President Ronald Reagan PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION - January 14, 1988

President Ronald Reagan PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION - January 14, 1988



President of the United States of America, Proclamation 5761, National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 1988

- "The unalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

- "NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, ..."

Source: http://www.personhoodamendments.com/reagan/index.php
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NY Nurse Forced to Help with Abortion Files Another Suit against Hospital

NY Nurse Forced to Help with Abortion Files Another Suit against Hospital

 

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Friday against Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York state court, on behalf of a nurse forced to participate in a late-term abortion procedure under threat of disciplinary action, including possible termination and loss of her license.

The state suit was filed in addition to pro-life nurse Cathy Cenzon-DeCarlo's federal lawsuit, which is on appeal, because her rights of conscience are also protected by New York law.

"Pro-life nurses shouldn't be forced to assist in abortions against their beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "It is illegal, unethical, and a violation of Cathy's rights of conscience as a devout Catholic to require her to participate in terminating the life of a 22-week pre-born child.

"It was not only wrong, it was needless."

Administrators at Mt. Sinai Hospital threatened DeCarlo with disciplinary measures in May 2009 if she did not honor a last-minute summons to assist in a scheduled late-term abortion. Despite the fact that the patient was apparently not in crisis at the time of the surgery, the hospital insisted on her participation in the procedure on the grounds that it was an "emergency," even though the procedure was not classified by the hospital as such.

The hospital has known of the Catholic nurse's religious objections to abortion since 2004.

In the newly filed state suit, ADF attorneys allege that Mt. Sinai is violating state conscience laws, as well as state laws against religious employment discrimination and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on an individual—along with five other claims based on DeCarlo's coerced participation in the abortion.

"An individual's conscience is often what brings health care workers into the medical field," said lead counsel Joseph Ruta, one of more than 1,600 attorneys in the ADF alliance. "Denying or coercing their conscience will likely drive them right out."

The attorneys filed the state lawsuit Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mt. Sinai Hospital with the Kings County Supreme Court.

ADF attorneys filed the federal suit in July 2009, claiming Mt. Sinai ignored federal laws prohibiting such coercion while receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. Mt. Sinai responded by saying Cenzon-DeCarlo had no right to sue.

The ADF also sent a letter in March urging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to take action against the hospital for its unlawful coercive treatment of DeCarlo.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

KFC's buckets full of breast cancer

KFC's buckets full of breast cancer



Friend Steve and others notified me last week that Kentucky Fried Chicken was launching a "national 'Buckets for the Cure™' campaign, aimed at educating more women and men about breast health, generating support for the cause and attempting to make the single largest donation in the history of Susan G. Komen for the Cure," according to its press statement.

Steve emailed, "I love KFC, but I guess I can't go during this time period."

That's because Komen gives grants to Planned Parenthood, which as we all know, causes breast cancer by aborting mothers and dispensing hormonal contraceptives. Komen officials say there are certain places in the US where only PP performs breast cancer screening....

While Komen turns a deaf ear toward our logic, maybe it won't on an analogous mainstream complaint with its KFC campaign.

CNN reported yesterday:

    Can chicken breasts help beat breast cancer? KFC officials are hoping customers will flock to help the chicken chain make a record-breaking donation of $8.5 million.

    But some critics are calling foul on the company's mixed message, especially in light of the recent, heavily publicized addition of the aggressively fat-and-sodium laden Double Down sandwich [pictured above] to their menu....

    The... American Cancer Society's website warns, "Being overweight or obese increases the risk of several cancers, including cancers of the breast (among women past menopause)..."

    It is the bucket color that is troubling Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, an organization that calls itself a watchdog group seeking to compel the changes to end breast cancer.

    She tells CNN that her group believes the KFC campaign is based in "pinkwashing" - putting a pink, cancer-awareness ribbon on products that are bad for health....

    "This will keep [Komen] in business for years. They talk about a cure, but this this partnership will create more breast cancer. And Komen knows this," said Brenner on the assumed relationship between fast food, excess weight and cancer risk....

    Komen's director of communication, Andrea Rader, tells CNN the claims are "ludicrous."

    "These partnerships go a long way toward supporting education and direct care for over 1,900 communities across the country. These programs provide mammograms to women in low-income communities," Rader said....

Well, there's a familiar excuse.

I happen to agree Komen has no business partnering with KFC, whose food only increases the risk of breast cancer. Hopefully mainstream pressure on the more politically correct issue of diet will cause Komen to think twice about partnering with breast cancer enablers. Talk about ludicrous.

But another part of me is pretty sure Komen's goals aren't necessarily what it states.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Komen giving to Planned Parenthood down by 10%

Komen giving to Planned Parenthood down by 10%



Someone on Facebook asked if Komen's overall revenue was down in 2009. Good question. Here's what I found, from it's 2008-09 annual report:



Komen brought in almost $22 million less, or 6% less, in 2009 than it made in 2008. So Planned Parenthood took a slightly bigger cut from Komen than Komen did from donors.

komen logo.png10:18a: I was just researching for a speech I'm giving tomorrow on the abortion-breast cancer link and noticed that the Susan G. Komen Foundation decreased its giving to Planned Parenthood by 10% from 2008 to 2009. That's not much, but it may be an indication their bond is weakening....

When I wrote my March 31 WorldNetDaily.com column, "Planned Parenthood deepens link to breast-cancer group," Komen's Message Points stated, "For our fiscal year '08, Komen Affiliates contributed nearly $805,000 to Planned Parenthood programs."

The updated Message Points now state: "For our fiscal year '09, Komen Affiliates contributed $731,000 to Planned Parenthood programs."

That represents a $74,000 decrease, or just about 10%.

Both Message Points stated the giving amounted to "less than 1 (one) percent of the total granted by Affiliates that year."

"Nearly" was a positive adverb that has been removed, although it may not have been germane. I think there were other subtle changes made to the verbiage of the new Message Points to distance Komen from PP but can't find a cached older version. For instance, I don't recall the old version stating this was a "very, very" small percentage. If someone else can find the previous version, it would sure be appreciated.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: April 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Marvel/DC Comics Illustrator Creates Pro-Life Comic Book

Marvel/DC Comics Illustrator Creates Pro-Life Comic Book



Professional illustrators come in all shapes and sizes, but very few of them have a pro-life or Christian perspective. But that is something that Dan Lawlis, a professional illustrator for over 20 years who has created comic book art for companies like Marvel and DC Comics, wants to change.

Lawlis is endeavoring to use the internet to bring a new comic book vision to the world, and has made his first go at the effort with the comic called "Orange Peel" – a story set in a technologically advanced future, where evil aliens plot to take-over the neighboring planet Godderth for conquest. However, they first plan to make conquest easy by getting the inhabitants of Godderth to abandon their morality, destroy the family unit, and become so morally impoverished that they will welcome their would-be conquerors with open arms.

The premise of the book is that somewhere in the future, human beings learned how to transport themselves to distant planets, but the transportation led to transformations in their appearance, making them alien-like.

The comic's artwork is visually stunning and appealing, and little wonder: Lawlis has worked on characters like Spiderman, the Hulk, X-Men and more.

But those characters, he said in an e-mail to LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), are more or less atheistic in their outlook. Instead, he was looking for a character that would appeal to comic book and science fiction fans and help introduce a pro-life Christian message "into what is mostly an anti-Christian atheist entertainment culture."

The main character, "Paul Roman" wears an orange jumpsuit with a "3" emblazoned on the front – a reference to the Trinity - drives a futuristic roadster called "Orange Peel," and engages in sharing the Good News with a bunch of alien thugs on Godderth, who call themselves "the Red Menace."

For Lawlis, this is his first attempt in a goal of creating a product that has a Christian/pro-life message within it, but can be accessible to a mainstream audience. While he admits he may not yet have hit the mark, he hopes to improve the comic with input and ideas from pro-life advocates.

"What I am asking for is feedback/support from the Pro-Life community," said Lawlis. "The art community is very pro-abortion and I don't think my comic book will be received well by them," adding that he may face repercussions in the industry as well.
 
The comic book can be viewed here. Interested viewers can contact Lawlis with advice and constructive criticism through the Orange Peel 3 website: www.ORANGEPEEL3.com

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding


Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) has introduced bipartisan legislation that aims to apply the Hyde amendment to the recently passed health care law.

Rep. Pitts' bill would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.  Additionally, the bill protects the right of conscience for health care professionals and ensures that private insurance companies are not forced to cover abortion.

H.R. 5111, the Protect Life Act, has 57 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors, and reflects the bill-wide ban of federal abortion funding once spearheaded by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), but that was not included in the final version of the health bill.

Stupak and a group of Democrats, after initially vowing to vote down the abortion-expanding law, were persuaded by the Obama administration hours before the final vote to support it in exchange for an executive order that purported to apply the Hyde amendment to the legislation. Various analysts have concluded, and the White House has since admitted, however, that the order merely reiterates what is already stated in the bill.

The Protect Life Act would afford the same pro-life protections that were approved with bipartisan support in the House last year.

"Last fall a strong bipartisan majority in the House insisted that the pro-life principles of the Hyde amendment should apply to the new healthcare law. Unfortunately, the legislation ultimately signed by the President lacked these critical safeguards," said Pitts in a press release April 22.

"A majority of Americans have consistently shown they oppose federal funding for abortion," he continued.  "The new health care law is riddled with loopholes that allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion.

"I'm proud to have strong support from both sides of the aisle. I never want protecting life to be a partisan issue."

Click here to read the complete text of the bill (PDF).

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Will Abortion Reform Sweep the Nation?

Will Abortion Reform Sweep the Nation?



Although Barack Obama signed an executive order prohibiting health insurance companies from using federal funds to pay for abortions (except in cases of incest, rape, or if the life of the mother is in danger), his sweeping new health care reform law has fired up state legislators.

Added to the mix are Live Action's undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood workers lying about fetal development and covering up statutory rape.

Earlier this month, Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill that bans most abortions 20 weeks after conception (with the usual exception for life or health of the mother), and it's based on the notion that unborn babies can feel pain at that stage. With Governor Dave Heineman's signature, the bill became law.

Heineman signed a related bill that requires abortion providers to screen women seeking abortions for mental and other risk factors and evaluate whether they were pressured into the decision.

Although a 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association article suggests the earliest an unborn baby can feel pain is 28 weeks, National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch disagrees.

"By 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children have pain receptors throughout their body, and nerves link these to the brain," she said. "These unborn children recoil from painful stimulation, which also dramatically increases their release of stress hormones. Doctors performing fetal surgery at and after 20 weeks now routinely use fetal anesthesia."

If that's true, babies torn apart during a second-trimester dilation and extraction may feel their dismemberment, and babies killed during partial birth abortions can feel the scissors at the base of their skulls.

Gruesome, I know. I expand on the topic at my blog.

This week, lawmakers in Oklahoma overrode Governor Brad Henry's veto of two bills that require women to undergo an ultrasound before they kill the baby and to listen to detailed descriptions of the unborn child. Planned Parenthood can't lie about fetal development anymore, at least not in Oklahoma. A pro-abortion group is suing, naturally. An abortion should be as quick, clean, and impersonal as possible.

In Kansas, doctors are required to give a medical diagnosis to justify killing late-term babies. Finally, if you're pregnant in Utah and ask your boyfriend to beat you up to kill the baby, you've committed a homicide. In other words, the unborn child is a person for purposes of the law only if his mother induced his death, not an abortion "doctor."

Contact: La Shawn Barber
Source: michellemalkin.com
Publish Date: April 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-life response to health care bill was non-partisan and praiseworthy, defenders say

Pro-life response to health care bill was non-partisan and praiseworthy, defenders say



Responding to claims that pro-life groups opportunistically used pro-life concerns to stop the recent health care reform bill's passage, the editors of Public Discourse have defended the pro-lifers' strategy as a non-partisan and "independent" response to the "hollowness" of the legislation's treatment of abortion funding.

In comments made after the passage of the health care reform law, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) accused the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) of "hypocrisy" and of "just using the life issue to try to bring down health care reform."

The editors of the lay Catholic magazine Commonweal were similarly critical, suggesting that pro-life groups including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) were "lobbying groups hoping to stop Obamacare."

Depicting Stupak as someone resisting "Republican efforts to sabotage health care reform," the Commonweal bloggers claimed that Americans United for Life (AUL) had lost its credibility as a non-partisan pro-life organization.

The editors of the online journal Public Discourse replied to these charges in an April 28 essay, criticizing the "insinuation" that concern about the bill's expansion of abortion was "a mere pretext."

According to the journal's editors, the legislative picture was much less clear than the Commonweal editors depicted it.

The Stupak Amendment, the Discourse's editors wrote, found "skepticism or outright opposition" from many conservatives, who thought it would help the bill pass. One leading blogger dismissed it as just a way for conservative Democrats to "save face."

For their part, pro-life groups "threatened to revoke the pro-life credentials" of any Republican voting against the amendment, Public Discourse said.

"This legislative arm-twisting effectively ensured the passage of the bill, and it did so with the votes of many who had adamantly opposed it," the editors continued. "If pro-life organizations hadn't forced GOP members to make this pro-life, pro-reform vote, there would likely be no health care bill today.   Congressman Stupak and the editors of Commonweal ought to pause for a moment to give that fact some consideration."

After the Stupak Amendment passed the U.S. House, Republican strategists Erick Erickson and Patrick Ruffini said conservatives should "blame National Right to Life" for the passage of health care. Erickson also accused NRLC of undercutting conservatives to raise money, while the Wall Street Journal editorial board said Stupak had "played pro-lifers like a Stradivarius."

In another show of independence, Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of the Susan B. Anthony List, published an editorial threatening support for pro-life Democrats if Republicans fell short on abortion.

The editors of Public Discourse noted that the USCCB touted the superiority of the House bill over the Senate bill on all criteria, including pro-life concerns.

"Clearly, the pro-life organizations' strategy was independent of a Democratic or Republican agenda. Little surprise, then, that it alienated partisans on both sides—the partisans at Commonweal included," they wrote.

Public Discourse accused Commonweal of partisanship in their "persistent misrepresentation" of President Obama's executive order on abortion funding, the funding of Community Health Centers, and the original Senate compromise language on insurance funding.

Commonweal's praise for the executive order, they said, ignored court precedent defining Medicaid as including abortion services unless statutory law explicitly forbids it.

"The statutory requirement prevails over the executive order," the Public Discourse editors said, noting the need for the language of the pro-life Hyde Amendment.

"The new legislation did not extend the Hyde Amendment to new funding streams," they continued. "The House bill would have done that; the Senate bill did not. No wonder Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood made no real effort to resist the executive order. The order was, as she put it, merely 'symbolic.'"

A gap in the health care funding restrictions also will result in funding for abortions at Community Health Care Centers, they warned. Further, the new health care law lacks a "critically important" clause of the Hyde Amendment which bars funding for health plans that include elective abortions.

"Over the course of the health care debate, the major pro-life groups and the Catholic bishops faithfully adhered to the cause of life. They recognized the hollowness of Obama's executive order, anticipated the threat posed by funding of Community Health Centers, and saw through an insurance funding scheme that claims to honor the Hyde Amendment's principle while gutting its policy and violating its spirit."

These actions sometimes advanced or retarded health care, but their steadfastness in their principles "deserves praise," the Public Discourse editors concluded.

Source: CNA
Publish Date: April 30, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR FRIDAY

Baby's Sex Drives Stress Response In Pregnancy



University of Adelaide research is showing that the sex of the baby determines the way it responds to stressors during pregnancy and its ability to survive pregnancy complications. Male and female babies during pregnancy show different growth and development patterns following stressors during pregnancy such as disease, cigarette use or psychological stress. The research is being carried out by the Robinson Institute's Pregnancy and Development Group, based at the Lyell McEwin Hospital and led by Associate Professor Vicki Clifton.
Click here for the entire article.


Canadian Bishops': Abortion Threatens Civilization

Euthanasia and assisted suicide called "inhuman practices"



In an advance copy of the message for the May 13 National March for Life, the pro-life arm of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops quotes Pope John Paul II saying that abortion poses "an immense threat to life: not only to the life of individuals but also to that of civilization itself."  The message of the Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) is titled "Threats to Civilization" and notes that the former pope's "strong warning rings true today."

The message speaks of the "devastating aftermath of abortion" and notes that "millions of unborn babies have been eliminated by abortion since 1969."  Abortion has "destroyed countless innocent lives and deeply scarred women, men, and children from all walks of life, leaving our society deeply wounded," says COLF.
Click here for the entire article.


New Center for Fetal Health Opens at Packard Children's Hospital



Complex fetal diagnoses bring extraordinary strain to pregnant women and their families. Learning an eagerly-awaited child will be born with a medical problem is often the worst crisis an expectant parents can face. To support families through complicated fetal diagnoses, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford recently announced the opening of a new Center for Comprehensive Fetal Health & Maternal and Family Care. Its goal is to provide comprehensive, coordinated, family-centered care for mothers and infants with difficult diagnoses, before and after birth.
Click here for the entire article.


Neb., Okla., Antiabortion Laws Represent Shift In State Restrictions, Some Advocates Say



New laws in Oklahoma and Nebraska represent some of the most aggressive antiabortion-rights legislation passed in recent years, leading some advocates to contemplate whether the measures are "isolated incidents or signs of a large shift," Politico reports. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that the new laws are "part of an onslaught of restrictions that we see constantly." She added, "But, that being said, these are both going farther [than] what we've seen before."

The Oklahoma law (HB 2780) requires a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound at least one hour before the procedure. The person performing the ultrasound must position the screen to face the woman and provide a detailed description of the fetus, including information on any visible limbs or organs. According to Politico, the woman would be allowed to avert her eyes from the image. The bill became law on Tuesday after the state Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Brad Henry (D). Although 14 other states require ultrasounds prior to abortions, the Oklahoma law "goes further" by requiring visibility of the monitor and a description of the fetus, Politico reports.

The Nebraska law (LB 1103) bans abortions after 20 weeks' gestation based on supporters' claims that a fetus can feel pain at that point. The first-of-its-kind measure, which is scheduled to take effect in October, likely will be challenged as unconstitutional because it bans pre-viability abortions. Multiple Supreme Court cases -- including Roe v. Wade -- identify viability as the point at which states can prohibit abortion, with exceptions for the health and life of the woman. States can regulate, but not ban, abortion prior to viability, Politico reports.
Click here for the entire article.

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding

U.S. Bill Would Amend Health Care to Exclude Abortion Funding


Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) has introduced bipartisan legislation that aims to apply the Hyde amendment to the recently passed health care law.

Rep. Pitts' bill would amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prevent federal funding for abortion or abortion coverage through government exchanges, community health centers, or any other program funded or created by PPACA.  Additionally, the bill protects the right of conscience for health care professionals and ensures that private insurance companies are not forced to cover abortion.

H.R. 5111, the Protect Life Act, has 57 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors, and reflects the bill-wide ban of federal abortion funding once spearheaded by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), but that was not included in the final version of the health bill.

Stupak and a group of Democrats, after initially vowing to vote down the abortion-expanding law, were persuaded by the Obama administration hours before the final vote to support it in exchange for an executive order that purported to apply the Hyde amendment to the legislation. Various analysts have concluded, and the White House has since admitted, however, that the order merely reiterates what is already stated in the bill.

The Protect Life Act would afford the same pro-life protections that were approved with bipartisan support in the House last year.

"Last fall a strong bipartisan majority in the House insisted that the pro-life principles of the Hyde amendment should apply to the new healthcare law. Unfortunately, the legislation ultimately signed by the President lacked these critical safeguards," said Pitts in a press release April 22.

"A majority of Americans have consistently shown they oppose federal funding for abortion," he continued.  "The new health care law is riddled with loopholes that allow taxpayer subsidies for coverage that includes abortion.

"I'm proud to have strong support from both sides of the aisle. I never want protecting life to be a partisan issue."

Click here to read the complete text of the bill (PDF).

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Book Shows Why Abortion for Young Rape Victim Is Likely to Harm, Not Help

Book Shows Why Abortion for Young Rape Victim Is Likely to Harm, Not Help
   


Springfield, IL, - The news that an 11-year-old girl in Mexico who became pregnant through rape, allegedly by her stepfather, has decided to continue her pregnancy has caused a lot of controversy in recent days.
 
Some abortion advocates have argued that the girl in Mexico is too young to continue the pregnancy and should have an abortion, with some even suggesting that it be done despite her expressed wish to have the baby.

Such issues are also a focus during April, which is Sexual Assault Awareness month.
 
But a book about women who became pregnant through rape or incest - including young girls in situations similar to this - suggests that, rather than helping the girl recover, abortion is more likely to cause her further psychological harm.

"Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault," is based on a survey of 192 women who became pregnant through rape or incest and either had an abortion or continued the pregnancy.
 
Victims and Victors includes personal stories from 20 women who recalled their experiences and explained how the outcome of their pregnancy affected them.
 
One woman who became pregnant by her father at the age of 15 said that she refused an abortion after becoming pregnant but, at her father's request, was held down on a table and given the abortion anyway.
 
"I was told that an abortion would solve my problem, when it was never really the problem in the first place," she wrote years later. "I was told, 'Your parents know what's best,' when they obviously were only concerned about their own reputations. I was told, 'You made the right decision,' when I was never given a choice. More important, where was my baby's choice?"
 
Indeed, the survey on which the book was based found that many of those who had abortions did so due to pressure, demands  or even force. And in almost every case in which the pregnancy resulted from incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of the incest victims reported having any say in the decision.
 
Elliot Institute Director David Reardon, one of the editors of Victims and Victors, said that nearly 80 percent of the women in the survey who had abortions said abortion didn't help them. Instead, many reported problems such as depression, substance abuse, broken and abusive relationships, and suicide attempts after abortion.
 
"Most of the respondents who had abortions told us that abortion actually compounded the trauma and emotional pain they experienced from the sexual abuse, and that it was not a good solution," Reardon said. "On the other hand, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had aborted instead."
 
A common theme among the stories told by women in the book was that abortion allowed others to dismiss their pain rather than offering authentic support.
 
"Abortion frequently increases the woman's sense of isolation and stigma by allowing others to pretend the problem didn't exist," Reardon said. "By getting rid of the pregnancy, which is a reminder of the sexual assault, it allows other people to ignore the woman's need for understanding and honest exploration and resolution of what she has been through."
 
Further, having a history of sexual assault or abuse, having an abortion as a teen and having an unwanted abortion are known risk factors for psychological injury after abortion, Reardon said.
 
One woman who was impregnated by her stepfather at the age of 12 and forced to have an abortion later wrote:
 
"Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss. ...

"The abortion which was to 'be in my best interest' just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only 'saved their reputations,' 'solved their problems,' and 'allowed their lives to go merrily on.'"
 
During Sexual Assault Awareness Month the Elliot Institute also worked to raise awareness that abortion harms, rather than helps, women who become pregnant through sexual assault, through the publication of a special report entitled "Abortion and Sexual Assault Pregnancy: Information for Sexual Assault Awareness Month." In addition, the group provides information and free educational resources on this issue for individuals and organizations.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

New act reflects public view on abortion funding

New act reflects public view on abortion funding



Fifty members from the two major political parties have joined together and introduced the Protect Life Act to apply the Hyde Amendment to the recently passed healthcare law.

While healthcare reform funds abortion, this proposal would block the use of federal tax dollars for abortion. Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado) tells OneNewsNow the Protect Life Act (H.R. 5111) is more reflective of the public view.

Doug Lamborn"When you look at what Americans want -- even some who might want to allow for abortion -- they certainly don't want to pay for it out of taxpayers' money," he reports. "And on top of that, you have a lot of pro-life people in this country. You put that all together, and you have 70 percent of Americans not wanting to use taxpayer funds for abortion."

The congressman notes that the bill also has a definitive conscience clause. "'ObamaCare' does not protect healthcare professionals from being penalized if they don't want to participate in or refer people for abortion, so this would restore that kind of important language," he explains. The measure would also ensure that private insurance companies are not forced to cover abortion.

Lamborn stresses that whether the bill passes really depends on the degree of pressure voters apply on their elected representatives.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Okla. ultrasound law is constitutional and ‘commonsense’ abortion regulation, backer says

Okla. ultrasound law is constitutional and 'commonsense' abortion regulation, backer says



Women aren't done any favors when the truth about abortion is hidden from them, says a backer of a new "commonsense" Oklahoma law that requires a doctor to give an ultrasound to a woman seeking an abortion. His comments come in response to a legal challenge from the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

The law passed on Tuesday after a bipartisan vote in the Oklahoma legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Brad Henry's veto.

The law requires the doctor to show a woman the ultrasound image of her unborn baby and to describe the image in detail before performing an abortion.

In a Tuesday statement, the CRR argued that the requirement for an ultrasound "profoundly intrudes" on a patient's privacy, calling it "the most extreme ultrasound law in the country."

"The law forces a woman to hear information that she may not want to hear and that may not be relevant to her medical care," the CRR continued, saying this alleged compulsion discounts "her abilities to make healthy decisions about her own life."

The organization also claimed that the law interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.

Stephanie Toti, staff attorney in the U.S. Legal Program of the CRR, claimed that the law was "clearly unconstitutional" and detrimental to women. She also said a court fight would waste Oklahoma taxpayers' money.

CNA spoke about the new law in a Wednesday interview with Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans for Life.

He said the law is in fact constitutional, noting the "very clear" rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The state has a right to ensure that a woman receives sufficient information to give fully informed consent," Lauinger commented, adding that the law provides important information to a woman in advance of an "irrevocable, lethal act."

"Many women suffer severe psychological and emotional trauma as a result of having had abortions," he explained, contending that the law will "help empower women."

Countering the claims of the CRR, Lauinger said the law does not intrude on a woman's privacy or violate the doctor-patient relationship.

"We believe the description of the images on the ultrasound screen is a very logical and proper part of the informed consent process. A woman is entitled to the benefit of this information. A doctor is obliged to provide that information. The law doesn't tell the doctor how to describe the images, but he is to describe what is depicted on the screen."

To CRR's claim that a court fight will waste taxpayer money, he replied:

"It is they who are filing the lawsuit. That charge makes no sense."

Asked how the law will affect abortion doctors, Lauinger answered that abortion is "an assembly-line, mass-production type of process" that is "extremely impersonal" and has "virtually no interchange between the abortionist and the woman."

"So this will provide much more beneficial information to a woman before she gets the abortion," he explained.

If the doctor is the one explaining the images of the ultrasound screen, he noted, the law will actually increase the amount of contact between the doctors and the patient.

The law may also increase the amount of time a doctor spends explaining the consequences of abortion on her unborn child.

"The abortion industry tries to hide the truth from women about the baby in the womb. This law will help provide to the women a window on her womb."

In Lauinger's view, it is much better for a woman to have that knowledge before she takes the "irrevocable and lethal step of having her own child killed by abortion." Otherwise, she could suffer "devastating results" when she sees an ultrasound on television or on a friend's refrigerator and feels "powerless to undo the past."

Asked to explain why legislators were so supportive of the law, he said Oklahoma has a "wonderful legislature" and "great elected officials" in the state House and Senate.

"The people of Oklahoma are pro-life, this issue is one with which our legislators are familiar."

"They recognize the commonsense benefits of providing a woman all possible info prior to an abortion," Lauinger explained. "Hopefully many unborn children will have their very lives spared."

Legislators who did not support the bill are "overlooking some important factors," he thought.

Abortion facilities routinely perform ultrasounds already, including the facility that has filed suit against such laws, he reported. "They acknowledged that they do an ultrasound before every abortion that they perform.

"What this bill does is require the abortion facility to turn the screen at an angle where the mother may view it. She can see it if she wants to look.

"Such a commonsense measure could save a lot of lives and spare a lot of women a lifetime of emotional and psychological anguish. We are disappointed that some might not vote for it, and very disappointed that the governor chose to veto it.

"We don't do pregnant women any favors when we hide the truth from them," Lauinger told CNA.

Source: CNA/EWTN News
Publish Date: April 29, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Bishop Slattery Decries Pain of Women Who 'Lost Part of their Soul' to Abortion

Bishop Slattery Decries Pain of Women Who 'Lost Part of their Soul' to Abortion



In a stirring homily delivered in the magnificent National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C. this Sunday, Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa, Oklahoma, called attention to the pain of countless post-abortive women who now grieve the loss of their child - pain that is largely ignored or silenced by the pro-abortion lobby and media.

(Click here to read the complete homily)

Slattery was celebrating a pontifical high Mass in honor of the anniversary of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, in the first traditional Latin Mass to be celebrated at the high altar at the Shrine in more than 40 years.

"It is the sufferings of our people that defines the culture of our modern secular age," said Slattery.

He then called attention to various forms of distinctly modern suffering, including "women who have been deceived into believing that abortion was a simple medical procedure and thus have lost part of their soul to the greed of the abortionist."

Although the bitter stories of post-abortive women often never see the light of day, hundreds of grieving women have shared their testimonies through the advocacy group Silent No More Awareness. Among them are several stories describing exactly what Slattery spoke of: the lingering anguish of women who, unwilling to face the reality of abortion until it was too late, found themselves forced by clinic staff to go through with a procedure that ends up shattering their lives with guilt.

Rebecca of Florida describes the hellish experience of her third abortion after her parents refused to sign the papers to give the child up for adoption. (Click here to watch video of Rebecca's testimony)

"When I walked into the door that day, I was crying even when I walked in the door, I didn't want to be there," says Rebecca. "All they wanted was my money." After the procedure began, she relates, she finally met the gaze of the nurse: "She looked down, and then she looked up at me and she smiled and she said, 'Oh look, twins.'

"And I just remember screaming, 'Oh my God, what have I done,' and I screamed, 'Stop, stop, please stop,' and then the abortionist started screaming at me to lay down because I was trying to get up off of the table. ... They had to come and hold me down and finish the procedure.

"I remember walking out of there that day like a zombie and I just wanted to die. And I did try to commit suicide twice within the next three months. "

For Luz of Florida, her "living hell" started the moment she woke up from the anaesthetic of her abortion. "I felt my life was ruined, and I thought of suicide so I could join my baby in the afterlife," she wrote. "On the way home from the clinic I thought about throwing myself out of the car on the expressway."

Luz said she spent years attempting suicide, suffering flashbacks, withdrawing into deep depression, and resenting her husband and her living children for her abortion.

However, like several other women, Luz said she began to learn how to forgive herself, and the others involved, only after reconciling to God through a Rachel's Vineyard retreat and other forms of spiritual healing.

"I came to understand that God allowed his son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for the forgiveness of my sins," she said. "That included the horrible sin of my abortion.

In his homily Sunday, Slattery took up the theme of suffering to point out that such pain is "transformed by [Christ's] presence."

Because of Christ, said Slattery, suffering "no longer has the power to alienate or isolate us. Neither can it dehumanize us nor destroy us. Suffering, however long and terrible it may be, has only the power to reveal Christ among us, and He is the mercy and the forgiveness of God."

(Click here to read Bishop Slattery's full homily)

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 26, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

UN Commission on Population and Development, 43rd Session

UN Commission on Population and Development, 43rd Session



The forty-third session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) convened at the United Nations in New York City on April 12 and ended on April 16, 2010. The initial working draft document seemed to be more balanced and reasonable than others in past years, and certainly less contentious than the one from the 42nd session of the Commission in 2009.

On the first day of the meetings this year it appeared that it would certainly not be as chaotic as last year. But things quickly changed.

The theme of last year's CPD was the 15-year review of the1994 International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo. As expected, there was a clear attempt to push the pro-abortion agenda beyond previously agreed upon language in United Nations documents.

Although flawed, the Programme of Action established at the Cairo Conference did not establish a right to abortion. In fact, that document states that it does not create any new human rights and that abortion cannot be promoted as a method of family planning.

Last year, because of the outrageous and numerous attempts to insert language in order to push the abortion agenda beyond the Cairo agreements, there were marathon negotiating sessions of the delegates from member nations which ended in deadlock and no agreement between the delegates.

In order to avoid total failure, the chairwoman of the 2009 commission and her facilitator produced a hastily formulated and very problematic draft for approval by member states, which was not the result of consensus by the delegates in their negotiations. It was ultimately approved only after crucial amendments, which were demanded by one delegate who refused to join consensus without them. With those amendments the document was in agreement with the abortion neutral language from the Cairo conference.

At this year's meeting, initially it appeared that there was going to be a genuine attempt to produce a final document that would truly reflect the theme of this year's Commission meeting: Health, Morbidity and Development. There didn't seem to be a big push to further promote the abortion agenda.

The draft document wasn't perfect, but it was sensible. Moreover, unlike last year, the speeches from the podium to the delegates also reflected a balanced approach to improving health care and to achieve the UN's goals of reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases.

Dr. Carissa F. Etienne, Assistant Director General for Health Systems and Services for the World Health Organization gave a speech with a very reasonable approach to reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. Her speech, as did the proposed working document, focused on measures to decrease maternal mortality which have saved women's lives in the developed world for over seventy years. These include strengthening of health systems to make good maternal health care available, as well as prenatal, postnatal care, skilled birth attendants, emergency obstetric care, antibiotics, clean blood and good nutrition.

In other words, the lack of modern medicine and quality health care, not the prohibition of abortion, results in high maternal mortality rates. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute once admitted that legalized abortion actually leads to more abortions. It has been documented over and over that in the developing world where maternal health care is poor, legalization of abortion increases the number of women who die or are harmed by abortion.

However, the statements and pleas from the Americans and European Union countries signaled what was to come, and how far they would go in promoting the abortion agenda. The focus of these countries was on "reproductive health" and rights (which they claim includes the legalization of abortion) as the way to save women's lives. Their speeches were so wrought with propaganda and sometimes blatant inaccuracies, that Jeanne Head requested and was granted the opportunity to make an intervention (speech) with the strategic aim of steering the commission back on track and to clear up the misinformation.

There were many proposed amendments to the document during the first two days of the Commission, and they were disproportionately related to reproductive health and reproductive rights and abortion. This turned the initial six-page document into a twenty page document that contained over 30 references to reproductive health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, reproductive health services or abortion.

Then we experienced déjà vu all over again. Just as in the previous year's negotiations, this year's went into the early morning hours. The marathon sessions lasted until 4:15 AM on Friday – the last day of the meeting--and again ended in failure to produce an agreed document. The meeting was recessed until noon.

This is when, once again, a hastily written document was produced by the Chairman of the Commission. But this time, although flawed, it was more reasonable and--like the original document from the start of the week--provided a fairly balanced approach in keeping with this year's theme.

However, several delegations, most notably those from Cuba, South Africa, and Brazil, refused to accept this new document presented by the chair. Incredibly, at the last hour, the document was opened for debate. An hour passed and an agreed upon "package" of paragraphs were added to the document after frantic negotiations.

There were fourteen new paragraphs in all, five of which related to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Some were taken from last year's document.

In the end, however, the United Nations Population Fund and other pro-abortion organizations and member states (including Obama's hand-picked pro-abortion American delegation) failed to advance their abortion agenda. This was in part due to the persistence and endurance of many pro-life delegates and the pro-life NGOs (non-governmental organizations) including NRLC's own representatives.

But sadly, as has been the case since the new American Administration took hold, ideology trumped common sense and the more balanced and reasonable approach was lost. Many delegations and pro-abortion NGOs showed us that they care more about promoting their abortion agenda than actually saving the lives of women and children.

Contact: Jeanne E. Head, RN and Rai Rojas
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: April 28, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR THURSDAY

Bill Forces Every New Yorker To Be Organ Donors



New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States. "Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy," Brodsky said. Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor. Legal experts said if the law is passed, it will likely face challenges in court from family members or some religious groups.
Click here for the entire article.


S.Carolina Senate Rejects Bid to Limit Funding on Killing Rape/Incest Babies



South Carolina senators have rejected efforts to bar abortion coverage under the state health insurance plan for victims of rape and incest. The 24-17 vote on Wednesday came in the midst of state budget debate as Republican state Sen. David Thomas of Fountain Inn tried to revive a measure the House had included in its version of the state's $5 billion spending plan. But Republican state Sen. Mike Fair of Greenville was trying to limit the handful of abortions that are covered by requiring victims to report rape or incest within 48 hours. Rape victims covered by the state health plan would have to submit to medical treatment within five days of the rape.
Click here for the entire article.


Baby Boy Lived Two Days After Abortion



The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy. The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled. However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die. He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body. He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.
Click here for the entire article.


New Push to Extend Pro-Abort Backed Maputo Plan of Action in Africa



Last week, the African Union (AU) held a continental conference on maternal and child health in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to discuss the possibility of extending the non-binding Maputo Plan of Action on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (Maputo PoA), which was scheduled to expire this year.

The conference, themed "Achieving the MDGs through the Accelerated Reduction of Maternal and Child Mortality in Africa," brought together maternal and child health experts from AU Member States, United Nations (UN) agencies and non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives to discuss ways of reducing the high rates of maternal mortality in the continent, and in particular to review a lengthy extension of the Maputo PoA through 2015 to coincide with the time frame of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Click here for the entire article.

Judge to rule in Aurora Planned Parenthood Zoning Case

Judge to rule in Aurora Planned Parenthood Zoning Case Yesterday, Judge Neal Cerne heard arguments for over ninety minutes on the "Motion To Dismiss" in our zoning case against Planned Parenthood's huge "Abortion Fortress of Aurora." In fact, there wasn't just one "Motion to Dismiss" but actually THREE -- one from Planned Parenthood, one from the City of Aurora and one from the Aurora Zoning Board of Appeals! Each of those entities had their own lawyer in court yesterday, while our side was represented by Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society -- it was three against one! They pulled out every legal maneuver in the book to try to get Judge Cerne to toss our case, but it didn't work -- at least not yet. Judge Cerne decided not to rule from the bench yesterday -- a good sign -- but to take three weeks to look over the case before deciding whether to let it go to trial. Contact: Eric Scheidler Source: Pro-Life Action League Publish Date: April 28, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

Court Will Decide If Hospital May Refuse Life Support Despite Patient's and Family's Wishes

Court Will Decide If Hospital May Refuse Life Support Despite Patient's and Family's Wishes A court will decide if a New Jersey hospital may refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient's family, the New Jersey Star-Tribune reported on Wednesday.   According to the newspaper, New Jersey's Trinitas hospital is looking for an exception to the state's advance directives law, which says patients and their families have the right to decide when and whether to remove life support, regardless of what doctors say.   The case involves a man who had been in a vegetative state for almost a year. Doctors believed his treatment was "inhumanely" prolonging the dying process, the newspaper said. A judge ordered the hospital to continue life support treatment, and the hospital appealed.   According to the Star-Tribune, the ruling could have national implications. Source: CNSNews.com Publish Date: April 28, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

Arizona First to Officially Opt Out of Abortion Coverage in Health Care

Arizona First to Officially Opt Out of Abortion Coverage in Health Care   Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill into law Saturday making Arizona the first state to opt out of the federal health care abortion mandate. The Legislature had already been working on language to keep abortion funding out of state plans.  Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said lawmakers took that language and tailored it to apply to the federal mandate. "Once Obamacare passed," she said, "we were able to get an amendment on the bill that opts Arizona out of abortion coverage in any insurance exchanges." Brewer signed SB 1305 at a Center for Arizona Policy Family Dinner. "We had somewhere close to 40 legislators on stage as Governor Brewer did a live bill signing," Herrod said.  "It was very much a celebration." Contact: Steve Jordahl Source: CitizenLink Publish Date: April 27, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.

More Evidence That China Killing Dissidents and Selling Their Organs

More Evidence That China Killing Dissidents and Selling Their Organs If these stories are true–and I believe they are–China is a monster state.  I have previously covered credible charges that Falun Gong prisoners are killed and their organs sold, stating that while there was not enough proof for a "conviction" beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence would certainly justify a "search warrant," thus compelling, it seemed to me, concerted international investigations. That hasn't happened.  Now, new charges have been leveled that not only are Falun Gong still being preyed upon and their organs sold, but so too are Tibetans and other dissidents.  From the story: In a news conference on Capitol Hill, several speakers, including attorney David Matas of B'nai Brith Canada and Ethan Gutmann of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said their investigations have unearthed a grisly trade in which an estimated 9,000 members of Falun Gong have been executed for their corneas, lungs, livers, kidneys and skins. They likened the practice to the Nazi treatment of Jewish prisoners in World War II concentration camps, which included using them for sadistic medical experiments and taking the gold fillings from the teeth of corpses. The newest wrinkle, they said, is that organs from other religious prisoners — specifically dissidents from China's Christian, Muslim and Tibetan Buddhist communities — are also being harvested to satisfy an insatiable global demand. "These groups are useless to the state," Mr. Gutmann said. "They are toxic, so you can't release them. But they're worth a great deal of money in terms of their organs." Organs from just one person can fetch a total of $100,000 on the worldwide market, he added."… The charges of organ harvesting and its spread to other religious and ethnic groups were made by the researchers and activists based on their extensive interviews with former prisoners and families of prisoners, and based on analysis of statistics, including health numbers, released by the Chinese government. So, where are our leaders complaining about human rights abuses?  You don't hear them, either?  Perhaps we've sold our soul to China along with our children's inheritance. But then again, the essential "I know nothing!" parties to this sordid business are the organ buyers–like Larry Asa Rose–who proudly wrote all about his experiences in the Chinese organ trade in the "uproarious" Larry's Kidney. After all, without people like him, there wouldn't be any place for sellers to peddle their organs. Contact: Wesley J. Smith Source: Secondhand Smoke Publish Date: April 28, 2010 Link to this article. Send this article to a friend.