Compassion and Choices Uses Murder/Suicide to Advertise Doctor Prescribed Death in Montana

      

The pro assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices, along with a compliant media, continues to romanticize self destruction as an answer to the problem of human suffering. Latest example: In Montana, a man murdered his wife, who had cerebral palsy, set his house on fire, and then, shot himself.  How is the tragedy treated? As an advertisement for assisted suicide.  From the story, byline Michael Jamison:

It was an act of love, Darryl Anderson said, an act of compassion and caring and bullets and arson and it didn't have to be that way. "Basically," Anderson said, "it was a mercy killing, to end the pain. They were good people, but there was terrible pain." William "Ted" Hardgrove used to visit Anderson – Lincoln County's sheriff – at work, showing off his inventions or detailing his own detective work on the latest unsolved case. He'd stay and chat and sometimes harangue, Anderson said, "and I thought he was just a super old guy."

Hardgrove was 81, just like his wife Swanie. She was known for her baking, and her gardening and her lace-making, and for the fact that she had cerebral palsy as well as other crippling medical problems. In recent weeks, the increasing pain had completely overwhelmed her medication. On the last Saturday in August, Ted Hardgrove stopped the pain. He moved their valuables out of the Libby-area house and into the garage, then left a note explaining this final, desperate act of love. He took the household chemicals from the home, took the hunting ammunition and anything else that might explode or burn too hot. Anderson figures Hardgrove was protecting the firemen he knew would come. Then Hardgrove went back inside, shot his wife, set their home afire and shot himself. "It was a very carefully planned thing," Anderson said. "He left that note, said he was tired of seeing her suffer so badly, and there was a better place."

"An act of love", "He stopped the pain:" In any other context, this would be looked at as a possible abuse scenario.

That point aside, rather than report on how this tragedy could have been avoided without death, the reporter goes to the Compassion and Choices representative–who despicably seizes upon the story to push the assisted suicide agenda:

But there was also, perhaps, a better way. "What we want people to know," said Steve Hopcraft, "is there is help and information out there." Hopcraft works with a nonprofit called Compassion and Choices, a group that offers free end-of-life planning, counseling and options. "We believe that these tragic and violent deaths are 100 percent preventable," Hopcraft said. "It's a matter, really, of getting the information out." Information such as the fact that Montana is among three states – Oregon and Washington are the other two – where doctors are allowed to provide what's known as "aid in dying." They can prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients, who can then choose whether and when to use the pills.

Talk about a clueless reporter. First, notice he buys the euphemistic "aid in dying."  Second, there is no indication that Mrs. Hardgrove was terminally ill, she was elderly and disabled, nor indeed, that she even wanted to be killed.  Third, when pain control fails, the answer isn't murder, it isn't a lethal prescription, it is to have a doctor improve the pain control.  Fourth, what could Mr. Hardgrove have done to get further help–without resorting to ending his wife's life?  Was he overwhelmed with caregiving?  What services could he have sought? Good grief, at least print the local suicide prevention phone number!

But not to worry, the reporter quotes a physician:

"No one, no matter what their condition, should feel they have to resort to violence when confronting advanced illness," said Stephen Speckart, retired Missoula oncologist. "Patients need to feel safe talking with their doctors about unbearable symptoms and their feelings of desperation and desire for a peaceful death."

Guess what? Dr. Stephen Speckart was a plaintiff in the case that brought legalized assisted suicide to Montana–and the reporter doesn't so identify him!  That is really journalistic malpractice.

This is really disgraceful: We have a story of a murder suicide, turned into a commercial for assisted suicide, in which most of the sources are assisted suicide activists, written by a reporter who treats Mrs. H's death as a necessity, and doesn't explore how people in such difficult circumstances can be helped.  Culture of death, Wesley?  What culture of death?

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 4, 2010

Pro-Life Hopes for Illinois Parental Notice Law Dashed by Court

      

Pro-life attorneys hoping anxiously for a speedy conclusion to the legal battle over the state's long-delayed Parental Notice of Abortion Act, saw their hopes dashed when the state Supreme Court refused to transfer the case to their immediate jurisdiction.

The high court denied a motion by the pro-life legal advocacy group Thomas More Society to bypass the appellate court and hear the case brought against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. The act is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

"We're obviously disappointed with this ruling, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to bring these appeals to a speedy and positive conclusion," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society.

The pro-life attorneys based their motion on a Supreme Court rule that allows transfer of cases to the high court directly when the "public interest requires prompt adjudication." Without the Supreme Court's intervention, they anticipated the case would not see a decision from the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court for at least a year, meaning more secret abortions on minors would end up being performed in the state.

Two members of the state Supreme Court, Justices Robert R. Thomas and Thomas L. Kilbride, showed interest in concluding quickly the 15-year-long legal battle over the Act, and voiced their dissent to the majority's order.

With the transfer motion denied, the First District of Illinois Appellate Court will continue to oversee the case. Thomas More Society attorneys will file their opening appeal brief on Friday.

Brejcha said two courts, the 7th US Court of Appeals and Cook County Circuit Court, have both rendered judgments against the ACLU's legal challenges to the law, indicating the ACLU's case is "legally meritless." He argued that the law should be enforced, not suspended, until the ACLU's appeal was resolved.

Judge Daniel Riley of the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the lawsuit brought against the Act by the American Civil Liberties Union this past March, ruling the Act constitutionally valid. While he viewed the 1970 Illinois State Constitution as including a right to abortion, he said the Act should stand since the Illinois right to abortion is not broader than the federal right, thereby allowing for certain restrictions.  
   
However, Riley issued an indefinite stay on his order for the duration of the ACLU's legal appeal.

The Thomas More Society believes the state Supreme Court will likely rule in favor of the law. Five years ago, the Supreme Court created a court bypass procedure designed to make the law constitutional in Illinois.

In November 2009, the ACLU intervened in court to strike down the parental notice law on the very day it was finally supposed to go into full effect. Both the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation had decided to enforce the pro-life law without further delay when the ACLU intervened.

Since the passage of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois girls below the age of majority have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

However, Illinois is also an abortion oasis in the Midwest for those looking to transport minors across state lines for abortion without their parent's knowledge or consent. In the Midwest, only Illinois lacks a parental notification or consent law for a minor seeking abortion. 

Contact: Peter J. Smith

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: September 2, 2010

2010 Elections Could Lead to Most Pro-Life Congress EVER

     

Remember 1994? The Republican Party released its "Contract with America" six weeks before the mid-term elections and took back Congress with a 54-seat swing on Election Day.

Absent from the Contract was any emphasis on policies that protect the unborn. When the new Congress convened, pro-life legislation was not a real priority. Protecting women and unborn babies from the violence of 4,000 abortions per day was put on the back-burner.

I have interviewed almost 100 candidates this Election Cycle.  Judging from my interviews and a detailed analysis of what looks to be the incoming Congress, I am confident it will be one of the most pro-life in history.  But we cannot take anything for granted.  We must assure them that there is a strong pro-life mandate and that Americans expect serious leadership and real progress in protecting unborn children.

We must first recover from our setbacks by moving the ball back to where it was prior to the Obama, Reid, and Pelosi regime and then begin to move the ball forward. We can't just stop and repeal the pro-abortion agenda; we must work to advance our ambitious pro-life legislative priorities in order to save unborn lives.

Once again, much like 1994, the Republican Party has an opportunity to take back Congress and is drafting a legislative blueprint similar to the original Contract with America to lay out its plans should Republicans take the majority this November.

The protection of women and their children from the violence of abortion and the protection of taxpayers from funding it must be an integral part of any legislative blueprint released by the leadership of the GOP, and should be included under a specific plank addressing family values.

Speak out for Life today by telling the Republican Party leadership that pro-life legislation must be a priority in its legislative blueprint for America.

With the majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life, and with an even stronger majority agreeing that tax dollars shouldn't fund abortion, the consensus for passage of serious pro-life legislation couldn't be stronger.

Consider these common-sense pro-life legislative initiatives that enjoy broad support across America:

Legislation such as the "Protect Life Act" which would ensure that no federal funds authorized under the health care reform law are used to pay for abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, prevent any part of the federal government from forcing insurance plans to cover abortions, and codify strong conscience protections.

67% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in health care, according to a January 2010 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University.

Legislation such as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" which would establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.

61% of Americans support a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, according to a November 2009 poll conducted by CNN.

Legislation establishing parental consent for minors seeking abortion.

69% of Americans support parental consent for minors under 18 seeking an abortion, according to a July 2006 poll conducted by Gallup.

Legislation such as the "Child Pain Awareness Act" which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

77% of Americans favor such legislation, according to an April 2004 poll conducted by Zogby.

The Republican Party needs to hear from pro-life Americans. Speak out for Life today to ensure your voice heard on behalf of unborn children and their mothers.

We showed the Democratic Party the consequences of failing to embrace the pro-life values of the American people on our Votes Have Consequences Bus Tour. Let's send a message today to the Republican Party to let them know that when the ball is in their court, we expect no less than a slam-dunk for our pro-life agenda.

Contact: Marjorie Dannenfelser

Source: Susan B. Anthony List

HHS Awards $17 Million, Continues to Build Health Care Rationing Structure

      

The divide between his rhetoric and reality continues to mount: President Obama's health care law is creating government rationed health care.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced Wednesday that $17 million in taxpayer funds would be used to create "comparative effectiveness research" –a term identified during the health care debate as a means to rationed care.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the funds would create a network of "patient-centered outcomes research" (PCOR) – the new name for comparative effectiveness research – to "improve health outcomes" for "diverse and vulnerable" populations.

In a 2009 report to Congress, the PCOR predecessor, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, outlined its priority:

"The priority populations specifically include, but are not limited to, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, children, the elderly, and patients with multiple chronic conditions," the coordinating council said.

An often-cited quote during the health care debate was made by President Obama in an interview with The New York Times:

"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here….There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for CitizenLink, urged Americans not to give up – or to consider health care 'fait accomplis.'

"CitizenLink readers are the best at reading and responding to our action alerts," said Minnery. "With 60+ days to go before Nov. 2, I encourage them to pray for our nation, stay tuned to our alerts and forward them to your friends and neighbors. Together, we can continue to protect the family."

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: September 2, 2010

American Academy of Pediatrics Says Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy'

      

Calling media portrayals of sex "unhealthy," the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines calling on all media outlets to present human sexuality in a healthy, scientifically accurate manner.

At the same time, the group pomoted the use of contraceptives among teenagers and denigrated abstinence-only education.
 
"There is a major disconnect between what mainstream media portray – casual sex and sexuality with no consequences – and what children and teenagers need – straightforward information about human sexuality and the need for contraception when having sex," the AAP said. 
 
"Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual responsibility, and birth control remains rare," said the AAP.
 
The organization, with 60,000-plus members, said that because children and young adults spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with various media, it was important for the portrayals of sex in that media to be accurate and responsible.
 
"American children and teenagers spend more than 7 hours a day with a variety of different media. Those media are filled with sexual messages and images, many of which are unrealistic," the AAP said. "Talk about sex on TV can occur as often as 8 to 10 times per hour. Between 1997 and 2001 alone, the amount of sexual content on TV nearly doubled."
 
This proliferation of inaccurate sexual messages has had documented effects on youth sexual behavior, the AAP reported. Kids exposed to sexual material on television are almost twice as likely to engage in sexually risky behavior at a younger age than youth whose parents limit their exposure to sexually saturated media. 
 
Other studies have shown that exposure to sexualized media content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. "Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important," the AAP stated.
 
These negative trends are happening at a time when public sexual education has favored a scientifically unfounded, abstinence only approach, said the organization, adding that as public policy has avoided providing youth with accurate information about sex, the media have become the sexual educator of "last resort."
 
"Because so many sex education programs have recently been focused on abstinence only, the media have arguably become one of the leading sex educators in the United States today," the AAP said. "Yet, parents and legislators fail to understand that although they may favor abstinence-only sex education (despite the lack of any evidence of its effectiveness), the media are decidedly not abstinence only."
 
In fact, the American media can be among "the most sexually-suggestive media in the world," according to the AAP. The effect of this is that media can act as a "super-peer" on youth, exerting an influence on sexual behavior stronger than that of a child's parents.
 
One major problem – labeled "dangerous" by the AAP – with the media's portrayal of sex is the lingering myth that access to contraception affects sexual behavior patterns. Because the media play such a large role in providing information about sex to young people, this dearth of accurate information about contraceptives leaves teens at a disadvantage as they become sexually active.
 
"The United States is the only Western nation that still subscribes to the dangerous myth that giving teenagers access to birth control – and media represent a form of access – will make them sexually active at a younger age," the AAP explained. 
 
In response to these twin problems, the AAP called on media to do two things: remove some inappropriate sexual content from programming likely to be viewed by children and substitute it with accurate, educational information about sex.
 
"Pediatricians and child advocacy groups should encourage the entertainment industry to produce more programming that contains responsible sexual content and that focuses on the interpersonal relationship in which sexual activity takes place," the AAP said. 
 
"Similarly, Madison Avenue and advertisers need to be encouraged to stop using sex to sell products," said the group.
 
In addition to changing media programming, the AAP also called for comprehensive sex education in schools and increased advertisements for contraceptives.
 
"Pediatricians should urge the broadcast industry to air advertisements for birth control products," the AAP said. 
 
Dr. Vic Strasburger, the policy's lead author, said that scientific studies showed that increased advertising for birth control would lead to "one thing and one thing only" – increased use of contraception.
 
"The research is quite clear, the media represent one access point for children and teenagers about birth control and giving teenagers access to birth control does one thing and one thing only – that is it makes them more likely to use birth control when they begin having sex," Strasburger told CNSNews.com. 
 
"As parents and as adults, we couldn't be doing a worse job," Strasburger said. "We do a terrible job of preparing kids to be happy, healthy, sexual adults."

Contact: Matt Cover

Source: CNSNews.com
Date Published: September 03, 2010

Embryonic stem-cell research - money over morality

      

The Christian Medical Association (CMA) is criticizing the Obama administration for challenging a federal court decision that has blocked government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
 
CMA president Dr. David Stevens thinks politics and greed are behind the desire to fund embryonic stem-cell research, and that is why the government wants the ban lifted. He points out that some of the scientists standing up for the research are those who have conflicts of interest because they receive federal funding.

"They belong to mainly three institutions: Harvard, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University -- all of them which have patents on embryonic stem-cell lines and royalties on any findings that people get through scientific inquiry that can be turned into a commercial thing that will go to these universities," Stevens reports. "Irving Wiessman, who's been one of the main spokesmen on this from Stanford, has made over $200 million, personally developing and selling embryonic stem-cell companies."

The CMA president suggests the Obama administration should put the priority on helping to cure patients.

"It's a waste of money to put federal tax dollars into embryonic stem-cell research," he contends. "It's not going to get the cures we want. We need to put our money where we can get real cures for real people real fast."

Stevens is urging the White House to advance ethical stem-cell research without using human embryos "as lab rats."

Contact: Bill Bumpas

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 3, 2010

Pro-life leader criticizes professor’s support for coercive sterilization

      

A British professor's call to sterilize by force members of society who would be "inadequate parents" prompted criticism from the interim head of Human Life International (HLI), who warned that the view is more mainstream among academics and derives from a society where life is controlled "at our whim."

Prof. David Marsland told the BBC that "permanent sterilization" is the solution to child neglect or abuse, LifeSiteNews reports.

Attributing abuse and neglect to "a very small minority of inadequate parents," he said these parents have "a number of moral and mental inadequacies" caused by "serious mental defect," chronic mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism.

"Short of lifetime incarceration," he said, the solution is "permanent sterilization."

The professor's response came in a BBC program which reacted to an English local council that wanted to force contraception on a 29-year-old woman. Council members judged her to be incapable of making decisions about childrearing.

Prof. Marsland is Emeritus Scholar of Sociology and Health Sciences at Brunel University, London and Professorial Research Fellow in Sociology at the University of Buckingham.

HLI interim president Msgr. Ignatio Barreiro-Carambula denounced the comments on Thursday, saying they show that "no evil is ever fully buried in the past."

"Every time we think we've seen the last of the Sangerian calls to forcibly sterilize and otherwise do away with the disabled, we are aghast at their return," he said in a Thursday press release. "Sangerian" is a reference to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who was among the many intellectuals who called for birth control to target racial minorities and other "unfit" persons.

"Our elites have established a society of contraception and abortion, wherein life itself is just another factor to be controlled at our whim," the monsignor argued. "This society in turn creates more and more people who are depersonalized and marginalized, and they think that the answer to this is to simply get rid of the people whose situations we have helped to create? This is insanity."

Msgr. Barreiro also warned that the professor should not be regarded as a fringe character.

"What many people may not realize is how mainstream Prof. Marsland's comments are in the 'progressive' academy," he commented, charging that supporters of forced sterilization are "destroyers" of life.

"Only a corrupt person could make this barbarity sound so 'reasonable'," he continued. "We are not fooled. We must all denounce this evil and stop it in its tracks."

He called on Christians and all men of good will in academia to reject the reasoning of the professor and those like him who have "again gone too far."

"We must tell them that we reject the notion that human beings are mere animals that must be controlled by those who think they know better."

Source: CNA
Date Published: September 3, 2010

Divided Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Thomas More Society's Request for Immediate Transfer of Parental Notice Challenge

      

Yesterday, a divided Illinois Supreme Court denied a request by the Thomas More Society to transfer the legal case pending against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court. Justices Robert R. Thomas and Thomas L. Kilbride dissented from the order denying the transfer.

"We're obviously disappointed with this ruling, but we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to bring these appeals to a speedy and positive conclusion," said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. "The latest constitutional attack on this law by the American Civil Liberties Union was deemed legally meritless and tossed out of court by both a federal appeals court and a Cook County trial court, and yet the Attorney General agreed -- inexplicably and without any legal basis -- that the enforcement of parental notice should still be stayed, that is, suspended pending the outcome of the ACLU's appeal."

With the transfer motion denied, the proceedings will continue in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, where Thomas More Society attorneys are due to file their opening appeal brief on Friday.

Contact: Stephanie Lewis

Source: Thomas More Society
Date Published: September 1, 2010

American Academy of Pediatrics Rejects Abstinence, Tells Members to Promote ‘Safe-Sex’

      
Days after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services bowed to public pressure and posted a the results of favorable abstinence survey, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement Tuesday, stating it was "unwise" to promote abstinence-only education.

In its policy statement, "Sexuality, Contraception and the Media," AAP's Council on Communications and Media, indicated:

"It is unwise to promote 'abstinence-only' sex education when it has been shown to be ineffective and when the media have become such an important source of information about 'non-abstinence.'"

Chad Hills, CitizenLink's sexual health and abstinence analyst, said there are positive and negative aspects of the policy statement.

"Although it's commendable that the AAP policy is least recognizing – and addressing – the media's promotion of casual sex outside of marriage to teens," Hills said, "they failed to recognize the importance of parents, educators and the media in upholding a higher expected sexual standard –namely keeping sexuality within the context of marriage."

Melissa Henson, director of communications and public education at Parents Television Council, said, sex and marriage is portrayed in the media as something painful and that you have to do out of obligation.

"Sexual relationships that are adulterous or that take place outside of the context of marriage are always presented in a favorable light," Henson said. "The only kind of sexual relationships that really aren't addressed on television are sexual relationships within the context of a loving and committed marriage."

Even shows that attempt to show the realities of teen sexual activity are problematic.

"I have yet to see a TV show that handled these messages in a responsible way to begin with," Henson added. "It is important for parents to make it clear to their kids that there are real-world consequences that they need to be prepared to deal with."

Source: Citizenlink
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Becket Fund vs. gov't-forced abortion

      

The Becket Fund is pledging to sue the Department of Health and Human Services if it begins forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions.

Eric Rassbach, an attorney with The Becket Fund, tells OneNewsNow the current issue deals with the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) misinterpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

"The ACLU made what we consider an indecent proposal to the Department of Health and Human Services, asking them to take a law that was meant to prevent patient dumping and turn it into a command that religious hospitals perform abortions," he explains.

His firm feels the ACLU has no business in re-defining the meaning of the legislation, and believes forcing religious doctors and nurses to violate their faith would result in nationwide closures of healthcare facilities.

"It takes a little bit of chutzpa to say that this is somehow a law forcing religious people to perform abortions," Rassbach decides. But he points out that if the federal government complies with the ACLU's request, it would be a violation of "the basic rights of conscience that are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Rossbach assures that if that happens, the Health Department will find itself squaring off against The Becket Fund in federal court.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

UK’s NICE Rationers: Plush Office Remodel–YES!–Pay for Life-Extending Cancer Drug–NO!

UK's NICE Rationers: Plush Office Remodel–YES!–Pay for Life-Extending Cancer Drug–NO!

     

NICE–the rationing board for the UK's NHS–is the model that Obamacare's major supporters want for us, and the potential to create such centralized control was passed under Obamacare. For example,  Former Senator Tom Daschle, described by the NYT as the most influential outside adviser on Obamacare, loves NICE.  NICE gives Donald Berwick, now temporarily the head of Medicare, the vapors.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has  supported Berwick's views, lending her heft for health care rationing under Obamacare.  With so many powerful Obamacaricrats swooning over NICE, it is worth our time to keep a close eye on on the rationing board's many harmful actions.

In our latest chapter, NICE has spent 500,000 pounds ($769,952 - U.S. Dollars) to remodel its offices, while denying NHS coverage for a bowel cancer drug that extends life about 8 months.  From the story:

Controversial rationing body NICE has spent £500,000 on a plush office refurbishment – despite turning down life-extending cancer drugs for being too expensive. A week after causing a furore by rejecting the bowel cancer drug Avastin, it has emerged that the quango plans to expand still further by taking on more than 160 new staff. The news, which comes as the public sector is facing massive cutbacks, will fuel criticisms of ' empire building' by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The amount spent on refurbishment including an extended boardroom and the installation of plasma TVs – could pay for a month's Avastin for 240 people

This isn't based on efficacy–which is being questioned by the FDA regarding the drug's use for breast cancer–but pure cost/benefit and quality of life judgmentalism.  (Can you imagine if an HMO did this? The lawsuits would never end!) If Obamacare's cost-benefit boards ever gain the kind of power NICE wields, the same thing will happen here. And the hubris of feathering its own nest?  Par for the course for those who feel self entitled–like California's white elephant, the CIRM.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

Contact: Wesley J. Smith

Source: Secondhand Smoke
Date Published: September 2, 2010

Iowa medical board 'cozy' with Planned Parenthood

      

Operation Rescue wants open Iowa medical records to be just that – open. But the group is encountering opposition from an abortionist.

Operation Rescue researchers wanted public records of Planned Parenthood abortion practitioner Susan Haskell. But that request was denied, and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has now sued the Citizen's Information Center.

"Seemingly in Iowa, there are open records -- and then there are open records that can be sealed when Planned Parenthood doesn't like the information that's within them," suggests Operation Rescue president Troy Newman.

Also at issue is the fact that the medical board staff tipped off Planned Parenthood when the request was made. Newman stresses that a doctor's medical license, disciplinary action taken against him or her, and even their application for a medical license are all public documents in every state.

"But in Iowa, if you work for Planned Parenthood, the Iowa Board of Medicine will let you know that Operation Rescue is seeking your open records and then will seek a court injunction prohibiting us from getting that information," the pro-lifer laments.

Newman also decides that this lawsuit raises speculation about what Planned Parenthood has to hide. "It's corruption and collusion within the abortion industry at its worst degree," he contends.

The Operation Rescue president concludes that the relationship between the abortion clinic and the state medical board is a little too cozy, but he has a few court maneuvers in mind to ensure that public information is public.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

Church intervenes in pastor's euthanasia battle

      

A situation is unfolding in Canada that is similar to the case of Terri Schiavo, the patient who was starved and dehydrated to death in Florida several years ago.

Joshua Kulendran Mayandy, a Sri Lankan native and Pentecostal pastor at Humberlea Worship Centre in Etobicoke, suffered a heart attack and brain damage May 29. He was in a coma but came out of it and has improved. Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) tells OneNewsNow Mayandy has no family, no written instructions on what to do, and no power-of-attorney agreement that could effect those decisions.

"So the court then chose someone to make decisions for him, and the person who he had chosen had originally agreed that...he would go along with the hospital's wishes, which was no medical treatment, including no IV fluids, foods or medicines at all," Schadenberg reports.

That means that food and fluids are considered a part of medical treatment. However, members of the pastor's church agreed the hospital's decision was contrary to Mayandy's wishes. The situation changed once the EPC got involved.

"The substitute decision-maker agreed to allow a nurse, who is part of the church, to come in every day and feed Pastor Mayandy, so that has begun and it's still continuing," the EPC executive director explains.

He goes on to point out that the decision to restore food and water came after the hospital received thousands of calls protesting the removal of food and water. Schadenberg cautions that the situation is not over yet because the substitute decision-maker could change course again.

Meanwhile, the pastor is now able to swallow, and Schadenberg reports that he is otherwise healthy and could go on to live many years.

Contact: Charlie Butts

Source: OneNewsNow
Date Published: September 2, 2010

5 questions about the stem cell ruling

     

A federal judge's ruling has thrust the issue of embryonic stem cell research back into the news. Following are five questions and answers about the decision.

-- Did the judge's ruling block all stem cell research?

No. Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction blocking only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Federal funding for the other two types of stem cell research -- adult stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research -- is still allowed, as is private funding for embryonic stem cell research. The judge said a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- which is attached to a yearly spending bill and must be renewed annually -- prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The amendment bars research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Lamberth's injunction could remain in place until he considers the case itself, in which he said the pro-life coalition that filed the suit has a "strong likelihood" of winning. Among the pro-life groups involved in the case are the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International and the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

-- What are the differences between the three types of stem cells?

1) Adult stem cells are found in various parts of the body and even in umbilical cord blood; 2) embryonic stem cells are found only in embryos; 3) induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are skin cells that are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. As the body's master cells, all stem cells have the potential to develop into other types of body tissue and cure diseases and other ailments. Adult stem cells are "multipotent," meaning they can develop into some, but not all, of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells and iPSC cells are "pluripotent," meaning they can potentially develop into all of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research and iPSC research do not involve embryos and are not controversial.

-- How does the Obama administration interpret the Dickey-Wicker Amendment?

The Justice Department says the Dickey-Wicker Amendment allows research on embryonic stem cells as long as the embryos themselves were destroyed using private money. Lamberth, though, said the two parts of the research "cannot be separated" and that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is "unambiguous." Congress' intent, he said, was to "enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed." Lamberth was nominated by President Reagan.

-- Has stem cell research led to any cures?

Embryonic stem cell research has not, and any cures could be years away, at best. In 2006 a California institute, set up to oversee $3 billion in state embryonic stem cell funding, acknowledged that at the end of a 10-year period, it simply hoped to have "preliminary evidence" from at least one embryonic stem cell trial. The research has been slowed because embryonic stem cells have a tendency to produce cancer in animal trials. The first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial in the U.S. got under way this year. By contrast, advances in adult stem cell research and iPSC research are moving rapidly. Adult stem cell treatment has led to treatments for 73 diseases and ailments, according to the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. IPSC research may be the most promising field. Dr. Oz, of "Oprah" fame, said in 2009 he believed researchers were "single-digit years" away from finding treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells. "The stem cell debate is dead," he said, noting the problems with embryonic stem cells. In 2009, Al Gore announced his partnership in a $20 million venture to fund iPSC research.

-- What's the next step in the legal case?

The Obama administration is appealing the ruling and wants the judge to stay the ruling -- meaning to prevent the ruling from going into effect -- until the appeal is exhausted. Some Democrats in Congress say they will move to pass legislation reversing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, although it is unclear whether Congress will have the time or political desire to pass such a controversial bill before the November election. It is possible it could be taken up during a lame duck session after November.

Contact: Michael Foust

Source: Baptist Press
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Option Line Launches Upgraded, Interactive Site for Connecting Women to Life-Affirming Help

     

Joint venture partners Carenet and Heartbeat International announced Wednesday the release of an upgraded, interactive Option Line® website featuring clean, simplified navigation and new chat technology. One of the most strategic partnerships in the pro-life movement, Option Line is the only national, multi-channel contact center providing women facing an unplanned pregnancy with information about abortion risks and alternatives.

Since 2003, the Option Line contact center has experienced incredible growth; in 2009, it received its one millionth contact from emails, calls, instant messenger and text messages, garnering more than 250,000 of those contacts that year alone.

Advertised on billboards, bus shelters, Internet, TV and radio ads, Option Line is equipped with 37 trained consultants who are available 24-7 to connect individuals with the compassionate support and practical help of a local pregnancy center.

The upgraded Option Line website features:

• Clear and simple navigation linking individuals more quickly with the help and information they need.

• A new chat feature, where web visitors are prompted to speak to a live Option Line consultant for help.

• Straight-forward messaging for key audiences: women thinking they might be pregnant, women seeking information about the morning-after pill, and women considering an abortion. All information is extensively referenced.

• Specific guidance for boyfriends, friends, and family members of a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy.

"When a young woman suspects she might be pregnant, she often goes online for help," said Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde. "We've designed our new Option Line website so that it's one of the first places she visits. By putting her in touch with a local pregnancy center, Option Line is connecting her to life-saving support for her and her unborn child."

"Option Line's new chat technology provides women a safe and comfortable way to share their fears and get connected to local help" said Heartbeat International President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph.D. "Three out of four women who contact the Option Line believe abortion may be their only option, but instead they receive information about positive alternatives and caring help in their local community."

Contact: Kristin Hansen

Source: Care Net
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Maryland Orders Dangerous Abortionist to Stop Practicing Illegally

     

Troubled abortionist Steven Chase Brigham has been issued a cease and desist order by the Maryland State Board of Physicians. The order demands that he stop the illegal practice of medicine, including abortions, at five locations throughout Maryland because he does not and never has been licensed in that state.
 
The order, dated August 25, 2010, indicates that Brigham has been practicing illegally in Maryland since January, 2010.
 
The document referred to an incident that occurred on August 13, 2010, where Brigham had begun a surgical procedure presumed to be an abortion, since that is the sole focus of his business. However, something went wrong and Brigham instructed the woman to travel to his abortion clinic in Elkton to complete the procedure "on an urgent basis."
 
"The health of Maryland patients is being endangered by the Respondent's unlicensed practice of medicine in this State," the order read.
 
The Maryland locations involved are located in Baltimore, Cheverly, Fredrick, College Park, and Elkton. Currently, all the clinics remain open and staffed by other abortionists.
 
Brigham operates a number of abortion centers in several states under the name American Women's Services.
 
Brigham has been under investigation and discipline throughout his entire 20-year career. He voluntarily retired his medical license in Pennsylvania while under investigation just six years after graduating from medical school. Since then, Brigham had medical licenses revoked in New York and Florida, and received disciplinary action in California and New Jersey. He served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud.
 
A judge once ordered him to stop advertising his abortions as "painless" and "safe."
 
"The only thing that will stop Brigham from committing illegal abortions that endanger the lives of women is to toss him in jail for a long time," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who said that her organization is planning on filing a complaint against the abortionist demanding criminal charges.

"Traditional means of discipline simply don't work with this guy," she said. "He has found that he can get away with just about anything without much more than a slap on the wrist. The only way to protect women from Brigham's predatory and unsafe abortion business is to criminally charge him and order all his mills closed."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010

Lessons from California on Taxpayer Funding of Human Embryo Research

     

Life Legal Defense Foundation, who in 2005 initiated the lawsuit People's Advocate v. ICOC, challenging the constitutionality of the governing board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to fund human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR), today warned not to fall for the same rhetoric being heard from the proponents of federal funding for embryo-destructive research. LLDF makes this warning after yesterday's request by the Obama administration before the judge -- who halted the illegal funding -- to allow the funding to continue while the decision is appealed. The recent decision halting funding is available at ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1575-44.

CIRM was established by voter initiative in California due in large part to proponents' promises of cures for all Californians resulting from HESCR. To date, CIRM, or for that matter any HESCR research, has produced no cures or therapies while over 70 therapies for various diseases have been the result of non-controversial and life-affirming cord blood and adult stem cell research -- stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm.  

In spite of the absolute failure of HESCR and a Rasmussen Poll released on Friday, August 27, 2010, that revealed "only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research" and 57% of those polled OPPOSE taxpayer funding for controversial stem cell research that requires destruction of human embryos, it looks like Congress will consider legislation to approve taxpayer funding for embryo-destructive research when the House reconvenes in September.

H.R. 4808, the legislation most recently introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), has broader consequences than legislation passed by the House in prior Congresses. Pro-Life leaders oppose H.R. 4808 because it directs federal funds to embryo-destructive research and unlike prior bills passed by Congress, provides a basis for taxpayer funding for research on stem cells taken from cloned embryos and embryos created solely for the purpose of destruction.

Perhaps Americans who oppose federal funding ofc have watched the waste of taxpayer funds in California appropriated to CIRM. CIRM funding has been used largely for kingdom building among HESCR proponents. Funds have also been used to advance HESCR rhetoric by characterizing it as science education in government schools and colleges. An analysis of how CIRM has spent millions of dollars of the California taxpayers' hard-earned cash under the guise of "cures for all" that proponents promised would result from embryo destructive research is available at lldf.org/articles/stemcell.

Contact: Dana Cody

Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Date Published: September 1, 2010

Two Republican Governors Reject New Sex Ed Program, Apply for Abstinence Funds

      

Republican Govs. Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota applied for abstinence-education funding on Monday – just meeting U. S. Department of Health and Human Services' Aug. 30 deadline.

The U.S. Congress and the administration had canceled all abstinence-centered program grants for the FY2010 budget, putting at risk more than 2 million students who are expected to attend 176 abstinence programs this fall.

However, CitizenLink and pro-family organizations alerted people that the administration had refused to release a pivotal abstinence study. After protest, HHS posted the study online.

The abstinence study's executive summary indicated that:

•70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "It is against your values for your adolescents to have sexual intercourse before marriage.
•70 percent of parents agreed with the statement: "Having sexual intercourse is something only married people should do."
•Adolescents had similar responses for the two questions.
Chad Hills, sexual health and abstinence policy analyst for CitizenLink, said Americans deserve answers from President Obama and his administration about its lack of transparency of the survey results.

"Why were the results of this publicly funded national survey withheld from the public, researchers and policymakers?" said Hills. "And, why is our elected, "representative" form of government choosing not to reflect the desires of its constituents in this instance? We're submitting another Freedom of Information Act rquest to the HHS to collect more information about this suspicious delay."

Source: CitizenLink
Date Published: August 31, 2010

'Marked for Death' - An Abortion Survivor's Story

     

In August of 1977, Melissa Ohden was 'marked for death,' but miraculously she survived.

Facing Life Head-On, the weekly pro-life television program of Life Issues Institute, and recent Emmy award winner for "best of the best" in the category of Interview and Discussion, features saline infusion abortion attempt survivor, Melissa Ohden on its award winning show the week of August 29th and September 6th.

In this two part series, host Brad Mattes takes the Facing Life Head-On audience on the journey of Melissa's remarkable survival, how her tragic beginning quickly turned into a story of love through adoption, her search for the truth and for her biological family, and how being a survivor has impacted her now as a parent, herself.

Interviews with Melissa's adoptive mother and with a doctor regarding late term abortion attempts and the impact of these abortions on babies like Melissa give depth to a story, and a life, that is often unheard of: the story and life of the unborn.

To view episode 1 of 'Marked for Death' or to find out how you can tune into episodes 1 and 2 of 'Marked for Life,' please visit www.facinglife.tv/episode/index.html.

Contact: Melissa Ohden

Date Published: August 31, 2010

Teen Pro-Life Phenomenon 'Lia' Defends Rights of the Unborn

    

Pro-life prodigy Lia Mills, whose Youtube orations have amassed nearly a million views, has set out to prove the humanity of the unborn in a new video, part of an ongoing campaign to promote the message of life.

If the unborn are not human, the 13-year-old Toronto-native explains in her ten-minute address, then abortion is simply a matter of personal preference.  But, she says, "if the unborn are human, then they have value and rights."

She points out that textbooks on embryology clearly state that life begins at conception and human development begins at fertilization.  "At conception, a new life with its own unique DNA begins," she explains.  "All of the body parts of the mother share the same DNA, the mother's DNA.  But an unborn baby has an entirely different DNA.  He or she is separate from the mother."

"It should be clear that when two living beings from the same species mate, the product will be the same species as the parents," she adds.

Lia argues that all of the claims against the humanity of the unborn distinguish them from the born based on (1) size, (2) level of development, (3) environment, or (4) degree of dependency.  She goes through each one and points out that we do not devalue born people based on these differences.

To take the fourth, for example, she observes that many argue the unborn should not be given the same rights as others because they depend so completely on their mother for life and sustenance.  But Lia points out that a one-week-old baby is totally dependent on her parents, and the infirm are dependent on medical implements.

"Really if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we should be able to kill those who are on welfare, because they depend on the government," she asserts.  "We are all dependent on someone to a degree and no one goes around saying that those who are more dependent aren't human or are somehow less human than others."

In the end, she admits that abortion advocates now accept the humanity of the unborn, but rely instead on the claim that the unborn are not persons.  "They acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, but are now denying them their personhood, and thereby denying them their rights," she says.  "Is it possible to be a human and not a person?"

Having shown the humanity of the unborn, Lia's next video, which should be issued shortly, will answer the question "Are the unborn persons?"

    
Click here to see the video, 'Are the Unborn Human?'

Contact: Patrick B. Craine

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Date Published: August 31, 2010