Kagan to President Clinton: Partial-birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional; Nonetheless, Support “Compromise” for Political Gain

Kagan to President Clinton:  Partial-birth Abortion Ban Unconstitutional; Nonetheless, Support "Compromise" for Political Gain

    

In 1997, while serving as an associate White House Counsel to President Bill Clinton, Elena Kagan advised the President on HR 1122, a bill to ban partial-birth abortions.[1]  Kagan's memo to the President containing her advice was selectively leaked to the press and has been spun to present Kagan as a moderate who would possibly be friendly to pro-life legislation.  The memo, however, does not support that conclusion.  Rather, Kagan's advice to President Clinton indicates that she could be hostile to pro-life legislation.  Moreover, it raises questions regarding her respect for the Constitution.

The Context

In 1997, the House passed HR 1122, an act to amend Title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions.  The bill would ban any abortion "in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery," unless necessary to save the mother's life.[2] 
President Clinton had vetoed a previous partial-birth abortion ban passed by the House and Senate.  HR 1122 passed the House on a vote of 295 to136.  With over 290 votes, there was enough support in the House to override a presidential veto. 

Pro-abortion Senators looking for a way to dodge accountability for voting against the ban that had overwhelming support of the American people offered two amendments that would have rendered the bill meaningless.  Elena Kagan's newly disclosed memo to the President was an evaluation of these two amendments, one offered by Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and one offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Kagan advised gutting the partial-birth-abortion ban

In her memo, Kagan does not suggest the President support the partial birth abortion ban.  Instead, she suggests the President support the amendment offered by Senator Daschle.[3]

The Daschle amendment was promoted as going further than a partial birth abortion ban and banning any abortion after "viability."  However, though the Daschle amendment applied to all abortion procedures, its "ban" was rendered meaningless by its exceptions.  No single abortion, partial-birth or otherwise, would have been prohibited by the amendment.

Importantly, the Daschle amendment did not include any objective fetal viability testing requirement.[4]  Rather, under the Daschle proposal, the abortionist would be the sole judge of the viability of the unborn child and would decide when (and to what child) the bill applies.  Such a law would be impossible for an abortionist to violate, as its terms would be left to his subjective judgment.

Second, even if the child were determined to be viable, the Daschle amendment would have allowed abortion if an abortionist determined that "continuation of the pregnancy" would "risk grievous injury" to the mother. 

The Daschle amendment defines "grievous injury" to include (a) any condition that is medically diagnosable and (b) any condition for which termination of pregnancy is "medically indicated."  Federal courts have interpreted "medically necessary" to mean the same things as "health" within Doe v. Bolton.[5]    The Court in Doe, decided the same day as Roe v. Wade,[6] created an unlimited definition of maternal "health." The Court wrote, "[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors- physical, emotional, physchological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well being of the patient.  All these factors may relate to health."  The Court held that the abortionist was allowed to make that judgment. 

Apparently Kagan believes even a phony ban is unconstitutional

Kagan's memo states, "The Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department similarly believes that both the Daschle and the Feinstein amendments, properly read, violate Roe because they countenance tradeoffs involving women's health."[7] 

Kagan's memo does not counter the assertion about the amendment's unconstitutionality.  Thus, it would seem that Kagan accepts OLC's assessment.  If Kagan believes that the Daschle amendment, whose exceptions would have allowed any abortion, was unconstitutional, she would certainly be hostile to any true pro-life legislation like the partial-birth abortion ban upheld by the Court in Gonzales v. Carhart, which did not contain the standard "health exception."[8]

Kagan suggested the President support language she believed would be unconstitutional?

After stating that the Daschle language would be unconstitutional (without offering any advice to the contrary), she urges the President to support it, her rationale being that his support would offer political cover.  "We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto."[9] 

Supporting language that one believes is unconstitutional for political gain is unconscionable regardless of the branch of government in which one serves.  Elena Kagan's responsibility was to uphold the Constitution.  Her advice to President Clinton raises serious questions as to how she will view her role as guardian of the Constitution if confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

Elena Kagan's advice to President Clinton serves as a warning for the vast majority of Americans who oppose expansion of abortion.  Her memo suggests that in her opinion even phony compromise legislation which purports to regulate abortion is unconstitutional.  Moreover, her advice to President Clinton that he should support what she believed to be unconstitutional language raises serious questions about her commitment to upholding the Constitution. 

Refernces

[1] Memorandum from Bruce Reed and Elena Kagan to President Bill Clinton (May 13, 1997).

[2] Section 1531 (a) "This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury: Provided, that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose."

[3] Kagan's memo does not expressly support the Feinstein amendment, which, similar to Daschle's amendment, created a broad "health" exception.  Kagan's memo described the Feinstein amendment as being "rightly view[ed] as a less serious proposal."  See Memorandum, note 1 at 2.

[4] Such as the Missiouri provision upheld by the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). 

[5] Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The Court reaffirmed the Doe definition of "health" in Beal v. Doe, emphasizing the stipulation that "medical necessity" in the Pennsylvania law "is broad enough to encompass the factors specified in [Doe v.] Bolton." 432 U.S. 438 (1977).  The lower federal courts have also applied the Doe health definition broadly to strike down regulations without such a "health" exception.  For example, the Third Circuit, in American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Thornburgh, citing Doe v. Bolton, declared that "[i]t is clear from the Supreme Court cases that "health" is to be broadly defined." 737 F.2d 283, 299 (3d Cir. 1984). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. 476 U.S. 747 (1986).  Similarly, the Sixth Circuit, in Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, affirmed the subjective discretion of the abortion provider and the Doe definition of health, starkly declaring that "Roe's prohibition on state regulation when an abortion is necessary for the 'preservation of the life or health of the mother' must be read in the context of the concept of health discussed in Doe." 130 F.3d 187, 209-10 (6th Cir. 1997) ("importance of giving the physician discretion to decide whether an abortion is necessary"; finding the health exception unconstitutionally limited "the physician's discretion to determine whether an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's health…"), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1036 (1998). See Voinovich v. Women's Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036, 1039 (1998).

[6] 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[7] See Memorandum, note 1 at 2.

[8] 550 U.S. 124 (2007).

[9] See Memorandum, note 1 at 2.

Contact: Matthew Faraci
Source: Americans United for Life Legal Team
Publish Date: May 18, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Nix on Presumed Consent

Nix on Presumed Consent

    

First Things asked me (Wesley J. Smith) to opine on the recently introduced New York legislation (A-9865) to enact a presumed consent law for organ donation.  Glad to oblige.  I open by identifying the problem.  From  “Presumptuous Consent:”

Many more sick people need kidneys, hearts, and livers than there are kidneys, hearts, and livers to go around. This shortage is the result of both decreased supply and increased demand. For example, public safety laws requiring that motorists wear seat belts and motorcyclists helmets have reduced the kind of catastrophic head injuries that often lead to organ donation. At the same time, the capacities of transplant medicine have advanced exponentially, allowing more people to benefit from a transplant than ever before. The toll taken by the resulting shortage is measured in the number of patients who die while waiting in line for an organ to become available.

People are wary of transplant medicine.  In order to gain trust, the transplant medical sector made two solemn promises to society:

Broadly stated, these rules prevent patients—no matter how sick or catastrophically disabled—from ever being treated as a mere organ system rather than an equal member of the moral community. This is accomplished through adherence to two legally enforceable principles:

•Donors of vital organs must be clinically dead before procurement, a requirement known as the “dead donor rule;” and

•Organs will be taken only if consent is freely given—either by the patient via signed organ donor cards or by family members. Indeed, informed and freely given consent is currently recognized as being so symbiotically bound with the public’s trust in the transplant system that organs are almost never procured without obtaining explicit familial consent even when a donor card is on file.

Both are now in danger of being broken.  I warn against the many proposals to eliminate the dead donor rule, oft discussed here at SHS.  I then pivot to presumed consent.  I describe the legislation and explain that while it seems to have increased the organ supply in Spain and France, it has had mixed results elsewhere.  Besides, the USA is not Europe:

We value individualism over collectivism, autonomous decision making over the imposed “greater good.” Indeed, presumed consent laws could unleash a boomerang effect: Many would resent the new approach as government coercion over one of the most intimate decisions anyone can make and protest by taking the opt out option.

And then there is the current troubling medical context in which presumed consent would be implemented:

The Obamacare debate, with its specter of “death panel” rationing boards and waiting lines, significantly undermined the people’s faith in our medical system. Now, factor in presumed consent to the popular fears that expensively ill and injured patients will soon be discarded as so much medical waste. Finally, mix in already existing medical futility policies—such as in Texas—which permit hospital ethics committees meeting behind closed doors to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based “quality of life” or the cost of their care—and you have a perfect prescription for distrust in all things medical. In such a milieu, the temptation to believe that your catastrophically head-injured son could have been saved, but died because his organs were deemed more valuable than his life, would be, for some, hard to resist.

Last but not least, there is the issue of public policy integrity, a commodity I worry is in increasingly short supply in our world driven by emotional narratives:

We have become a public policy promise breaking nation. Think of the many times solemn assurances have been given that reasonable restrictions will be maintained in order to gain popular acceptance of controversial policies—and how casually they were cast aside once the deal was sealed. Remember when IVF was going to be limited to infertile married couples? Now “Octomom”—a fertile, single woman—has fourteen children conceived by IVF and has become a cover model for celebrity magazines.

We can’t permit a similar pattern to swamp the ethics of organ transplant medicine. A bad idea—even when envisioned for altruistic reasons—is still a bad idea. Presumed consent has no place in American medicine or public health policy.

Good motives do not necessarily make good policy–in fact, as with presumed consent, too often, just the opposite.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: May 18, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Brave New World: Sex for Babies Obsolete in Ten Years, Boast Researchers

Brave New World: Sex for Babies Obsolete in Ten Years, Boast Researchers

    

Researchers are bragging that within the next ten years, in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology will have advanced so far that it will perform "better than nature" and sex will no longer be necessary for human reproduction.

"We are not quite at that stage yet, but it's where we're heading,' said Dr. John Yovich, co-author of the study, “Embryo culture: can we perform better than Nature?” as quoted in the U.K. Daily Mail. The study was published in the April 2010 issue of the journal Reproductive BioMedicine.

“Natural human reproduction is at best a fairly inefficient process," said Yovich. He and co-author Gabor Vajta, both Australian veterinarians, told the Mail that given that IVF is 100 times more “efficient” than natural reproduction in cattle, the same may be possible with human beings. “Within the next five to ten years, couples approaching 40 will access the IVF industry first when they want to have a baby.”

The idea of normalizing sex and procreation as two completely separate activities was predicted in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World, where children are conceived and grown in Hatcheries and Conditioning Centres, before undergoing a final “decanting” process that has replaced birth.

According to Vicki Thorn, founder and executive of Project Rachel and the National Office of Post Abortion Healing and Reconciliation, and an expert on the negative effects of in-vitro fertilization, the scientists pushing for IVF are dangerously ignorant of the repercussions such violence against nature is bound to have.

"We're doing end-runs on naturally occurring events," Thorn told LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday.

Thorn described a number of steps in the process of forming a child that IVF ominously misses: for example, she pointed out, when sperm and egg meet in a woman's body, sperm undergo a biological change that helps them penetrate the egg, and the egg undergoes a selection process over the sperm that will be accepted.

None of these elements survive in the IVF process, where sperm are simply forced into the egg via injection. The child then grows in a sterile petri dish, robbed of the natural hormonal chemistry within a mother's body that was meant to support the baby's development, said Thorn.

In addition, she said, concerns are being raised over serious autoimmune complications arising from surrogacy (when mothers bear children not their own), a common practice in IVF.

"It's exciting - look what we can do, we can play God," she said. "But, the serious question is: are we going to be producing totally different kinds of people? And yes, we are. These are children who did not have the benefit of the chemistry of being conceived in the womb as nature intended it to happen."

Thorn cautioned that scientists are just beginning to discover the long-lasting damage done to children conceived in IVF: a study on IVF young adults published in the February 2010 issue of Fertility and Sterility found that such individuals were up to 11 times more likely to be diagnosed with certain psychological disorders such as clinical depression and attention deficit disorder, and often reported other maladies such as vision problems, asthma, and allergies.

"It's nice that doctors want to play God, but this is a serious issue. We're putting children at risk," she said.

Contact: Peter J. Smith and Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 18, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Lila Rose Seeking to Bring Abortion Sting Operations to Canada

Lila Rose Seeking to Bring Abortion Sting Operations to Canada

    

Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, the student-led pro-life group that has rocked the U.S. abortion industry in recent years following the release of undercover footage showing abortion clinic employees across the country covering up statutory rape and giving pregnant girls false medical information, says she is eager to bring her group's work to Canada.

Live Action is looking for "very reliable, mature young adults and students in Canada to do your own investigations of the abortion industry here, to do your own exposés," she told LifeSiteNews (LSN) in an interview Friday.

LSN sat down with Rose in Ottawa, where she delivered the keynote addresses at the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) Rose Dinner and the youth conference as part of the events surrounding Thursday's National March for Life.

This was Rose's first trip to Canada, and she made a point of stressing her admiration for the country's pro-life movement. "There's a special dedication and a special idealism which is so necessary and a beautiful thing," she said, referring especially to the youth. 

"I'm just very excited to team with Canada and to see this active work here.  You might seem like a small group, but you're a powerful group and I believe you're going to have great success.  So thanks for setting the example for us."

She also noted that Canada's tendency to push the envelope in liberalizing laws on moral issues is "all the more reason that your fire, your passion is stronger, your commitment is bolder."

Rose said that her group wants to bring their youth education programs to Canada, particularly their magazine The Advocate, which is dedicated to promoting the culture of life among high school and college-age students.  She said they want to develop a Canadian version of the magazine and they are looking for Canadian students to get involved in that project.

At both the adult Rose Dinner and the youth conference, Rose held her audience in rapt attention as she described her experiences going undercover into Planned Parenthood facilities.

Rose will be graduating with her undergraduate degree from UCLA this June, and she said that her organization is preparing to enter a new phase with improved outreach. Thus far Live Action hasn’t had office space and has been supported primarily by a large team of volunteers; but she said following her graduation the organization plans to "further professionalize and expand."  They want "to do more investigative work, to create new media projects and programs to educate people, to inspire people."

"We want the whole world to see what is happening to these little babies," she told the youth.  "We are the ones – the cause rests on our shoulders.  We're going to be the ones to see it through to victory, to see it through to people recognizing the dignity of the human person and putting an end to abortion.  It's up to us and we're going to do it."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Study links abortion, substance abuse

Study links abortion, substance abuse



A study from the University of Manitoba has found that women who have had an abortion are nearly four times as likely to have problems with drugs and alcohol as those who have not.

Researchers also identified an association between mental disorders and abortion and suggested that doctors should screen for a history of abortion in women who present symptoms of anxiety, mood disorders and substance abuse.

Published in the April issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychology, the study said depression and substance abuse plague about half of American women who reported having an abortion, according to the Winnipeg Free Press.

Research involving more than 3,300 women showed that about 25 percent who had undergone an abortion acknowledged some substance abuse, while such abuse was found in only 7 percent of non-abortive women, the Free Press reported.

Women who had abortions were 3.8 times more likely to have substance use disorders than those who had not, even when an exposure to violence -- which increases the odds of substance abuse -- was factored in, the Toronto Sun reported.

"The bond between a woman and her unborn baby is very powerful," C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., said in comments to Baptist Press. "It shouldn't be surprising to anyone, therefore, that abortion is a traumatic experience and that subsequent substance abuse is higher among those who have had one."

Mitchell suggested: "Shouldn't women considering abortion be informed about the higher risk for substance abuse? And those who care for women who have had abortions should be alert to the signs of substance abuse."

Natalie Mota, the study's primary author, said the link between abortion and substance abuse may have been as strong as it was because women used alcohol or other drugs as a form of self-medication, though the research did not look into that. She also cautioned against drawing another conclusion.

"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness," Mota said. "There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."

Researchers speculate that other factors, such as violence and poor social supports, may contribute to mental disorders, the Free Press said. Women with household incomes of $75,000 were more likely to report an abortion than those with household incomes under $25,000.

While other studies have found similar links, this study used a larger and more representative sample of women, Mota said, and the results indicate more research is needed to explore the link between abortion and mental health.

Priscilla Coleman, a family studies professor at Bowling Green State University, told LifeNews.com that the Manitoba study provides more evidence for the American Psychological Association in a challenge to its position that abortion presents no mental health problems for women.

"This report represents the latest in a series of articles from across the globe (United States, New Zealand, Australia, Norway and South Africa) published in recent years directly contradicting the findings of the American Psychological Association Task Force report released in 2008," Coleman said. "Large scale, well-controlled studies using sophisticated data analysis methodologies consistently confirm a relationship between abortion and psychological distress that the national professional organization has dismissed," Coleman added.

Contact: Tom Strode, Erin Roach and Art Toalston
Source: BP
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

Groups On Both Sides Seek Clues About Kagan's Views On Abortion Rights

    

Groups and lawmakers on both sides of the abortion-rights debate are scouring Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's past writing for clues about her stance on the issue, the Chicago Tribune reports. According to the Tribune, "With the constitutional right to an abortion apparently hanging by just one vote on the court, Kagan's record, and her demonstrated impulse to find common ground, gives pause to both sides in the abortion debate."

Both sides will look to Kagan's statements during her confirmation hearings for insight into her views on abortion rights. However, if she follows the pattern of other recent nominees, Kagan likely will not make explicit declarations of how she would handle the issue as a justice, the Tribune reports.
Click here for the entire article.


The Pill: How Birth Control Pills Have Harmed Society

    

Elaine Tyler May planned the release of her new book in celebration of the 50th anniversary of FDA approval of the birth control pill to coincide with Mother’s Day 2010, and her article (“How the pill changed motherhood,” Opinion, May 9) connected the pill with better mothering. The truth is, the pill kills families, the pill kills women, the pill kills babies and the pill kills the environment. Since the pill was approved as a contraceptive in 1960 by the FDA, the institution of marriage has become endangered. The number of unmarried cohabitating couples has increased tenfold, from 439,000 to 4.2 million. Divorce rates have soared. Births to unmarried women have tripled. Some 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock each year.
Click here for the entire article.


Ohio Legislation Would Bar State & Federal Subsidized Health Insurance from Funding Abortion

    

Three Cincinnati-area lawmakers introduced state legislation Monday that would prohibit health insurance coverage for abortion if it's subsidized with state or federal tax money. Identical bills were introduced Monday by state Sen. Gary Cates, a Republican from West Chester, and in the Ohio House as co-sponsored by Republican Reps. Joseph Uecker of Loveland and Danny Bubp of West Union.

Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio - an organization that supports abortion rights - called the proposal extremely restrictive because it would keep women from buying health insurance that includes coverage for abortion once the federal health reform plan takes effect in 2014.
Click here for the entire article.


New York Midwives Lose 'Right' to Deliver Babies at Home

    

As residents of the world's consumer capital, New Yorkers can have anything delivered to their door at any time. They can have their hair cut in the living room, have champagne and caviar rushed to them on a whim, enjoy a shiatsu massage in their own bed or invite a clairvoyant to predict their future from Tarot cards laid out on the kitchen table. But there is one thing that is currently unavailable for delivery to those who live in this most can-do of metropolises. Women can not legally give birth at home in the presence of a trained and experienced midwife. This city of more than 8 million people, with its reputation for being at the cutting-edge of modern urban living, now lacks a single midwife legally permitted to help women have a baby in their own homes.
Click here for the entire article.


Euthanasia Victims Dumped in Lake

    

The remains of up to 50 Britons who ended their lives at a controversial Swiss suicide clinic have been dumped in a lake, according to a nurse who worked at the organisation. Several patients had made it clear to Dignitas that they wanted their ashes to be buried alongside relatives in Britain, but instead they were allegedly dropped into Lake Zurich in order to cut costs. Police are investigating the discovery last month of dozens of urns close to a pier used by a boat club at Kusnacht, five miles from Zurich. The urns, from a crematorium used by Dignitas, were found by divers among empty wine bottles, a broken bicycle and an abandoned supermarket trolley.
Click here for the entire article.


"Aborted" Baby Almost Cremated Alive!

    

From China, we have this story of a baby who not only survived the abortion, and the ensuing neglect, but who was disposed of as medical waste and nearly cremated alive (Hat-tip to Hawaii Right to Life):

    AN aborted baby declared dead by doctors in south China's Guangdong Province cried before he was due to be cremated, but died hours later as doctors refused to treat him.

    A mortuary worker at Nanhai Funeral Home in Foshan City said the baby cried and scared him as he was about to throw the coffin into a furnace, Information Times reported today.

    He opened the box and found the seven-month fetus moving, but apparently choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the report said.
Click here for the entire article.

--
Illinois Federation for Right to Life
2600 State Street, Ste E.
Alton, IL 62002

Phone: 618-466-4122
Fax: 618-466-4134

Web: www.ifrl.org
E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

Americans Under 30 Most Likely to Take Uncompromising Stand for Right to Life, Says Gallup Poll

Americans Under 30 Most Likely to Take Uncompromising Stand for Right to Life, Says Gallup Poll



The pro-abortion left appears to be losing the battle for the heart and soul of the rising generation of Americans, according to new data released by the Gallup poll.
 
Americans in the 18 to 29 age bracket are now more likely than their elders to believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, according to the data released last week, and generally oppose abortion in greater numbers than Baby Boomers.
 
Since 1975, Gallup has been asking this question: “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” The data released last week showed the five-year results for the period 2005-2009.
 
In that period, 23 percent of Americans 18 to 29 years old said they believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 51 percent said it should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 24 percent said it should be legal under all circumstances. None of the older age brackets equaled the 23 percent in the 18 to 29 age bracket who would like to see all abortions prohibited.  Only the 65 or older age bracket exceeded the under-30s in the combined percentage who would like to see all abortions outlawed or see abortion legal only under certain circumstances.
 
Twenty-one percent of Americans 65 or older said they believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 59 percent said it should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 16 percent said it should be legal under all circumstances.
 
Only 17 percent of Americans in the 50 to 64 bracket said they believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 55 percent said it should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 26 percent said it should be legal under all circumstances.
 
Similarly, only 17 percent of Americans in the 30 to 49 bracket said they believed abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, while 53 percent said it should be legal only under certain circumstances, and 28 percent said it should be legal under all circumstances.

Contact: Terence P. Jeffrey
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

'Reproductive rights' missing from U.N. treaties?

'Reproductive rights' missing from U.N. treaties?



Pro-abortion groups are pushing to establish a right to abortion in every treaty that has emerged from the United Nations.

Amnesty International, the United Nations Population Fund, and the Center for Reproductive Rights have representatives appearing before the U.N. Committee Against Torture who are providing a briefing on reproductive rights.

"Essentially they want to convince the committee that there is a right to abortion contained within these treaties, even though the treaties don't mention the term 'reproductive rights' and don't speak at all about abortion," explains Terrence McKeegan, vice president if the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

He adds that the pro-abortion groups are actually trying to convince the panel to reinterpret the treaties so they will include abortion -- even those treaties signed by nations where abortion is illegal. He laments that these groups have had some success.

"We've seen these U.N. treaty bodies, when countries come before them to review their implementation of the treaties, they have actually pressured over a hundred countries to liberalize their abortion laws based on treaty commitments," McKeegan reports.

He says that goes against the principle of sovereignty, and it is also against international law. The C-FAM vice president wonders why a nation would even sign a U.N. treaty if a committee is allowed to come along and redefine it to mean something other than the original intent.

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

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Abortion Hurts Men

Abortion Hurts Men



I was so blessed [in April] to attend the Wisconsin Right to Life Convention in Stevens Point. It was certainly one of my favorite speaking experiences thus far for many reasons. First off, the convention was fantastic and focused on issues on the forefront of the pro-life movement: the use of social media and technology in the pro-life movement and politics, euthanasia and assisted suicide, the eugenic legacy of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and the importance of voting in the 2010 elections. The speakers included Alex Schadenberg, from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition; Angela Franks, author of Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy; and Karen Cross, Political Director of the National Right to Life Committee. Mike Spielman, from Abort73.com (great ministry, website and pro-life materials on their site by the way: http:/www.abort73.com), was also present, and led the group in prayer.

Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, Barbara Lyons, and Chapter Director, Doreen Shirek, along with Joleigh Little, Director of Wisconsin Teens for Life and former NRLC staff member, and many others helped to make the day truly special for both the young people present and the adults. If you don't yet follow the work that Wisconsin Right to Life does, including amazing pro-life camps for young people, please check out their website at: http://www.wrtl.org. You can even subscribe to their updates. Make no bones about it, Wisconsin Right to Life is a true leader in the pro-life movement-don't miss out on keeping up with what they're doing!

Secondly, I was richly blessed with meeting s0 many amazing people there in Wisconsin. With the assistance of social media technology, I was already Facebook friends with a number of great people from Wisconsin, too numerous to count, but including Joleigh Little. Since this weekend, I've been doubly blessed with now becoming Facebook friends with many more wonderful people, young and old, who had the opportunity to listen as I shared my message of hope and healing at the banquet following the convention. Although I greatly appreciate my opportunity to share God's message with the world, having the opportunity to meet other people and hear their own personal stories about how abortion has touched their lives is another great gift I receive each time I speak some where.

I've mentioned it before, but I will mention it again...I never cease to be amazed by the number of men who are in attendance when I speak, and by the courage of these men in meeting with me afterwards to share their own deeply personal, deeply painful life stories with me. There were three men, in particular, who left an indelible print on me Saturday night. The first man to come speak with me after my speech was, in the words of his own teenage daughter, responsible for having her and her friends from church come to hear me speak. "It was his idea," she said pointing to him. We had a wonderful time taking pictures of this amazing pro-life father, his daughter and her friends, and he was absolutely beaming after hearing me share my message with the audience. God bless him and his daughter...may he serve as an example and support to his daughter in all of the years to come.

The second man who came to speak with me shared that he has 10 children, which I greatly admire. In our discussion, this wonderful man shared that although he has 10 children and he is pro-life, hearing me speak gave him a new perspective on abortion and on his family that he hadn't had before. His gratitude and his love for his family was evident, and I am so grateful that he was able to be positively impacted by our time together.

The third man who truly touched my heart Saturday night did so in a BIG way. He was teary-eyed as he approached me and we shook hands briefly before I embraced him. He shared his difficult story of having a child aborted in the past, and although he has been fortunate enough not to keep this secret and his shame hidden from everyone (he has told his wife), he is still in pain, he still grieves the loss of his children and regrets his role in their life ending.

He was, understandably, affected by my testimony about my own biological father passing away, carrying the secrecy, shame and guilt of me being aborted, along with him. He was, understandably, affected by message that as a result of over 50 million children's lives being ended by abortion, that hundreds of millions of women, men, family members and communities now suffer as a result. He understood my painful reality that if I had not survived that abortion attempt, my own daughter, Olivia, would never have lived. More importantly, he heard from me that men are hurt by abortion, too, and that he had the right to grieve for his lost children, that he had the right to heal from the effects of abortion. He is so courageous for not only sharing his story with me, but for also feeling the need to make amends with the woman who he fathered a child with, whom he supported in having the abortion. I will pray that this courageous, caring man finds the hope and healing that he so desperately needs and he deserves.

As I state on my website, "One decision, one single moment, can have such a detrimental impact on so many people, living and dead, born and yet to be conceived." Abortion doesn't just hurt women and children, as these men can attest to. Abortion hurts men, it hurts families, it hurts communities. And as my soon to be 2-year-old daughter, Olivia, gives testament to, abortion ends the lives of not just those that are already conceived, but those that would never then be conceived in the future.

Over two years now after the passing of my biological father, I still grieve the loss of his death, and the chance of ever having a chance to get to know him or learn about his role in my mother aborting me, but I know this was the Lord's plan. For in my father's death, has come great healing for other men. My father's parting gift to this world was to pass along to me the message of his life, and his pain, to share it with others, in the hopes that they could learn from it and not suffer in the ways that my father obviously must have, carrying the secret of my mother's abortion, and even my survival, to his own grave.

Bless you, my dear father in Heaven--we WILL meet again someday. Bless you to the amazing men, young and old alike, who shared in my time in Wisconsin this weekend. May the Lord continue to bring everyone who is touched by abortion in this world, including men, the healing, love, and hope that they need and deserve.

Contact: Melissa Ohden
Source: Pro-Life Blogs
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

News Report Confirms That Telemed Abortion Scheme Could Increase Abortions

News Report Confirms That Telemed Abortion Scheme Could Increase Abortions
 


Based on information from Operation Rescue, the Des Moines Register published a story on the Planned Parenthood "telemed abortion" scheme in the Sunday edition of their newspaper confirming Operation Rescue's assertions that abortions by pill will increase if this system is sold to other abortion clinics.

"The Register article confirmed almost everything we have said about 'telemed' abortions," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "Indeed, Planned Parenthood admits that a licensed physician never personally examines abortion patients. We believe this is a dangerous and very likely illegal process that needs to be stopped before it spreads and costs lives."

Operation Rescue released a special report detailing the telemed abortion scheme in late March and filed complaints with the Iowa Board of Medicine a week later. Operation Rescue later received confirmation that an investigation by the IBM is underway.

"Abortionists can now sit in their pajamas in front of a computer and kill thousands of babies," said Newman. "The lack of abortionists is the Achilles heel of the abortion industry and they are willing to go to any extreme to make sure abortions continue, even if it compromises the health and safety of women, as this push-button abortion scheme does. When most people hear about this, they are appalled."

One important aspect of telemed abortions not mentioned by The Register is the fact that Planned Parenthood bills insurance companies $1,000 for a telemed abortion - twice the price of cash patients, two and a half time more than the national average cost of an abortion by pill. This over-billing practice increases health insurance costs for everyone.

"We expect the abortion cartel to fight us tooth and nail because, with only a fraction of the overhead, there is a huge amount of money to be made in telemed abortions," said Newman. "Exposing this has definitely put Planned Parenthood on the defensive."

Source: Operation Rescue
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

"The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia"

“The Humanist Case Against Euthanasia”



Pro assisted suiciders often claim that the only reasons to oppose euthanasia/self mercy killing are religious.  They will claim that opponents see suffering as “redemptive” and thus desirable–intentionally misstating that doctrine– and oppose mercy killing on the basis that only God can take a life.

That  caricature isn’t true, of course. Even the Catholic Church makes many arguments that are not based in its religious dogma but our human duty to care for the sick and protect the vulnerable.  Moreover, the rational reasons for opposing assisted suicide are more numerous and robust than religious arguments, because they hit squarely in one of the few remaining areas of broad value agreement in society–at least in the abstract–the need to protect and promote universal human rights.

I have been making the rational argument against euthanasia/assisted suicide for 17 years, and Rita Marker for more than twenty.   My good pal Nat Hentoff, an atheist, has been even more explicit in this regard, repeatedly arguing with his fellow secular humanists that opposing assisted suicide is that belief system’s proper position.

Now, Brendan O’Neill, the editor of Spike,  has weighed in with a good column making the humanist case against legalizing assisted suicide. I don’t agree with all of it. For example, he would seem to prefer no law rather than legalization or prohibition, because that would permit people to decide what to do in the privacy of family and physician decision making.  But once killing is not prohibited, it is by definition permitted–and the potential for abuse is way too dangerous to permit state neutrality on the issue.

But then, he makes some points, that euthanasia advocacy reflects a profound nihilism and anti human exceptionalism (my terms), that I think are very worth heeding. From the column:

It seems pretty irrefutable to me that the campaign to legalise assisted suicide has become bound up with society’s broader inability to value and celebrate human life today. It is clear that society finds it increasingly difficult to say that human existence is a good thing – you can see this in everything from the environmentalist discussion of newborn babies as ‘future polluters’ to the widespread scaremongering about the ‘ageing timebomb’. And you can see it in the fact that some in the pro-assisted dying campaign want to go beyond having ‘mercy killings’ for people close to death to having ‘assisted dying’ for the very disabled, the ill and even, in the case of Dignitas in Switzerland, the depressed. This effectively sanctions suicide as a response to personal hardship, and gives a green light to hopelessness.

That fits with squarely with my warning that humanism is mutating into anti-humanism. But back to O’Neill:

The campaign for the right to die has both been heavily influenced by and also influences today’s broader anti-life culture. It expresses a broader social pessimism, a shift away from improving human life towards focusing a great deal of our moral and political energies on bringing to an end damaged or impaired human lives. Quite often today the campaign for the right to die goes hand-in-hand with the idea that there are too many people – especially old people – and that society can’t cope with them. When Terry Pratchett, who suffers from early-onset Alzheimer’s, suggested creating assisted suicide tribunals he was championed by commentators who basically said: ‘Yes, we need to do something about all these old, mentally-ill people.’ One sympathetic commentator said the rising number of old people is a ‘social catastrophe’ and pointed out that a patient with dementia costs the economy eight times as much as a patient with heart disease. This is increasingly how we judge human life today: not by its internal worth or moral meaning, but by its financial implications or environmental implications.

Precisely. And it wouldn’t be limited to the elderly, but also people with disabilities and others who become deemed drags on society.  That becomes the default setting once society rejects human exceptionalism.

Assisted suicide/euthanasia is one tile in a much larger and dangerous mosaic, which, in its rejection of human exceptionalism, profoundly endanger universal human rights.  We need more secular humanists like O’Neill and Hentoff making that important case.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: May 17, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Colombian Doctor Fined and Suspended for Refusing to do an Abortion

Colombian Doctor Fined and Suspended for Refusing to do an Abortion



 The executive branch of the Colombian government is seeking to overturn the conviction of a doctor who refused to perform an abortion in 2008 on a mentally handicapped girl.

Dr. Germán Arango Rojas says he only saw the girl a single time and refused to do the abortion for reasons of conscience.  He was convicted despite the fact that he was never allowed to present a defense.

Arango Rojas’ conviction was upheld by courts in the province of Caldas, and he was fined and suspended from medical practice.

The case has come to light in recent days because of a decision by the government's lead attorney, the procurator, to contest the verdict with the Constitutional Court, the same court that struck down criminal penalties for the killing of unborn children in rape and fetal deformity cases in 2006.  All other abortions continue to be penalized in Colombia.

Colombia's executive branch under Alvaro Uribe has been supportive of the Supreme Court's decision and has fined at least one Catholic hospital for refusing to do an abortion. In this case the doctor is being defended, not because of an opposition to abortion or even support of his rights of conscience, but rather because he was not allowed to defend himself.

Procurator Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado says that the sentence is "a manifest violation of the fundamental rights to justice, equality, and due process," and says the doctor was convicted "in the abstract," without sufficient evidence.

Although the Uribe administration has shown hostility to the right to life in recent years, the actions being taken in Dr. Arango Rojas' defense may reflect a new, more pro-life policy in the Uribe administration and in the Colombian government as a whole.

In November of last year, Colombia's Council of State nullified a decree by the Supreme Court to require all hospitals to maintain a doctor on staff to perform abortions. In December Ordóñez Maldonado also demanded that the "morning after pill" be removed from sale in the country due to its abortifacient effects. 

Contact: Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

Pentagon mandates 'morning-after' pill



The Department of Defense now requires its military facilities around the world to stock a "morning-after" pill with abortion-causing effects.

The Pentagon confirmed May 14 to Baptist Press it implemented a policy in February mandating its full-service health care facilities stock the drug.

A Department of Defense (DoD) spokeswoman told BP in an e-mail that Next Choice, a brand name of the "morning-after" pill, "was added Feb 2010 to the BCF [Basic Core Formulary] following review by the DoD Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee at their Nov 2009 meeting. This means every military treatment facility must now stock the medication."
Click here for the entire article.


Abortion Foes Capitalize on Health Law They Fought



Abortion opponents fought passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul to the bitter end, and now that it's the law, they're using it to limit coverage by private insurers.
 
An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.
 
"We don't consider elective abortion to be health care, so we don't think it's a bad thing for fewer private insurance companies to cover it," said Mary Harned, attorney for Americans United for Life, a national organization that wrote a model law for the states.
Click here for the entire article.


Boy Gets New Windpipe Made With His Adult Stem Cells



A ten-year-old boy is now breathing easy, thanks to a world first transplant using a new windpipe grown using his adult stem cells. The young boy was born with a rare condition called Long Segment Tracheal Stenosis, with a narrow windpipe that does not grow and restricts breathing. He had undergone previous surgeries to widen his windpipe but the condition had become life threatening. A team of British and Italian doctors developed a new technique to treat the young boy’s life-threatening condition. They took a donor trachea, stripped it down to the cartilage scaffolding, and then injected adult stem cells from the boy’s bone marrow. The stem cell-coated organ was then implanted in the boy. Over time the adult stem cells will cover the windpipe; using his own stem cells means there is no transplant rejection problem.

The major step forward in this case, is that instead of re-growing the organ with adult stem cells in the laboratory for months until it is fully formed, the cells were put into the trachea just before implanting it. The team of British and Italian scientists described the procedure as a breakthrough for its simplicity in using the “ideal laboratory” of the human body to rebuild the organ.
Click here for the entire article.


Nurses Surveyed on Assisted Suicide Views



A British nursing magazine is conducting an online survey to gauge the "feelings and experience" of nurses on assisted suicide. Nursing Times will print the results in an upcoming issue.

Euthanasia activists in Britain continue to work to legalize assisted suicide in the country. After years of opposition, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) moved to an official position of neutrality on the issue in July 2009, after an internal poll of members showed a split between support and opposition, according to the Daily Telegraph.

British pro-lifers criticized the RCN's neutral stance, chiding the group for retreating from principle because of a poll. "The RCN's Council have based their change on a consultation exercise in which only a fraction of one percent of their members took part," Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said at the time. "They clearly have no mandate from nurses as a whole for this move."
Click here for the entire article.


Emboldened Pro-Lifers Rally in Ottawa


 
The headline from "The Star" newspaper reads, "Huge anti-abortion rally hails Canada's new foreign-aid stand." The reference is to the refusal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to pour Canadian foreign aid money into the coffers of abortionists as part of Canada's G8 maternal health commitment.

"Around 15,000 pro-life campaigners, clearly buoyed by what they see as last month's victory on the foreign-aid front, cheered loudly when numerous speakers talked about the next steps in what one called bringing a 'culture of life,' to Canada," the Star reported.
Click here for the entire article.

 

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Kagan Donated to Pro-Abort Group

Kagan Donated to Pro-Abort Group



While Soliciter General Elena Kagan has been touted by many in the media as a “moderate” pick for the Supreme Court, even on the volatile issue of abortion, Kagan has revealed her pro-abortion loyalties by contributing financially to the pro-abortion National Partnership for Women and Families (NPWF), reported Americans United for Life Wednesday.

NPWF, according to its own website, works "to increase women’s access to quality, confidential reproductive health services and block attempts to limit reproductive rights and reverse hard-won gains." The organization goes on to specify "contraceptive services and supplies, sexuality education, [and] abortion services" as among its top concerns.

In addition, wrote AUL, NPWF senior advisor Judith Lichtman “wholeheartedly” supported Kagan's nomination in a letter, saying the Solicitor General was a "friend and colleague." Lichtman, a radical supporter of abortion, has said that “efforts to limit coverage of abortion services are really attempts to deny women access to health care services,” according to AUL.

NPWF has deep connections among the most powerful pro-abortion lobby groups in the country: NPWF President Debra L. Ness serves on the Board of Directors at Emily's List, a group dedicated to helping pro-abortion female politicians win elections, and once worked as deputy director of NARAL. NPWF Board Chairwoman Ellen Malcolm was the founder of Emily's List.

Following Kagan's nomination, Ness hailed the nominee as "a superb and brilliant choice to serve as a United States Supreme Court justice."

Ness added that America lost "a powerful champion for justice" in Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the radically liberal justice Kagan is slated to replace, and that "President Obama’s nomination ... offers the promise that the nation will continue to benefit from having that kind of champion on its highest court."

"Through her association with this group and articles she has written, Kagan has staked out a clear position of active support for unrestricted abortion," remarked Charmaine Yoest, president of AUL Action.

Kagan is currently interviewing privately with U.S. senators prior to her confirmation hearings, expected to begin in June or July.

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Breaking, new Gallup poll: "The new normal on abortion: Americans more 'pro-life'"

Breaking, new Gallup poll: "The new normal on abortion: Americans more 'pro-life'"



Love Gallup's headline. And here are the results of its new annual poll on abortion:



According to Gallup...

The conservative shift in Americans' views on abortion that Gallup 1st recorded a year ago has carried over into 2010. Slightly more Americans call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-choice," 47% vs. 45%, according to a May 3-6 Gallup poll. This is nearly identical to the 47% to 46% division found last July following a more strongly pro-life advantage of 51% to 42% last May.

While the 2-percentage-point gap in current abortion views is not significant, it represents the 3rd consecutive time Gallup has found more Americans taking the pro-life than pro-choice position on this measure since May 2009, suggesting a real change in public opinion. By contrast, in nearly all readings on this question since 1995, and each survey from 2003 to 2008, more Americans called themselves pro-choice than pro-life.


According to Gallup, all age groups ("with particularly large increases among young adults and those aged 50 to 64 years") and both genders are trending pro-life as well ("with the increase among women coming mainly since 2008, whereas the increase in men started after 2006").

Pro-aborts are losing in the areas that really matter to them: Young people, who would be their future supporters/voters/activists; women, for obvious reasons; and the elderly, who are reliable voters.






According to the Gallup poll, the only demographic not trending pro-life over the long-term are Democrats...



As it did last year, Gallup blames Obama in part for the shift:

... [T]rends by party identification suggest that increased political polarization may be a factor in Republicans' preference for the "pro-life" label, particularly since Barack Obama took office.

Whatever the cause, the effect is that the pro-life label has become increasingly dominant among Republicans and to a lesser degree among independents, while the pro-choice label has become more dominant among Democrats.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air adds:

It's not the political divide that's driving these numbers -- but it may be that the cultural shift has started to impact political identification as well. If so, pro-choice Democrats could find themselves in a minority party in the next several years.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: jillstanek.com
Publish Date: May 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.    

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Biological Colonialism: Ignoring The Exploitation of Women in "Rent a Womb" Contracts in India

Biological Colonialism: Ignoring The Exploitation of Women in “Rent a Womb” Contracts in India



Human exceptionalism demands that human equals be treated with equal respect regardless of their economic circumstances.  This means, as just one example, implacable opposition to slavery and human trafficking.  It also means opposing using the poor and destitute as biological resources, such as through kidney purchasing and paying destitute women to be surrogate wombs for Westerners who either can’t, or don’t want to, bear their own children.

The latter practice has potentially devastating psychological and physical consequences to the birth mothers–but that point is often entirely missed in media reports about international surrogacy.  Rather, as in the following story in the Australian newspaper the Brisbane Times, the media generally focus on problems faced by the purchasers. From the story:

Most new parents expect to take their baby home after a few days but a German couple, Jan Balaz and Susan Lohle, are still waiting after more than two years. Their twin sons, Nikolas and Leonard, have been trapped in citizenship limbo ever since an Indian surrogate mother gave birth to them in February 2008. The boys were refused passports by their parents’ homeland because German nationality is determined by the birth mother. That left the slow-moving Indian judicial system to wrestle with their citizenship status. The case has now reached the country’s highest court.

Then, there’s this story:

Another heartbreaking Indian surrogacy controversy, this time involving two Canadian doctors, was revealed by the Toronto Star this week. The couple received a devastating shock when they applied for Canadian passports for what they believed were their twins borne by an Indian surrogate. A DNA test ordered by the Canadian high commission in New Delhi revealed the twins were not related to the Canadian couple – or to the birth mother – but were the product of fertilised eggs from an unknown mother and father. The doctors left India childless and the twins may spend their childhood in an orphanage.

Once again, the problems experienced by the surrogate aren’t even considered. But when you think about it, such indifference is entirely logical.  They aren’t hired as persons, but as uteruses.  (Yes, I know that some purchasers treat the women well, but that doesn’t change the overarching point.)  And note how unimportant the children become when they fail to pass DNA muster.  (How many children with disabilities are refused by purchasers?)

The prosperous West has developed such a sense of entitlement that many believe they “deserve” to have their every desire fulfilled and every dream come true.  Thus, the Australian government seems unhappy that India might tighten the rules:

A bill to govern assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy has been drafted but, as the Herald reported on Monday, it threatens to make it much harder, and maybe impossible, for Australian couples to hire Indian surrogates. Under the proposed law, a foreign couple wanting to enter an agreement with an Indian surrogate would need a written guarantee of citizenship for the child from their government. In a response to questions from the Herald the Australia High Commission said it expected Indian laws to change in response to the growing demand for surrogacy. ”Any changes to legislation in India could impact on eligibility for Australian citizenship,” the statement said. The Indian legislation would also prohibit gay couples from hiring surrogates unless local laws change to recognise same-sex relationships.

Again, the women womb renters are invisible.

I believe it should be should be made harder, much harder–indeed, preferably illegal–to pay unrelated women to be surrogates, particularly destitute women overseas.  Indian women are not commodities that rich Westerners are entitled to rent and forget.  Such surrogacy-for-money contracts should be declared void as against public policy.  That would protect women from being exploited, would prevent the kind of snafus discussed in the story that not only hurt would-be parents but more importantly, may leave children tossed aside, and blunt the drive to expand biological colonialism.

Right, Wesley: Fat chance.  All that matters is the emotional pain of want-to-be parents. The potentially devastating emotional impact of gestating and bearing a child–only to have to give it up–on the Indian women, not to mention occasional physical consequences, aren’t even considered.  After all, we are entitled.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: May 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Arizona Governor signs 12 pro-family / pro-lfe bills into law

Arizona Governor signs 12 pro-family / pro-lfe bills into law



If you think Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's illegal immigration law is controversial, that's nothing compared to the 12 other pro-family proposals she's pushed through this year. Maybe the Brady campaign would be interested in these common sense, reasonable legislative ideas to pull in the enthusiasm and volunteerism of Illinois' yet-untapped and un-inspired social conservatives? From the Center for Arizona Policy, we learn:

The 2010 Legislative Session has come to an end with 12 Center for Arizona Policy-supported bills receiving Governor Jan Brewer's signature. This marks CAP's most successful session in our 15-year history, throughout which we've led the way to see a total of 84 pro-family bills enacted into law!

Here's an overview of how these new laws will make Arizona a better place for families:

Sanctity of Life
·   Arizona led the nation by becoming the first state in the country to opt out of providing abortion coverage in any insurance exchanges offered under the new federal health care law.
·   Arizona taxpayer dollars will no longer provide elective abortion insurance coverage for any government employees.
·   Arizonans now will know the facts about abortion in the state as abortion providers will be required by law to report data about abortion, including physical harm to women.
·   Arizona leads the nation in enacting common-sense, ethical regulations for protecting the dignity of human life that do not interfere with legitimate bio-tech research. The new laws include provisions that:
- Require informed consent before a woman donates or sells her eggs to clinics.
- Prohibit the sale of human eggs for research purposes and prohibit the sale of human embryos for any purpose.
- Prohibit human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and the creation of human-animal hybrids.

School Choice
·   Arizona's tax credit scholarship programs have been improved to provide greater accountability and to give taxpayers the information they need to make an informed decision when donating to school tuition organizations.
·   Arizona children will have more opportunities to attend the schools that best meet their needs by extending the tax-credit donation deadline from December 31 to April 15.
·   Arizona universities will now report how scholarships are awarded to all students whether they attend public, private, charter, or home schools.

Parental Rights
·   Arizona law now recognizes the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.  The new law includes provisions that:
 -Require parents to provide signed, written permission for their children to participate in sex education classes.
 -Protect children from mental-health treatment outside of a doctor's office without parental consent.
 -Arizona schools will be required to notify parents when materials about sexuality are presented in non-sex education classes.

Child Prostitution
·   Arizona law is strengthened to better protect minors that are being raped for profit. Predators seeking child prostitutes no longer will be able to avoid prosecution by claiming they did not know the age of the prostitute.

Religious Freedom
·   Arizona leads the nation in enacting a state law to protect the First Amendment rights of churches to use their property for worship.

Initiative and Referendum
·   Arizona's initiative and referendum process will become more transparent and accountable as state officials will be required to publicize the ballot yes/no language in a timely manner.

Source: Illinois Review
Publish Date: May 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org

 

Walgreens won't sell genetic test kit

Walgreens won't sell genetic test kit



Walgreens, the nation's largest drug store chain, reversed course May 12 and said it would not sell a controversial over-the-counter genetic test kit after the Food and Drug Administration raised doubts about its legality.

The DNA test by Pathway Genomics of San Diego was set to go on sale in many of the nearly 7,500 Walgreens stores nationwide this month and would have allowed consumers to send the company a saliva sample supposedly to test for a person's risk for Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, obesity and various types of cancer. The kit itself would have cost around $30, while the actual testing by the company would cost between $79 and $249, depending on the test.

Critics called it irresponsible and argued the kit provided incomplete information because, they say, there are limitations to genetic testing. With Walgreens choosing not to sell it, the product only will be available on the Pathway Genomics website. Other companies sell similar kits, but none in chain stores.

"In light of the FDA contacting Pathway Genomics about its genetic test kit and anticipated ongoing discussions between the two parties, we've elected not to move forward with offering the Pathway product to our customers until we have further clarity on this matter," Jim Cohn, a Walgreens spokesman, said, according to The Washington Post.

The FDA had sent Pathway a letter dated May 10 saying the kit "appears to meet the definition of a device" that would require FDA approval.

"If you do not believe that you are required to obtain FDA clearance or approval for the Genetic Health Report, please provide us with the basis for that determination," the FDA's James L. Woods wrote.

The company -- which says the kit does not need FDA approval -- also had claimed the test could reveal a couple's prospects for producing children with genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis, diabetes and Tay-Sachs disease. Critics said the kit could have led to couples unnecessarily choosing not to having children or even to more abortions. For instance, a couple might have a very remote chance of passing on a disease that perhaps should not be of significant concern. Without a doctor's counsel, critics said, the couple might now know that.

Prior to Walgreens' announcement, C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn., called the test "just irresponsible."

"First, this particular test may be illegal, since it does not have [Food and Drug Administration] approval," said Mitchell, a consultant to the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "Second, the role of genetics and lifestyle is not sufficiently understood to help patients make reliable decisions. Third, the danger of misinformation means that some people will not see their physicians because they think they already know their genetic risks. Finally, who will protect the very sensitive genetic data that may be discovered through these tests?"

Hank Greely, the director of Stanford University's Center for Law and the Biosciences, called the test "reckless."

"Information is powerful, but misunderstood information can be powerfully bad," Greely told The Washington Post.

Contact: Michael Foust and Tom Strode
Source: BP
Publish Date: May 13, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

 

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

2600 State Street, Ste E

Alton, IL  62002

 

Phone: 618.466.4122

Web: www.ifrl.org

E-mail: mail@ifrl.org