September 16, 2009

Parents of children with disabilities tell Congress: "No rationing for our kids"

Parents of children with disabilities tell Congress: "No rationing for our kids"



Over a dozen parents with children with disabilities joined Congresspersons Cathy McMorris-Rodgers and Trent Franks today in a press conference to reveal rationing in healthcare bill.

The group came together under the Healthcare For Gunner coalition to educate President Obama and Congress know that it will be their children and families who suffer the most and be denied critical care under current health care reform plans.

According to the press release:

"I want my family and my doctor to control my son's healthcare decision, not a government-appointed committee," said Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America and founder of Healthcare for Gunner. "Should President Obama get his way, the life of my son, and millions across the country who are elderly, chronically ill, or require expensive medical treatment, will be at the hands of some bureaucrat in Washington."...



The parents issued a white paper on the effects of rationing as well as a letter to President Obama and House and Senate Leadership, detailing the severe repercussions of comparative effectiveness and Washington bureaucrats deciding who gets to live and die.

To see how rationing of health care would work for the disabled, look no further than other countries that have similar systems, like Canada and the United Kingdom. Just last week, a baby in the UK was born prematurely and the doctors refused to provide medical care because the government would not allow it. The mother said she was shocked "to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived."

Barb Farlow spoke today about her daughter, Annie, who was born with a genetic condition associated with grim statistics and serious disabilities. Annie died in a Canadian hospital 80 days after her birth. Barb investigated and was horrified at the results:

"We later discovered that no diagnostic tests had been done and a "do not resuscitate order" was written before we had provided consent," said Barb. "The discovery that our fundamental, parental rights had been violated in such a manner without cause has left us shocked and devastated. Sadly, we believe that to our medical system Annie was not a child but a label with associated statistics and a price tag. We will never know Annie's potential and so we grieve her death and the life she might have had."

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: September 15, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

The Public's Growing Disenchantment With News Organizations

The Public's Growing Disenchantment With News Organizations

"The public's assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americans' views of media bias and independence now match previous lows. Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate."
     From "Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low," from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, published this week.

"Every institution that doesn't understand that the technology is finally here to allow people to reject what they're being given and demand what they want had better start paying attention. The revolution comes for you next."
     From "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything," by Joe Trippi.

"His [President Obama's] incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says."
     From George Will's September 15 column in Newsweek.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, okay, I concede that the preceding quotes are not exactly state secrets. The public, which has grown increasingly skeptical of the "media," seems to be approaching a full-fledged flight at the same time President Obama, seemingly ubiquitous, offers ever-changing rationales for his policies.


Pro-abortion President Barack Obama
and pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius


The public's mounting disenchantment with news organizations starts but by no means end with the belief that increasingly they don't get their facts straight. In addition, "[O]nly about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased," Pew reported. "And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows."

The Associate Press chimed in, in its story about the report (based on a survey of 1,506 adults) that, "The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil."

As noted above, "Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate." In 1985, Pew's first survey found that "55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate."

What does this have to do with Joe Trippi's over-the-top but intriguing comment, or the implication of George Will's column that the more Obama speaks, the less people believe him? Glad you asked.

Trippi believes the Internet is the great leveler, an antidote to a system run top down by those who would "horde" information--first and foremost television. Because of the Internet, you and I no longer have to rely on the established news organizations to tell us the truth, or wait for them to acknowledge organizations and Movements they do not approve of. According to Pew the Internet is second only to television (and ahead of newspapers) as a source of information on local, national, and international news.

Will's critique of Obama is devastating. Most of the issues that Will uses to illustrate the shifting rhetoric (and justifications) that Obama employs are not our concerns, as single-issue pro-lifers.

But the principle is spot on, whether it is the threat of rationing or the promise of turbo-charging the Abortion Industry's financial engine: Obama's justifications are "slippery" (Will) or incoherent (my description).

There was a fascinating piece in yesterday's Washington Times that is helpful in this context. The subject matter was not abortion, but the gist of the op-ed was that you really can't accuse someone of not telling the whole and unvarnished truth when they say "x,y, z" if they don't themselves have a specific proposal on the table. But the truth is they may be using the words in a manner that is highly misleading.

For example, take the comments made Sunday on "This Week" by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Host George Stephanopoulos summarized Sebelius as saying "that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." This gets tricky, so please stay with me.

The question is, are Obama and Sebelius using the words "federal funds" in the way that the term is used in law and throughout the government? When we remember what Obama has said in the past (and to whom) and then recall how carefully he has feinted in a direction that allows reporters who want to bolster Obama to write helpful stories, we are deeply skeptical.

Going back to the Pew results one last time, there are lots of ways reporters can be inaccurate and used for partisan purposes other than getting the date wrong and outwardly shilling for one party. And for the last year and a half in particular, we've seen example after depressing example.

No wonder the public's trust is news organizations is one the wane.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: September 15, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Czech Pro-Life Group Urges NO to Irish Lisbon Vote

Czech Pro-Life Group Urges NO to Irish Lisbon Vote


The Lisbon Treaty  

A leading Czech pro-life group has urged Irish voters to reject the Lisbon Treaty in their upcoming second referendum, saying a Yes vote will threaten the Irish constitutional guarantees for the unborn. In fact, if the Irish vote Yes in October, the group says, national laws protecting human life in all EU member states could be overturned.

The Pro-Life Movement of the Czech Republic said that under Lisbon, the European Union's Court of Human Rights will supersede the rights of individual nations to "regulate sensitive ethical norms" internally. As such, the ratification and application of the Lisbon Treaty, the document proposed to replace the defeated EU Constitution, will directly threaten those national laws in countries like Ireland, Malta and Poland that protect the unborn.

The group warned that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Human Rights "does not mention this point specifically, the European Court, within the context of its extensive powers of interpretation of the Charter and the judiciary powers it derives therefrom, may de facto legalise a so-called 'right to abortion' or 'right to euthanasia' for the whole of the European Union."

The Pro-Life Movement also pointed to the so-called "guarantees" obtained by the Irish government that are being touted as a safeguard for Irish national rights in case Lisbon is ratified. These, they said, "do not have sufficient legal weight because they are of a merely legally non-binding declaratory character."

The only way to make these "guarantees" binding, they said, would be to insert them into the wording of Lisbon itself as amendments, which changes would have to be ratified once more in all member states of the European Union.

"Ireland," the group added, is "now deciding not only about the future of its own country, but also whether norms decided at the European level will widen the possibilities of attacks against human life to apply to all the member states of the European Union, including the Czech Republic."

Other pro-life leaders have made similar points in recent months. Pat Buckley, the representative at Brussels of Britain's Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), told LifeSiteNews.com in July that under Lisbon the Irish constitutional guarantees protecting human life risk being declared by the EU Court of Justice to be contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even though no "right to abortion" exists on paper.

The Lisbon Treaty has been criticised by many in Europe as being effectively identical to the 300-page EU Constitution that was defeated in 2005 by referenda in the Netherlands and France. Pro-democracy groups have warned that the Lisbon Treaty will enable EU institutions to override national laws and effectively negate national sovereignty in a swathe of areas from defence to taxation to labour laws.

Declaration 17 of the Lisbon Treaty says that the EU would have primacy over the laws of member states: "The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law."

A year ago Ireland, the last country in the EU to retain the right of the public to vote on the ratification of Lisbon, voted No to adopting Lisbon, effectively scuppering the whole process which requires the unanimous consent of all member states. Ireland was then placed under immense pressure from EU officials to do a replay, prompting jeers and outrage  from many quarters saying that the EU apparently did not know the meaning of the word "No." The pro-EU Irish government at last agreed to a second referendum, set for October.

Meanwhile, the debate over Lisbon ratification continues around the EU, with more demands for referendums. This week, a YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph found that 57 per cent of UK voters think a future Conservative government should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even if it is already ratified when it is elected. The same poll found that 43 per cent said Britain should leave the EU altogether.

David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is likely to be Britain's next Prime Minister, has said that Britain should remain "in Europe, not ruled by Europe." It has been revealed that even without the Lisbon Treaty, on the order of 80 per cent of British laws are no longer made by her native Parliament, but are put in place by rubber stamping EU directives and regulations.

Tory MP Peter Lilley told the House of Commons in June 2008, "The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions. Even that huge tally ignores the extent to which our powers are diminished by our inability to do things that we would like to do because they would conflict with European law.

"When I was a Minister, officials would frequently say, 'No, Minister, you can't do that', because something was within the exclusive competence of the European Union."

Among those who objected to the pressure on Ireland for a second referendum was British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan who told the EU Parliament in June that it is becoming clear that the Lisbon Treaty will be implemented no matter what individual national governments may decide. The "tactic," he said, is to "disregard the votes and implement the Lisbon Treaty as though the electorates of France, the Netherlands and Ireland had in fact voted yes."

"One by one the most contentious articles and provisions are being brought in…And then you're going to turn around to the Irish electorate and say, 'Well, it's too late to vote no now because we've implemented the whole thing so all you would be doing is annoying everybody and isolating yourselves.' When in fact the bulk of the Lisbon Treaty is already in force de facto if not de jure."

Hannan added that he did not know what the Irish would decide in October, but "these are, after all, the people who saw off the might of the British Empire. If they now give in to the European Parliament, I think they would be diminished as a people."

Contact: Hilary White
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: September 16, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Many U.K. Families are Not Told When Doctors Deny Loved Ones Treatment, Report Has Found

Many U.K. Families are Not Told When Doctors Deny Loved Ones Treatment, Report Has Found



According to a new report, more than a quarter of U.K. families are not told when their loved ones are taken off of life support, reports the Daily Mail.  Researchers from the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool conducted an audit of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, the end-of-life care plan that has brought 'slow' euthanasia into Britain through the back door.

The Pathway, approved by the National Health Service (NHS), allows doctors to deny "treatment," including food and water, to patients they deem incurable and put them in continuous deep sedation until they die.  According to the Daily Mail, this protocol is used in 300 hospitals and 560 care homes across the country.



According to the report, 28 percent of the patients' relatives were not told that their loved one had been put on the pathway.  In fact, doctors are not required by law to consult patients' families - Britain's 2005 Mental Capacity Act has given them the power to make decisions on behalf of patients who they deem mentally incapable without requiring them to heed the wishes of patients' families.  Social services and police have even been called to intervene in certain cases where families attempt to save the lives of their loved ones.

Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, confirmed other reports that the protocol is being used to kill patients that are not actually dying.  "The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time," he told the Daily Mail.  "Discussions about the future of patients are being bypassed; the supportive nature of hospitals has gone. We are hearing complaints from all round the country.

"Governments have got rid of respite care and geriatric wards, so we're left with a crisis," he continued.  "The Government has said let's develop a service to help people die at home - what they should be doing is helping them live. Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment."

"The problem is that there isn't enough discussion between doctors and patients and their relatives," he said.  "Nobody is talking to them."

The average age of the 4,000 patients audited was 81.  Thirty-nine per cent had cancer, and others had conditions such as dementia, stroke, pneumonia, organ failure, and dementia.  Patients averaged 33 hours on the pathway before death.

The BBC reported last month that continuous deep sedation is increasingly being used by U.K. doctors to slowly euthanize their patients.  The practice of continuous deep sedation is estimated to be associated with 16.5 percent of all deaths in the country.

While, according to Euthanasia Prevention Coalition executive director Alex Schadenberg, the practice of deep sedation can legitimately be used to alleviate pain in certain extreme cases, he also warns that it "can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically."  Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com last month that "a good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: September 15, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR WEDNESDAY
(Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

About 250 Gather to Remember Slain Pro-Lifer


More than 250 people, including family members, friends and allies, gathered Wednesday to remember an anti-abortion protester who was killed in a drive-by shooting.
 
James Pouillon, 63, was gunned down on Friday while standing with a sign depicting a dead fetus at his usual spot across the street from Owosso High School, about 70 miles northwest of Detroit. He was the first of two people shot dead that day by 33-year-old trucker Harlan Drake, prosecutors said.
 
The service began with a prayer led by Pastor Elmer Cox of Lansing, who asked that Drake "be forgiven for what he has done."
 
Several people attending the service wore shirts with anti-abortion messages on them. The service was held at the high school stadium instead of a funeral home to accomodate the crowd.
Click here for the full article.


HHS Gives Millions to States for Adoption
 
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has awarded $35 million to 38 states and Puerto Rico.  The Adoption Incentives program is part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Kathleen Strottman, executive director of the nonpartisan Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, said her group has been working to have this important program reauthorized.

"I think it's a wonderful step forward," she said. "It shows an incredibly important first sign from the Obama administration that this is an issue that they care about."
Click here for the full article.



HHS Sec. Sebelius Discusses Health Reform, Support For Abortion Rights In Washington Post Interview


In an interview published in Tuesday's Washington Post, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that she supports President Obama's comment in his recent health reform speech that a health overhaul will not include federal funding for abortion. When asked if she thinks the federal government should provide some federal funding for abortion services, Sebelius said that the president "has made it pretty clear that Congress and the new health insurance plan will not provide federal funds for abortions," adding, "I am the secretary of Health and Human Services, and I will support the president's proposal moving forward."

Sebelius also discussed her experiences as a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights, specifically an instance when the Kansas City, Mo., archbishop asked that she not present herself for Holy Communion. Sebelius said that it was "one of the most painful things I have ever experienced in my life," adding that she is a "firm believer in the separation of church and state." She said that her "actions as a parishioner are different than my actions as a public official" and that the "people who elected me [as governor] in Kansas had a right to expect me to uphold their rights and their beliefs even if they did not have the same religious beliefs that I had." She continued, "And that's what I did: I took an oath of office, and I have taken an oath of office in this job and will uphold the law".
Click here for the full article.


Negotiations Continue As Senate Finance Committee Prepares To Release Health Reform Bill

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on Monday said the bipartisan "Gang of Six" negotiating group needs more time to discuss several outstanding details of its health reform bill, The Hill reports. The measure will now be released on Wednesday, a day later than originally anticipated, Baucus said.

According to the AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, members of the negotiating group emerged from a Monday meeting having "narrowed their differences on a host of difficult issues" -- such as prohibiting federal subsidies for undocumented immigrants to obtain health coverage and prohibiting federal dollars from being spent on abortion services -- in their bid to reach a bipartisan agreement on the bill.
Click here for the full article.


FDA Approves New Swine Flu Vaccine

The Food and Drug Administration approved the new swine flu vaccine Tuesday, a long-anticipated step as the government works to start mass vaccinations next month. Limited supplies should start trickling out the first week of October - about a week earlier than expected, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Congress. Then about 45 million doses should arrive around Oct. 15, followed by more shipments each week.
 
She said they'll be available at up to 90,000 sites, including schools and clinics, across the U.S. that state health departments have chosen as best at getting the shots out fast.
 
Eventually, "we will have enough vaccine available for everyone," Sebelius said.

Studies in children and pregnant women are continuing to settle on the right dose for those populations.
Click here for the full article.


Pro-Life Group Needs Money, Close to Shutting Down

Operation Rescue, one of the nation's highest-profile groups in the anti-abortion movement, has told its supporters it is facing a "major financial crisis" and is very close to shutting down unless emergency help arrives soon.
 
The group's president, Troy Newman, blamed the economic downturn for its money woes in a desperate plea e-mailed Monday night to donors. But the Wichita-based organization has also been under attack from both fringe anti-abortion militants and abortion rights supporters since the May 31 shooting death of Dr. George Tiller.
Click here for the full article.


Two Abortion-Rights Groups File Lawsuits Against Arizona Law Restricting Abortion Access

On Monday, two abortion-rights groups filed lawsuits in Arizona and federal courts in an attempt to block a new state law that imposes several restrictions on abortion, the AP/Yuma Sun reports. Planned Parenthood Arizona filed its lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court, while the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a separate but related lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of plaintiffs that include Tucson abortion providers. Suzanne Novak, a senior staff attorney at CRR, said both groups were aware of each other's lawsuits but did not coordinate their efforts.

The suits challenge several provisions in the law, which was signed on July 13 and is scheduled to take effect on Sept. 30. Among the provisions being challenged are requirements that only physicians may perform surgical abortions, that abortion providers give patients specific information about procedures, risks and alternatives 24 hours prior to the procedure; that physicians provide the information in person; and that women are prohibited from paying for health services on the same day of the abortion consultation. The law also expanded the ability of health care workers to refuse to "facilitate" an abortion or access to emergency contraception.
Click here for the full article.

September 11, 2009

Tens of Thousands to Protest Obamacare in Washington

Tens of Thousands to Protest Obamacare in Washington

27 Hour Prayer Vigil Begins on Sunday

http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/IMG_9101.jpg

Americans converging on Washington for protests and rallies against President Obama's health-care reforms this weekend intend to fight like it all depends on them, and pray like it all depends on God.

Buses packed with protestors from around the nation, including those on the famous "Tea Party Express," are set to converge on Washington and march upon the nation's Capitol to express their collective dissent with Congressional plans to radically reform the health-care system in the United States. Estimates for the numbers of protestors expected to arrive number anywhere between 50,000 to 100,000.

But after this weekend's marching and meeting with public representatives in Washington is done, a group of pro-life, Christian, and other leaders will initiate a public vigil to pray that taxpayer funding of abortion will not end up the final version of the current congressional health care plans under consideration in Congress.

Twenty-seven hours of prayer will begin on Sunday, September 13 at 7:00 P.M. and will conclude on Monday, September 14 at 10:00 P.M.

"Our nation is in more than an economic crisis or a crisis over health care.  We are in a spiritual crisis and the best way to address it, in fact the only way to address it is through prayer," said Rev. Rob Schenck, President of Faith and Action. 

"Every American, no matter how young or old, can and must pray."

The current version of the Obama health-care plan in the House of Representatives includes a so-called "compromise" measure on abortion called the Capps Amendment, which pro-life advocates say does not eliminate public subsidies for abortion and is no compromise. Instead, they point out that, thanks to this amendment, H.R. 3200 now mandates that at least one insurance plan provide coverage for abortion in every area in the United States. The bill also creates new streams of revenue not restricted by current federal laws such as the Hyde Amendment, which can be used to subsidize abortions under the public option and go to subsidize insurance companies that cover abortions in the form of "affordability credits."

"In times of great challenge and crisis, Americans have always turned to God in prayer.  We have set these 27 hours apart to seek God for his wisdom, direction and counsel for our nation. This is especially true concerning the national debate on health care," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition.

Mahoney said that the faith leaders will gather on the West Lawn of the United States Capitol to pray to God that public money is not used to subsidize abortion and that any health reform coming out of Congress will genuinely embrace "social justice and human rights." 
 
"We will be a bold public and prophetic witness that abortion is not health care and that health care reform should bring healing and compassion, not violence and brokenness. As people of faith, we do not have to sit on the sidelines and watch as events unfold on the world state," continued Mahoney. "Rather, through prayer, fasting and repentance we can help shape history."

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Activist Shot and Killed in Michigan

Pro-Life Activist Shot and Killed in Michigan

http://www.jillstanek.com/images/shooting.jpg

A pro-life activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School in Michigan, according to local police cited in the Flint Journal newspaper. 

Locals say that the victim, James Pouillon of Owosso, was well-known in the area for his pro-life activities.  Local columnist Doug Powers wrote on his blog that Pouillon, known as “the abortion sign guy," was known for standing on street corners holding up signs with pictures of aborted children.

A second individual was shot and killed in a different area of the city shortly afterward, and the two shootings are believed to be related, according to Shiawassee County sheriff George Braidwood. Police confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody at the suspect's home shortly after the 7:30 a.m. shooting. 

A black car was parked near the scene of the shooting, where a portable oxygen tank lay in a front yard next to a large sign with the word "Life" and an image of a baby.

In the wake of the tragedy, Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life told LifeSiteNews.com that he hoped to see "a strong expression of indignation from the pro-abortion community, just like there was a strong expression of indignation form the pro-life community at the killing of Dr. Tiller."

Secondly, Fr. Pavone called for "a renewal of unity within the pro-life community, coming to one another's assistance supporting one another, and by no means allowing fear or intimidation to have any role in our lives, but rather to move forward in peaceful organized ways to stand against this evil of abortion."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: September 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-life Democrat Stupak demands vote on Hyde Amendment for reform bill

Pro-life Democrat Stupak demands vote on Hyde Amendment for reform bill
 
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/bartStupakNancyPelosi.jpg
Rep. Bart Stupak / Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak has said he can block proposed health care reform legislation unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) allows a vote on a Hyde Amendment to the bill.

The Hyde Amendment, named after the late U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) prohibits taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortions. The current health care bill, H.R. 3200, is under fire for measures that allow federal funds to circumvent the Hyde Amendment and also mandate insurance coverage of abortion.

Rep. Stupak of Michigan claimed he has as many as 39 Democratic allies who could join Republicans to block the complete legislation from coming to a vote unless the House leadership allows a vote on a Hyde Amendment.

“If you don’t give us a vote, everything is off the table,” he said in an interview with CBN. He added that he didn’t want any “backdoor policies” on abortion.

Rep. Stupak explained that he was “very cautious” on the matter because any “right-to-life riders” pro-lifers have sought to add to prevent abortion funding have been denied or have had their language “watered down” under the current administration.

“We want to see the language [of the bill], we want to work with pro-life groups, we want to make sure we’re doing everything right,” he told CBN.

The proposed House bill is a “drastic change” from past national policy on public funding for abortion, Stupak remarked, adding that he did not want to jeopardize the “sanctity of life” both at its beginning and at its end.

Rep. Stupak also said he would not vote for the final bill unless he thoroughly reviewed it.

Source:
CNA
Publish Date: September 11, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obama pushes health care; pro-lifers remain skeptical

Obama pushes health care; pro-lifers remain skeptical

http://www.bpnews.net/download.asp?file=images/IMG20099102371HI.jpg

President Obama exhorted Congress to pass health-care reform according to a plan he outlined Sept. 9, but his speech did little to allay the concerns of most critics, especially regarding federal funding of abortion.

Addressing a joint session of Congress and a national television audience, Obama sought to regain momentum on an initiative for which support has been faltering increasingly in recent months. Afterward, it remained to be seen if the speech would revive his push for health-care reform. It appeared the differences over the president's proposal may only have hardened in some sectors of the debate, and he still faced the challenge of convincing moderate members of his own party to back his plan.

The plan Obama was "announcing" to the joint session, he said, would address the goals of providing "more security and stability" for those with health insurance and coverage for those without insurance, as well as slowing the increase in health-care costs.

He told Congress and the American public "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." He continued to promote a public, or government-run, option, saying the White House believes less than five percent of Americans would enroll in such a plan.

The president said he would not support a bill that increases the deficit or uses money from the Medicare trust fund to underwrite health care reform. He said the plan's $900 billion cost over 10 years would be met primarily by cutting waste in the present health-care system.

Obama also took issue with what he described as "scare tactics," saying, "[T]he time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

He called the charge his plan would establish bureaucratic panels with the "power to kill off" seniors "a lie, plain and simple." Obama said the allegation his plan would provide coverage for illegal immigrants is untrue. He also said, "[U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."

The president's 47-minute speech did not persuade Republicans in Congress and most pro-life advocates, based on their reactions.

Southern Baptist public policy specialist Richard Land said Obama was unconvincing on the abortion-funding problem and may not have helped himself by his approach.

"I found the tone of the president's speech startlingly combative for a presidential address to a joint session of Congress," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). "It had more of the tone of a campaign speech by a presidential candidate rather than a president of the United States addressing Congress. I fear that tone will make health-care reform more difficult rather than less.

"There are deep and substantive policy differences among the various, competing solutions that have been proposed to reform health care," Land told Baptist Press. "It is neither fair nor helpful for the president to dismiss those who disagree with him as not wanting to reform health care. There are numerous alternative approaches to the president's that would address significant issues in our health care delivery system in America. These should be debated constructively and without name-calling."

Sen. Tom Coburn, R.-Okla., an obstetrician-gynecologist, also expressed concern about Obama's approach, saying the plans already approved by House and Senate committees do not match the plan he presented in the speech.

"If the president means what he says, he needs to tell House [of Representatives] and Senate Democrats to start over," Coburn said in a written statement. "Both the House and Senate bills do, in fact, set the stage for health-care rationing, taxpayer-funded abortion and a government takeover of the health-care system. Suggesting that these radical provisions are the result of scare tactics or spin, rather than the decisions of committee leaders, is counterproductive."

Coburn also said independent studies had estimated a public option could result in more than 100 million people losing their private health insurance.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California predicted after the speech her chamber would pass legislation this year, saying, "Those who oppose reform and support the status quo are only helping to bankrupt our economy and middle-class families."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hoped to have a bill approved by Thanksgiving, according to Congressional Quarterly.

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana said the president "delivered one more speech about the same bad plan. The president missed a historic opportunity to demonstrate that Washington, D.C., can listen to the American people and work together to confront the challenges facing our families and businesses."

Though Obama presented his proposal as a new plan, most pro-lifers did not react to his assurance on abortion funding as if they expected a new version without the troubling provision in the House bill that explicitly authorizes funding for elective abortions. Obama previously has denied the House bill would underwrite abortions, but pro-life organizations have said the president has misrepresented the legislation. Committees in both the House and Senate rejected efforts to exclude abortion funding from health care legislation.

Douglas Johnson, longtime legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, told BP he is "sure that the Democratic leadership will get in the backroom and tweak the bill in some respects, but we have no indication that they are prepared to accept language that would prevent the public plan from covering elective abortions or prevent the federal premium subsidies from going to private plans that pay for abortions. Everything that they're putting out is to the contrary. Just as a hypothetical, if they do reach the conclusion at some point that they should do that, all they have to do is accept the Stupak amendment."

At a Sept. 10 news conference, Rep. Joe Pitts, R.-Pa., confirmed that he and Rep. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., would seek to gain a floor vote on an amendment to prevent abortion funding under the leading House bill, H.R. 3200. Stupak and Pitts promoted two amendments in the House Energy and Commerce Committee to exclude abortion funding from the bill, but both were narrowly defeated.

Land told BP, "The president is simply not credible when he says there are no plans to cover abortion in the Democrats' proposed health-care reforms. Tonsillectomies and appendectomies are not specifically mentioned in the legislation either, but they are covered.

"If it is not intended that abortion be covered as a basic service, then why have Representative [Henry] Waxman [of California] and Speaker Pelosi fought like tigers to defeat proposals by pro-life Democrats and Republicans in committee to specifically exclude abortion as a covered procedure?" Land asked. "If it's not covered, then why twist arms and make threats to stop its specific exclusion?"

At least two advocates for removing abortion coverage took Obama's speech as a signal he had addressed such concerns.

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a written release he welcomed Obama's "commitment to exclude federal funding of abortion, and to maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care."

Evangelical left leader Jim Wallis of Sojourners said in a written statement the president gave the "public commitment tonight" Wallis was seeking on abortion funding and conscience laws.

Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said Obama could keep his promise by changing the legislation.

"If it won't use taxpayer funds for abortion -- put it in writing in the bill," she said in a written statement. "If it will protect doctors from violating their conscience by forcing them to commit abortions, put it in clear, no-nonsense language in the bill."

In a nine-page analysis released in early August, the ERLC not only said the House bill would authorize abortion funding but said the legislation approved by three committees "will lead to diminished health care for most Americans, less choice, higher taxes and unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to marriage, to individual liberty."

The ELRC analysis is available online at www.erlc.com.

Land joined other radio talk show hosts Sept. 9 in presenting to members of Congress a petition signed by more than 1.3 million Americans opposed to the Democrats' health-care legislation.

Contact: Tom Strode

Source: BP
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  

Send this article to a friend.

4 reasons pro-lifers are unconvinced

4 reasons pro-lifers are unconvinced

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-090224-obama-address/ss-090223-obama-address-tease.300w.jpg

President Obama's pledge Wednesday to Congress and the nation that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" under his health care plan was immediately met by skepticism from pro-lifers.

Following are four reasons why social conservatives are unconvinced of Obama's assertion during his Sept. 9 address to Congress:

1) The leading House health care proposal, H.R. 3200, would allow elective abortions. Both sides agree on that point; the divide comes over the abortion funding and whether it is considered federal money. Under an amendment to H.R. 3200 known as the Capps amendment, abortions could be funded in a government-run public option through enrollees' premiums, which the amendment does not consider to be public funds. The amendment was proposed as a compromise by Rep. Lois Capps, D.-Calif., who is pro-choice. Pro-lifers, though, mostly voted in bloc against it. Conservatives consider the amendment's logic to be nonsense. "You have a federal agency collecting these monies, getting bills from the abortionists and sending checks to the abortionists drawn on a federal account," National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson told Baptist Press. "... The federal government is running the whole scheme from start to finish." H.R. 3200 also would allow private plans that receive federal subsidies to cover abortions -- as long as those companies segregate their money internally and don't use the federal money for the abortions.

2) Amendments were defeated in the House and Senate that would have explicitly prohibited abortion coverage in the health care plan. Two such amendments were offered and defeated in late July in the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Reps. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., and Joe Pitts, R.-Pa. One would have prohibited abortion from being required as part of a basic health benefits package in a public option and private plans. The other would have barred federal funds from paying for an abortion or covering any part of a health plan that includes coverage of abortion.

3) Obama, as a candidate, supported incorporating public funding of abortion in a health care plan. He told Planned Parenthood during a 2007 speech that "reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center, the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose." He also said during the same speech, "We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care."

4) Independent analysts have criticized Obama's use of the facts on the issue. The New York Times, in a Sept. 10 story examining his speech, wrote, "[H]is assertion that 'no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions' is not ... clear-cut." It asserted, regarding the proposal to pay for abortions only out of premium money, "[I]n practice, the public and private money would all go into the same pot, and the source of money for any single procedure is largely a technicality." Likewise, Time magazine, in an Aug. 24 article, took Obama to task for a comment he made that there would be no government funding of abortion. The comment, Time said, "does not tell the whole story." Time wrote, "The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government's role in the financing of abortions." Similarly, the non-partisan FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, concluded, "As for the House bill as it stands now, it's a matter of fact that it would allow both a 'public plan' and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions." Pro-lifers fear that if abortions are publicly funded and thus easier to obtain, the number of abortions will increase.

Contact: Michael Foust

Source: BP
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  

Send this article to a friend.

Condoms, Contraception, Abortion "Cheapest Way to Combat Climate Change"?

Condoms, Contraception, Abortion "Cheapest Way to Combat Climate Change"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/images/ethicsindex_contraception.jpg

The best way to combat global warming is to reduce the surplus population through contraception and abortion, according to a report from the prestigious London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

According to the report, commissioned by the radical pro-abortion, anti-human environmentalist group, Optimum Population Trust, every £4 spent on "family planning" over the next forty years would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton. This would outstrip the gains of spending on "low-carbon technologies" by £15.

"Considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions" such "family planning" methods as abortion, sterilization and mass distribution of contraceptives, "should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction." Basing its data on reports by UNICEF and the UNFPA on the "unmet need" for "family planning" in the developing world, the report concluded that if this need is met, 34 billion tons of CO2 would be "saved."

The UN groups cited in the LSE report have claimed that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are "unplanned" and therefore unwanted. This, they say, means there is an unmet need for abortion, sterilization and artificial contraceptives that, if met, would reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies by 72 per cent.

The term "emitters" in the report, titled, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost," refers to human beings. Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said, "It's always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions - the carbon tonnage can't shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up."

Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner commented that the proposal to reduce carbon emissions by reducing people does not go far enough for anti-human environmentalist extremists. "Why not save 80 billion tons by ending pregnancy completely? There is one sure way to prevent man-made global warming and that is to abolish man."

Warner continued, "Having generated highly profitable mass hysteria and sidelined honest scientists who point out that the Arctic ice-cap is growing, not shrinking; that the polar bear population is increasing, not dwindling; and that the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, making adjustments in its size irrelevant, the warming fanatics are learning the joys of coercion."

The equation of "overpopulation" with increased "carbon emissions" and therefore man-made "climate change," is heavily contended within the scientific community, with many denouncing it as ideologically inspired junk science. It is, however, the cornerstone of much modern environmentalist theory, including that of one group called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose motto is "May we live long and die out."

Criticism from the scientific community has not stopped governments from uncritical acceptance of the doctrine. This week, parliament's Committee on Climate Change, created by the Climate Change Act 2008, told the Labor government to scrap plans to build a third runway at Heathrow airport, one of the busiest in the world, saying there must be a "global cap on aviation emissions."

The LSE report's mention of carbon being "saved" is related to the growing administrative practice of governments called "emissions trading," sometimes referred to as "cap and trade." A government that has set a cap on the allowable C02 emissions issues "emission permits" or "emission credits" that allow companies to emit a specific amount of CO2. Companies that want to increase their emission allowance can buy these credits from companies that pollute less, meaning, in effect that the buyer company may continue to emit pollutants at the same rate, and that companies that do not pollute may sell their credits to the highest bidder.

Critics of the practice have said that while it has created a lucrative new business trade and increases government revenue, it does little to actually reduce carbon emissions. The largest "carbon market" trading system in the world is that run by the European Union. Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years, with the World Bank estimating that it has grown from 11 billion USD in 2005 to 30 billion in 2006 to and 64 billion by 2007.

Contact: Hilary White

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.

Pregnant Women & Swine Flu Tests

A trial of the swine flu vaccine will be conducted at Baylor College of Medicine, Group Health Cooperative Ctr. for Health Studies in Seattle, St. Louis University, Vandervilt University in Nashville, Duke University in North Carolina and Scott & White Memorial Hospital & Clinic in Texas. This study will be conducted and funded, through the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NID).
 
Pregnant women are usually exempt, from medical research, that doesn't involve issues relating to pregnancy. The reason is, to protect them and their babies, from dangerous side-effects of drugs.
 
I wonder if these women are being paid? According to the information, they will receive 2 injections, 21 days apart. Researchers, supposedly, will gauge the vaccines effectiveness, by monitoring antibody levels to flu virus. They'll also collect umbilical cord blood, to measure how much antibody circulates from mother to baby, through the placenta. Wow! Talk about invasive! Umbilical cord blood?  From an unborn baby?  Something's wrong here.  Something's fishy.  Who would do that?
Click here for the full article.


Judge in Obama/Notre Dame Protesters Case Rejects Recusal Motion

A judge has denied a motion to recuse herself from the proceedings of more than 80 anti-abortion advocates who plan to take their trespassing cases to trial. Attorney Thomas Dixon, filed a motion in August asking for a change of judge in the trespassing cases because he believes that St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Jenny Pitts Manier is biased. Dixon represents 88 clients who were arrested on the University of Notre Dame property in May during the protest of commencement speaker President Barack Obama. Several additional trespass cases are not being fought in court and/or are being handled separately from the 88.
Click here for the full article.


Real Racism Found In Pro-Abortion Position

Make no mistake about it; abortion is impacting our country in ways few people care to consider. Yes, 51.7 million babies have been aborted since 1970, but what that means to our society is that 30.6 percent of our under-40 population has been destroyed. Almost one-third of our future, our taxpayers, our voters have been killed. Congress subsidized Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, with $326 million last year to help accomplish this. According to Cybercast News Service, 62.5 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion facilities are located in predominantly black neighborhoods. Our president has been very outspoken from the beginning about his pro-abortion plans for our country, yet the current impact of abortion on the African-American community has been devastating. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2004 there were 161 abortions per 1,000 live births in the Caucasian community. For Hispanics, that number was 211 per 1,000 births. In the African American community, there were an overwhelming 472 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Click here for the full article.


Young, Gifted, and Intensely Anti-Abortion

Ignacio Reyes and David Schmidt have the look of a boy band; they're young and flashy, earnest and media-savvy. As leaders of the group Live Action, they're committed to organizing a corps of young anti-abortion activists. During a town hall meeting hosted by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a neatly attired young man rose to ask the congresswoman a question. He identified himself as Ignacio Reyes and he asked Lofgren: "We know that over 90 percent of abortions are purely elective, not medically necessary. Why is this being covered when abortion is not clearly health care?" The question -- a fair one, and asked politely -- was greeted by a round of applause and cheers from some members of the audience. "Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the healthcare plans available to Americans, and I think it should be," Lofgren responded.
Click here for the full article.


Doctors against Obamacare

Blogger El Marco is in Washington, D.C., and e-mailed a few pics from the Doctors against Obamacare rally yesterday. He writes: “On September 10, 2009, doctors, nurses and other medical professionals came to Washington, D.C. from across the country to show their opposition to Obamacare. This rally exploded the government-created myth that there is unanimity amongst health care professionals for Democrat plans to take over health care.”
Click here for the full article.

September 10, 2009

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Government Funding of Abortion in Health Care Reform

Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Government Funding of Abortion in Health Care Reform



Today the Susan B. Anthony List announced the results of a nationwide poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on government funding for abortion in health care reform. 

"The bottom line is this: including government funds for abortion on-demand in health care reform is unappealing to American voters nationwide, women and men alike," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List.  "This may be surprising to elites, but it is not to the rest of America.  Americans realize pro-abortion feminists have dramatically overrepresented a minority position, misstating the centrality and 'need' for abortion on-demand.  If the Congressional leadership and the President fall on the sword of abortion coverage, pleasing their allies and weaving it into the fabric of our daily lives, they do so at the peril of the entire bill and their own political futures. Today's polling data offers the latest compelling reason for Congress to reject the President's health care proposal without authentic language to exclude abortion funding."

Full poll results and analysis are available on the Susan B. Anthony List website at www.sba-list.org/poll
Key findings of the poll include:

    * The Inclusion of Government Funded Abortions in the President's Health Care Reform Plan Turns Off Five Times More Voters Than it Gains.  More than four-in-ten voters (43%) say they would be less likely to support the president's proposed health plan if the government pays for abortions.  Intensity is strong, with over one-third (36%) of voters saying they would be much less likely to support the plan.  Forty-six percent (46%) say it would make no difference to their support for the president's plan.  Only 8% say it would make them more likely to support the plan.
      
    * 58% of Americans disagree with the statement, "If the government is going to make a public health plan available for all Americans it has an obligation to provide abortion services under that plan."
      
    * 55% of Americans agree with the statement, "Whatever my opinion on the issue, I think it would be wrong for the government to pay for abortions."
      
    * 52% of Americans agree with the statement, "I do not want the government to help fund health care plans that fund abortions."
      
    * Among Democrats who are concerned about the inclusion of abortion in healthcare, 2 to 1 disapprove of abortion funding in health care.  Twenty-five percent (25%) of Democrats are less likely to support the president's plan if it contains abortion funding.  Less than half that number (12%) more likely to support the president's plan if it contains abortion funding.

Links...


Download the Public Opinion Strategies Polling Data and Analysis (.pdf)
Download the Printable Version of the SBA List Analysis (.pdf)

Contact: Joy Yearout
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Obamacare will put Planned Parenthood Clinics inside Public Schools

Obamacare will put Planned Parenthood Clinics inside Public Schools



As America processes the president’s health care reform speech last night, the American Family Association is drawing attention to a little-noticed provision in H.R. 3200, the House version of ObamaCare, which will put Planned Parenthood clinics inside America’s public schools.

Under the provisions of section with the innocuous-sounding title, “School-Based Health Clinics” (pp. 993-1001 of the bill), a “non-profit health agency” such as Planned Parenthood will be authorized to serve as a “sponsoring facility” for school-based health clinics that will operate during school hours.

Although the bulk of the health care bill is scheduled to go into effect in 2013, this particular provision is slated to go into effect next summer, in time for clinics to appear in public schools by next fall.

Said Tim Wildmon, AFA’s president, “These Planned Parenthood clinics will not be accountable either to parents or school authorities. They will answer only to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, who is radically pro-abortion, and who was a vocal supporter of late-term abortionist George Tiller.

“For the death merchants from Planned Parenthood to have unrestricted access to our schoolchildren during school hours is totally unacceptable, but that’s exactly what will happen under this bill.

“Because the bill orders these clinics to protect ‘patient privacy and student records,’ parents will never know what kind of counsel and treatment their children receive by the time they get home from school.

“America’s parents should be outraged at this stealth attack on their children’s sexual health.”

Added Bryan Fischer, AFA’s Director of Issue Analysis, “Planned Parenthood’s grossly misnamed ‘safe sex’ message has been responsible for a tragic loss of sexual innocence among America’s youth and untold unwanted pregnancies and widespread sexually-transmitted diseases.

“No rational society should allow purveyors of such a destructive message to set up shop on public school property, but that’s exactly what the President and the Democrats in Congress are proposing. It’s time for America’s families to rise up and say “No” to ObamaCare.”

Contact:
Cindy Roberts
Source: American Family Association
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Medical school grads and abortion

Medical school grads and abortion



Is a stigma associated with abortion convincing doctors graduating from medical school not to perform them?

abortion forcepsThe Washington Post says not only the stigma keeps doctors away from the procedure, but fear that they will fall victim to assassination or other violence. Dr. John Pierce, who heads the obstetrics and gynecology residency program of the Virginia Commonwealth University, believes that is not the case.
 
"It is a significant moral or conscience decision that physicians in training or medical students have to make when they look at how they want to practice," he contends. "So when medical students or residents are faced with a decision, sometimes they come in prepared and sometimes they don't really and don't understand what they really believe, and therefore what they're going to do in training or in practice thereafter."
 
Pierce points out that some students with a pro-life view struggle over whether to become a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology.
 
"I think there's a lot of tension that comes about because the tension, when you're sitting at a table and thinking about doing an abortion, the gravity of the situation is often significant -- and it causes people to think about it a little differently," he adds.
 
According to Pierce, the attitude among doctors in training is mixed -- with little concern over stigma or violence.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

FDA OKs generic 'morning-after' pill

FDA OKs generic 'morning-after' pill



Another "morning-after" pill with abortion-causing qualities will soon be for sale in stores.

Watson Laboratories has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration to market a generic version of Plan B, a post-intercourse "emergency contraceptive," as it is commonly known, that can cause an abortion.

The new generic drug will be marketed under the name "Next Choice." Like Plan B, it will be available for purchase without a prescription for women 17 years of age and older and for prescription use by girls younger than 17.

Next Choice works, like Plan B, to restrict ovulation in a female. It also can act after conception to block implantation of a tiny embryo in the uterine wall, thereby causing an abortion.

The drug regimen for the "morning-after" pill is basically a heavier dose of birth control pills. Under the regimen, a woman takes two pills within 72 hours of sexual intercourse and another dose 12 hours later.

Plan B, which is produced by the Duramed division of Barr Pharmaceuticals, had American sales of $135 million in the 12-month period ending June 30.

The FDA added its approval of Watson Laboratories' Next Choice on Aug. 28.

When the FDA approved the non-prescription use of Plan B in 2006, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, described it as a "sad day for America."

"Allowing drugs with such powerful physiological and emotional effects to be sold over the counter to adults without a prescription will have significant consequences, none of them good," Land said.

"It will certainly result in the pharmacological, spontaneous abortion of large numbers of babies, who will be conceived but known only to God.... This decision will lead to increased rates of sexual activity for younger women outside of wedlock, resulting in physical, emotional and spiritual consequences, including increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases, against which Plan B offers no protection," he said.

Contact: Tom Strode
Source: Baptist Press
Publish Date: September 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

"Dem: Prevent abortion funding, or I'll block healthcare"

"Dem: Prevent abortion funding, or I'll block healthcare"

Democrat Congressman Bart Stupak is not going away.



    A leading pro-life Democrat in the House is threatening to block healthcare reform if Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn't allow a vote that would prevent the bill from funding abortions.

    Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, says the Democratic leadership must allow a vote adding the "Hyde Amendment" to the bill. That amendment prevents federal dollars from going to abortion funding.

    "First of all, you have to give us our vote," Stupak told CBN News, repeating the message he's relaying to the Democratic leadership. "If you don't give us our vote, everything's off the table."...

    Stupak said he has enough votes to block the legislation in the House if... Pelosi... prevents a vote on the pro-life proposal.

    Stupak added that he's particularly "cautious" about the Hyde Amendment language because the Obama administration has helped beat back previous pro-life efforts this year....

    Republicans and pro-life Democrats tried to add an amendment preventing abortion funding when healthcare legislation was working it's way through the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Pro-choice Democrats successfully blocked it.

As an aside I note the reporter called each side by its preferred term.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: JillStanek.com
Publish Date: September 9, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Mother says doctors refused to treat infant because of U.K. health rules

Mother says doctors refused to treat infant because of U.K. health rules


Baby Jayden and his mother Sarah Capewell

Doctors in England ignored a mother’s pleas for help and left her extremely premature baby to die because he was born two days before a hospital guidelines’ recommended cutoff age for providing medical treatment.

In October 2008 Sarah Capewell, 23, gave birth to her son just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy, almost four months early.

She told the Daily Mail that doctors ignored her pleas to save Jayden, her newborn son. They said they were following national guidelines which say babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Capewell said doctors refused even to see her son, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support. She reported that he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was moving his arms and legs. However, medics refused to admit him to a special care unit.

They said they would have tried to save Jayden if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks into pregnancy.

“When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over,” Capewell reported. A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat and described him as a “little fighter.”

“I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, ‘They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him’,” Capewell told the Daily Mail.

She cuddled her son and took photos of him. He died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Capewell also reported that during her premature labor with Jayden she was told that she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labor or a steroid injection to help strengthen her baby’s lungs because she had not reached 22 weeks into pregnancy.

Doctors told Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, to treat the labor as a miscarriage, not a birth. They advised that she expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or stillborn.

After Jayden’s death she had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates to allow her son a proper funeral.

The medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and are not compulsory. They advise doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby and is not “standard practice.”

A trust spokesman from James Paget Hospital in Norfolk said the hospital follows national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.

Capewell has since discovered that a prematurely born child has survived after being born 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy. Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and was treated because doctors mistakenly believed she was a week older.

Amillia celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

“Thousands of women have experienced this,” Capewell said. “The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?”

Also read...

Would you believe... 'Before Birth' Panels?

Those "progressive" Brits are at it again. Here’s an interesting horror story from the folks whose Single-Payer Health System is what many sheeple in this country are clamoring for: Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday. Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early. They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment. She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.
Click here for the full article.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: September 10, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of The Illinois Federation for Right to Life. They are presented only for your information.

Personhood Florida Submits Personhood Amendment to Florida State Constitution

God is the author of all human rights -- mine, yours -- every human being's from their very beginning. First among these, and upon which all others stand, is our right to be recognized as persons -- as children of God, made in His image and likeness.

Our Floridian Founding Fathers laid upon our shoulders the right, better yet the responsibility, to defend life -- of every human being.

"We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its blessings and to form a more perfect government, insuring domestic tranquility, maintaining public order, and guaranteeing equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this Constitution.  All men are equal before the law, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life." Florida State Constitution 1885.
Click here for the full article.



Children As Young As Five to Learn About Abortion Under New UN guidelines

Children as young as five should be taught about abortion, according to controversial new guidelines issued by the United Nations. The advice also calls for youngsters to learn about same-sex relationships and sexually transmitted diseases. The draft report on sex education has been compiled by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
Click here for the full article.


British Abortion Ad Rules Review Delayed

Regulators have delayed publication of the results of a controversial review of the UK advertising code, which includes proposals that could allow abortion clinics to run TV commercials, until next year after receiving around 4,000 submissions. A public consultation, which was kicked off by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice in March, sparked mass media coverage as anti-abortion groups and sexual health campaigners moved quickly to criticise some of the proposals.
Click here for the full article.


Daughter Claims Father Wrongly Placed On Controversial NHS End Of Life Scheme

Rosemary Munkenbeck says her father Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). Mrs Munkenbeck, 56, from Bracknell, said her father, who previously said he wanted to live until he was 100, has now said he wants to die after being deprived of fluids for five days.
Click here for the full article.


'Misunderstandings' and 'Bogus Claims' on Abortion Funding in Health Care Legislation Come from the White House, Not Pro-Lifers

In response to President Obama's speech to Congress last night, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, stated, "If there are 'misunderstandings' or 'bogus claims' about abortion funding in pending health reform legislation, as the President claimed in his speech, they are coming from the White House, not pro-lifers."
Click here for the full article.


Obama Adviser Hopes Catholic Bishops Will Find A Way to Support Democrats’ Health Care Reform Legislation, Despite Abortion Concerns

A top adviser to President Barack Obama told CNSNews.com the White House hopes the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will come to understand that the Democrats’ health care reform legislation does not cover abortion.
 
“I think the church has been a great progressive force on issues like this. Hopefully, bishops will see a way to support this (health care reform legislation),” David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, told CNSNews.com Wednesday night.
 
Axelrod said he does not believe the Catholic Church is intentionally spreading misinformation, as the White House says other opponents of the legislation are doing.
 
“I think that they are earnestly trying to work their way through this issue,” Axelrod told CNSNews.com on Wednesday night, shortly after Obama addressed a joint session of Congress.
Click here for the full article.