted on the liberal Huffington Post Web site, Kempton praised Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's commitment to "put women and girls at the center of U.S. foreign policy."
 
But, said Kempton, China's one child-policy continues to fly in the face of the 1994 Cairo conference, "which represented the first truly global commitment to women's rights."
 
China took part in the Cairo conference, but 15 years later its women are still under threat from coercive population control, Kempton wrote. She called it an "unprecedented State intrusion concerning women's reproductive choices."
 
Kempton urged Clinton to speak against China's coercive population control in her Jan. 8 address marking the 15-year anniversary of the Cairo conference. Clinton, however, did not mention China or the one-child policy in her Jan. 8 speech.
 
China instituted its one-child policy in 1979 in an attempt to boost economic development by reducing the population burden to increase per capita income.

Contact: Karen Schuberg
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: March 16, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

Court to rule this month on state's abortion notification law



A Cook County Circuit Court judge said today that he will rule March 29 whether to dismiss a lawsuit that has halted the Illinois abortion notification law.

The 1995 law, which has been delayed in court and never enforced, would require doctors to notify a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion.

In November, the Illinois medical disciplinary board decided the state could begin enforcing the law. Hours later, Judge Daniel Riley granted a temporary restraining order sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. The state later filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Lawyers for the ACLU have questioned whether the law violates the Illinois Constitution's guarantees of privacy and due process and the state constitutional ban on gender discrimination.

But Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo argued Monday that most surgical procedures on minors require parental input, and abortion should be no different.
Click here for the entire article from Chicago Breaking News.


The Girl Scouts and that Explicit Sex Guide: C-FAM Reaffirms Report



Last week the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) issued a controversial report in its weekly Friday Fax, relating how Planned Parenthood was permitted to distribute an explicit 'sex guide' at a closed-door, no-adults-welcome meeting at the UN sponsored by the Girl Scouts.

C-Fam said in an update on the situation today that since the publication of that report, "We have been inundated with responses from Girl Scout moms, Girl Scout leaders and others angered and confused that such a thing could happen."

The Planned Parenthood guide told young girls that, "Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse … But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!"
Click here for the entire article from LifeSiteNews.


Florida Abortion Regulator: Unborn Child Bill Not Intended to Affect Abortion



State Sen. Mike Fasano is pushing legislation that would give legal rights to a fetus during any stage of a woman's pregnancy. He says the bill is not intended to affect a woman's right to have an abortion, but opponents disagree. Fasano's proposed legislation would change Florida's legal definition of "viable fetus" to "unborn child." Currently if someone kills a pregnant woman, in a car crash or by injuring the mother, the person can be charged separately with killing a viable fetus. That's defined as being able to live outside the womb with standard medical procedures.
Click here for the entire article from WTSP.


Court Orders Death for Unborn Child in Argentinean Rape Case



An unborn child has been killed by doctors in the province of Chubut, Argentina, following a protracted legal struggle to save its life, according to local reports.

The abortion took place on Friday despite last minute petitions filed with the provincial Supreme Court by the Corporation of Catholic Attorneys, and despite three earlier rulings against the deadly procedure.

The child, who was at 18 weeks of gestation, was allegedly conceived through the rape of its fifteen-year-old mother, who has accused her stepfather of being the culprit. The mother's name has not been made public by the Argentinian media.
Click here for the entire article from LifeSiteNews.


Threatened, arrested pro-lifers reach settlement

Two pro-life counselors' lawsuits against York, Pennsylvania, have been settled.

 

Edward Snell and John McTernan both stood in an alley behind a York abortion clinic where they handed out literature and tried to convince women not to have abortions.  Attorney Randall Wenger of the Independence Law Center and Alliance Defense Fund reports that the men ran into frequent problems because police made up the rules as they went along.

"The police are paid for by Planned Parenthood," he explains. "They get paid more if there's an arrest, and the police end up coming with a lot of stupid restrictions that keep [pro-lifers] from using the public spaces and sharing their concerns about abortion."

One of Wenger's clients was threatened with arrest while the other was actually taken into custody. The case was taken to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click here for the entire article from OneNewsNow.


Development & Peace South African Partner Freely Admits Abortion Advocacy



The director and another employee of a South African partner of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (D&P) have both freely admitted in a telephone interview and an e-mail sent to LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that their organization actively advocates in favor of "abortion rights," including sitting on the steering committee of the Reproductive Rights Alliance, which pushes for expanded access to legal abortion in the country.

D&P is the Canadian Catholic bishops' official development arm, which has been fraught with controversy after it was revealed last spring that they are funding dozens of groups that advocate in favor of abortion and/or contraception. To date, however, D&P's response has been to consistently and vociferously deny the allegations about its partners' pro-abortion activities.

But according to Leonard Gentle, the director of the Industrial Labour Research and Information Group (ILRIG), a South Africa-based D&P partner, the work of his organization includes offering support to the "abortion rights" movement.
Click here for the entire article from LifeSiteNews.

UPDATE ON HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION

UPDATE ON HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION
 

U.S. HOUSE TO VOTE WITHIN DAYS ON WHETHER TO MAKE PRO-ABORTION SENATE HEALTH BILL "THE LAW OF THE LAND," AS HOUSE MEMBERS STUDY COMMUNICATIONS FROM NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, AND OTHERS
 
WASHINGTON -- In a significant development this week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) made it clear that the House Democratic Leadership will force a vote soon on the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), including multiple abortion-related provisions strongly opposed by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and other pro-life organizations, and will not include pro-life language in any followup legislation.
 
In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) intends to go forward on the basis, reportedly articulated by the Senate parliamentarian, that H.R. 3590 must be enacted into law before the Senate can consider any followup bill under fast-track "reconciliation" procedures.  The Washington Post reported (March 13), "Pelosi shrugged off the ruling, accepting that the Senate bill would have to move first, and independently.  'It isn't going to make any difference except maybe in the mood that people are in,' she said Friday.  'The fact is that once we pass it [H.R. 3590] in the House, it's going to be the law of the land."
 
House members have received a March 5 memorandum from NRLC, posted here, which summarizes NRLC substantive objections to multiple provisions of the Senate bill, and sketches the political implications of the upcoming roll call.  NRLC said in part:  "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."
 
On March 6, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops disseminated to congressional offices a four-page memorandum titled, "What's Wrong With the Senate Health Care Bill on Abortion?  A Response to Professor Jost."  This memorandum is a concise and cogent rebuttal to one recent tendentious attempt to minimize the multiple ways in which the Senate bill departs, in the pro-abortion direction, from the principles of current law and from the substance of the abortion-related provisions adopted by the House last year (especially the Stupak-Pitts Amendment).  The memo explains how provisions of the Senate bill would result in direct federal funding of elective abortions, federal subsidies for plans that cover elective abortions (including some federally administered plans), and authority for federal officials to mandate inclusion of abortion coverage in private plans.  It also notes that the Senate bill lacks the vital abortion nondiscrimination language (the so-called "Weldon" provision) found in the House-passed health bill.  The USCCB memo is posted here.
 
On March 11, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a national alert, urging citizens to contact their representatives in the House to urge the defeat of the Senate bill.
 
The results of polls conducted very recently in 12 congressional districts by the polling companyTM, inc./WomanTrend, dealing with the abortion-related aspects of the health care debate, are posted here.

TAKE ACTION NOW!
 
Most political observers agree that if Speaker Pelosi does not succeed in ramming the Senate bill through the House by the time Congress goes into recess for Easter on March 26, the bill is very likely to die.  Whether she succeeds or not depends on what House members hear from their constituents during the days immediately ahead.  Each House member is ultimately accountable to the member's constituents -- not to the Speaker, who represents part of San Francisco.
 
Please immediately TELEPHONE the Washington, D.C. office of your U.S. House member.  Any U.S. House office can be reached through the Capitol Switchboard at 202-225-3121.

IL Constitution: Right to Life, Except for Babies?

IL Constitution: Right to Life, Except for Babies?



The first two sections of Article I in the Illinois Constitution seem to indicate a right to life.

    SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
     All men are by nature free and independent and have
    certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
    liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
    and the protection of property, governments are instituted
    among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
    governed.
    (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

    SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
     No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
    without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection
    of the laws.

    (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

This apparent right to life seems to be contradicted by the Attorney General of Illinois if she really made the claim that the Illinois Constitution contains a right to abortion (I have not yet been able to find a quote). I wonder if the right lies in one of those penumbras such as the libs like to pretend exist in the U.S. Constitution. Surely if the U.S. Constitution has penumbras which grant the liberal politician anything and everything his cold, black heart desires, shouldn't the same exist in our state constitution?

From the Thomas More Society:

    Chicago, Illinois March 12—Reacting to the recent claim by the Attorney General that the Illinois Constitution contains a right to abortion, attorneys from the Thomas More Society will appear in Cook County court on Monday, March 15, again seeking to intervene in the latest American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit, challenging the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.

    In Hope Clinic, et al., v. Brent Adams et al. (No. 09 CH 38661), Thomas More Society attorneys are representing Illinois State's Attorneys Stu Umholtz (R-Tazewell), Ed Deters (D-Effingham) and Ray Cavanaugh (R-Henderson), and maintain that because there is no right to abortion in the Illinois Constitution, the ACLU's latest challenge to parental notice is baseless. The Attorney General, representing various Illinois officials who are named as defendants, has moved to dismiss the case on other grounds.

    "Because the ACLU has already lost in federal court, its lawyers must prove in state court that the Illinois Constitution of 1970 guaranteed a right to abortion that was even stronger than the federal abortion right upheld in Roe v. Wade, handed down in 1973. This is an utter falsehood plainly belied by the historical record. Yet, instead of defending the Illinois Constitution, whose Framers clearly left the issue of abortion to the legislature, the Attorney General has tossed the Constitution aside and conceded to the ACLU on this key issue," stated Thomas Brejcha, President & Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society. "Illinois parents have a right to know before their kids are taken for abortions. If the Attorney General won't defend the parental notice law vigorously, we will do so, until the day when there are no more secret abortions performed on Illinois children.

If only the ACLU could view babies as fondly as it does terrorists and members of NAMBLA! Of course the affinity for NAMBLA fits well with the ACLU's affinity for the child molesters who rape and impregnate a minor. The ACLU will fight for the child rapist's ability to bring his victim to an Illinois abortion mill to have the baby killed without the messy interference from his victim's parents.

Back to the rights in the Illinois Constitution, which is it? Is there a right to life or is there a right to abortion? Obviously there could not be both since the act of abortion kills the baby. Or is there a right to life unless you happen to be age-impaired?

If there is a constitutional right to life, are all taxpayers being forced to violate it? It would appear to be the case given the existence of a law that requires taxpayer funded abortions for the poor. If pro-life taxpayers are having a portion of our tax dollars funneled to baby butchers, can we at least no longer be referred to as Taliban by lefty trolls who lurk on conservative web sites? I doubt the notion of the precious value of a baby's life is really the core belief held by the Taliban.

This is very confusing, can someone help me to understand? While you are at it, can you explain why the libs who seek the expansion of government and ever-increasing taxes (on others, but naturally not themselves) also seek to limit the pool of future taxpayers through abortion? Who do the idiots on the left expect to pay for all of the entitlements which accompany the Utopian welfare state?

UPDATE:

Arguments set in Illinois abortion notification case

Oral arguments are set in a case dealing with the enforcement of a long-debated Illinois law requiring a teenage girl's parents be notified before she has an abortion.

Arguments are scheduled for Monday in Chicago. In November the state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted to allow enforcement of the law, but hours later a judge issued a temporary restraining order putting the measure back on hold.

The Illinois law was passed in 1995, but never enforced because of various court actions.

The law requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before the teens get abortions. It requires no notice in a medical emergency or in cases of sexual abuse, and a provision allows girls to bypass parental notification by going to a judge.  Click here for more.

Contact: Sam Pierce
Source: IllinoisReview.com
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Illinois pro-lifers engaged in major challenge

Illinois pro-lifers engaged in major challenge



Pro-life groups in Illinois are waging a major battle against a bill designed to aggressively promote abortion.

The "Reproductive Health and Access Act" (HB 6205) is easily one of the most pro-abortion bills that has been introduced in any state, says Matt Yonke of the Pro-Life Action League.
 
"This bill would essentially entrench abortion as a fundamental human right in Illinois even if Roe v. Wade was overturned," he explains. "[It also] protects abortionists from prosecution in the event of a botched abortion, [and] expands 'comprehensive' sex-ed -- as Planned Parenthood likes to call it -- as far down as preschool."
 
pro-life sign bigThe pro-life activist says it could also dismantle parental notice when a minor seeks an abortion, which is a previously passed law that has been tied up in the courts for years. It is imperative, says Yonke, that state representatives understand their is public opposition to it.
 
"I think once they find out what's actually in the bill, we're going to have a lot of representatives opposed to it," he shares. "So I think we've got a great chance [to defeat it] -- especially if all the pro-lifers in Illinois call their reps, get their friends and family to call their reps, and, if it's at all possible, pay a visit to their district or Springfield offices."
 
Yonke says the bill would represent a massive expansion of abortion -- and he believes the people of Illinois will not stand for it. The Coalition to Defeat HB6205 says the "vast majority" of Illinois' citizens oppose the measure.
 
HB 6205 was passed out of committee last week and now goes to the House floor.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Scrambling for votes, Dems face uphill climb to pass health reform

Scrambling for votes, Dems face uphill climb to pass health reform

House Democratic leaders don't have the votes to pass healthcare reform. At least not yet.



Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has expressed confidence that when push comes to shove, healthcare reform will pass Congress. But there will be plenty of pushing in the days ahead.

Pelosi is clearly down in the vote count. Thirty-four House Democrats are either firm no votes or leaning no, according to The Hill's whip list. Dozens more are undecided.

The list of Democratic members who haven't committed ranges widely, from liberal Reps. Michael Capuano (Mass.) and Anthony Weiner (N.Y.) to centrist Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.) and Chris Carney (Pa.).

Two committee chairmen -- Reps. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) -- say they are firm nos and three others, Reps. John Spratt (D-S.C.), Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), are undecided.

If every House member votes and all Republicans reject the bill as expected, Pelosi can only afford 37 Democratic defections. That breakdown of the votes would lead to a 216-215 tally.

Of the 34 no votes/leaning no votes, eight of them backed the House-backed bill in November. Meanwhile, nine Democrats who voted no last fall are publicly on the fence.

Friday's decision by Democratic leaders to forge ahead without the backing of anti-abortion rights Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has dealt a blow to the chances the lower chamber can pass a health bill.

Lacking votes last November, Pelosi struck a deal with Stupak and the House measure subsequently passed, 220-215.

On Tuesday, Stupak told the Associated Press that he was "more optimistic" that a deal on the health bill's provisions on abortion would be reached.

But after days of discussions, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Friday such a compromise is unlikely.

Like Pelosi, Hoyer expressed confidence that the votes will be there when the bill hits the floor, which could be within a week.

Stupak has long said he and 11 other members who voted yes the first time will reject the final bill if it does not include strong anti-abortion language.

Yet there are indications that the number of votes Stupak has in his pocket may be closer to a half-dozen.

Earlier this week, Stupak told CQ, "Twelve's a firm number."

But in an interview with NRO Online on Friday, Stupak acknowledged that his coalition is cracking: "At this point, there is no doubt that they've been able to peel off one or two of my 12... I'm disappointed in my colleagues who said they'd be with us and now they're not."

Stupak said some Democrats "are having their arms twisted, and we're all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions."

Democrats who remain in Stupak's camp include Reps. Marion Berry (Ark.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Steve Driehaus (Ohio) and Dan Lipinski (Ill.).

Meanwhile, Rep. Dale Kildee (D), Stupak's colleague from Michigan, is a firm yes while Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has said the abortion language is not a deal breaker for her vote.

Reps. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio) and Oberstar are publicly undecided.

Most on Capitol Hill believe Oberstar, who heads the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will back the final measure.

In discussing hard-to-move legislation last year, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said discussions with on-the-fence lawmakers are essential.

"If the votes were there," Emanuel said at a Christian Science Monitor-sponsored breakfast, "you wouldn't need to have the meeting, you'd go to a roll call. OK?"

There will be many meetings in the House in the days ahead.

To pass a bill, Pelosi and her lieutenants need to convince a slew of Democrats to move from the undecided category to yes. As the no votes have piled up in recent days, it has become more apparent Pelosi may also need to have a few Democrats flip from leaning no to yes.

Pelosi on Friday suggested she wants a bill passed by March 21. At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Pelosi, President Barack Obama postponed an overseas trip several days so he can help collect votes for the legislation.

Congressional leaders facing a tough vote have historically expressed optimism. And not surprisingly, Pelosi earlier this week suggested she had the votes to pass a bill.

Sources on and off Capitol Hill say the Speaker is playing from behind and needs time to make her case to her caucus. That was part of the reason why House Democratic leaders this week pushed back at the White House for setting a March 18 deadline.

Pelosi is used to winning close votes. In 2007, she moved an Iraq war supplemental through the House that was fiercely opposed by President George W. Bush. She also defied the critics in 2009 by clearing a climate change bill, 219-212. A few months later, the House narrowly passed the health bill.

Click here to access the The Hill's whip list.

Contact: Bob Cusack
Source: The Hill
Publish Date: March 13, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Should Organs Be Harvestable From ERs?

Should Organs Be Harvestable From ERs?



The Washington Posthas a story about a pilot program to identify donatable organs from the cadvers of people who die in emergency rooms. From the story:

Using a $321,000 grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, the emergency departments at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Presbyterian Hospital and Allegheny General Hospitalin Pittsburgh have started rapidly identifying donors among patients whom doctors are unable to save and taking steps to preserve their organs so a transplant team can rush to try to retrieve them. Obtaining organs from emergency room patients has long been considered off-limits in the United States because of ethical and logistical concerns. This pilot project aims to investigate whether it is feasible and, if so, to encourage other hospitals nationwide to follow. So far, neither hospital has yet gotten any usable organs. "This is about helping people who have declared themselves to be donors, but die in a place where donation is currently not possible," said Clifton W. Callaway, an associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pittsburgh who is leading the project. "It's also about helping the large number of people awaiting transplants who could die waiting because of the shortage of organs."

The organ shortage is real and we should do what we can–within proper ethical parameters–to shorten waiting times. But, as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details.  The questions about this approach are real and substantive:

One concern is that under the program, doctors will take organs from people who have agreed to become donors by checking off a box on their driver's license or by signing up on a state registry, and will not seek a family member's consent if one is not present. "The problem is there's no real informed consent in driver's license designations," said David Crippen, an associate professor of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. "The computer asks, 'Would you like to be a donor — yes or no.' . . . Many people may be consenting to something that they really don't understand."

Some experts worry that the practice could send subtle signals to doctors and nurses that could influence how hard they work to save patients. "When you do this stuff in such close proximity to treating the patient, the people in the emergency room will quickly start to think, 'This is a potential organ donor,' even when they are treating the patient," said Michael A. Grodin, a medical ethicist at Boston University. "People are going to wonder, if they are being treated in the ER, 'Are the transplant people going to swoop down to get my organs?' "

Imagine the paranoid questions that could arise in the minds of grieving loved ones in such circumstances–particularly if "presumed consent" ever became law, that is, we would all be donors unless we explicitly opted out. On the other hand, the plans proponents assure us that such concerns would be prevented:

The project's organizers have taken several steps to address the concerns, Callaway said. No one will check whether a patient is an organ donor until after the patient has been declared dead, he said. The medical personnel involved in trying to save patients will be completely separate from those involved in obtaining their organs. "If I were simultaneously given the task for being part of the transplant team, and that was in the back of my head, I might have some conflicting priority that your death may benefit someone else," Callaway said.

But many questions remain:

Some critics question whether patients pronounced dead in the emergency room meet the official criteria for organ donation, or whether there are enough safeguards in place in case someone pronounced dead unexpectedly revives — which can happen, though very rarely…"There's no consensus regarding how long CPR must be performed before death is determined as irreversible. In other words, when in the resuscitation process does the patient transition from being treated as a patient to a donor?" Whetstine asked. "Are such patients really dead after resuscitation efforts end and after a time interval of two minutes of cessation of circulation elapses?"

But Callaway dismissed any suggestion that the patients technically may not be dead. Only patients for whom everything has been done, and who it is clear cannot be revived, will be considered, he said. "This is donation after cardiac death. No heartbeat. No breathing. Dead. Clinically dead. There is an unambiguous death," he said.

That's the key. I don't know enough about this pilot program to express an opinion.  If it could be done ethically–people who clearly had consented to donation, who were medically treated properly, and only had organs procured when there was no question of death–it might work.

 But these are trecherous waters. The trust of the public in organ donation is very much at stake in this pilot program. I hope its overseers tread very carefully and conservatively.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Christian Medical Association Physicians Oppose Healthcare Bill on Abortion, Conscience

Christian Medical Association Physicians Oppose Healthcare Bill on Abortion, Conscience



The 17,000 members of the Christian Medical Association today urged Members of the House of Representatives to vote against the controversial healthcare overhaul bill approved by the Senate, H.R. 3590.

In a letter to all Members of the House, CMA CEO David Stevens, MD noted that "The CMA strongly opposes this legislation because it fails to provide strong conscience protections for healthcare professionals, allows direct federal funding of elective abortions in community health centers and allows federal funds to subsidize health plans covering abortions."

CMA has led a national coalition of 50 organizations, Freedom2Care, to fight for conscience rights for healthcare professionals.

Dr. Stevens noted in the letter, "A national survey of faith-based physicians shows that the failure to protect the rights of healthcare professionals to decline to participate not only in abortion but also in other morally controversial procedures and prescriptions, may cause up to 95 percent of faith- based physicians to leave medicine. Since faith- based physicians provide much of the care for poor patients and those in medically underserved areas, their exodus would lead to a national crisis of access to care of catastrophic proportion."

Dr. Stevens also wrote, "The CMA strongly supports funding for community health centers, and many of our physicians work full-time, part-time and on a volunteer basis caring for the poor. But we cannot support federal funding for abortions that will result in yet more abortions while violating the clear will of the American people who do not want their tax dollars used to pay for them."

On the issue of federal subsidy of abortions, Dr. Stevens wrote, "Such funding, however cleverly designed to obscure the result, clearly violates the longstanding Hyde amendment and related laws. Such funding also violates the President's oft- repeated pledge to maintain the status quo on abortion funding. Besides the obvious moral wrong of funding abortions, this policy will also have negative economic consequences. Incentivized by new insurance subsidies, abortionists will simply raise prices and increase their profits. Increased abortions will rob the country of much of the younger generation that otherwise would help avert the financial strain of a top-heavy older population."

The letter also noted "government intrusion into physician-patient decision making and the allocation of medical resources, the absence of meaningful tort reform that is desperately needed to prevent the loss of some of our best physicians--especially obstetricians and gynecologists, and the lack of bipartisan and public support that should undergird any legislation of this magnitude."

Dr. Stevens urged Members to "pursue a new bipartisan, measured and focused approach to true healthcare reform. Seven key principles our members look for in healthcare reform include cost containment, quality assurance, access for the poor, economic fairness, ethical protection, prevention focus and personal responsibility."

Contact: Margie Shealy
Source: Christian Medical Association
Publish Date: March 15, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

U.S. Young Adults More Pro-Life: Gallu

U.S. Young Adults More Pro-Life: Gallup
 
The percentage of young adults in the U.S. favouring legalized abortion has undergone a significant drop, falling below all other age groups except seniors, according to a Gallup poll released Friday.

The poll results also indicate that young adults are now the group most likely (23%) to favor making abortion illegal in all circumstances.

Michael Barnett, director of American Life League's LiveCampus project, said the poll backs anecdotal evidence gathered on college campuses nationwide.

"Abortion doesn't make sense to a generation that wants social justice for all human beings," said Barnett. "It doesn't take a Gallup poll to see that decades of decriminalized abortion have left an undeniable void in the lives of millennials – brothers, sisters and future classmates whose rights were denied even in the womb."

LiveCampus is a program designed to train and activate pro-life leaders on the nation's top campuses while developing resources for pregnant and parenting students, closing local abortion mills and creating counseling programs for post-abortive women.

"What we're seeing is a generation that views attacks on human beings' lives – such as abortion – as human rights abuses," noted Barnett. "As that generation gap widens, legislators hoping to attract the youth vote and pass 'health care reform' are going to have to come to grips with that."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: March 12, 2010
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.