NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY (Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.) Federal court sides with Louisiana Town Against Abortion Protesters
NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court has ruled that a central Louisiana town isn't liable for the actions of a police officer who violated the constitutional rights of a group of street preachers. A lower court ruled that Columbia Police Officer Robert Miles violated the First Amendment rights of World Wide Street Preachers Fellowship members when he threatened to arrest them if they didn't end their abortion protest outside a church in February 2005. But the judge also concluded that Columbia wasn't liable because the street preachers failed to prove that Miles' actions resulted from a town policy or custom. The group appealed, but a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld last year's ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert James. Click here for the full article.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised eyebrows during the health care debate Sunday night when he called conservative Americans "lunatic fringe."
"They are desperate to break this president," Whitehouse said. "They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. It is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist."
Bob Parks, a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network, said Whitehouse would quiet all dissent, if he could. Click here for the full article.
Washington - Twice now, abortion was almost a deal-breaker. This time, it was a deal-maker. But of the hundreds of deals cut to keep health care legislation alive, the hardest to retain may be the Senate's abortion compromise -- achieved after 13 hours of negotiation.
The volatile issue remains the biggest threat to getting a history-making bill to President Barack Obama.
Deals are the lifeblood of legislation. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got $100 million more for her state, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman stripped the bill of a government insurance plan and Ben Nelson won a slew of favors for Nebraska -- all in exchange for their votes. Click here for the full article.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - After Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Saturday that he had decided to support the amended health bill that allows federal funding of abortion, he set to work defending the decision in terms more familiar on the lips of his liberal colleagues: emphasizing the need for a compromise, and highlighting the greater good of the health of millions of Americans. Yet Nelson left behind a still-reeling pro-life and conservative constituency questioning what could have prompted the sudden change in the senator - who days before seemed so placidly settled in his convictions against the bill, particularly regarding abortion. Click here for the full article.
I'm sure most have heard by now. This is all so dastardly and frustrating, sickening really. Can't believe it's happening. Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's Senate floor speech, given about 1a EST this morning right before the vote is a sobering must read....
Tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high. And, that's appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit. It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take. And none of us take it lightly....
But make no mistake: if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night.
Here are just some of the deals we've noticed:
$100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States - the bill doesn't say where - and no one will even step forward to claim it.
One state out of 50 gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself - while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab.
The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company - just one insurance company - based in his state.
Do the supporters of this bill know all this? Do they think it's a fair deal for their states, for the rest of the country?
The fact is, a year after this debate started few people could have imagined that this is how it would end - with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o'clock in the morning. But that's where we are.
And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen?
So I'd like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what happened - and what's happening now.
Everyone in this chamber agrees we need health care reform. The question is how?
Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we've proposed targeted steps to do it. Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach.
And the result has been just what you'd expect.
The final product is a mess - and so is the process that's brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.
Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate, and reminded us all how these things have been handled throughout history.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but 6 members of the Senate. The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21. All but 8 senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation. The proponents of this bill felt differently.
In a departure from history, Democrat leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and government intrusion, that, in the end their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.
In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms Americans were promised.
It was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake - which is exactly what this bill will be if it's passed. Because, in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it's about a $2.3 trillion dollar, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes its price go up.
"The plan I'm announcing tonight," the President said on September 9th, "will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."
"My plan," the President said, "would bring down premiums by $2500 for the typical family..."
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit," the President said, "either now or in the future."
And, on taxes? "No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," he said.
He said he wouldn't cut Medicare.
People who like the plans they have wouldn't lose their coverage.
And, Americans were promised an open, honest debate. "That's what I will do in bringing all parties together," then-Senator Obama said on the campaign trail, "not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN."
That was then, and this is now.
But here's the reality: the Democrat bill we're voting on tonight raises health care costs. That's not me talking -- that's the administration's own budget scorekeeper.
It raises premiums -- that's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office talking. It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class Americans.
And, it plunders Medicare by half a trillion dollars It forces people off the plans they have -- including millions of seniors.
It allows the federal government for the first time in our history to use taxpayer dollars for abortions.
So a President who was voted into office on the promise of change said he wanted lower premiums. That changed. He said he wouldn't raise taxes. That changed. He said he wanted lower costs. That changed. He said he wouldn't cut Medicare. And, that changed too.
And, twelve months and $2.3 trillion later, lawmakers who made these same promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that won't bend the cost curve, that won't make health care more affordable and that will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road.
Now, I understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling, and, I don't doubt for a moment their sincerity.
But, my message tonight is this: the impact of this vote will long outlive this one frantic, snowy weekend in Washington. Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation.
And, Americans have already issued their verdict: they don't want it. They don't like this bill -- and they don't like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.
Let's think about that for a moment. We know the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill.
And yet, the people who wrote it won't give the 300 million Americans whose lives will be profoundly affected by it so much as 72 hours to study the details.
Imagine that: when we all woke up yesterday morning, we still hadn't seen the details of the bill we're being asked to vote on before we go to sleep tonight.
How can anyone justify this approach? Particularly in the face of such widespread and intense public opposition.
Can all of these Americans be wrong? Don't their concerns count? Party loyalty can be a powerful force. We all know that.
But Americans are asking Democrats to put party loyalty aside tonight -- to put the interests of small business owners, taxpayers, and seniors first.
And there's good news -- it's not too late.
All it takes is one. Just one. One can stop it -- or every one will own it.
San Jose, Calif. - Legal charges are pending against a male Planned Parenthood escort who struck pro-life activist Lila Rose on the hands on Thursday outside an abortion clinic. She warned that the surprising attack should not help create a "double standard" that hinders clinic protesters' free speech rights.
Rose, the president of Live Action Films who has led undercover investigations into the abortion provider, was not injured in the attack.
She was on a public sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood affiliate in San Jose, California with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to alternatives to abortion, a statement from Live Action says.
Shortly before noon on Thursday, she interacted with a uniformed male Planned Parenthood escort.
According to Rose, she spoke to the escort from the public sidewalk and asked him if he was familiar with the abortion procedure.
The escort then approached her rapidly from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, "You idiot. You've caused so much trouble. You piece of crap."
Rose asked if she could show him a picture of what abortion "really does to a baby." The escort then struck Rose on the hand, knocking literature and a Bible to the ground.
According to Live Action Films, the police report said Rose stepped further back on the sidewalk and the escort stepped toward her.
He was visibly shaking and said "It's a woman's choice!"
To this, Rose responded "What about the baby's choice?"
The escort said "It's not a baby!" and turned and walked away.
Police were called and interviewed Rose and several witnesses. She suffered no injuries in the attack, but charges of assault and battery are pending.
In a Friday e-mail Rose told CNA that she was "very surprised" at what happened. She said the escort appeared to recognize her, which has not happened before at a clinic.
"Unborn children face much, much worse...they are violently denied their very lives, and they are totally defenseless," she added.
Rose emphasized that pro-lifers have the right to free speech on public sidewalks.
"If this right is infringed upon by threatening physical contact, the law must intervene and the guilty party must accept the consequences."
Saying that pro-life sidewalk counselors are subjected to "the most rigorous scrutiny," she warned that a double standard could be created if threatening physical contact against sidewalk counselors is allowed.
Rose also reported "good news": a woman who thought she was pregnant and was considering abortion turned around. One of the parents and their daughter at the clinic then drove the woman and her friend to a crisis pregnancy center.
She told CNA that her organization has not heard anything from Planned Parenthood.
Live Action in a statement said it maintains a "strong commitment to non-violent public discourse."
"We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort's attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence," the statement said.
KCCI (a CBS Affiliate in Des Moines) reported yesterday about a woman whose application was rejected by Rotary. They report:
A Des Moines woman rejected for membership by the local chapter of the Rotary Club said Friday that she believes it's because she works at Planned Parenthood.
Susy Robinette said she has spent a lot of time looking for answers in the prospective member packet that she received from the Rotary Club of Des Moines this fall.
The Des Moines Rotary Club is one of the 50 largest in the world with 334 members. It recently rejected Robinette's application to become a member.
"I kept reading through here. Is there something here I'm missing, but no," said Robinette.
Robinette is a former television news director and anchor who now is Chief Development Officer for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
Apparently just 11 members need to object to an application for membership in order to turn them down.
What do you think is this fair? There is a right to association that is present and a person's occupation/position on abortion is not a protected class so she certainly doesn't have legal recourse. She also may be making an assumption it is due to her employment with Planned Parenthood. She also says she's disappointed and embarrassed… so she runs to KCCI? What does that say about her?
WASHINGTON -Worldwide adoption of China's population-control policy, which is marked by forced abortion and sterilization, is the answer to environmental problems, a Canadian writer says.
"A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently.... The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate," National Post editor-at-large Diane Francis wrote Dec. 8.
"Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict."
The world's leaders, meeting at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, are failing to address the problem by proposing "giant wind farms" and "cap-and-trade subsidies," Francis said.
"None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed," she wrote.
That's incredible, a pro-life bioethics specialist reacted.
"Can you believe it? China -- an unmitigated tyranny -- has become, among the hysterics like ... this writer, the country with policies worth emulating!" Wesley Smith wrote on his weblog Dec. 10. "Not one word decrying the terrible human rights violations of imposed abortion, female infanticide and China's explicitly eugenics policies.
"And yet, we are told the global warming agenda is so progressive, so humane," Smith said. "Anyone who doesn't see the potential that global warming could become the pretext for destroying human freedom and imposing death culture policies just isn't paying attention."
China has enforced population control on its people since 1979. Its policy limits couples in urban areas to one child and those in rural areas to two, if the first is a girl. Parents in cities may have second babies if the husband and wife are both only children.
Penalties for violations of the policy have included fines, arrests and the destruction of homes, as well as forced abortion and sterilization. Infanticide, especially of females, also has been reported.
The policy's severity has forced China's fertility rate (1.75 live births per woman) lower than replacement level, meaning its numbers are in a steep drop. Exclusive of immigration, 2.1 births per woman is the fertility level that ensures a non-declining population.
Importantly, the low birth rate means an age and gender crisis loom for China within the next two decades.
The most recent Chinese population survey indicates there are 120 males for every 100 females. The typical human population ratio would consist of 105 males to 100 females, meaning -- by Chinese government estimates -- that by the year 2020 there will be 24 million more men than women. The result will be dim marriage prospects, contributing even more to the lack of childbirths.
The dearth of children also means China eventually will lose its comparative labor advantage to competing countries such as India and Bangladesh. Population projections show that by 2030, India will become the world's most populous country, with 1.53 billion citizens compared to China's 1.45 billion. On top of that, China's shrinking working-age population will have to shoulder an increasing workload (financial and otherwise) of caring for a massively elderly population.
Chinese demographers also predict that in 2025 there will be a generation of only children in China. These children will have no siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins resulting in a social phenomenon of familial aloneness not seen on this scale.
WASHINGTON, - Liberty Counsel opposes the current Senate healthcare bill because it still funds abortion. If the bill becomes law, Liberty Counsel is prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill since Congress has no authority to require every person to obtain insurance coverage and has no authority to fine employers who do not provide coverage up to the standards required in the bill.
On Saturday, Senate President Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a 383-page so-called "Manager's Amendment" to his 2,074-page pending bill (H.R. 3590). Amendment 3276 requires that the federal government violate the principles of the Hyde Amendment by funding abortion. The funding goes through a complicated bookkeeping scheme similar to the Camps-Waxman accounting scheme which the House rejected when it adopted the Stupak-Pitts amendment on November 7.
Unfortunately, it appears that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) succumbed to the Chicago-style politics of "pay-to-play" when he compromised his opposition to abortion funding after negotiating a deal for his home state of Nebraska to receive full federal funding to expand Medicaid insurance for the poor. The other 49 states have to split the costs of Medicaid with the federal government. The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement on Saturday opposing the bill because of its coverage for abortion and because it does not permit those who oppose abortion to opt-out from the federally subsidized plan.
On Sunday the Congressional Budget Office Director admitted that the prior cost figures on the bill were inaccurate, stating to Sen. Reid: "The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them."
Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, released this statement on the Senate bill: "It is unconscionable that Senator Harry Reid would push forward a bill in the middle of the night that no one has had the time to read and that he would force the Senate to work up to the evening hours on Christmas Eve. While the world celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ, Senator Reid is holding every Senator hostage in order to pressure them into submission so that he can force every American to fund abortion. The spirit of the Roman Emperor Herod who killed every baby boy two years old and under in order to preserve his political dynasty still lives in the halls of Congress. This shameful farce is not about healthcare. It is about politics. It is not about the well-being of the American people. It is about scoring a political victory. In the end, this power-play will be the undoing of every person who votes for the abortion bill." Staver concluded: "This bill is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the authority to require every person to carry insurance coverage and is without authority to fine employers whose policies do not provide the coverage mandated by the legislation."
NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY (Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
One of the great contributions to social advocacy in this region is the biennial publication of "Children of Metropolitan St. Louis," a report that presents telling data on how children are faring in this region. The report's ninth edition recently was released by Vision for Children at Risk — a leading child advocacy organization. It found that more than 22 percent of the region's approximately 535,000 children live in ZIP codes "where risks to their well-being are severe." The gap between "have" and "have not" is growing, and the disparities resulting from that gap "disproportionately affect the area's minority population." Click here for the full article.
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma County judge has scheduled a Feb. 19 hearing on a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a new abortion law. District Judge Daniel Owens on Friday extended a temporary restraining order that blocks enforcement of the measure, which would, among other things, require doctors to report personal information about women who seek abortions and for the information to be posted on a public Web site. The measure was set to go into effect Nov. 1. In the lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights argues that House Bill 1595 violates the single-subject rule of the Oklahoma constitution. The group successfully challenged another Oklahoma abortion law last year on the same grounds. Click here for the full article.
Did an off-duty Chicago police officer flash his badge - or a gun - at a protester Wednesday outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora? Police say the 41-year-old officer and his 31-year-old female companion were parked near the facility, 3051 E. New York St., about 9:15 a.m. when they were met by 31-year-old Naperville resident Rachelle Crile, a "counselor" for the Pro-Life Action League, a group that tries to offer alternatives to women considering abortions. The group tried to stop the clinic from opening a few years ago and often pickets there. Click here for the full article.
Families of children with Down syndrome will walk together for the 2nd year in a row at the March for Life in D.C. on January 22, 2010.
KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) was formed by Eileen Haupt and Leticia Velasquez, parents of children with DS, for the purpose of gathering families to walk together in the March for Life, raise awareness of the tragically high abortion rate of DS babies, and to share the joys that their children bring into their lives.... Click here for the full article.
"Stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo"
WASHINGTON - Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, issued the following statement upon hearing news Sen. Bob Casey is set to introduce "compromise" legislation on abortion as part of the Senate health care reform bill: "We call on the leaders of the pro-life movement, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic members of Congress to stop fighting to maintain the abortion status quo, which treats human beings as property; to stand firm against band-aid compromises; and to oppose the entire deplorable health care reform bill. "We must not forget this health care reform bill denies justice to all and abrogates the rights of human beings to function with government in a supporting role. Instead, this bill perverts the role of government by making it dictatorial, arbitrary and empowered to end the lives of innocent human beings as a cost-saving measure. Click here for the full article.
The Senate is heading toward a Christmas Eve vote to pass landmark healthcare legislation, but instead of holiday cheer, Democrats and Republicans are digging in for trench warfare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is determined to finish work before the Christmas holiday and has set a schedule that would end with a final vote on the evening of Dec. 24. "We're going to finish this healthcare bill before we leave here for the holidays," Reid declared on the floor Thursday. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has told colleagues that he will not give any ground on procedural hurdles and is prepared to call Reid's bluff on a Christmas Eve vote, said a senior GOP aide. Some Republicans say they will also require Democrats to return to Washington the following week to approve an increase of the debt limit. Click here for more on this story...
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson rejected a proposal Thursday that was billed as a compromise on federal funding of abortion, easing concerns by pro-lifers while also casting further doubt that a health care bill can pass the Senate before Christmas.
A pro-lifer from Nebraska, Nelson is facing increasing pressure to fall in line with his Democratic colleagues and allow a floor vote on the bill. But Nelson has rejected such calls, and even said Thursday that the abortion language isn't the only problem he has with the bill.
"There are other substantive issues" that would lead him to filibuster, he told KLIN-AM in Lincoln, Neb.
As it stands now, the bill allows federal subsidies for lower income people to go toward purchasing insurance plans covering abortion. It would be a departure from current policy that, for instance, prohibits insurance plans for federal employees from covering abortion.
If the bill is not changed, pro-lifers say, then the abortion rate could skyrocket. The pro-choice Guttmacher Institute this summer reported that about 25 percent of the women who would have had Medicaid-funded abortions chose instead to give birth when they were barred from using public money. Medicaid does not cover elective abortions.
With Sen. Joe Lieberman, I.-Conn., having had his concerns with the bill met -- a public option and Medicare buy-in apparently have been stripped -- Nelson seemingly is the lone holdout keeping Democratic leaders from reaching the crucial 60th vote to block a filibuster. There are 60 members of the Democratic caucus.
Sen. Bob Casey, D.-Pa., who votes with pro-lifers on some issues, had presented Nelson with compromise language Wednesday that National Right to Life nearly immediately rejected. Although the language was never released publicly, National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson said in a statement the proposal would have allowed federal subsidies for lower income people to be used for purchasing health care plans that cover abortion while somehow permitting "individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status."
Said Nelson, "As it is right now, without further modifications, it isn't sufficient."
Nelson reiterated that he would support a filibuster if the abortion language doesn't meet his standards. He proposed a pro-life amendment to the health care bill that was defeated Dec. 8. It was similar to an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D.-Mich., in the House. The Stupak amendment, Nelson said Thursday, "is the right language."
Nelson did say Casey's language had some victories for pro-lifers, such as boosting the adoption tax credit and helping unwed mothers who want to choose an alternative to abortion.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, urged pro-lifers to pray for Nelson.
"Unless and until language in the Senate bill bans the use of public funds to underwrite the killing of our unborn citizens, pro-lifers will remain adamantly opposed to it," Land told Baptist Press. "I encourage all pro-life Americans to pray that God will give Sen. Ben Nelson courage and steadfastness as he stands for our country's unborn citizens."
Despite being a member of a pro-choice party, Nelson has a strong pro-life record, all the way back to his two terms as governor in the 1990s. It was Nelson who signed the ban against partial-birth abortion that eventually was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. (The court later allowed a federal ban to stand.) He was endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life when he ran for re-election for the Senate in 2006 and has a 100 percent pro-life record in the current Congress, according to National Right to Life.
"We have a long relationship with him, dating back to when he was governor," Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, told Baptist Press. "So we acknowledge and recognize that [the health care/abortion divide is] not an easy task. He's a pro-life Dem. It can't be easy."
Schmit-Albin was among the pro-life leaders that Nelson's office called Wednesday to get her thoughts on the Casey proposal.
"I called them back and very forcefully said that it wasn't acceptable, it wasn't Stupak," she said.
Nebraska Right to Life is running ads on the state's two largest Christian radio stations, in Lincoln and Omaha, thanking Nelson for sponsoring his amendment and asking listeners to call him and urge him to stand his ground.
Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said she "wouldn't want to be in Sen. Nelson's shoes," facing pressure from both sides.
"We really appreciate all he's done on behalf of pro-life Democrats," Day told Baptist Press. "... He's so solid on these issues."
The Nelson amendment would have done two things: 1) prevent a government-run public option from covering abortion and 2) prohibit federal subsidies for lower-income people from purchasing private plans that cover abortion. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life. A woman would be permitted to use her own money to purchase a "rider" that covers abortion.
A CNN poll in November found American adults are against "using public funds for abortions when the woman cannot afford it" by a 61-37 percent margin.
As this is being composed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) is attempting to tie up a number of critically important loose ends without which immediate prospects for passing his "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" are substantially reduced. Abortion is, if not at the top of that list, darn close.
As we head into the homestretch of this phase of this protracted battle, two of the key players to emerge are Democratic Senators Bob Casey (Pa.) and pro-life Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pro-life Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)
Sen. Nelson "wants an ironclad ban on using subsidies to buy policies that include abortion coverage," as the Washington Post observes. That would be language which tracks the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment, adopted by the House November 7, on a vote of 240-194.
Reid, of course, wants none of that. But he does want to be credited with finding "compromise" language. Sen. Casey has been his envoy, but pro-lifers are not buying what Casey is selling.
"This is far cry from the Stupak Amendment," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson told reporters, referring to Casey's language. "This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable."
He added, "It is particularly offensive that the proposal apparently would make it the default position for the federal government to subsidize plans that cover abortion on demand, and then permit individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status."
Johnson's characterization of the Casey proposal is fully justified: "This is an exercise is cosmetics--like putting lipstick on a legislative warthog."
Sen. Nelson agrees the new language is insufficient. Asked this morning by KLIN radio in Lincoln, Nebraska, "Has the federal funding for abortion language been changed enough to satisfy you?" Nelson replied, "No."
Two other quick points.
First, the more desperate the pro-abortion Senate leadership becomes, the more it and its allies in the media will denounce pro-lifers for an entire litany of "sins." There will be many components but the glue that holds these complaints is the wholly fallacious contention that Senate pro-abortionists are merely trying to maintain the "status quo."
Second, public opinion has turned dramatically against health care restructuring. Understandably, President Obama and his fellow pro-abortionists assume that the longer the debate goes on, the more and more the American people will vocally oppose their ideas about transforming a sixth of the entire American economy. Thus, there will be wheeling and dealing in a frantic effort to get something passed by Christmas.
You must continue to voice your opposition. Regularly visit http://nrlactioncenter.com. There you will read "Time is short! Please telephone the offices of your two U.S. senators. Urge them to oppose the Reid health care bill (H.R. 3590), and to oppose "cloture" (ending debate) on the bill. The Washington offices of all U.S. senators can be reached through the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121 (just tell the operator the name of your senator OR the name of your state). If you scroll to the bottom of this alert, you will find additional suggestions for ways to communicate with your senators on this issue.
BRISTOL, TN - Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest faith-based association of doctors, today announced that he is canceling his membership in the American Medical Association as a way of publicly protesting what he says is the AMA's control by special interests that do not represent most physicians. The AMA has come under fire for endorsing healthcare overhaul legislation after closed-door negotiations with legislators.
"I can no longer associate with or support an organization that is unscientific, unprofessional and controlled by special interests," Dr. Stevens asserted in a letter sent earlier this week to the AMA. Dr. Stevens is also advising the organization's 17,000 members to "carefully consider if they should continue their memberships in the AMA."
Dr. Stevens noted in his letter, "The AMA claims to put the needs of patients first and then meets with Senate leaders to bargain for higher physician Medicare reimbursement in exchange for support of healthcare reform legislation. This unseemly, behind-closed-doors session trades the future welfare of our patients away for physicians' personal gain. It is a violation of the doctor-patient covenant and sells out our professional heritage.
"The AMA has even violated its own ethical statements in political advocacy at the behest of a vocal pro-abortion faction within AMA. Your resolution on right of conscience states that the 'AMA reaffirms that neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles.' Yet you have worked vigorously at the federal level to overturn the only federal regulation that protects your members from this type of discrimination."
Dr. Stevens also cited the AMA's support of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage and medical marijuana as examples of policies that contradict and undermine the positions of many physicians.
Dr. Stevens concluded, "In light of radical policies, it is no wonder that AMA's membership has dropped since the 1960's from nearly three of four practicing doctors to closer to one in five. Personally, I no longer see any hope of changing your radical positions by working from the inside."
Photo above is the Duggar 2009 family portrait via the Duggar family website.
It was reported a week ago today that super mom Michelle Duggar had given birth prematurely, at 25 gestational weeks, to her 19th baby, Josie Brooklyn.
Digital Spy reports today...
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have provided fans with an update on the health of their premature baby daughter.
The 18 Kids And Counting stars welcomed Josie, their 19th child, on December 10. She was 3 months premature and weighed 1lb 6oz.
Michelle is [recovering] from the emergency c-section
In an email to ABC News, Jim Bob said: "We are so grateful for all of the prayers and emails of support for our family since Josie Brooklyn Duggar was born.
"Michelle is [recovering] from the emergency c-section and is doing [a lot] better. Josie is beautiful and in stable condition."
Freda Ruark, the sister of Michelle, continued to say that the new arrival is now taking breast milk and "holding her own", adding: "As long as she can get some of that breast milk, that will help build up her immune system."
Ruark also said that she expects Michelle to remain in hospital "for a while".
Some of the other Duggar children are reportedly being cared for by their grandmother, who lives with them at the family home, while some are on a mission in El Salvador but keeping in contact with their parents every day.
Additional info on Josie's nutritional/immune system progress for breast feeding advocates in the crowd, from ABC: "[A]fter 3 breast milk feedings, Josie Brooklyn was able to keep down 2."
Turns out Michelle had pre-eclampsia. According to People:
Michelle Duggar's 19th baby was born prematurely... because Michelle suffered a rare condition during pregnancy that causes high blood pressure, her doctor says.
The condition, preeclampsia, which affects 5 to 8% of pregnancies, was discovered when Michelle was admitted to the University of AR for Medical Sciences to evaluate pain related to a gall bladder problem, says Dr. Paul Wendel, director of the hospital's Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
"The obstetrical and neonatal teams reached the collaborative decision... that Mrs. Duggar needed an emergency C-section to ensure the blood pressure problem would not be detrimental to her or the baby," says Wendel.
Each bassinet in the neonatal intensive care unit... is equipped with "angel-eye cameras," according to the hospital spokeswoman, which allows family, via a password, to view the baby from their home computers.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As even more new language continues to pile up in Sen. Harry Reid's massive manager's amendment to the health care bill, which is being constructed behind closed doors, the leader of the Senate Republicans slammed the Democrats for planning to hold a vote on a bill no one has seen yet.
"Here's the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader's conference room has even seen," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a release Thursday. "That's right. The final bill we'll vote on isn't even the one we've had on the floor. It's the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private."
McConnell questioned the Democrats' motives for continuing to rush "one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history" in an effort to have it passed by Christmas. "This entire process is essentially a charade," he said.
"The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it."
McConnell pointed to recent poll results, consistent with the broad spectrum of data in recent weeks, showing that Americans in opposition to the current attempt at health reform vastly outnumber those in favor. A Pew poll released Wednesday found that 58% of Americans who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them, while only 32% favor them.
The minority leader also compared the timeline of the massive 2,000+ page bill to other, more minor pieces of legislation, many of which had far more amendments offered and were granted more time for consideration. One example he gave was a 2002 energy bill that was considered over a period of 8 weeks with 158 amendments offered.
The current health care bill has been considered by the senate over 4 weeks, with only 21 amendments and motions offered. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to bring the bill to a vote by this weekend.
"This isn't an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy - to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American - and they want to be done after one substantive amendment," he said. "This is absolutely inexcusable."
Senate Republicans yesterday launched the beginning of what they openly call a series of stall tactics to grind President Obama's health care juggernaut to a halt. One of these involved forcing a read-through of a 767-page proposed piece of legislation. However, Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin allowed an objection by Senator Bernie Sanders (I - VT) to cut off the effort, despite the fact that Senate rules grant only a unanimous vote the power to end the reading.
Republicans resorted to the tactic after health bill author Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) refused GOP Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) request to require that any amendment considered by the Senate be offered 72 hours ahead of any vote, with a full cost report.
Senator DeMint (R-SC) told the Washington Times that the GOP's motives were founded in the belief that they are no longer able to work with Senate Democrats in good faith, and that Frumin's ignoring of Senate rules gave Democrats an unfair advantage.
"The problem we have, I think if you look at the last couple of weeks, we were working in good faith and the strategy they were using was one of bait switch," said DeMint.
"While we were debating a decoy on the floor, while they were developing another one in secret, so to continue to play along with this as if it's a legitimate process makes no sense."
In a November speech, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, expressed disgust with the Democrats' strategy of "artificially generated haste" over the health bill, to "ram it, to jam it" through the chamber. Snowe, who has been known to side with Democrats on many issues, pointed out that solid social reform in America has always been a bipartisan effort.
"Every line and every word in this 2,000-page document matters. ... When it comes to the subject at hand, the most consequential health-care legislation in the history of our country and reordering $33 trillion in health-care spending over the coming decade, surely, we can and must do better," said Snowe.
NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY (Referral to Web sites not produced by The Illinois Federation for Right to LIfe is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
A federal lawsuit has been filed against pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca for its role in paying Chicago psychiatrist Dr. Michael Reinstein nearly $500,000 over the course of a decade to conduct research and to promote its anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel. Reinstein is being accused of wrongfully preying on thousands of mentally-ill patients in order to rake in profits for AstraZeneca. Reinstein has a long history of working with AstraZeneca, receiving regular payments for speeches he would make across the country promoting the drug. AstraZeneca was also paying a for-profit research company, Uptown Research Institute, who in turn was paying Reinstein consulting fees for his services. Click here for the full article.
"IOTC" Senior Instructor Pastor David Whitney On Obama "Health Care" Plan -- Death Panels For All, The Born And Unborn. That is the topic on this "The American View" radio program which broadcasts live, daily, from 11 am to Noon (EST) and is now on the Liberty News Radio Network. Our call-in phone number is 1-866-986-6397. Do listen, please, and give us a call. The Liberty News Radio Network site is LibertyNewsRadio.com. Click here for the full article.
Woman Pleads NOT GUILTY in Assault on Pro-Lifer DULUTH, Minn. - A woman accused of holding a knife to the throat of an anti-abortion demonstrator in Duluth has pleaded not guilty to an assault charge. Twenty-six-year-old Mechelle Tallulah Hall of Superior, Wis., told a judge in St. Louis County District Court Wednesday that she was wrong in threatening the demonstrator outside a women's clinic last month. Hall is accused of holding the knife to the neck of a 21-year-old woman who was handing out pamphlets outside the Building for Women. The woman was not injured. Click here for the full article.
Doctors in the U.K. have used a man's own adult stem cells mixed with a collagen paste to repair his fractured leg. Andrew Kent broke his leg in five places including a compound fracture, while rock climbing, when a large boulder fell on his leg. After three operations, the bones were still not setting and the wound became infected. Mr. Kent was told that he was likely to lose his leg. The bones were broken so badly that traditional surgery failed. Orthopedic surgeon Anan Shetty offered an alternative. He took some of Mr. Kent's bone marrow adult stem cells, mixed them with a new collagen gel called Cartifill to make a paste, and caulked the fractures with the mixture. Then the leg was fixed in a metal cage to gently squeeze the bones together. Six months later, the leg can hold weight and the fractures are healing. Click here for the full article.
Anchorage, Alaska, - An Alaskan petition initiative to place a measure requiring parental notification for an underage girl seeking an abortion has collected 31,000 signatures. Organizers credited the efforts of Catholics like Archbishop of Anchorage Roger Schwietz, who asked Catholics to sign the petition and encouraged parishes to support the proposal.
The parental notification initiative must secure 32,734 signatures to place an initiative on the ballot. Organizers are seeking another 11,000 signatures to make up for any invalid signatures. Click here for the full article.
Police cars outside Planned Parenthood Aurora [Photo by Eric Scheidler]
Wednesday, December 16, pro-lifer Rachelle Crile went to the Planned Parenthood facility in Aurora, Illinois at 8 a.m. to sidewalk counsel as she has done on regular basis since attending a Pro-Life Action League sidewalk counseling seminar in September. After about 45 minutes in temperatures below 20 degrees, Rachelle went to her car in an adjacent parking lot to warm up before returning to the her sidewalk counseling post.
As Rachelle sat in her car, a couple in a white SUV pulled into the lot a couple rows behind her. Rachelle had a feeling the people might be headed to Planned Parenthood. Since Wednesday mornings are a prime time abortions there, Rachelle knew a life could be on the line, so she said a prayer, grabbed her literature and approached the car. Offer of Help Met With Threat of Violence
Rachelle was approaching the car when the driver, a middle-aged man, waved a silver handgun at Rachelle from inside the car. Terrified, Rachelle put up her hands and went back to her car. A little bit later, the SUV pulled into Planned Parenthood's parking lot and the man and a woman got out of the car and entered the facility. Jim and Rachelle Crile talk with police
Rachelle Crile and her husband Jim talk with Aurora police [Photo by Matt Yonke]
Sidewalk counselor Marie Sulita was also at Planned Parenthood at the time and helped Rachelle contact the police. Within minutes, several squad cars arrived along with a paddy wagon and several unmarked police cars. Officers asked Rachelle for her story and entered Planned Parenthood to interview the man.
Meanwhile, Pro-Life Action League executive director Eric Scheidler arrived at the scene as well as reporters from several local media outlets. It was eventually uncovered that the man was a 41-year-old off-duty Chicago police officer whose identity the police would not divulge. He was at the clinic with a 30-year-old "female companion" according to City of Aurora spokesman Dan Ferelli.
The off-duty cop claimed that he had showed Rachelle his badge, not his gun, but Rachelle was absolutely certain about what she saw. In the end, Ferelli said it was the cop's word against Rachelle's and if she wanted to press charges, she would have to go through the State's Attorney's office, which she is planning to do. The police filed a "disorderly conduct report" to document the situation, but no arrests were made.
FRONT ROYAL - Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, today responded to the U.S. Senate's passing of a massive $447 billion omnibus spending bill, within which lies almost $700 million for abortion and other population control measures.
"The United States Congress has just signed millions of death warrants," said Rev. Euteneuer. "They have opened up the floodgates for murderous population controllers to use every means necessary to eliminate the weakest and poorest in developing nations."
On Sunday, December 14, the omnibus bill, which had already been approved by the House, passed the Senate by a wide margin, funding a wide variety of federal government initiatives and projects. Among the funds approved were $648.5 million for "international family planning" (including abortion and contraception) and $55 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has been exposed as having collaborated with China's destructive and coercive "one child policy". With President Barack Obama's January 2009 reversal of the Mexico City Policy, federal funds are again permitted to be funneled toward groups that perform and promote abortion worldwide--permission that had been denied by the previous Bush administration. The bill is expected to be signed by President Obama soon.
"Our country is broke. We keep having to increase our debt limit so we can borrow more money. And we are now borrowing money so that our government can fund the killing of unborn children. I cannot imagine a scenario more shameful than that which we are now witnessing," said Rev. Euteneuer.
"When ours was a saner nation, we used to decry the exploitation and destruction of God's weakest children around the world. In many cases we would even risk our own lives to defend them. Now we are collaborating with those who think that there are too many Africans, too many Asians and Latinos, too many unwanted human beings," said Rev. Euteneuer. "May God have mercy on us as a nation and our world, and may He defend those who now stand in the crosshairs of the anti-life extremists, including those extremists in our own government."
Doctor: 'To the outside observer, nothing looks more peaceful'
(Warning: This story contains content that may offend some readers.)
Elderly people are now buying their loved ones suicide kits as Christmas gifts, according to a prominent euthanasia physician nicknamed "Dr. Death."
Dr. Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International and author of "The Peaceful Pill Handbook," has explained the use of legal drugs, inert gases, plastic bags and other methods for committing suicide to audiences all over the world, including in U.S. cities such as San Francisco, Calif., and Anaheim, Calif.
He told Australia's Herald-Sun a so-called "peaceful pill" is being developed from Nembutal, the favored drug for ending life. Nembutal is the same drug that killed famous actress Marilyn Monroe. It's mostly used by veterinarians as an anesthetic and euthanasia drug for animals.
The drug is widely available in Mexico for around $30 a bottle, and Nitschke told ABC News in September he has accompanied terminally ill patients to buy the drug.
"You pour it into a glass. You drink it. You follow that with your whiskey, and I've never seen anyone finish their whiskey," he said. "They put the glass down, and they're gone – gone to sleep, and death follows shortly thereafter. To the outside observer, nothing looks more peaceful."
Nitschke conducts closed workshops around the world, open to people older than 50 who pay $40 and are of "sound mind." He also sells testing kits that detect levels of Nembutal.
According to his biography, in 1996, Nitschke "became the first physician to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection, under the world's first assisted-suicide law – the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of Australia."
Nitschke told ABC News, "I bought a machine. They pressed a button on the machine. The machine delivered the drugs, and they died in the arms of the persons they loved. … I knew I was doing the right thing."
He helped four people kill themselves before the law was overturned. Nitschke argued that if he weren't providing the information, people "would probably go out and hang themselves."
"This is peaceful. It's quick. It works," he said of one suggested inert gas method.
Nembutal pills (photo: Exit International)
Asked why he was promoting the "peaceful pill" for Christmas, Nitschke told the Herald-Sun his methods would always attract criticism.
"Our main opposition is from religious groups who would still be getting outraged at Easter, or any other time of year for that matter," he said in a "peaceful pill" seminar Dec. 16. "There are people here in this room who I know have bought that (euthanasia medication) for their loved ones as Christmas presents."
Right to Life Australia Queensland coordinator Graham Preston said, "A pill to kill yourself and your loved one as a Christmas present is absolutely reprehensible."
Nitschke's "The Peaceful Pill Handbook" also includes information on the use of an "exit bag." His website features a video called "Doing it with Betty," in which a nurse explains how to assemble a plastic hood used to place over a suicidal person's head.
She even suggests people get their hair done if they "want to look nice."
"At Exit International, we believe that with knowledge comes self-determination," Nitschke's website states, "and that means a good life and good death."
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Although the full text of Sen. Bob Casey's (D-PA) proposed abortion-funding health bill compromise has not yet been released, major pro-life organizations have already called the new funds-segregation scheme "completely unacceptable" and a violation of the Hyde amendment.
Because Casey is widely regarded as one of two pro-life Democrat Senators with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), his amendment might be seriously considered by Nelson, who has been holding out against the bill because of its violation of the Hyde amendment. If Nelson agrees to the compromise language, it may be the magic bullet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been looking for to win the last vote needed to overcome a GOP filibuster of the bill.
"I don't know at this point in time. Constituency groups haven't responded back yet," Nelson said when asked early on whether the new language was satisfactory, according to the Associated Press.
National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said today in an e-mail to reporters that the new amendment was a "far cry from the Stupak amendment."
"This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable," he said. "It is particularly offensive that the proposal apparently would make it the default position for the federal government to subsidize plans that cover abortion on demand, and then permit individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status.
"This is an exercise is cosmetics - like putting lipstick on a legislative warthog."
In an interview with the New York Times, USCCB Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities Richard Doerflinger said that, while the bishops appreciated the goals of some of Casey's proposals, none of the proposals addressed the bill's use of taxpayer money to fund abortion-covering insurance plans.
The bishops have vigorously and consistently rejected such funding regardless of the use of segregation schemes, as Pro-Life Chairman Cardinal Daniel DiNardo affirmed in a Dec. 13 letter to senators. "Attempts to achieve such segregation are irrelevant to current policy, which bars federal funds from being used for any part of a package that covers elective abortions," he wrote.
In a very similar scenario, the same pro-life leaders bluntly rejected a last-minute attempt at a funds-segregating compromise in the House of Representatives offered by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) last month. When Ellsworth failed to find support from conservative Democrats, House leadership was forced to capitulate to the full Hyde-amendment protections presented by the Stupak amendment.
Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Nelson continues to buck immense pressure from party leadership to vote for the bill despite the abortion funding. Unlike the House's Rep. Stupak, who had the backing of 39 other legislators, Nelson appears to be entirely alone among Democrats in holding out for Hyde-amendment restrictions.
Following a private meeting with President Obama on Tuesday, Nelson stated that he was sticking to his guns against the bill's abortion funding, as well as other issues. He said the meeting was his third in eight days with the President, who has tirelessly lobbied Congress to pass his health care overhaul as soon as possible.
While Obama "made a strong case for passing health care reform now," Nelson said, "I think it still remains to be seen if it was compelling."
"I do say if nothing is done, I'm not sure what Plan B is," he said. "If Plan B is start over...it's quite possible that it just won't happen. It seems to me that we have a chance right now to fix a flawed bill."
A healthcare reform expert says even though some liberals are wavering in their support for the current Senate healthcare bill, the modified measure is still extremely dangerous.
Senate Democrats are bent on passing a healthcare bill before Christmas, but they still lack the 60 votes necessary to get the job done. They have scrapped the "public option" and their alternative to that, a Medicare "buy-in" for people 55 and older, leading many liberals to complain that the bill was gutted to appease insurance companies.
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, says she believed all along that Democrats' promotion of the public option was merely a smokescreen to divert attention away from other disturbing aspects of the bill.
"This bill still has huge, huge problems," says Turner. "It still is going to increase healthcare costs for not only the federal government, but for the average American family." She explains that "it's going to put huge new requirements on businesses to go through an amazing number of hoops and hurdles, regulatory requirements, new fines and penalties on business."
And as far as individuals are concerned, the healthcare expert says "they're not only going to be required to buy this expensive new government health insurance, but they're going to be fined on their taxes if they don't -- and in the House bill, they can be thrown in jail."
Turner notes that in addition to taxpayer funding of abortion, the bill also includes half-a-trillion dollars in new taxes on businesses and individuals, and half-a-trillion in cuts to the Medicare program.
![Michelle is [recovering] from the emergency c-section](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u4koKkfSFVhyIbV6IRS6CPNPZa4hLCW8RN8gqYj_M9UGpiJsnzZVOQmWSPs8XrqLYY82yHcWSylZcj1dD-RDwCyqnPDGAWQVKaz6VXEQLjwnXRsif14Q7VUVv69TdpzPyPAjqR2SWOIw8QK9TTxWEy0j_pH7iIpuFHYKZrIyIwcB8bwglPziIxBa9A=s0-d "Michelle is [recovering] from the emergency c-section")
