65% support legislation which, in a pregnancy of 20 weeks or more, doctors must test to ensure that the fetus is not developed enough to live outside the womb before a woman could have an abortion -CBS News/New York Times, September 17-20

54% support legislation stipulating that no abortions be done “in public facilities except to save a woman’s life.” -Newsweek, July 17

57% said abortion should not be allowed “if the woman is unmarried and does not want to marry the father” -Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 8

85% believe abortion should be illegal “if the woman cannot afford to care for the baby.” -Washington Post, October 7

92% believe abortion should be illegal “if the family decides they don’t want another child.” -Washington Post, October 7

54% agree that “the solution to abortion is adoption.” -Los Angles Times, March 19

69% said “in general the lives of unborn babies should be protected.” -Wirthlin, October

60%-98% (depending on the reason) oppose 98% of all abortions in America -Boston Globe, March 31; NY Times January 22; Los Angles Times, March 19; Newsweek, April 24

1991

64% say “abortion should be illegal in all circumstances” or “legal only under certain circumstances” -Austin American Statesman, October 8

86% mostly favor legislation “requiring women to receive information about fetal development and alternatives to abortion before going ahead to the procedure.” -Gallop, done in 1991, reported on January 16, 1992

73% favor a 24-hour waiting period -same as above

70% support parental consent -same as above

73% support spousal notification -same as above

1992

73% favor requiring that minors obtain the consent of one parent before having an abortion -Time Mirror, May 8

81% support requiring women to wait 24 hours and to give their “informed consent” before having their abortion -Time Mirror, May 8

61% of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 voice pro-life views -Wirthlin, January 22

63% oppose federal funding of research using tissue from aborted fetuses -Wirthlin, January 22

69% favor requiring a woman to notify her husband before she has an abortion -Times Mirror, May 8

63% favor “a law requiring a pregnant woman to notify her husband if she decides to have an abortion.” -Gallop, January 18

Abortion should be either legal under certain circumstances or illegal at all times -Newsweek, July 23

males w/ college degrees 54%

females w/ college degrees 51%

males w/o college degrees 75%

females w/o college degrees 70%

Exit polls by Wirthlin and VRS (Voters Research Survey) showed that for those who considered abortion to be one of the top two issues, Bush received a 2.5-6% lead. -Wirthlin and VRS, November

1993

55% said abortion should either be prohibited in all circumstances, legal only to save the life of the mother, or legal in the cases or rape and incest and to save the life of the mother -Wirthlin, January 18-22

66% said abortion should not be covered in any health care plan (66% men said no, 65% women said no) -CBS/New York Times, June

52% said any national health care plan should not include abortion -NBC Poll, September

62% said abortion should not be included in health care and the mother wanting abortion should pay for it herself -Harris Poll, September

64% said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or legal only under certain circumstances -Gallop, January 16

1994

Of those who said that abortion affected the way they voted in the 1994 elections, twice as many people said they voted for pro-life candidates than pro-abortion. -Wirthlin, November 9

If choosing between a Republican candidate who opposed abortion or a Democrat candidate for favored abortion, people support the pro-life candidate 45%-37%. -Wirthlin, November 9,

68% said they were strongly or somewhat concerned that a health care plan might promote abortions (47% strongly concerned) -Washington Post, February

33% of people are actively pro-life, 19% are inactively pro-life, 14% are personally opposed to abortion but wouldn’t say no to others having one; total “pro-life” -66% -From “Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America’s Culture War,” by James Davidson Hunter, 1994.

======================================

Operation Rescue: God Is Going Back To School (970301)

Operation Rescue National is officially announcing it’s “God is going back to school” campaign, on Monday, March 3, 1997. Christians from across the nation (120 cities) will be taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the tragic truth about child killing to their local high schools. “Our kids need to know,” Said the Reverend Flip Benham Director of Operation Rescue National. “That the choices they make and the actions they take have lasting consequences.”

This is not a picket. It is a public proclamation! Christians are heading for the sidewalks in front of public schools to apologize to our Nation’s Children for allowing God to be expelled from schools and banished form the school yard!

“God has been replaced with metal detectors, condoms, drugs, gangs and violence.” Said the Reverend Flip Benham, Director of Operation Rescue National. “It is our mandate as Christians to bring God back to our public schools, Ten Commandments and all. We’ve gone to the school boards, we’ve gone to the legislators, we’ve gone to the courts -now we’re going to the very place where God was expelled in 1962 (Engle v. Vitale).

Why High Schools?

It is in the high schools where the battle for the heart and soul of our nation’s children is raging.

If Johnny is, after all, just an accidental grouping of atoms and molecules, what difference does it make if he can’t read, write, compute or remember ? Why can’t he have sex whenever he wants it? Why can’t he do drugs whenever he wants? Why can’t he shoot somebody who has the sneakers he wants? Why can’t he take whatever he wants whenever he wants it and expect no one to dare judge him? With a philosophy like this, why should we be surprised that the most violent place in America today, apart from the local abortion mill is the local high school?

It is precisely this thievery of the destiny and design of our kids by the purveyors of godless public education that we seek to confront at the gates of our local high schools. We are coming to the gates knowing, that once we are there, they will be lifted up so that the King of Glory may enter in. “Give us aid against the enemy, for the help of man is worthless. With God we will gain the victory, and He will trample down our enemies.” (Psalms 60:11-12)

Why Graphic Signs?

Our nation’s children need to know that the choices they make and the actions they take have lasting consequences.

The pictures we carry provide a pictorial essay and real warning of what horrors befall a culture that turns its back on a Holy God. Life and blessing is ours when we honor God’s law found in the Ten Commandments. This is visibly demonstrated by the picture of a live baby. Contrast this with the graphic pictures of children ripped apart by abortion and you epitomize the cost of walking away from the precepts and principles fond in God’s law.

“This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live...” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Is This Terrorism?

No! The truth brings terror only to those doing wrong. They fear being exposed. When one loses an argument philosophically, scientifically, ethically, and educationally, he resorts to argument “ad hominem” (name calling). Planned Parenthood and its ilk seek to paint all Christians who are living out their faith in the public forum as “wild-eyed, Fundamentalist, lunatic, terrorists.” “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:23)

Do These Pictures Traumatize Children?

No! Pictures of aborted babies do not traumatize our children. They traumatize adults attempting to deny the horror of abortion!

Our children do not have any problem distinguishing the fact that the child in the picture is a baby and not a “Blob of tissue.” It is only the children whose parents have not told them the truth about abortion that are traumatized. It is the revelation of having been lied to by parents, teachers, government officials and society at large, not the pictures, that causes their trauma. The truth, once seen, cannot be unseen. “Then you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:32)

Is The Extreme?

No! This is what parents do when their children are in danger. In fact, if you think this is radical you haven’t seen anything yet! We are not merely looking to bring prayer back into the school room, we are looking to bring God, himself, back to school -Ten Commandments and all. We are looking to kick Planned Parenthood out and all of its malevolent sex ed. Curriculum. We will make no attempt to appear fair and open-minded to the lies of the enemy. We desire only to be true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The gentle revolution is on...

======================================

Operation Rescue campaign gets kids’ attention (CNN, 970303)

NORTH BERGEN, New Jersey (CNN) —Operation Rescue launched a new campaign Monday targeted at teen-agers. The effort, called “God Is Going Back To School,” aims to bring an anti-abortion perspective to students at high schools across the United States. Protests were planned outside high schools in 100 cities.

“Inside these buildings, they’re being taught sex education, but they’re not really being told the whole story about abortion,” said Jeff White, of Operation Rescue-California, as members of his organization protested outside Beverly Hills High School.

And as protesters gathered at New Jersey’s North Bergen High School, Bill Kohler of Operation Rescue-New Jersey said, “We want to try and reach them before they become sexually active.”

Only a handful of protesters gathered outside the New Jersey school, but they got the students’ attention, holding aloft huge, graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and handling pamphlets to students as they got off the buses.

Something to talk about

At Beverly Hills High in California, the principal saw the entire event as educational. “I think it’s a good opportunity for social studies classes, for example, to talk about the educational issue of today’s protest,” said Principal Ben Bushman.

And talk about it they did. Back at North Bend High, students leaving school stood in the snow to argue over both the message and the messenger. One student thought the protesters were ineffectual, at best: “These pictures aren’t going to change somebody’s mind. They’re just going to disgust someone,” he said.

“You don’t believe in abortion?” one of his friends shot back.

“Yeah, I do believe in abortion, it’s a woman’s right for abortion,” he responded.

“But now, now, what if it was your son?” his friend asked.

In a group of high school girls, one girl was heatedly telling her companions, “Abortion is somebody’s right. If they wants to have an abortion that is their right.”

“If I shoot you, is that my right to shoot you?” one of her friends asked. “Then how are you going to kill that baby?”

Others among the students thought the protests should simply not be held at the school, where they would “disrupt.”

New tactic for Operation Rescue

The school protest is a new tactic for Operation Rescue, known for its past acts of civil disobedience. Protests, including staged sit-ins outside abortion clinics, proved costly as the group lost one court case after another.

By turning attention to high schools, the group minimizes the legal risk while targeting a population responsible for about 20% of the abortions in the United States —young women, ages 15 to 19.

Planned Parenthood, which Operation Rescue has continuously vilified, is in favor of abortion talk among students. But the head of a local Planned Parenthood chapter said he opposes Operation Rescue’s new strategy.

“I think high school students should be debating this, and should be well informed,” said Alexander Sanger, the president of Planned Parenthood of New York. “What I’m not in favor of is propaganda in front of high schools.”

Operation Rescue makes the claim that events like Monday’s provide education on a subject kids aren’t learning about elsewhere. On that count it is partially correct.

According to a study several years ago by the Sexuality Information Education Council, only 11 states included the subject of abortion in their health education curriculum.

In New Jersey, Operation Rescue came in with fewer than a dozen people, yet it got a whole school talking.

======================================

Circuit Ruling on Abortion Protests Upheld (New York Law Journal, 970220)

Fixed 15-Foot Buffer Zones Allowed Outside Clinics

WASHINGTON (AP) —Anti-abortion demonstrators have a free-speech right to confront clinic patients and staffers up close on public streets and sidewalks as long as they stay more than 15 feet away from the clinics, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In splintered voting, the Court struck down a federal judge’s order that had kept most demonstrators at abortion clinics in the Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y., areas 15 feet from any patient or staff member. In an 8-1 vote, the Court said that a “floating buffer zone” on public byways imposed by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara in 1990 violates the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights, Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, 95-1065.

But the Justices upheld a fixed buffer zone that keeps demonstrators at least 15 feet from clinic doorways, driveways and driveway entrances. They also affirmed a part of Judge Arcara’s order requiring so-called “sidewalk counselors” who approach patients within the fixed buffer zones to retreat when patients indicate a desire not to be counseled.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down the 15-foot buffer zone and sidewalk-counseling restrictions —but a full in banc panel voted 13-2 to reimpose them.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the Court, said, “We strike down the floating buffer zones around people entering and leaving the clinics because they burden more speech than is necessary to serve the relevant government interests.”

‘Classic’ Free Speech

He added, “The floating buffer zones prevent defendants —except for two sidewalk counselors while they are tolerated by the targeted individual —from communicating a message from a normal conversational distance or handing leaflets to people entering or leaving the clinics who are walking on the public sidewalks. Leafleting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment.”

The Court vote to uphold as constitutional the fixed 15-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances and parking lots was 6-3. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas voted to strike down all of Judge Arcara’s order.

======================================

Pope says abortion violates human rights (970604)

KALISZ, Poland (AP) — Once again stepping firmly into Polish politics, Pope John Paul II said today that post-communist Poland should outlaw abortion not just on religious grounds but as a matter of human rights.

“The right to life is not a question of ideology, not only a religious right — it is a human right,” John Paul told a receptive crowd of 150,000 in the main square of Kalisz.

The 77-year-old pontiff referred to his condemnation of abortion last October when he said, “A nation which kills its own children is a nation without a future.”

“Believe me,” the pope added today, “it was not easy to say that, especially thinking about my own nation. I desire a future for it, a great future.”

His sermon was warmly applauded by the crowd, which included Solidarity leader Marian Krzaklewski.

Having played a key role in toppling Poland’s communist regime in 1989, John Paul has not shied away from criticizing what he sees as the flaws of its newly democratic, capitalist system.

After four decades of abortion on demand under communism, Poland’s Solidarity-led government passed a near-total ban in 1993, with exceptions only in cases of rape, incest or if the fetus was irreparably damaged or the mother’s life endangered.

The law was liberalized last year — after the former communists regained power — to allow abortions until the 12th week of pregnancy for women deemed to face financial or emotional problems if they have a child.

But just last week, Poland’s highest court declared the new law unconstitutional. It said “financial or emotional problems” was not a strong enough reason to deny the right to life, which it called “the highest value in a democracy.”

Parliament now has six months to either overturn the ruling with a two-thirds vote — considered unlikely — or amend the law.

======================================

Abortion Realities Overtake the Rhetoric (Washington Post, 970601)

A LOOK AT . . . The New Politics of Abortion

Proponents of unlimited abortion have admitted that the debate over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act has changed the terms of the public discussion of abortion. It has done more than that: It has begun the debate.

For 24 years, the abortion debate really has not been about abortion, as such. Until now, supporters of abortion have succeeded in camouflaging the real issue and dominating the discussion with talk about language (“choice”), about religion (of pro-life activists), about politics (conservative vs. liberal) —everything except what happens in an abortion, how it’s done, to whom it’s done, why it’s done and what it does. Now it’s different. Talking about “choice” in the face of the facts revealed during the debate over partial-birth abortions simply proved frivolous.

For the second year in a row, Congress has passed a bill banning partial-birth abortions. The number of votes in favor of the ban increased —in part, because much of the abortion supporters’ campaign had been exposed as so much disinformation. After many in the media uncritically accepted as fact the statements of abortion supporters, the PBS program “Media Matters” said that pro-life groups were “more accurate” in their description of the realities of partial-birth abortion.

The unraveling of 24 years of falsehoods began when the American Society of Anesthesiologists refuted the notion that, in a partial birth abortion, the baby is killed by anesthesia given the mother. Representatives of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood made this claim. When caught in a falsehood, a Planned Parenthood doctor admitted, “I simplified that for Congress.”

No surprise there. Advocates of abortion rights have been “simplifying” things for women for years now. Not that long ago, abortion was often described as simply a matter of a “blob of protoplasm” and the “products of conception” being “evacuated.” Discussion of partial-birth abortion made unavoidable the revelation that (1) abortion kills and (2) what is killed is a living, human being who, when aborted, has arms, legs, a brain and a beating heart.

Subsequently, journalists writing in the American Medical News, The Washington Post and the Bergen County Record (N.J.) verified what the National Right to Life Committee had said all along: that partial-birth abortions occur by the thousands —not hundreds; that most are done during the fifth and sixth months in the second trimester, not the third trimester; and that they are not usually done because of grave threats to the mother or child. They involve mostly healthy babies and healthy women, as statements from abortionists who perform this procedure have shown from the beginning of the debate.

Finally, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that he “lied through my teeth” during the legislative battle over partial-birth abortions and that he did so because those lies were the “party line” of the abortion lobby.

The reasons that President Clinton gave for vetoing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1996 have clearly been proven false. The question now is, having been misled by abortion supporters, will President Clinton veto the bill, or will he sign it, this time for humanitarian reasons?

The act is no ploy. It is about trying to save upwards of 5,000 partially born humans from being stabbed in the head and having their brains sucked out.

Abortion apologists still maintain that banning partial-birth abortions would have no effect because abortionists still have other legal methods available to them. They’re wrong. Similar arguments were made against laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortions on minors. Although minors can easily bypass parental involvement via the courts, abortion rates for minors still went down in states with effective parental involvement laws.

Further, those who argue that women now obtaining partial-birth abortions will be “switched” to other abortion methods if the act becomes law assume that women have little say in the matter and that they have been totally oblivious to the debate. It would be strange indeed if any woman remained unaffected by the facts about partial-birth abortion. Why should any pregnant woman trust those who “simplify” the truth for Congress (and anyone else) and “lie through [their] teeth” for the sake of the “party line?” Certainly some —hopefully many —women will choose life. Since the law helps teach us what society regards as acceptable and unacceptable, a ban on partial-birth abortion would certainly help reduce the comfort level for allowing abortion in our society.

Americans will reject the illogic inherent in such cold-blooded and chilling statements as that of “pro-choice” Rep. Barbara Kennelly (D-Conn.) who said of the partial-birth abortion procedure: “It is brutal. It is inhuman. And it should never be used. However, may I say, that is not my decision. Under Roe v. Wade, the law of the land, it is the decision of the mother and the doctor.”

The pro-life movement, for its part, will continue to focus on partial-birth abortion in the immediate future, both in Washington and in state capitals. Already 11 states have enacted bans and two other states have bills waiting for signatures of their governors. The issue is not going away.

The core issue remains, as always, the fact that abortion kills a child. This fact the pro-life movement has always proclaimed. This fact is evident to every parent who proudly shows an ultrasound picture of the child developing in the mother’s womb. And this fact has now been reluctantly, but convincingly, demonstrated by the documentation and information from none other than those who perform abortions. What they have published, submitted as testimony, or admitted to in interviews with reporters is now an indelible part of the record.

And although the partial-birth abortion ban has a narrow focus, it has shown that most Americans oppose the basic abortion “rights” tenet of an unlimited “right” to a dead child. The era of successfully lying about abortion is over. The real discussion has begun.

Wanda Franz, a professor of child development at West Virginia University, is president of the National Right to Life Committee Inc.

======================================

Abortion victim tells of her trauma (970615)

“They punctured my uterus and severed my colon. To fix that [later], I had to have a colostomy. I had a collapsed lung. I was septic inside. I was very ill, dying. I stayed like that for a whole week. The reason is that, these people were not doctors and they were operating an abortion clinic that was advertised in the phone book. ...These people at the clinic...they kept close contact with me so that they knew what my status was, what I was doing, while I was dying! And that’s what they were hoping for. ...After that whole week, I was jaundiced, I was bloated, I was dying! I decided to call my mother. By the grace of God...she took me to a hospital,” said 26 year old Lisa Robinson, on NET’s live interactive news talk show “Capitol Watch.”

With the partial birth abortion ban before Congress, Lisa wanted her story to be heard by those that still argue in favor of the procedure. At age 19, she put her life in the hands of who she thought were qualified doctors to have what they insisted be the partial birth abortion procedure because she was “too far along” at three months. She received no counseling that she might have offered options other than to be told on the first day of treatment that there was “no turning back.” “Because I thought they were doctors and they knew what they were doing, I let them do it. I didn’t know any better.”

Now married, she has been advised that she can not bear children due to the damage done to her internal organs. She prays for a miracle, but is considering adoption. Lisa Robinson has a message: “If somebody will listen, and if they will understand how it hurts you, and how emotionally, physically, mentally, spiritually how it hurts you, then yes, I need to tell somebody, and I want them to know. ...Think real hard. Think real, real hard. It’s not you’re only option. There’s people that you can talk to. It’s a life! It’s a life that you’re taking. And you need to realize that.”

Joining her on the program was Carol Everett, a former abortion provider who now speaks out against all abortions. She described the type of procedure Lisa was put through following two days of preparation. “They reach in with the forceps and locate the feet and pull the baby around. And many times, with the feet hard to reach, they’ll either grab the woman’s uterus and pull it, or then go back after they’ve torn it and pull her bowl out, or whatever, but it’s very, very dangerous to the woman. ... We do know that abortion is not as safe as it is being told.”

Everett told of her time in the abortion business in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. “I was in the business for six years. I saw 35 thousand abortions! I saw one woman die from legal abortion. I saw 19 others have hysterectomies or colostomies. And I came out when we were caught red handed attempting to do abortions on women that were not pregnant! ...I left.” Using telemarketing, her clinic sold only the one product —abortion. “I made 25 dollars for each abortion. ...The last month, we did 545 abortions! That’s $13,625.00 was my income in one month! We had nine physicians doing abortions. ... They wanted to do 10 to 12 first trimester abortions an hour, and three second -we never called them third trimesters, even though we measured them, we knew we were doing third trimester abortions -we called them all second trimester abortions. ... They make a minimum of 50 dollars a case... but if you go to the big end in this nation, abortions cost from two hundred dollars to eight thousand dollars” with the doctor getting 50o% of the fee. Everett said, “Today, there are about 1500 abortion clinics. And they are not as regulated as restaurants or veterinarians.”

======================================

Abortion too easy, say most women (London Times, 971001)

ALMOST 60 per cent of women want a tightening of the abortion laws to cut the upper limit for terminations from 24 weeks to 10 weeks, according to a new Gallup Poll commissioned by The Telegraph to mark tomorrow’s 30th anniversary of the Abortion Act.

The theme of the poll was supported by Cardinal Basil Hume, who last night attacked Labour’s stand on the issue. Speaking as he joined a “pro-life” chain of protesters in London, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England said: “My message to Tony Blair would be, you are a man of integrity, you are an honest man, and you see things clearly.

“I would have thought you should give leadership within your party, and try to convince them that abortion is wrong and that we ought, as a nation, to do something about it.”

A spokesman for William Hague, the Tory leader, said: “William Hague’s personal view has always been to oppose further liberalisation of the time limit for abortion and he has always voted for a more restrictive abortion law. “It appears from this poll that a clear majority of women support that view.”

Gallup’s poll of 1,416 men and women aged 16 and over has shocked pro-abortion campaigners and lent support to pro-life lobbyists who have been claiming for months that public opinion has changed in their favour. The study showed growing unease over the time at which pregnancies can be legally terminated. More than half those surveyed, and 59 per cent of women, want the limit for legal abortions to drop from 24 weeks to 10 weeks.

In cases of suspected foetal abnormality, where there is no upper limit and terminations can take place up to the time of birth, 54 per cent of people (57 per cent of women) wanted a limit introduced of 24 weeks. The Conservative government severed the link between the Abortion Act and the 1929 Infant Life (Preservation) Act in 1990.

Most of the research was carried out before the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists controversially claimed last week that a foetus might be able to feel pain from 26 weeks. But it showed a significant swing away from the view that abortion should be perceived as a routine operation.

Sixty-eight per cent of women and 57 per cent of men believe abortion should be allowed only “in particular circumstances”. Only 21 per cent of women wanted abortion on demand. A pregnant woman who did not want her baby should continue the pregnancy and have the child then offer it for adoption, according to 49 per cent of women. Only 20 per cent of those polled believed that she should have an abortion and only seven per cent of women and 11 per cent of men suggested that “it’s her choice”.

In the past 30 years there have been around five million legal abortions in Britain. One in five pregnancies now ends in a termination. Last year there were 177,225 abortions. About 89 per cent of abortions are carried out at less than 13 weeks but 10 per cent go ahead at between 13 and 19 weeks. Almost two per cent are carried out after 20 or more weeks.

======================================

Anti-abortion groups guilty of racketeering (980418)

A JURY in Chicago has found that two leading anti-abortion groups violated federal anti-racketeering laws -originally enacted to curb organised crime -by conspiring to close abortion clinics through violence, intimidation and extortion.

The decision was hailed by women’s groups as “the biggest courtroom defeat for the anti-abortion movement”. It could pave the way for scores of civil lawsuits against anti-abortion groups, brought by the nearly 1,000 clinics that perform abortions. This could potentially bankrupt large sections of the anti-abortion movement.

The suit was brought by the National Organisation of Women (NoW), acting on behalf of two abortion clinics in Wilmington, Delaware, and Milwaukee, against two anti-abortion groups, the Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue.

Filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, the suit was originally dismissed by both a federal judge and an appeals court on the grounds that the Act applied only to activities motivated by economic gain.

In 1994, however, the suit was reinstated by the US Supreme Court. Now jurors in the US District Court in Chicago have decided that damages of $86,000 (£48,000) should be paid to the two clinics. Since damages assessed under the Act are automatically trebled for punitive reasons, the anti-abortion groups must pay almost a quarter of a million dollars.

The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that leaders of the two anti-abortion groups directed their activists to “use threats and acts of intimidation and extortion in their efforts to shut clinics providing abortion services”.

The jurors agreed, finding that the defendants engaged in a nationwide conspiracy that produced 21 acts of extortion, mostly by the formation of barricades that prevented the use of abortion clinics. Evidence was adduced in court that showed how activists had threatened, grabbed and pushed both patients and doctors outside clinics. Susan Hill, the president of NoW, said: “This is a tremendous victory for abortion providers throughout the country. We have finally cracked the conspiracy. For the first time we have proven in court what we have known for years. There is an organised campaign of terror being waged against abortion providers.”

The jury’s decision was criticised by Cardinal Francis George, of the Chicago Archdiocese. He said: “The decision in this case effectively equates freedom of speech with racketeering.”

Joseph Scheidler, a senior activist of the Pro-Life Action League, said: “Now I’m a racketeer. When you can make a racketeer out of someone who is trying to save babies’ lives, you have a strange law.”

During the trial, the anti-abortion groups had sought to distance themselves from extremists who bomb clinics, insisting that their own activists were simply exercising their right to free speech by picketing the two abortion clinics.

Their actions, they argued, were protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Yet very few civil libertarians have rushed to the defence of the anti-abortion groups here. Colleen Connell, the associate legal director of the Ilinois branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “This case is not the end of the First Amendment as we know it. Nobody’s saying you can’t walk down the sidewalk holding signs saying abortion is murder.”

======================================

Europe’s stand on abortion (980627)

Status on abortion in some European countries:

ITALY: Abortion on demand through the 12th week became legal in 1978. A 1981 referendum backed the law. 99% of the Italian population is Roman Catholic.

IRELAND: Abortion is illegal in this predominately Catholic nation. The last referendum on abortion in 1993 rejected legalization, but made it legal to advertise foreign abortion services and allowed people to travel overseas to receive them.

POLAND: A 1993 law allows abortion only for strict medical reasons, ending decades of abortion on demand. In 1996, parliament introduced more liberal rules, allowing women to get abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy if it was deemed they would face financial or emotional difficulties if they had the child. But a high court ruled the provision unconstitutional. Poland is 90% Catholic.

SPAIN: Since 1985, abortion has been allowed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, but only in cases of rape, fetus malformation or danger to the mother’s life or mental health. However, women seeking abortions find it relatively easy to find psychiatrists willing to authorize a termination on the grounds of endangered mental health, and there are numerous private abortion clinics advertised in the national newspapers. Almost all the country’s 40 million people are Catholic.

BRITAIN: In England, Scotland and Wales, abortion was legalized in 1967 and is available for up to 24 weeks. The population is 10% Catholic. In the British province of Northern Ireland, where the population is 40% Catholic, the 1967 Abortion Act was never applied. Thus abortion is not legal, although there is no specific law prohibiting it. In practice, it is very rare.

SWITZERLAND: Abortion is illegal, unless the mother’s life is in danger. A 1977 referendum that would have allowed abortion within the first 12 weeks was rejected. But 1988 vote that would have strictly forbid abortions also was defeated. The Swiss population is 46% Roman Catholic.

GERMANY: Abortion is legal but the woman must present a certificate showing she has consulted a counselor — through church groups, the Red Cross or the state. About one-third of Germany’s 82 million people are Roman Catholic.

DENMARK: Abortion until the 12th week of pregnancy has been a right since the passage of a 1973 law. Some 18,000, or about 20%, of all pregnancies end in abortion in the country of 5.2 million people, less than 2% of whom are Roman Catholic.

ROMANIA: Abortion is legal through the 12th week and is the most widely-used form of contraception. Contraception and abortion were banned under former dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Some 7% of the country is Roman or Eastern Rite Catholic, both of which have allegiance to Rome.

======================================

House Votes to Keep Ban on Foreign Abortion Aid (010517)

WASHINGTON — The House voted Wednesday to preserve President Bush’s policy of banning aid to foreign organizations that discuss or advocate abortion rights abroad.

The provision, which passed 218-210, was attached to an $8.2 billion State Department reauthorization bill still being debated on the House floor. Thirty-two Democrats joined Republicans in approving the abortion-aid ban; 33 Republicans voted against it.

Democrats attacked the policy as detrimental to global family-planning efforts.

“The issue here,” said Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri, “is do we empower women and families across the globe with the ability to plan for the number of children they will have? Or do we pull the rug out from under these important efforts?”

Democrats pointed out that since 1973 federal law has prevented foreign organizations from using U.S. taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But GOP leaders accused foreign organizations of shifting money around to fund abortion efforts.

“We all know money is fungible. You can move it around,” said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the International Relations Committee and a longtime leader in anti-abortion efforts, said giving money to organizations that provide abortion sends a bad message. “When the very same organization offers U.S. family planning with one hand and abortion with the other, the message is the United States and its partners are perfectly comfortable with abortion,” he said.

The fight over the provision reignited the intense emotions associated with the abortion debate. At one point, leaders extended the debate to accommodate the countless number of members who wanted to speak.

This was only the latest effort by Republicans to push through abortion-related legislation now that they have a supporter in the White House. Just last month, the House voted to make it illegal to harm a fetus while committing a crime against a pregnant woman.

The evenly divided Senate has yet to take up any of the abortion measures.

Bush signaled his support for abortion foes early on, implementing the aid ban by executive order during his first week in office.

Democrats on the House International Relations Committee, with the help of three Republicans, voted 26-22 earlier this month to include a provision in the State Department bill overturning the president’s order. The Republican amendment approved Wednesday removed the repeal from the bill.

Many foreign organizations have worried that they may lose money needed to provide information on birth control and prenatal care as well as services such as Pap smears and HIV screening.

Republicans insist the policy takes no money from the $425 million the administration requested for global population assistance but instead directs that it go only to organizations that do not foster abortions.

==============================

Government Gives Fetuses ‘Unborn Child’ Status (Foxnews, 020201)

WASHINGTON — Abortion opponents got a morale boost from the Bush administration Thursday when Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that fetuses would henceforth be redesignated as “unborn children.”

The immediate purpose of the reclassification was to give low-income women access to prenatal care, but the change would allow abortion opponents to more forcefully make their case that prenatal children should be afforded the same rights as their postnatal counterparts.

Under the new classification, pregnant women will be able to take advantage of states’ versions of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, originally intended for children only. Currently, states must get permission from HHS in order to give mothers access to the CHIP program.

Thompson regularly allows the waivers, but said changing the fetuses’ status will streamline the process, allowing quicker access to vital prenatal care that would significantly increase the health of children later in life.

“Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle,” Thompson said. “Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women.”

The policy change, which will not take effect until public comment is received and the regulation is printed in the Federal Register, has been under consideration since last summer.

Thompson decided not to wait for legislation, pending in the Senate, that would have allowed states to add pregnant women to CHIP without seeking HHS approval.

The decision has already put abortion-rights supporters up in arms. They say other ways are available to provide health-care coverage to pregnant women without creating what they say is a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion.

“If they’re interested in covering pregnant women, why don’t they talk about pregnant women?” asked Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “I just have to believe their hidden agenda is to extend personhood to a fetus.”

This plan “sets legal precedent on its head,” she added.

Abortion opponents, however, welcomed the news.

“It is something that we endorse and have been working to see that it come about,” said Kristen Hansen, a spokeswoman for the Family Research Council. “It’s something we’re very happy about. This does acknowledge that low-income pregnant women need help with prenatal care.”

The National Governors Association has already cautioned Thompson that some states may face divisive battles over adding pregnant mothers to CHIP. Many others, however, will embrace the new option and quickly implement it, the association said.

==============================

Pro-Life Group Launches Undercover Sting (Foxnews, 020530)

A pro-life group in Texas has enlisted a woman to pose as a pregnant teen in a campaign designed to catch abortion clinics that might break the law.

Life Dynamics said one of its activists has called more than 800 abortion clinics nationwide in recent months, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend. What she learned is that more than 90% of the clinic employees handling the calls said they would conceal the information provided by the caller, according to Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher.

Such an action would be a violation of the law in states that require the reporting of sexual abuse of a minor. A 22-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old is considered statutory rape in all 50 states.

Most of the clinics receiving the telephone calls are affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Crutcher, who has released tape recordings of the calls, said some clinic employees told the caller how to avoid detection and circumvent parental notification laws.

In several cases, according to Crutcher, the caller was encouraged to conceal her age or her boyfriend’s age or give false names to lessen the chance that the boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape.

Planned Parenthood officials sharply criticized the Life Dynamics campaign.

“Their attacks are trying to damage Planned Parenthood, and also eliminate reproductive health services in this country,” said president Gloria Feldt. “They’ll use any tactics they can.”

Feldt said Planned Parenthood expects its employees to comply with state laws, but also encourages them to “provide callers with what I’d call a comfort level.”

“Here’s someone who’s calling me who’s worried, scared,” said Feldt, putting herself in the role of a clinic staffer. “How can I help her feel comfortable, get her to the professionals who can help?”

Life Dynamics also targeted clinics operated by the National Abortion Federation.

Crutcher said he hopes the Life Dynamics campaign will prompt a cutoff of state funding of abortion clinics and unleash a barrage of lawsuits by parents.

Anti-abortion organizations have also expanded their use of the Internet. In addition to identifying doctors who perform abortions, several sites carry photographs of clinic employees and of women entering clinics to get abortions.

“In this way, mothers who go to kill their babies will be exposed to the world,” anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley wrote on an Internet site seeking volunteers to take photographs outside clinics.

Horsley contends, and some legal experts agree, such use of photographs is protected by the First Amendment.

==============================

Supreme Court Rules for Abortion Protesters (Foxnews, 030226)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.

The court’s 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not “obtain” property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.

The court’s ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.

Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion.

That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.

The demonstrators had been sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women, which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.

They accused the groups of blocking clinic entrances, menacing doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroying equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages and barred from interfering nationwide with the clinics’ business for 10 years.

Rehnquist said there is no dispute that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes.

“But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of ‘shutting down’ a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion,” Rehnquist wrote.

The punishments were meted out under provisions of the 32-year-old Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and the Hobbs Act, a 1946 law aimed at crushing organized crime. The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force.

The court’s ruling lifts the nationwide injunction.

“To conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another, replacing it instead with the notion that merely interfering with or depriving someone of property is sufficient to constitute extortion,” Rehnquist wrote.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.

==============================

Abortion sides upset at plans for funds (Washington Times, 030303)

A Bush administration decision to provide funding from an expanded AIDS program to overseas clinics that also promote abortion has roiled both sides in the long-standing battle over abortion policy.

To pro-life forces, the decision overturns an effort going back to the Reagan administration to deny U.S. taxpayer funds to organizations that fund or promote abortions overseas, such as Planned Parenthood.

“This is not acceptable to us,” said Connie Mackey, vice president of government relations for the pro-life Family Research Council.

But pro-choice groups are upset that groups accepting the funds will be prohibited from discussing abortion with patients while carrying out AIDS counseling funded by the United States. Such groups are calling the plan “expensive, unwelcome and immoral.”

The new plan grows out of the “Mexico City” policy — first declared by President Reagan at a 1984 U.N. conference in that city — which bars U.S. taxpayer money from going to groups that fund or promote abortion overseas.

Derided as a “global gag rule” by its critics, the policy was repealed by President Clinton only to be reinstated by President Bush on his first day in office.

The policy again came under review when administration officials began looking at how to implement a request in Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech asking Congress for $15 billion over five years for AIDS treatment and prevention in Africa and the Caribbean.

A Feb. 11 State Department memo recommended that the new AIDS money be permitted to go to abortion providers as long as the AIDS work was kept strictly separate from the groups’ abortion work. Health care practitioners receiving the AIDS money would thus be prohibited from discussing abortion while providing AIDS counseling.

==============================

Majority believes life begins at conception (WorldNetDaily, 030602)

Poll: 56% back separate murder charge for unborn baby

A majority of Americans believe that life either begins at conception or when an embryo is implanted in a woman’s uterus, according to a new Newsweek poll.

58% consider a fertilized egg the beginning of human life, including 12% who equate in vitro fertilization with conception, according to the poll.

24% believe human life begins when the unborn baby is “viable,” or can survive outside the womb.

Only 11% of respondents believe human life begins at birth.

The findings come amid a brewing debate over whether unborn babies are entitled to individual, legal rights.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the high profile case of Laci Peterson and baby Connor, the mother and unborn son whose remains were found washed up on the San Francisco Bay shore following Peterson’s disappearance Dec. 24., intensified the debate.

Scott Peterson was charged separately for the murders of his wife and biological son. Under California law, if a pregnant woman is killed and it results in the death of the unborn child, the crime can be ruled a double homicide.

Abortion-rights groups including the National Organization for Women initially voiced opposition to the double-murder charge, saying it could become part of the pro-life lobby’s arsenal.

“If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder,” Morris County NOW President Mavra Stark told the Daily Record of Parsippany, N.J.

“There’s something about this that bothers me a little bit,” Stark said. “Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can’t see charging [Peterson] with a double-murder.”

“[The boy] was wanted and expected,” Stark added, “and [Laci] had a name for him, but if he wasn’t born, he wasn’t born. It sets a kind of precedent.”

But pro-life groups defended the two murder charges.

“Obviously, [the child] was wanted by the mother,” Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right To Life told the Record. “Clearly, groups like NOW are doing a great injustice to women by opposing these laws. It just shows you how extreme, and to what lengths, these groups will go to protect the right to abortion.”

According to the Newsweek survey, 56% of Americans agree with the separate murder charge for the killing of an unborn baby. Another 28% would allow separate charges in cases where the unborn baby was considered viable.

The majority support for the double-murder charge breaks down to 61% of Republicans, 54% of Democrats and 55% of Independents.

Newsweek reports abortion-rights activists worry the new focus on the unborn baby is part of a broad strategy to undermine the bedrock 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which was interpreted as the legalization of abortion.

“If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot,” the magazine quotes Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt as saying.

Twenty-eight states have fetal-homicide laws on the books but they vary widely. In many states, the laws take effect only after a preborn is able to live outside the uterus, around 24 weeks. More than a dozen states cover a developing child from the moment of conception or an embryo is implanted.

Congress is attempting to craft a federal standard on the issue, and is slated to take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act this month, which counts harm to an unborn baby as a separate crime. The House had earlier passed such legislation in 1999 and 2001. The Senate is expected to support the measure this time. Laci Peterson’s family has urged lawmakers to call it “Laci and Conner’s Law.”

The case of a 22-year-old mentally disabled woman who was raped while under the care of Florida child-welfare authorities also weighs into the public discourse on the matter. As WorldNetDaily reported, Gov. Jeb Bush asked a judge to appoint a guardian to represent the interests of the unborn baby. But on Friday, Orange County District Judge Lawrence Kirkwood ruled there was no basis in Florida statutes or case law for such a move.

Meanwhile, a circuit court judge in Miami reversed himself last week on a decision to allow the live birth of a 24-week-old preborn from a disabled woman during surgery to sterilize her and authorized an abortion instead.

Newsweek reports the dramatic breakthroughs in fetal and reproductive medicine also increasingly prompt the question, “When does life begin?”

A recent study estimated 88% of the nearly 400,000 embryos created at fertility clinics are set aside in frozen storage for use in the future. Newsweek surveyed sentiment on what should be done with these “leftovers.” 49% responded it is OK for an IVF clinic to destroy human embryos with the parents’ approval.

But couples facing the difficult decision themselves wrestle with it, reports Newsweek, citing the dilemma of Sue and John DiSilvestro, who have 5-year-old triplets from IVF and three fertilized eggs in cryostorage. The DiSilvestros disagree over what to do with them. Sue supports giving them to research, while John prefers to donate them to another infertile couple.

“Everything changes once you have kids,” he told the magazine. “I now realize those embryos are my children. It’s a different ball game.”

==============================

Newsweek Cover Story Puts Abortion Advocates on Defensive, But... (Media Research Center, 030604)

Newsweek’s cover story this week (a package under the title of “The War Over Fetal Rights: The politics of the womb are becoming ever more personal—and complex. The Peterson murder case, changing state laws and startling new science are causing many Americans to rethink long-held beliefs”), not only spotlighted fetal imagery and fetal surgery, but included something incredibly rare: it put “hard line” and “abortion rights supporters” in the same sentence.

The MRC’s Tim Graham filed this item for CyberAlert and relayed how in the lead June 9 Newsweek story reporter Debra Rosenberg placed abortion advocates on the defensive over the killing of unborn babies their mothers wanted, but the magazine excluded the Newsweek poll numbers showing how badly these advocates are losing in public opinion: 84% of Americans support laws defending unborn victims of violence.

The cover package is not unabashedly in favor of fetal rights, but it does provide a surprising degree of balance. If it has a bias, it’s that it selects a story from the pro-life news agenda, and suggests one front where abortion advocates are not winning. That emphasis is found not only in Rosenberg’s feature on the changing face of the debate over fetal rights, but also Claudia Kalb’s feature on developing fetal medicine, which as the headline explained, has “changed what he know and how we think about the unborn.” The 11 pages of photos and features also include interviews with experts on both sides, even if it carried a little labeling imbalance between the “pro-life side,” represented by “conservative bioethicist” Hadley Arkes, and the “pro-choice side,” represented by “philosopher” Bonnie Steinbock.

Rosenberg’s story included a rare sentence which acknowledged that pro-lifers are not the only ones to enunciate a hard line: “Recent dramatic breakthroughs in fetal and reproductive medicine only add to the confusion. Once just grainy blobs on a TV monitor, new high-tech fetal ultrasound images allow prospective parents to see tiny fingers and toes, arms, legs and a beating heart as early as 12 weeks. But while these images can make parents’ hearts leap for joy, they also pack such an emotional punch that even the most hard-line abortion-rights supporters may find themselves questioning their beliefs.”

Abortion advocates were placed on the defensive, another rare occurrence: “With the recent murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, nearly 9 months old, abortion-rights supporters are finding it increasingly difficult to claim credibly that a fetus just a few weeks, or even days, from delivery is not entitled to at least some protections under the law – but they vigorously argue against such laws anyway, fearing that giving a fetus rights will lead to the collapse of abortion protections. ‘If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot,’ says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt.”

Later in the story, which included pro-lifers from Rep. Melissa Hart to Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, Rosenberg found another pro-choice voice struggling: “Across town, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman sighs deeply when she learns the bill has been renamed after Laci and Conner. She accuses lawmakers of exploiting the tragic case. ‘It’s so crass, so offensive,’ she says. ‘It’s part of a larger strategy to establish the embryo with separate distinct rights equal to if not greater than the woman.’ But Michelman does not want to seem callous. She calls back later to stress how terminating a wanted pregnancy is ‘an especially heinous crime that deserves enhanced penalties.’ Yet because Michelman and her group refuse to grant the fetus any rights at any stage of development, she awkwardly argues in favor of alternative laws that would add harsh penalties for attacking pregnant women — up to 20 years for harming a pregnancy and a life sentence for ending it. ‘That’s not inconsistent,’ she argues. ‘It centers on the violence against the pregnant woman.’”

If the cover package has a flaw, it’s that Newsweek avoided reporting on its own poll numbers anywhere in 11 pages, except to try and suggest political risk for pro-lifers: “But by equating any use of embryonic research with murder, and even objecting to the storage of undeveloped embryos for future use by potential parents, anti-abortion activists risk alienating many Americans. (According to the Newsweek poll, 49% of Americans think it’s OK for an IVF clinic to destroy human embryos without the parents’ approval.)”

But in a press release for this week’s issue began: “A majority of Americans believe that life either begins at conception (46%) or when an embryo is implanted in a woman’s uterus (12%), according to a special Newsweek poll. Another quarter (24%) believe human life begins when the fetus is viable, i.e., can survive outside the womb. Only 11% believe that human life begins at birth.”

Who’s risking political pariah status here?

On legislation to punish killers of unborn children, Newsweek found another dramatic gulch in public opinion, but one which was not mentioned in the magazine: “When asked whether prosecutors should be able to bring separate murder charges against someone who kills a fetus still in the womb, a majority (56%) of Americans say this should be done in all cases where a pregnant woman is murdered and another quarter (28%) would allow it only in cases where the fetus is considered viable.” The release does not explain how many joined Feldt and Michelman in opposing the laws. But in an e-mail from the National Right to Life Committee, Doug Johnson reported: “The position that pro-abortion groups have demanded that lawmakers adopt — that the law must never recognize an unborn child as a crime victim — is supported by 9% in this poll.”

==============================

‘Roe’ Seeks to Overturn Historic Abortion Ruling (Foxnews, 030617)

The “Roe” of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision is asking the nation’s highest court to overturn its 1973 ruling that made abortion legal throughout the United States.

On the 33rd anniversary of her initial lawsuit, which resulted in the high court’s historic ruling three years later, Norma McCorvey announced Tuesday she will petition the court to reopen the original case, based on changes in law and technology over the last 30 years.

“I’m sorry that I signed that affidavit,” McCorvey said during the press conference Tuesday, referring to when she became the plaintiff in the original case.

She said the court case “brought the holocaust of abortion” but that with her legal action Tuesday, “I feel good about myself, I really do. I feel like the weight of the world has really been lifted off my shoulders.”

McCorvey made the announcement at the Ferris Plaza Park in Dallas, just blocks from the Earl Cabell Federal Building, where the original lawsuit was entered.

“I long for the day that justice will be done and the guilt from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders,” McCorvey said in a statement announcing the intent of the motion. “I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children.

“The issue is justice for the unborn, justice in this case because it was fraudulent, and justice for what is right.”

McCorvey filed the motion with the federal district court in Dallas, which ruled to legalize abortion in Texas before the Supreme Court ruling. The Texas attorney general’s office and Dallas district attorney each have 20 days to respond to the motion.

But abortion-rights groups think McCorvey won’t get far in her legal battle.

“I don’t believe that the courts are going to take this seriously in any sort of legal framework,” said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Elizabeth Toledo. “We know that the majority of Americans still support the right to choose and for reproductive freedom for women.”

More technology exists now than it did 30 years ago, McCorvey told Fox News Tuesday, such as three-dimensional sonograms that can show women that the fetus growing inside of them is viable.

Whereas the argument over when life begins was a philosophical one 30 years ago, it now is a scientific one that says life begins at conception, McCorvey said.

“We’re just trying to warn women that they do have other alternatives to abortion,” McCorvey told Fox News.

“There’s is no doubt there’s an enormous wealth of info we have now in 2003 that we did not have in 1973 … that cannot be ignored,” Olivia Gant of the anti-abortion group, American Victims of Abortion (search ), told Fox News Tuesday. “The overwhelming majority of Americans are deeply troubled” at the number of abortions completed every year, she said, putting that number at 1.5 million.

There were 1.3 million abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000, the last year statistics were available, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit corporation for reproductive health research. In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than six in 10 said they oppose completely overturning Roe v. Wade.

After arguing the pro-choice side of the abortion debate for years, McCorvey in 1995 converted to Roman Catholicism and is now 100% pro-life.

“I’m not anti-abortion, I’m pro-life,” she said.

McCorvey and more than 1,000 other women who have had abortions are including statements in the petition to the court on how abortions have affected their lives.

Among the effects, the women say they: became alcoholics; “hated life in general,” were “unable to bond with anyone;” suffered from depression, various medical problems, years of mood swings and eating disorders, panic disorder and promiscuity, post-abortion syndrome; “felt empty inside;” “lack of ability to deal adequately with true love and sex in marriage;” went to therapy for anger and other symptoms; and “I’m always thinking about my unborn child.”

McCorvey’s lawyer, Allan Parker, lead attorney for the Texas-based Justice Foundation, said recent changes in law make the court’s decision no longer just.

“Why do women have abortions? Because they don’t think they can take care of the child,” Parker told Fox News.

“I believe with all my heart that it’s time for the country to re-examine the social experiment that was abortion,” Parker said.

He said it often takes years for women to feel and realize the effects abortion has on them.

“For many women, it takes 10 or 15 years of denial before they finally recognize what they’ve done before they finally seek counseling,” he said.

But it will take more than just another bout of legal wrangling to shatter the opinion of many Americans that what a woman does in her private life should be in her control, Toledo argued.

“I think most people agree that preventing unintended pregnancies should be a priority in our healthcare systems,” she said. “I think the place where people depart is the intrusion of government and politicians ... intruding into our own personal decision making.”

McCorvey began her association with one of the most controversial issues in this country in 1970, when she became “Jane Roe,” the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit filed to challenge the anti-abortion laws in Texas.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed down its controversial ruling on Jan. 22, 1973. The decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states.

McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption. In the 1980s, McCorvey went public with her identity and wrote a book about her life titled I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice.

Although there have been many challenges to Roe v. Wade in the past 30 years, McCorvey’s legal team says her case is different because the plaintiff is actually asking for the case to be overturned.

Under certain rules of law, parties can seek relief from an earlier court order that is no longer supported by law.

==============================

How a Cause Was Born: How Ronald Reagan founded the modern pro-life movement (Wall Street Journal, 031106)

WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH signed a ban on partial-birth abortion last week, it marked the first congressional rollback of Roe v. Wade since the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion was handed down in 1973. And it marked the success of an idea as well. The idea, of course, is that abortion is inhuman and should be limited as sharply as possible and ultimately outlawed altogether.

However, it takes more than an idea to enact a law. Yesterday’s rollback—indeed the rise of the pro-life movement across the country—would not have occurred except for one thing. That was the embrace by conservatives of the antiabortion cause and the belated conversion of one conservative in particular, Ronald Reagan. Once this happened, opposition to abortion became a top priority of conservatism’s chief political vehicle, the Republican Party. Now, says Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, “it’s the issue that won’t go away.”

Not in America anyway. Outside the United States, serious opposition to abortion is rare. Conservatives world-wide tend to agree on limited government, low taxes, respect for traditional values and strong law enforcement. But a commitment to protecting unborn children is unique to American conservatism.

Even here, full-throated conservative opposition to abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon. By the time Roe v. Wade was decided 30 years ago, 18 states had already liberalized their abortion laws. The opposition came mostly from the Catholic Church and assorted Protestant evangelicals, not from conservative leaders. There was no national campaign, as there is today, to rally the pro-life forces, stage marches, pressure politicians and gain favorable publicity.

THE MOST TELLING EXAMPLE of conservative indifference to the abortion issue occurred in California. In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Reagan signed anyway. He persuaded himself that the measure would have little impact. Instead, it prompted a surge in abortions.

Roe v. Wade changed the terms of the abortion debate, but not instantly. At first, conservatives were more upset by the decision’s dubious legal reasoning and its creation of a new constitutional right unmentioned in the Constitution itself than by the actual impact. But it soon became clear that the supposedly complicated three-trimester scheme laid out in the ruling wasn’t really so complicated. It meant abortion on demand, and the number of abortions soared into the millions.

Roe v. Wade had moved America into a dark new world. Defending the decision, radical feminists insisted that an unborn child was no more valuable as human life than a wart. A lucrative abortion industry grew up. The Democratic party endorsed an unfettered right to an abortion in its 1980 platform.

Messrs. Reagan and Hyde were among the first Republicans to have strong misgivings. Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he’d never have done so if he’d been more experienced in office. It was “the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation,” Cannon writes in his new book, “Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.” By 1980, Reagan was campaigning for president in favor of banning abortion in all but rare cases.

Representative Hyde, too, had been indifferent when initially confronted with the abortion issue. As an Illinois state representative in 1968, he was asked by a colleague to cosponsor a bill easing abortion restrictions. “I had never thought about the issue,” Hyde says. The bill led him to study the matter and consult abortion opponents. He decided to oppose the bill, though not vocally. But when it came up for a vote, “I sat there and nobody rose to speak in opposition,” Hyde says. “Almost by default, I spoke against it.” The bill was defeated. Elected to the U.S. House in 1974, Hyde quickly concluded that the pro-life cause wasn’t popular in Washington, including among Republicans. But Hyde agreed to speak against the appropriation of $50 million to pay for 300,000 Medicaid abortions. “By God, we had a vote and I won,” he says. Thus was born the Hyde Amendment, which still bars the use of federal funds for abortion, and Hyde’s role as the leading pro-life force in Congress.

IN 1983, President Reagan collected his thoughts on abortion in an essay published in The Human Life Review and later in a book entitled “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.” Here’s what he wrote: “I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. . . . Anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.”

Why did Reagan’s take on abortion matter so much? Because he was not only president but also the undisputed leader of America’s conservatives. He defined conservatism. Not every conservative agreed with him, but most did. And President Reagan, says Hyde, “gave the right to life position stature and legitimacy.” In 1976, the Republican platform had a lukewarm plank on abortion that praised foes of Roe v. Wade. Without Reagan’s having to ask, the 1980 platform backed a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Since then, the pro-life stance has scarcely been debated and never seriously challenged at Republican conventions.

When President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban, it was fitting that the event was held at the Ronald Reagan Building, a few blocks from the White House. Hundreds of conservatives were in the audience. No doubt they saw the small but important rollback of legalized abortion as a victory for conservatives. For sure, it wouldn’t have happened without them.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

==============================

Memos reveal abortion-rights strategy (WorldNetDaily, 031209)

Groups seeking to use U.N., international law, to impose agenda

Internal memos produced by a leading abortion-rights group map out a multi-year strategy for using the United Nations and other international bodies to impose so-called reproductive-rights laws worldwide.

The Center for Reproductive Rights wrote the memos as a summary of its strategic planning meetings last October, according to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, or C-FAM, which obtained copies.

The memos show CRR “and many pro-abortion allies throughout the world plan to expand international laws well beyond their current scope and to impose these new laws worldwide, even upon individual nations that do not explicitly assent to the changes,” according to C-FAM.

“The memos appear to confirm long-standing fears of some legal scholars that international negotiations on human-rights laws are no longer conducted in good faith, and that national sovereignty is jeopardized by such negotiations,” C-FAM said.

In the memos, CRR repeatedly states its “overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so.”

Foremost among those rights is abortion-on-demand and establishment of abortion as a human right.

The group wants to go beyond abortion, however, and recognize the “inalienable nature” of what it calls “sexual rights.”

Based on these “rights,” CRR hopes new laws will be required that “explicitly address the legal and social subordination women face within their families, marriages, communities and societies.”

Also, CRR believes this would lead to “reproductive autonomy” for girls, including access to all abortion services without permission of parents.

The multi-pronged strategy begins with expanding interpretation of rights already accepted internationally – called “hard norms” – such as the right to life, the right to health and even the right to enjoy scientific progress.

CRR says with this approach “there is a stealth quality to the work: We are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition.”

The second part of the strategy is to create new customary international laws, called “soft norms,” that specifically address abortion and sexual autonomy. CRR says if these are repeated often enough, they can become “hard norms” that are binding on nations through bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and U.N. compliance committees.

The final element is to seek a means to impose the new international laws on nations that opposed them.

CRR, therefore, will be “supporting efforts to strengthen existing enforcement mechanisms, such as the campaign for the International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.”

==============================

Pro-abortion pols barred from communion (WorldNetDaily, 040109)

Catholic bishop issues decree addressing ‘manifestly grave sin’

A Roman Catholic bishop issued a formal decree barring any Catholic lawmaker in his diocese who favors abortion from participating in the church’s Holy Communion sacrament.

Bishop Raymond Burke of La Crosse, Wis., who will be installed later this month as archbishop of St. Louis, made the decree public yesterday.

The American Life League, a Virginia-based group that has encouraged bishops to take such action in accordance with church law, hailed the move as “a historic step forward.”

“We have diligently brought to the attention of America’s bishops the pro-abortion public comments of Catholic elected officials in each of their dioceses, and the church’s remedy for this disparity,” said American Life League’s president, Judie Brown.

In his notification, Burke said, “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion or euthanasia, after knowing the teaching of the church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal church law provides that such persons are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

The decree orders priests to withhold communion from such lawmakers until they “publicly renounce” their support of abortion rights.

American Life League publishes the names of public officials who “claim the Catholic faith yet ignore the church’s clear teachings on the sanctity of human life.” The group says it has identified more than 500 state and federal officials.

The group noted the Vatican reinforced those teachings a year ago when it issued a “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recently established a task force to address the issue.

“We will continue to encourage the task force – and all American bishops – to defend the truth and send a loud, clear message to all Catholic public officials: You cannot be pro-abortion and Catholic,” Brown said.

A Democratic lawmaker in Burke’s diocese, U.S. Rep. David Obey, said he respects the bishop’s effort to attempt to influence him through advocacy and reason, the Associated Press reported.

“The votes I cast are driven by my own independent judgment and conscience, not by a set of marching orders given by any church hierarchy, prelate or associated lobby group,” Obey said, according to the AP.

==============================

‘Pro-choicers’ clap after partial-birth abortion (WorldNetDaily, 031017)

Attendees of a national conference for abortion providers watched and listened with rapt attention as the inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure narrated a video of the grisly procedure – and then burst into applause when the act was over and the unborn child destroyed.

The disturbing and eye-opening event, featuring abortion doctor Martin Haskell addressing members of the National Abortion Federation, was captured on audiotape.

Calmly and dispassionately describing each step of the process – up to and including the insertion of the scissors into the base of the baby’s head, followed by the sound of the suction machine sucking out the baby’s brain – Haskell walks his audience through the procedure that opponents hope will finally be banned during this congressional session.

At the end of the procedure, after the late-term, fully developed unborn child’s life has been violently and painfully terminated, the audience breaks out into applause.

“For the first time, America will actually hear a child being brutally killed by this procedure while the abortionist coldly and dispassionately describes every step of the process,” says Mark Crutcher, founder of Life Dynamics, the Denton, Texas, pro-life organization that obtained the tape and has reproduced it. “Now the American people will be confronted with the reality of abortion. And this time no one will be able to claim that the pro-life movement is exaggerating. After all, these are the abortion industry’s own words!”

==============================

Movement Winning Struggle After 30 Years of Abortion, Pro-lifers Say (Religion Today, 030123)

(Baptist Press) Despite 30 years of legalized abortion and all its consequences, at least some pro-life Americans believe they are winning the battle to restore protection to unborn children. In spite of this three-decade-long record, pro-life leaders are hopeful. “I think we are certainly not where I would like for us to be, but I think there has been definite progress, and I think that progress is accelerating,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “I think there is every reason to believe the pro-life movement has yet to crest. It is still on the ascendance. I would say that we are slowly but surely winning the struggle for the hearts and minds of Americans.” The evidence Land and others point to for their optimism includes: The growing influence of pro-life voters; strategic pro-life officeholders; the increasingly pro-life sentiments among young people; the widespread distaste for the word “abortion”; and advances in technology. www.bpnews.net

Number of Abortion Doctors Declines

(Charisma News) As the nation observes the 30th anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, a recent survey reveals the number of physicians performing abortions has dropped to its lowest level in 30 years, the “Washington Post” reported. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion statistics, the number of abortion providers dropped from 2,000 in 1996 to 1,819 in 2000. The number of abortions also dipped slightly, from 1.36 million to 1.31 million in the same four-year period. Guttmacher researcher Lawrence Finer said the decline could be attributed to “the availability of contraceptive methods...[to] avoid unintended pregnancies,” as well as pro-life activists’ success blocking efforts to “establish basic abortion services,” the newspaper said. Abortion rights advocates described the findings as a positive indicator that more physicians and women find abortion “morally reprehensible,” the “Post” reported. A recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal, but on a limited basis. Meanwhile, Family Research Council President Ken Connor decried the attendance of six Democratic presidential hopefuls at a gala last night sponsored by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. Said Connor: “Surely millions of pro-life Democrats will be deeply ashamed over this unseemly celebration of a decision that resulted in 42 million dead babies.”

==============================

Bush to Sign ‘Laci and Conner’s Law’ (FN, 040401)

WASHINGTON — President Bush will sign into law Thursday legislation expanding legal rights of the unborn, a controversial measure that gained new support following the 2002 murder of a pregnant Laci Peterson.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. Bush was signing the bill, which took five years to get through Congress, in an elaborate Rose Garden ceremony.

The bill is also called “Laci and Conner’s law” after the murdered California woman whose unborn son was to be named Conner. Laci Peterson’s husband, Scott Peterson, is on trial on murder charges.

People on both sides of the fetal rights and abortion issue have said the new law will have far-reaching consequences.

Abortion opponents welcome it as a step toward more sweeping protections for the unborn, while abortion-rights proponents say the measure represents the first recognition in federal law of an embryo or fetus as a person separate from the woman.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Bush’s opponent in this fall’s election, voted against the bill. In the Senate, 13 Democrats and all but two Republicans supported the measure.

Bush has said he doesn’t believe the country is ready to completely ban abortions; he opposes them except in cases of rape or incest or when pregnancy endangers a woman’s life. That position has become a standard line in most of his speeches.

“We stand for a culture of life in which every person counts and every person matters. We will not stand for the treatment of any life as a commodity to be experimented upon, exploited or cloned,” the president told GOP donors to his campaign at a fund-raiser in Washington Tuesday night.

Bush has taken several actions that have pleased anti-abortion advocates.

As one of the first acts of his presidency, he reinstated the “Mexico City policy” that bars U.S. money from international groups that support abortion, even with their own money, through direct services, counseling or lobbying activities.

He has signed legislation that bans certain late-term abortions and that amends legal definitions of “person,” “human being,” “child” and “individual” to include any fetus that survives an abortion.

He has increased federal support for abstinence education, adoption and crisis pregnancy programs; placed severe restrictions on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research to only a few existing cell lines; and extended state health coverage to “unborn children.”

The measure Bush was signing into law on Thursday is limited in scope, applying only to harm to a fetus while a federal crime, such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, is being committed against the pregnant mother. The legislation defines an “unborn child” as a child in utero, which it says “means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

A number of states have similar laws.

==============================

“Abort Bush”: The activists at the March for Women’s Lives take partisan shots—and extol the joys of abortion (Weekly Standard, 040427)

“ABORT BUSH IN THE FIRST TERM.” A group of women on the National Mall displayed a banner with these words during last Saturday’s March for Women’s Lives, while a throng of fellow abortion-rights demonstrators marched by, nodding their heads in approval. The banner’s message couldn’t have been more clear, or a more glaring example of sordid wordplay—unless you consider another sign displayed at the march: “KEEP BUSH OUT OF MY . . .”

Led by the ACLU, the Black Women’s Health Imperative, the Feminist Majority, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, the National Organization for Women, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the march featured a lengthy list of speakers. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, Gloria Steinem, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ted Turner were just a few of the many proponents of abortion rights who urged the crowd to take back the country and elect John Kerry in November.

When actress Camryn Manheim took the stage during the afternoon portion of the rally, she joked, “CNN [is reporting that this] is the largest march in the history of the universe. Of course, Fox is saying there’s no one here.” News reports now say that the event drew about 500,000 people, making it one of the largest abortion-rights demonstrations ever held on the Mall. The March for Women’s Lives website says the crowd numbered 1.15 million.

But unconfirmed numbers (the U.S. Park Police no longer provide estimates) don’t tell the full story behind the marchers.

In terms of age, race, and gender, the marchers were diverse, and some were scared. “I spend half my day in class, half doing activist work,” Niva Kramek, a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the student group Penn for Choice, said. “I’m terrified of what’s going to happen [if Bush is reelected].”

As I made my way through piles of hot pink Planned Parenthood signs and dodged the Texas Mamas for Choice, I stumbled into Brenda Beckett. A 52-year-old from Seattle, Beckett explained that in 1975 she had had an abortion as a 25-year-old married woman. “I haven’t regretted it once,” she said. What she does regret is the “eight hours of orientation”—doctor going over alternatives, such as adoption—she sat through beforehand. “I never had any children cause I never wanted any,” she said. Her husband at the time supported her decision; they are no longer married.

“Even though Bush says he believes in non-intrusive government, he is being intrusive,” protestor Priscilla Balch said. An abortion-rights activist since her teens, Balch, 60, is “very upset to see that we’re going backwards.” John McKenna, a senior at Ohio University, has been a part of other pro-choice marches, though this was his first in Washington. He was raised Catholic and attended an all-boys Catholic high school in Cleveland. He has been able to reconcile his religious upbringing with his pro-choice beliefs, stressing that the march is not just for women.

By and large, the marchers were gleeful and unapologetic, sometimes leading to contradictory acts of protest: parents placed pro-abortion stickers on their newborn babies’ clothing, and women went topless as a way to get others to take the cause more seriously. Juxtapose them with the counter-protestors who marched in a dignified manner on Pennsylvania Avenue. Silent No More, a group of women who underwent abortions and regret their decision, almost didn’t make it to the march when they were denied a permit to stand on the outer sidewalks of Madison and Jefferson streets, directly across the street from the rally on the Mall.

Leading a group of women carrying “I REGRET MY ABORTION” signs, Silent No More co-founder Georgette Forney said, “It’s ironic that they are marching to protect women’s right to choose and at the same time [are] working to deny us our right to talk about the pain abortion caused us. We are the faces of the choice they promote.” After having their permit denied, the women gathered under a permit issued to the Christian Defense Coalition, 16 members of which were arrested when they moved out of their designated area on Pennsylvania Avenue and into the area intended for marchers at Fourth Street and Madison Drive.

Meanwhile, I listened to Forney, 43, tell me about the abortion she had at age 16. She went through a healing process in 1995 and shared her secret with her church in 1998. She also began to correspond with other suffering, post-abortive women over email. Forney says her healing process started with an epiphany. “I came across my old high school yearbook one day. I was holding my yearbook, and it felt like my baby. All of a sudden, I knew she [I just sensed she was a girl] was there. I could feel her spirit, and knew she was awesome.”

Erin Montgomery is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

==============================

Abortion ban ruled unconstitutional (Washington Times, 040602)

A federal judge in California ruled yesterday that the partial-birth-abortion ban, signed into law by President Bush last year, is unconstitutional and can’t be enforced against Planned Parenthood doctors.

“Today’s ruling is a landmark victory for medical privacy rights and women’s health,” said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the group that challenged the government’s ban in California’s Northern District Court.

“This ruling gives a whole new meaning to the notion that justice is blind,” countered Wendy Wright, senior policy director of Concerned Women for America, noting that the American Medical Association has said the procedure is never medically necessary.

The law also is being challenged in New York and Nebraska, but those courts haven’t ruled. Both sides expect the issue will end up before the Supreme Court.

Yesterday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton — appointed by President Clinton in 2000 — means that the administration cannot enforce the ban against Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide or against any doctor to whom Planned Parenthood makes referrals, said Roger Evans, one of the Planned Parenthood lawyers who argued the case. Planned Parenthood has about 900 clinics nationwide.

San Francisco also joined Planned Parenthood in the suit, so the city’s medical facilities also can’t be banned from performing the procedure — also known as intact dilation and extraction — in which an unborn child is partially delivered before its skull is punctured and it is killed.

The ban would continue to be enforced for other abortion doctors, including independent abortion facilities in San Francisco or elsewhere that aren’t associated with Planned Parenthood and do not take referrals from the group.

It was not clear whether the government would appeal the case. A White House spokesman said that the president “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and that “the administration will take every step necessary to defend this law in the courts.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, denounced the ruling as “yet another example of a judge with a supersized view of her authority.”

He said Judge Hamilton totally ignored Congress, which crafted the law based on medical evidence, and approved it overwhelmingly.

Rep. Steve Chabot, the Ohio Republican who sponsored the ban in the House, agreed that yesterday’s ruling was “a seriously flawed decision by a lone federal judge in San Francisco.” He said that the law “is sound, constitutional legislation” and that the Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter.

He noted that the ruling came from within “the Ninth Circuit, the most frequently overturned federal circuit in the nation.”

The ruling will make abortion a political issue in an election year.

Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot said the “tragic ruling ... shows why America needs judges who will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.”

He said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry’s “nominees would simply frustrate the people’s will and allow this grotesque procedure to continue.”

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who voted against the ban, “voted to restrict late-term abortions but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women,” while Mr. Bush pushed a law that was struck down yesterday because it “failed to protect the health of women.” She said as president, Mr. Kerry will appoint judges “committed to upholding the Constitution not pursuing an ideological agenda.”

Elizabeth Cavendish, interim president of NARAL ProChoice America, warned that “if Bush gets a chance to fill multiple seats on the Supreme Court, not only this decision, but the fundamental right to choose itself will be at risk.”

Judge Hamilton concluded that the ban is unconstitutional because it unduly burdens a woman’s right to choose a second-trimester abortion, is overly vague and doesn’t contain an exception to allow partial-birth abortion when the doctor determines it’s needed to preserve the woman’s health. She said the ban’s wording could be interpreted to apply throughout any trimester of pregnancy and could ban another, more common type of abortion in which the fetus is dismembered in utero and removed vaginally.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Nebraska partial-birth-abortion ban in 2000 on the grounds that it was overly vague and didn’t contain a health exception.

The federal ban was passed by Congress last year. Doctors who violate it would face fines and up to two years in prison.

Congressional Republicans say they addressed the Supreme Court’s concerns by tightening the wording of their ban to ensure it wasn’t vague. They didn’t add a health exception, but rather added a findings section stating that, based on lengthy congressional hearing testimony, partial-birth abortions are never medically necessary, pose significant health risks to the woman and are outside the standard of medical care.

These points were stressed in the California case by Justice Department lawyers, who also argued that the procedure causes pain to the unborn child. Pro-choice advocates argued that a woman’s health during an abortion is more important than how the unborn child is terminated and that the banned procedure is often a safer solution than other types of abortions.

Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to obtain medical records from Planned Parenthood clients earlier this year in connection with the case, but Judge Hamilton ruled in March that the government didn’t have the right to view the confidential records.

==============================

British Abortion Rate Skyrockets as Couples Eliminate “Defective” Children (LifeSiteNews, 040531)

“This is straightforward eugenics” says pro-life leader

LONDON, May 31, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The UK’s Daily Mail has revealed that British women are increasingly eliminating their unborn children because of non life-threatening deformities such as deformed feet or cleft lips and palates. The report also reveals that more Down’s Syndrome babies are now killed than are allowed to be born. With improved screening, the author warns, the trend looks likely to only increase.

London’s Metropolitan University ethicist Jacqueline Laing said, ‘These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity - and at what cost to its own humanity? We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept disability,” Laing continued. “Babies are required to fit a description of normality before they are allowed to be born.”

In the UK, the Abortion Act makes it legal to abort a child right up to its due date if the child is deemed to have a serious risk of mental or physical deformity. Abortions can be carried out for any reason up until the 24th week of pregnancy. Significant increases in abortion rates for children with non-serious deformities such as cleft lips or palates have risen markedly. In 2002, the Office for National Statistics revealed an 8% increase in this type of abortion. This figure does not include all babies aborted for similar reasons before the 24th week of pregnancy.

“These statistics are horrifying and show the highly consumerist attitude which is now pervading human relationships,” said Joanna Jepson, a Church of England curate. She has repeatedly called for an investigation into the abortion of a 28-week old unborn baby for cleft lip and palate. “I don’t think anyone had any idea that so many babies had been aborted for cleft lip and palate. The fact that two were aborted for cleft lip alone is a slur on people with the condition. “I cannot believe the medical profession are standing by decisions to abort babies for these reasons,” she said.

In 2002, 1,863 babies were aborted for reasons of suspected “deformity” — an 8% increase over the previous 1,722 aborted in 2001, whereas Down’s Syndrome abortions were up by 17% from 591 in 2001 to 691 in 2002.

“This is straightforward eugenics,” UK’s LIFE Trustee Nuala Scarisbrick said. “The message is being sent out to disabled people that they should not have been born. It is appalling and abhorrent.”

“Such statistics are an indictment of a society which places a conditional value upon its citizens, based upon how ‘useful’ they may prove to be in later life,” LIFE’s Patrick Cusworth said.

==============================

European Court Denies Fetus Rights Ruling (Washington Times, 040708)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) — Europe’s top human rights court rejected an appeal Thursday to grant full human rights to a fetus, saying national governments must decide the issue themselves.

Meeting in Strasbourg, France, the European Court of Human Rights said it could not rule on a case filed by a French woman who was forced to have an abortion after a doctor’s mistake.

Thi-Nho Vo had argued that France had violated the right to life of her unborn child, after French courts refused to convict the doctor of involuntary homicide.

The 17-judge panel ruled the issue of when the right to life begins “was a question to be decided at national level ... because the issue had not been decided within the majority of states” which have ratified the European Convention on human rights.

The court said at the European level, “there was no consensus on the nature and a status of the embryo and/or fetus.”

Vo took the case to the European court after France’s highest court overturned the doctor’s conviction on a charge of involuntary homicide, ruling the fetus was not yet a human being entitled to the protection of criminal law.

In a 14-2 decision, the European Court concluded that “it was neither desirable, nor even possible ... to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child was a person.” The presiding judge did not cast a vote.

The court’s sensitive approach reflected deep differences over abortion across the continent.

The decision was welcomed by a leading abortion rights group that filed arguments warning that accepting a right to life for a fetus could make abortions illegal in all 45 countries that recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

“This was obviously a tragic individual case but we are pleased that the judges have ruled to reject the applicant’s case,” said Anne Weyman, chief executive of the London-based Family Planning Association.

In a statement, she said the “decision will safeguard the laws on abortion which have been widely adopted in the European member states, and will serve to protect women’s rights to life, health, self-determination and equality.”

[Kwing Hung: a demonstration of the liberal courts]

==============================

Abortion by Any Other Name...is still a murder (NRO, 040721)

“Selective reduction.” Just when you thought you’d heard every euphemism in the “pro-choice” movement’s book (see “The Abortion Distortion,” National Review, (July 12, 2004)), along comes a chilling article in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine entitled “When One is Enough.” In it, feminist author Amy Richards tells of her experience with aborting two of three triplets, in a process she calls “selective reduction.”

Miss Richards’s account of her abortions is disturbing in its candor. A thirty-something freelance writer living with her boyfriend, she described her reaction when told that she was pregnant not with one baby — which she would have accepted — but with three:

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bedrest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

She described other reasons compelling her decision to abort her unborn children, such as having “to be on bed rest at 20 weeks,” not being “able to fly after 15,” and thinking that she would “have to move to Staten Island,” and be doomed to a life of “shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”

Apparently within moments of finding out about her multiple pregnancy, she found her route to retail salvation. She asked her doctor whether it was “possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?” Her article then describes her process of “selective reduction,” in which her doctor first did a sonogram “to see if one fetus appears to be struggling.” The doctor and mother then choose which of the children are to die by a lethal injection of potassium chloride. In her case, since she wanted to “reduce” the number of children from three to one, that meant two had to be selected for reduction — or as Miss Richards describes, making “two disappear.” So after learning from her doctor that she was pregnant with two twins and a “stand alone” that was, in the doctor’s view, a few days older, she chose to keep the “stand alone.” “There was something psychologically comforting about that,” she writes, “since I wanted to have just one.”

“Reduction” seems to be a favorite linguistic shroud for abortion advocates — one that has multiple meanings. In recently completed trials challenging the constitutionality of the federal partial-birth-abortion ban, doctors describing the partial-birth-abortion method described how they “reduced” the “fetal calvarium.” By that clinical terminology, these doctors cloaked from public scrutiny the process by which they crushed a partially born child’s skull in order to complete the delivery of the aborted child. But “selective reduction” reaches a new low in the distortion of the language. Heard in a vacuum, the term could speak to any number of innocuous human experiences — perhaps it describes the process of clearing out deadwood in a forest to prevent forest fires or maybe it depicts a targeted weight-loss program. But spoken by a pro-abortion advocate, watch out. Seemingly harmless terms become lethal.

Having read Miss Richards’s account of her selective reduction, I could not help but wonder whether, in hindsight, my parents might have applied similar criterion in determining which of their six children deserved to live. Did any of us appear to struggle? Well, my oldest brother Jamie is the shortest of the lot, so maybe that would have been a good reason to reduce him. Sure, he’s a brilliant executive with a Ph.D. in quantum chemistry, but he has the least hair of all of us. My brother Chris has plenty of back problems — even had to surgery a few years back. And his sinuses? They are always bothering him. Maybe he should be reduced. Forget that he’s the father of two great kids and an electrical engineer. Tim? Well, he was born the third kid in just over three years. That’s really inconvenient. This Air Force Academy graduate, husband, and father of four could easily be made to “disappear.” Kelly’s the only girl, so maybe she gets a pass. But we were really broke when she came around. Dad was back in college when mom got pregnant with Kelly — in school with four boys and making $2.50 an hour as a part time cop? Costco would have been Bloomingdales to us back then. So I guess she’s a candidate, terrific nurse or not. Kyle never really had a chance. Mom was in her 40s when she got pregnant with him. She could have started retirement years ago if she had just decided that five is enough. And me? I’m a lawyer — that’s probably enough to qualify me for the “procedure.”

Despite the troubling picture drawn by Miss Richards’s account, she is to be commended for one thing: She does not rely on the favorite pretext of the pro-abortion movement — women’s “health.” The evidence relied upon by pro-abortion advocates in the recent trials challenging the constitutionality of the federal partial-birth-abortion ban was designed to show that nearly every abortion in this country happens to save a woman’s life and that elective abortions are exceedingly rare. But Miss Richards is unapologetic about her “selection,” and her account lays bare the cold utilitarianism and disquieting narcissism of the pro-abortion movement today.

Shannen W. Coffin, a Washington, D.C., attorney, is a former deputy assistant attorney general for the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In that capacity, he coordinated the government’s defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in the three recently completed federal trials.

==============================

First-Time Voters for Life (Weekly Standard, 040820)

What a Pace Poll suggests about new registrants and abortion rights.

ACCORDING TO A RECENT POLL, new voters are trending pro-life on abortion. The nonpartisan Pace University/Rock the Vote survey, conducted by the Pace Poll in mid July, is the first in a three-part nationwide study of first-time voters, defined as “voters who registered after the 2000 presidential election.” Most news coverage of the survey has focused on its implications for the general election. Namely, that in a head-to-head Bush-Kerry race, post-2000 registrants support Kerry over Bush by 50% to 40%; and in a three-way Bush-Kerry-Nader race, Bush garners 44% of the vote to Kerry’s 42% and Nader’s 6%. But the press has largely ignored first-time voters’ opinions about abortion rights.

On abortion, Pace Poll researchers slice the new voter demographic into four groups. There are those who believe “abortions should be legal and generally available” (21%); those who feel “regulation of abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many circumstances” (23%); those who say “abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape” (41%); and those who think “all abortions should be made illegal” (13%). The survey shows that, essentially, 44% of new voters are pro-choice while 54% are pro-life. Among first-time Latino voters, pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers 61% to 34%; among blacks, the pro-life/pro-choice breakdown is 59%/42%. Self-described “moderates” similarly tend to be more pro-life (52%) than pro-choice (45%).

Pro-life

views also have surprising traction among new voters who identify themselves as John Kerry supporters. A plurality (34%) of Kerry voters, not to mention pluralities of new independent voters (36%) and new undecided voters (35%), believe “abortion should be legal only in the most extreme cases, such as to save the life of the mother, incest, or rape.” On the other hand, some 31% of Kerry voters say “abortions should be legal and generally available,” the most extreme pro-choice position available. But still, first-time Kerry voters are more likely to be pro-life than they are to favor abortion on demand, according to the Pace Poll.

These findings come on the heels of an April 2004 Zogby poll, which showed that 56% of Americans either believe abortion should never be legal or would restrict it to cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger. Zogby also revealed that more Americans consider themselves pro-life (49%) than pro-choice (45%). And according to a Gallup Youth Survey released last November, 72% of U.S. teenagers think abortion is morally wrong, 32% of teens would outlaw it entirely, and only 19% support abortion on demand.

To be sure, Americans’ thoughts on the unborn are famously hard to unravel. Activists on both sides of the issue are thus wary of reading too much into individual polls. But, at the very least, the recent Pace Poll, Zogby, and Gallup results suggest pro-lifers should be guardedly optimistic about the future of abortion politics.

Duncan Currie is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

==============================

A Tough Boat to Roe: A federal appeals-court judge on legal abortion’s terminal obstacles (National Review Online, 040916)

It took the woman formerly — and perhaps forever — known as Jane Roe to bring to light the biggest problem facing today’s defenders of abortion. A recent attempt by Norma McCorvey to re-open her original lawsuit which successfully challenged Texas’s criminal prohibition on abortion — the suit that became Roe v. Wade — was rejected this week by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. So while Roe v. Wade and its offspring still jealously guard abortion “without excuse and without apology,” as its most ardent supporters would have it, a separate opinion in McCorvey’s recent case shows that the law is having one hell of a time keeping ahead of the facts. As Judge Edith Jones poignantly writes in McCorvey v. Hill, major advances in both “hard and social science” since the 1973 Roe decision make the case for constitutional protection of abortion increasingly difficult to maintain with a straight face.

Sometime in the last decade or so, Norma McCorvey realized that she had been an unfortunate pawn in the battle over abortion rights and switched sides in the debate, recently describing herself “one hundred percent pro-life.” Convinced that the decision that bore her pseudonym was a travesty of law, she filed a motion last year to re-open the original decision, declaring at the time: “I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women. I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children.” McCorvey and her lawyers submitted in support of her motion the sworn testimony of more than one thousand women who had had abortions and claimed to have suffered long-term emotional damages and damaged interpersonal relationships as a result of their “choice.” McCorvey’s new suit, filed 30 years after the original decision, never had much of a chance, since it sought to reestablish criminal laws that had long since been removed from Texas’s books. It is not surprising then that the court of appeals held that the case should be dismissed.

What was surprising, though, was Judge Edith Jones powerful five-page separate opinion. While Judge Jones agreed that the court had no power to reopen the original Roe decision, her opinion assures that McCorvey’s arguments did not fall entirely on deaf ears. Calling the original decision, an “exercise in raw judicial power,” Judge Jones observed that McCorvey’s voluminous new evidence “goes to the balance Roe struck between the choice of the mother and the life of her unborn child.” Citing both the testimony of post-abortive women and scientific studies, Judge Jones reasoned that the evidence “suggests that women may be affected emotionally and physically for years afterward and may be more prone to engage in high risk, self-destructive conduct as a result of having had abortions.” The same evidence took aim at the myth of a close collaborative relationship between abortionist and patient. Testimony of workers at abortion clinics showed that “women are often herded through their procedures with little or no medical or emotional counseling.” Indeed, one former abortion clinic worker described how abortion physicians she worked with would work on commission and perform 10 to 12 abortions per hour.

Judge Jones further cited evidence showing dramatic advances in the sociological status of women — especially unwed women — that undermine the necessity of abortion. “No longer does the unwed mother face social ostracism, and government programs offer medical care, social services, and even...the option of leaving a newborn directly in the care of the state until it can be adopted.”

But perhaps most importantly, Judge Jones cited evidence showing that neonatal and medical science “now graphically portrays, as science was unable to do 31 years ago, how a baby develops sensitivity to external stimuli and to pain much earlier than was then believed.” The evidence reviewed by Judge Jones on the issue of fetal pain was similar to that produced by the federal government in recent trials on the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion. There, an Oxford-educated specialist in neonatal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeeet Anand, testified that unborn children are likely to feel pain in the womb by 20 weeks of gestation — perhaps even earlier — and that abortion could therefore cause excruciating pain for an unborn child. Reviewing similar evidence before her, Judge Jones concluded that “if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe’s balancing scheme with present day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman’s ‘choice’ is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child’s sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew.”

One need only pick up a newspaper to know that Judge Jones is correct — and that knowledge presents the biggest threat to the abortion movement today. Recent advances in ultrasound technology show in utero babies walking or smiling in the womb much earlier than once thought possible. The National Abortion Federation’s main response to claims that partial-birth abortion caused severe pain to the unborn has been to note that most other abortions do too. But that sort of candor is in short supply among abortion advocates. It’s little wonder that doctors and hospitals that supported the recent challenge to the federal partial-birth-abortion ban fought so hard to keep their medical records from seeing the light of day. The more the truth of their practices is exposed to sunlight, the less public support they can claim.

Judge Jones laments that the Supreme Court has effectively taken these facts out of the abortion debate. Because the Supreme Court’s “rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our legislative bodies, the arms of representative government may not meaningfully debate” new medical and scientific evidence relating to abortion. The “perverse result,” of the Roe decision, Judge Jones complains, “is that the facts no longer matter.” Her conclusion was a stinging indictment of the Supreme Court:

Hard and social science will of course progress even though the Supreme Court averts its eyes.... One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and reevaluate Roe...accordingly. That the Court’s constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.

Norma McCorvey’s new lawsuit never had a chance. But perhaps she’s done her new cause a great service in helping to expose the truth. Maybe, just maybe, Judge Jones’s plaintive cry is one step in a long battle to undo the mess that McCorvey and her friends once made back in the day she was otherwise known as Jane Roe.

— Shannen W. Coffin is a former deputy assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He coordinated the government’s defense of the partial-birth-abortion-ban act in National Abortion Federation and two other simultaneous trials in Nebraska and New York. He and his country are deeply indebted to the dedicated career public servants who participated in those trials.

==============================

Controversial anti-abortion sign raises LeClaire’s ire (WorldNetDaily, 041103)

LECLAIRE - The sign is down, but the fallout lingers.

The Rev. Timothy Groves of LeClaire said he intended to make a strong statement with his controversial sign showing the bodiless head of an aborted baby: Vote for pro-life candidates.

But some city officials felt the sign was so graphic, they took steps to protect young eyes from seeing it.

Now Groves claims his Constitutional rights have been violated, and he is considering suing the city for what he believes is a failure to provide adequate protection for his family and his property. He argues that the city had ample notice that the sign was going up and should have taken steps to beef up patrols in the area.

The anti-abortion placard went up just 11 days before the election - in a neighborhood already blooming with political signs - and Groves had pledged to take it down when the voting ended. But the sign was barely up when barricades were brought in to cordon off the street in front of the New Life Community Church parsonage, where Groves lives with his wife, Bethany, and their four young children.

Before the weekend was out, the sign had been vandalized, an explosive device was thrown into the yard of the residence, and some supporters in his congregation were threatened, according to the pastor, who insists that he acted alone in posting the placard.

Despite all the uproar it has caused, Groves is unapologetic for displaying the poster, which is purportedly of a female fetus aborted in the third trimester of pregnancy in Texas in the 1980s. The lettered message below reads, “Does this offend you? It should! Stop the killing! Vote George Bush and pro-life candidates.”

The pastor says his purpose for posting the graphic picture was simply to get people to recognize the real horrors of a procedure that is “legal in all 50 states” - and to then vote their conscience. “People don’t realize what abortion really is,” the preacher laments. “They think it’s some nice, clean medical procedure where a woman has a little growth of tissue removed ....”

The photo shows otherwise: It pictures the severed head of a baby, with full facial features, held by forceps. “This is a third-trimester female. It’s not a blob of tissue. It’s not just fetal matter,” Groves observed.

Although the pastor was within his rights to post the politically charged photo, city officials argue that the image was entirely too graphic for young eyes. “He advised us he was going to put the sign up and asked us if he could put the sign up. He does have certain rights and legal standings to put the sign up, and we allowed him to ...,” said City Administrator Ed Choate.

About the barricades: “Our main concern ... was not so much the adults that could make their own determination (about the sign and its message). Our concern was for the children who would go by on a school bus and probably should not be subjected to it,” he said.

Groves, who left for a few hours after posting the placard, said he was surprised and angered to return home and find his street blocked, especially since City Hall gave him permission to post the sign.

“They violated my Constitutional right and the Constitutional right of many others. Many people wanted to see the sign, but they couldn’t see it,” Rev. Groves said. The barriers were removed Oct. 26, after the LeClaire City Council voted the previous evening to reopen the street. “(By that time) we thought the public was adequately forewarned,” Choate noted.

LeClaire Police Chief Jim Pfeiffer said his department received hundreds of complaints about the sign, and he defended the city’s efforts to mitigate the problem. He noted that people were free to walk through the barricades and view the poster.

“It’s a sensitive issue on both sides. We had to take the best course of action for everybody. We felt that we did have an obligation to the other citizens, as well as to Mr. Groves,” he said.

City officials said the media’s decision not to run a picture of the sign bolsters the city’s contention that it was not suitable for all audiences. “I think we were going down the right path there,” Choate observed, adding that the city was trying to be “proactive” in its approach.

That could also be said for Groves, who hoped that the poster might sway some voters - or prevent even one abortion. Since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973, more than 44 million have been performed, according to National Right to Life estimates. That number is appalling to the pastor, who favors electing candidates who share his concern for the sanctity of life. “We believe that abortion is wrong, and we choose to support pro-life candidates.”

But some evidently would rather he kept his politics to himself.

Groves said it all began when, as the presidential election neared, he sought to preach a sermon on abortion and “what God’s word says about it.

“I wanted to get a few graphic photos of aborted babies so I could show them to the congregation, with a warning,” he recalled. He also wanted to place a similar poster in the window of his home. But when the poster arrived, it was much larger than anticipated: 4 foot-by-3 foot.

So he had it laminated with the intention of placing it outside the sectional windows. But first he contacted Choate to find out if there were any regulations governing such signs. After learning that the sign had to include a political message, the reverend put the poster at the top of a large board and added the aforementioned message below.

Groves said he was told that the city could require him to take the sign down under the community’s nuisance laws if complaints were received. He countered by pledging to get the same number of callers to request that gruesome Halloween displays be removed under the same principle. He argues that those types of graphic displays offend his family and others, yet no one at City Hall sought to protect the public from those.

“There are double standards there. Protecting the rights of children is a smoke screen. If they only wanted the children not to see it, they could have put up warning signs,” said Groves, who placed his own warning signs.

Groves believes that, having been forewarned about the controversial nature of the poster, city leaders should have anticipated some trouble and provided more patrol.

“You have a right to have a Ku Klux Klan march in the city, if you have the right permits. I’m sure the police would have had more people on hand to control the crowds (at such a march),” he argued.

Pfeiffer said the city did provide extra patrol. But they can only do so much with the limited resources they have.

The city didn’t do enough, according to the preacher. Almost as soon as the sign went up, the Groveses were the target of vandalism. The sign was spray-painted that Saturday night (he was able to remove the paint). The next night, while keeping watch, his wife saw someone throw a firework toward their house. No one was injured. Other attempts have been made to block the sign, which Groves agreed to post only during school hours, after the student buses rolled by.

Groves maintains that he was simply following God’s Word in fighting for the protection of all life, including that of the unborn. Says the clergyman: “When they see that (baby), and realize that’s legal, opinions are changing.”

==============================

Carnage in the Womb: An Abortion Scandal Rocks Britain (Christian News, 041018)

The British people were confronted with the horror and murderous corruption of the Culture of Death when one of the nation’s leading newspapers recently published a series of investigative reports. Those reports continue to send shock waves throughout the nation.

Britain has been dealing with renewed controversy over abortion in recent months, first prompted by newspaper reports providing details of new imaging technologies that provide spectacularly accurate images of the developing baby in the womb. The technologies, based in a 4-D scanning procedure pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell of King’s College Hospital, have forced changes in the way fetal development is understood. Professor Campbell’s images of developing fetuses, first released to the public this past summer, show babies appearing to practice walking in the womb as early as 12 weeks into development, and opening their eyes as early as 18 weeks. The images—widely published in the British press—also showed the developing babies smiling, yawning, crying, blinking, and rubbing their eyes while moving within the womb. The images and the public furor prompted by their publication led British Prime Minister Tony Blair to announce his intention to lead the British government to rethink the nation’s abortion law. At present, British abortion providers can perform abortions up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Several leading members of the British Parliament want to push that limit down to 12 weeks, taking into account modern technological advances, improved neonatal procedures, and the lower age of fetal viability.

Thus, Britons were shocked and scandalized when one of the nation’s most influential newspapers, The Telegraph, published a series of investigative reports linking an officially-recognized British abortion provider with illegal late-term abortions performed in Spain.

The newspaper’s work is a landmark achievement in investigative journalism. Reporters Daniel Foggo and Charlotte Edwardes spent months working on the series, focusing on the British Pregnancy Advisory Service [BPAS], a charity that serves as one of Britain’s largest abortion providers, funded by the nation’s National Health Service.

After hearing reports that BPAS had been sending British women to Barcelona for illegal abortions, the two reporters set about their task. Their investigation had an unusual twist—Charlotte Edwardes was over 20 weeks pregnant when the investigation reached its critical stage. Posing as a woman seeking a late-term abortion, she and her much-wanted baby became the newspaper’s entry point into the investigation.

The unfolding story is both grotesque and illuminating. Foggo and Edwardes have blown the cover on a massive abortion scandal that reaches to the highest elites of the British medical establishment and its network of abortion providers.

As the reporters summarized their findings, “Covert video and audio recordings exposed a horrific underground industry in which women carrying healthy fetuses beyond the 24-week legal cutoff and who want to end their pregnancies for ‘social’ reasons, travel to an abortion clinic in Spain on the recommendation of BPAS. The organization refers them there as a matter of ‘policy.’”

As Charlotte Edwardes revealed, she had contacted the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in London, posing as a 21-week pregnant woman looking for an abortion. She was referred to the Ginemedex Clinic in Barcelona, and she followed the trail all the way from Britain to Barcelona in order to uncover the truth behind the scandal.

Using recorded telephone conversations, hidden cameras, and first-person reporting, Edwardes documented her experience from her first contact with BPAS to the moment she fled from the Barcelona clinic.

The Telegraph published extensive transcripts of the recordings. In a phone call placed by Charlotte Edwardes to BPAS on September 9, 2004, the agency’s receptionist, upon hearing that Edwardes was 21 weeks pregnant, referred her to the Barcelona clinic. When she called the Ginemedex Clinic on September 21, 2004, she told the receptionist, named “Jimena” that she would be 25 weeks pregnant when she could get to the clinic. When Edwardes asked for the upper limit of abortions performed at the center, Jimena responded: “Under the law it’s up to 24 weeks. It’s completely legal but don’t worry about being 25 or more because there is a loophole, like a gap of information in the law which only infers that for 24 weeks to more we can only make [inaudible]. Well, what we do here is we make determination when there’s a malformation or when the life of the mother or the baby is in danger, okay? So if you have a normal pregnancy but still you want to do it, what we do is to put on the paper that there was a gynecological emergency and that is under the law. So you have to know this. If they say that you came to the clinic because you had a bleeding or anything, because it was an emergency then you won’t have a problem with the law. Okay? Because you are more than 24 weeks.”

In other words, Jimena assured Edwardes that she would be able to obtain the abortion, even at a point past 25 weeks of fetal development. Of course, Jimena also explained that the abortion would be more expensive as the pregnancy progressed. An abortion at 25 weeks would cost approximately four thousand dollars, but an abortion at 26 or 27 weeks of development would be about six thousand dollars. Such is the perverse and murderous logic of the Culture of Death. Even as the baby grows into unquestioned viability, the clinic charges even more money for killing the baby.

When Edwardes arrived at the Barcelona clinic on October 6, 2004, “Victoria,” a nurse at the Ginemedex Clinic, explained it is a nice, private clean clinic that kills babies.

Victoria also explained that most of the patients coming to the Barcelona clinic for abortions are British citizens. She assured Edwardes that the abortion would be fully possible up to 30 weeks of fetal development. Jimena, another nurse who joined the conversation, reexplained the procedure. “In the first part, you are completely asleep and then they give you an injection and they stop the fetus’s heart,” she assured. “So, in the second part, we do the termination itself which is really to get it out. It’s dead.”

Later, the clinic’s head doctor, Dr. B. R. Tanda, performed an ultrasound examination of Charlotte Edwardes’ baby. Edwardes described the scanner’s progress: “It flickers, then slowly a shape comes into focus. The baby’s head, two long legs, arms, feet and backbone—each vertebra sharply defined—are clearly visible. I feel the baby kick inside. On the monitor the doctor watches as it moves a tiny hand to its mouth and begins sucking its thumb. It is an image of innocence and contentment.”

For Dr. Tanda, it’s just another day of killing. As Edwardes remembered, “At least he played his role as a disinterested butcher with honesty. I wondered how utterly helpless I would feel in his hands if he was actually about to perform this operation on me.” When Dr. Tanda announced his intention to begin an internal examination in order to prepare Charlotte Edwardes for the abortion, she fled the clinic.

The newspaper’s publication of the spell-binding investigative reports has already prompted criminal or governmental investigations in both Great Britain and Spain. Spain’s abortion law is even more restrictive than Britain’s, with severe criminal penalties for doctors performing illegal abortions. The Telegraph’s series caught both British and Spanish officials in a conspiracy to perform illegal late-term abortions while classifying healthy fetuses as “gynecological emergencies.”

In publishing the transcripts and investigative reports, Foggo and Edwardes succeeded in showing both the horror of the abortion industry and the banality of the bureaucracy of death that represents the abortion culture. When Edwardes pressed a BPAS advisor whether such a late-term abortion would be legal in Spain, the advisor responded, “It’s not unillegal.” In other words, she admitted on tape that the procedure was fully illegal.

The newspaper also responded with a strongly-worded editorial. “Our disclosure today of the links between the British Pregnancy Advisory Service [BPAS] and a Spanish clinic practicing illegal abortions arose from an investigation by this newspaper into the extent to which abortion on demand is available in this country for late-term pregnancies.” As the editorial continued, the evidence uncovered by the reporters “is a quite extraordinary arrangement that makes a mockery of BPAS’s claim to be a responsible charity worthy of NHS funding, and poses urgent questions for the Spanish authorities and the British Government.”

The paper described Ann Furedi, the chief executive of BPAS, as “shockingly dishonest.” Furthermore, the paper pointed directly at the financial profit that fuels the entire enterprise: “The more developed the fetus, the more you pay. It is hard to conceive of a more grotesque personification of callousness and indifference to the termination of a life in the image of Dr. B. R. Tanda, the clinic’s physician, which we publish today. We have moved from the seedy illegal abortionists of the 1950s to the impatient doctor-businessman, tapping his watch in surroundings that more closely resemble a Las Vegas nightclub than a medical institution.”

The newspaper’s editorial concludes with a poetic lament. “As for the unborn child, it is swallowed up in a tide of lies, deceit and—in Spain at least—easy money. How ironic that those who campaigned most vigorously against back-street abortions have conspired to create a new kind of glossier but no less sinister marketplace of death.”

The late-term abortion procedure, presented in these reports in all of its horror, is routinely available in the United States. Can anyone imagine a major American newspaper running a series of similar investigative reports, much less editorializing with such moral conviction?

Ann Furedi, the BPAS chief executive, has insisted that “abortions should be available as early as possible and as late as necessary.” Dominic Lawson, editor of The Sunday Telegraph, explains that he once debated Dr. Ellie Lee, the co-coordinator of the ProChoice Forum and a lecturer in Social Policy at the University of Kent, on the issue of late-term abortion. Dr. Lee, a friend and associate closely related to Ann Furedi, similarly argued that “abortion should be available as early as possible and as late as necessary.” Lawson posed Dr. Lee a question: Suppose a mother gave birth to a baby at full term and decided at the last minute, just as the umbilical cord had been cut, that she did not want the baby. Should she be allowed to have the baby killed? Chillingly, Dr. Lee responded: “I think so, yes.”

Here we see the Culture of Death in all of its cruelty, all of its horror, in a rare but chilling moment of candor.

When Ann Furedi was confronted by the newspaper with its investigative reports and evidence, she responded, “So, what is your point exactly?”

The point, Ms. Furedi, is that the readers of these investigative reports—and all those who will learn of its findings—now know who you are, what you represent, and what your organization has been doing.

The Culture of Death can survive only in the dark. There may yet be enough moral sanity remaining in this world to deal with this issue honestly and recover a Culture of Life when the truth is made known. The people of Britain and Spain—and the people of the United States—must choose life over death and reverse the barbarism of our present age. That, Ms. Furedi, is the point . . . exactly.

__________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

‘Beyond choice’—Alexander Sanger ‘s New Case for Abortion (Christian News, 041025)

Alexander Sanger wants the pro-abortion movement to get over its legacy of shame and move boldly to claim that abortion is actually a positive moral good. If this shocks you, consider that Mr. Sanger is the grandson of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and he is on a crusade to transform the abortion debate.

“Few women today publicly and proudly acknowledge having had an abortion,” Sanger explains. “We can no longer be ashamed of abortion. Abortion won’t become safely legal until we recognize and admit how reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion, furthers human destiny. We got over our shame with birth control. It’s time we did so with abortion.”

Sanger is currently Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Population Fund and he also serves as chairman of The International Planned Parenthood Council. Following in his grandmother’s footsteps, he is an energetic and unapologetic advocate of abortion. He has been closely identified with his grandmother’s cause, having previously served as president of Planned Parenthood of New York City. In his new book, Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century, he argues that the movement for what he calls “reproductive freedom” has been hampered by a reluctance to claim that abortion is a moral good. By acting as if abortion is a matter of shame, he argues, the pro-abortion movement has undermined its own cause.

As he sees it, the traditional argument in favor of abortion has followed several familiar lines. The first line has to do with the woman’s right to control her own body. A second line of argument has pushed the issue of privacy, arguing that government has no right to intervene in the private sphere of reproductive choice. A third line of argument is focused upon a woman’s health, arguing that the criminalization of abortion will lead to illegal medical services and clandestine abortion mills. Finally, a fourth line of argument has pointed to the importance of family planning, population control, and can be summarized in the slogan, “Every child should be a wanted child.”

Sanger asserts that these arguments have made little progress in changing public opinion. As he correctly reports, public opinion on abortion has changed very little since the Roe v Wade decision of 1973. Furthermore, Sanger recognizes that new reproductive technologies threaten the arguments previously put forth by the abortion rights movement. Clearly, something has to change.

“The primary focus of the pro-choice movement should be on why reproductive freedom is vital to humanity and why abortion is good,” Sanger now insists. The abortion rights movement should argue “not for legal abortion, but for abortion” he insists.

In sum, Sanger wants to shift the debate from morality to biology. “In my view, the most compelling and honest way to do this is to justify abortion on a biological basis,” he urges. “Abortion is, after all, a biological act. We can justify it as such.”

Do not miss the subtlety of his argument. Sanger wants nothing to do with feminists like Naomi Wolf who argues that abortion is a “necessary evil” and acknowledges that the nation’s astoundingly high abortion rate represents a genuine moral failure. Though Ms. Wolf is a fervent defender of a woman’s right to an abortion, she concedes that abortion represents a very real failure and a very real tragedy.

But Sanger says that’s the whole problem with the traditional pro-abortion argument. To rescue the pro-abortion movement from its dependence on deflated arguments, he points to evolutionary biology.

Here’s how it works: “The new framework I am proposing is based on evolutionary biology. It is from a basis in science that reproductive rights emerge. This framework is not exclusive of a feminist or human framework. On the contrary, I will argue that understanding evolutionary biology and the role of reproductive control within it can lead to a stronger basis for the necessity of women’s and human rights. I will argue that reproductive rights are beneficial to women, men, and families as they pursue their reproductive strategies.”

Sanger now wants to argue that abortion represents an important “reproductive strategy” for the continuation of the human race. Evolution, he explains, “has weeded out those species and organisms that pursued unsuccessful strategies.”

Not all pregnancies should result in childbirth, Sanger asserts. Women should be free to choose reproductive strategies that would allow for greatest success in reproductive capacity. A woman may well decide, Sanger explains, that a particular pregnancy does not fit her expectation in terms of timing or other criteria, and she should be fully free to terminate the pregnancy in order to maintain her full reproductive potential. “Every pregnancy brings into high relief for the woman not only the prospects for that pregnancy,” he explains, “but also her own prospects of reproductive success in this and future meetings. A pregnancy puts a woman in reproductive control. Abortion lets her choose which path her reproductive strategy will follow.”

The Darwinists’ worldview—updated by contemporary evolutionary theories—allow Sanger to argue that abortion is a necessary tool in humanity’s reproductive toolbox. As he explains, “Men and women strive to control sex and reproduction—to exercise reproductive freedom—because it is a necessary part of their quest for their survival and that of their children. That is why birth control and abortion are vital—because they help humanity survive and propagate.”

This biological argument is a new development in the contemporary debate over abortion. When Sanger argues that “birth control and abortion are not contrary to nature,” he presses the claim for abortion rights into an entirely new arena. If one accepts his worldview, his argument becomes sensible and plain: “Humanity has succeeded because it has not left reproduction to nature or chance. Humanity has thrived on earth because each member of our species has innately sought reproductive success. We have thrived because we have used strategies to give our children the best chance of survival and in turn of reproducing.”

Once again, the determining issue is the worldview. Alexander Sanger is honest and explicit when he situates his new argument for abortion solidly within an evolutionary worldview and frame of reference. This modern evolutionary worldview begins with the assumption that matter is self-explanatory, and that all phenomena must be accounted for on the basis of purely naturalistic explanations. Of course, this includes morality. According to the evolutionary worldview, morality is simply a human invention that should be designed in order to increase reproductive success and the furtherance of the species—nothing else.

“I believe that the sciences can inform, change, and justify moral and ethical thinking,” Sanger soothingly explains. “While I believe that there is a biological basis to morality, the reader does not have to agree with this proposition in order to agree with my argument. I believe that morality is a product of human evolution, is a profoundly human creation, and is vital for human survival.” Sanger acknowledges that those who believe in a revealed morality will have a hard time buying this argument. Nevertheless, “For those who believe, as I do, in morality being a creation of humanity and a product of human evolution, the process of incorporating science into moral beliefs is somewhat easier.”

This shift appears to be quite easy for Mr. Sanger, who recently told an audience at Wake Forest University, “Darwin’s theory of natural selection favors women who control their childbirth. They maximize the chance of their own survival and their children’s survival. . . . Abortion should be used to ensure that a woman can reproduce later on at a time when she wants to have the child and can support it.”

Those of us who contend for the sanctity of human life and oppose abortion as a great moral evil must take Alexander Sanger’s argument very seriously. Given the overall worldview shift taking place in our culture, Sanger’s proposal is certain to gain ground—especially among the cultural elite. The next phase of the abortion rights argument may well be shaped by Sanger’s thesis, for it offers the abortion rights movement several distinct advantages. First, it cloaks their argument in the appearance of scientific validity and biology. Second, it affords the movement a way of moving beyond the defensive posture it has taken in recent years. The women wearing “I Had An Abortion” t-shirts at the 2004 Democratic National Convention obviously share Mr. Sanger’s desire to see the abortion rights argument move to a newly aggressive level.

“We must become proud that we have taken control of our reproduction,” Sanger chides. “This has been a major factor in advancing human evolution and survival.”

What about the long-standing “right to privacy” argument so ardently promoted by the abortion rights movement? “While the right to privacy is important in insuring that the majority cannot try to change the biological rules of life,” Sanger encourages, “the word ‘privacy’ should not be our banner. It connotes secrecy and shame. We must eliminate shame from the debate over reproductive freedom. Our argument must not be for the legality of abortion, but for abortion itself.”

Margaret Sanger must be smiling from her grave. Today’s leaders of the Planned Parenthood movement are proud to point to Margaret Sanger as a model of feminist progress and the rights of women. They are much less likely to point to her notorious involvement in the eugenics movement and its race-based slogan, “More children from the fit, fewer from the unfit.”

Margaret Sanger, along with the movement she founded and promoted, saw abortion as a necessary option for women, arguing that women would never be equal with men until a woman had a right to terminate a pregnancy which, for any reason, she did not want.

Nevertheless, even in our postmodern culture and our post-Christian age, this argument has worn thin. Today, more Americans than ever recognize that abortion is the intentional murder of an innocent unborn human life, and abortionists have been on the retreat ever since imaging technologies allowed us all to see the developing miracle within the womb.

Without doubt, Alexander Sanger is his grandmother’s grandson, and his proposal to shift the debate to biology is an honest and clever attempt to reestablish and redirect the abortion rights argument. His proposal confronts us all with the stark reality of our worldview conflict. Sanger’s Darwinist worldview leads inescapably to a full-boor defense of abortion as a “reproductive strategy.” The Christian worldview, which affirms that humanity is defined in terms of the image of God as given by the Creator, leads in an opposite direction—toward the protection of all life from the moment of conception until natural death.

Alexander Sanger’s argument puts the issue of abortion once again right at the center of our public argument. We must be ready to answer this Darwinist worldview with a clear alternative. If morality is nothing more than biology, our entire moral structure is aborted.

_______________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

Post-abortion psychological problems frequent (WorldNetDaily, 041117)

More than 1/3 of U.S. women surveyed had ‘suicidal thoughts’ after procedure

Women who undergo abortions suffer serious psychological problems more frequently than was previously thought, according to a new study.

Published yesterday in the Medical Science Monitor, the study surveyed 331 Russian women and 217 American women who had undergone one or more induced abortions, but who hadn’t experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. Among the study’s major findings were:

* Of American women, 53.9% felt badly after their abortion while only 13.8% felt relief.

* Some 36.4% of the American women had suicidal thoughts and 26.7% increased their use of alcohol or drugs.

* Only 10.8% of the American women surveyed said they received adequate counseling before the abortion. Fully 84% did not receive adequate counseling and 5.2% were unsure.

* Over 42% of American women reported being sexually or physically abused before age 18 compared to only 11.4% of Russian women.

* About 50% of all the women surveyed felt that their abortion had been morally wrong.

* Some 79.2% of the American women had never been counseled on alternatives to abortion.

* Over 54% of American women were not sure about their decision to abort their pregnancy.

“This is the first published study to compare reactions to abortion among women in two different countries,” said Dr. Vincent Rue, lead author of the study and co-director of the Institute for Pregnancy Loss. “It is also the first to provide a detailed breakdown of traumatic symptoms which the subjects themselves attribute to their abortions. These results will help mental health workers to be better prepared to recognize and treat the psychological complications of abortion.”

David C. Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, was one of four authors of the study. The Elliot Institute has previously conducted numerous studies on the effects of abortion on women.

Increasing concerns over the psychological damage to women who have undergone an abortion prompted Rep. Joe Pitts, R.-Pa., to introduce the “Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act,” H. R. 4543, in June. The stated purpose of the proposed law is “to provide for research on, and services for individuals with, post-abortion depression and psychosis.” In pursuit of this goal, the bill proposes a congressional appropriation of “$300,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.”

==============================

Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion (Foxnews, 041005)

WASHINGTON — Thirty states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if the Supreme Court reversed its 1973 ruling establishing a woman’s legal right to an abortion, an advocacy group said Tuesday.

The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.

“The building blocks are already in place to recriminalize abortion,” said Nancy Northup, the center’s president.

The group’s report comes less than a month before the presidential election, which those on both sides of the abortion issue say will be critical in determining the future of the Roe decision.

Currently, it is believed that five of the nine justices support abortion rights, but that balance could be tipped if President Bush, in a second term, nominates a new justice who reflects his anti-abortion views. Democratic contender John Kerry is a strong supporter of abortion rights.

The center found that 18 states had pre-Roe laws totally or partially banning abortion. In some cases those laws have been blocked by a court, but could easily be revived if Roe were overturned. Alabama is one state where the abortion ban was never enjoined by the courts, and could be immediately enforced.

Other states such as Ohio don’t have abortion bans, but both the legislature and the governor oppose abortion and without Roe there would likely be a rush to pass legislation banning abortion, the center said.

It concluded that 21 states are at high risk, and nine states at middle risk, of banning abortion within a year of Roe being overturned. More than 70 million women of childbearing age would be affected, the center said.

Another 20 states, including Massachusetts, which has a pre-Roe ban, would likely retain abortion rights because of other statutory protections or the makeup of their legislatures.

“We are really, I think, in some peril now,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., one of 11 abortion rights lawmakers to attend the center’s Capitol Hill news conference.

The only Republican was Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who said that Roe v. Wade was “an extraordinarily important document” and “we need to elect more pro-choice Republicans to the Congress.”

The 21 states considered at high risk of banning abortion were: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The nine at middle risk: Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

The 20 at lower risk: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, on its Web site, says it “is a non-profit legal advocacy organization dedicated to promoting and defending women’s reproductive rights worldwide.”

==============================

From fetus to baby (Washington Times, 041224)

In a spectacular murder case in Missouri, Lisa Montgomery strangled to death Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant. Ms. Montgomery cut open Mrs. Stinnett’s womb and kidnapped her child. This is a horrific crime that, like the Scott Peterson case, opens an uncomfortable window into our culture’s tortured reasoning on anything related to unborn life.

During the coverage of the crime, the status of the Bobbie Jo Stinnett’s unborn girl steadily changed. All at once on AOL News during the weekend, there were headlines tracking events in the case: “Woman Slain, Fetus Stolen”; “Woman Arrested, Baby Returned in Bizarre Murder”; “Infant in Good Health.”

Note how a “fetus” — something for which American law and culture has very little respect — was somehow instantly transformed into a “baby” and “infant” — for which we have the highest respect. By what strange alchemy does that happen?

An AP story effected this magic transition all in one sentence: “Authorities said Montgomery, 36, confessed to strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett of Skidmore, Mo., on Thursday, cutting out the fetus and taking the baby back to Kansas.” At one point, when Ms. Montgomery was still at large, an Amber Alert went out about the Stinnett girl, putting news organizations in the strange position of reporting such an alert for what many of them were still calling a fetus.

Given that fetuses are routinely destroyed in the United States (and legally can be destroyed up to the point of delivery), it was odd to see such an uproar about the welfare of one. Indeed, it is tempting to say that from a pure legal point of view, Lisa Montgomery simply killed the wrong victim, taking the life of the mom instead of the fetus.

But that’s not entirely true. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act partly in reaction to the Peterson case, making it a crime to harm an unborn baby while assaulting the mother. Kate Michelman, president of NARAL, complained that President Bush is doing “everything in his power to restrict a woman’s right to choose.” Right to choose what? To have her baby harmed by an assailant?

Pro-choicers realize that recognizing the legal status of a fetus in any way undermines a crucial philosophical support of the pro-choice position — that a baby in the womb has no rights that we are bound to respect. The Missouri “Unborn Child” law, which is in play in the Stinnett case, says “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health and well-being.” The attitude behind that law is impossible to square with the animating principle of Roe vs. Wade, which protects any abortion, any time.

The Stinnett case is unusual, but violence against pregnant women — usually committed by the biological fathers — is not. According to The Washington Post, homicide is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. It is partly because the boyfriends or lovers decide they don’t want the fetus. As The Post put it in explaining one typical murder, the father “at first denied it was his child, then pressed for an abortion, then plotted murder.”

“It seems to me that these guys hope against hope for a miscarriage or an abortion, but when everything else fails, they take the life of the woman to avoid having the baby,” Jack Levin of Northeastern University told The Post.

When we mourn not just for the women, but for the babies destroyed in such terrible acts, we commit a kind of transgression against the strictest pro-choice orthodoxy. Pro-choicers have a hard time explaining why, if Bill Clinton was right that abortion should be “legal, safe and rare,” the practice should be rare. One reason is that there is a continuity between the “fetus” and “baby.”

Otherwise, why do we rejoice over ultrasound images of the unborn? Why do we give them names? Why do we pray for their health and happiness? Why are we so quick to go from calling them fetuses to babies?

Rich Lowry is a nationally syndicated columnist.

==============================

End of 2004 Poll (National Review, 041227)

New York Times/CBS News poll: 34% say abortion should be “generally available,” 44% support “stricter limits,” and 21% say it “should not be permitted.”

==============================

Newborn Is China’s 1.3 Billionth Citizen (Foxnews, 050106)

BEIJING — Greeted by national television coverage of his first bath, a boy born Thursday was declared China’s 1.3 billionth citizen in a blaze of publicity to promote the government’s controversial “one child” birth limits.

The eight-pound infant was presented with a certificate of his status following his birth at 12:02 a.m. at Beijing Maternity Hospital. State TV’s evening news showed his mother, Lan Hui, a 31-year-old employee of Shell China, receiving a bouquet of flowers and the newborn getting picked a name for the baby, who became the star of a campaign touting what the communist government says are the successes of its decades-old policy limiting most urban couples to one child.

“The family planning policy of the past 30 years has effectively controlled the over-rapid increase of China’s population,” the official China Daily newspaper said.

The government says that without the policy, China would have at least 200 million more mouths to feed, straining farm, water and other resources. But critics say the plan has led to forced abortions and other abuses.

Foreign experts say China’s true population could be hundreds of millions above 1.3 billion because many rural families have unreported children. The one-child limit is also frequently ignored by urban couples who can afford the fines or are desperate for a son to carry on the family name and care for them in old age.

Couples who have unsanctioned children can face heavy fines, the loss of jobs and forced sterilization. But government spokesman deny that women are coerced into having abortions, saying forced abortions aren’t sanctioned and officials who carry them out can be punished.

The U.S. government is among those who say forced abortions occur, and it has withheld money from the U.N. Population Fund the past three years because the agency supports the Beijing regime’s family planning program.

In Washington last month, State Department officials testified to Congress that China’s program is abusive.

They cited the case of Mao Hengfeng, a Shanghai woman serving 11/2 years in a labor camp for her campaign to abolish coerced abortions. Since her second pregnancy in the late 1980s, Mao has been detained in psychiatric wards, forced to have an abortion and removed from her job.

On Wednesday, the New York-based group Human Rights in China said her sentence had been extended by three months.

In an unusual acknowledgment, the China Daily said Thursday, without providing any specifics, that the “family planning policy has gone awry in some places during its 25-year history.” However, it said, “the policy should continue to be endorsed.”

The government has eased some restrictions in recent years, including allowing couples a second child if both spouses are only children.

In China’s business capital, Shanghai, where city leaders worry a low birth rate will cause a shortage of workers, divorced residents who remarry are allowed to have a child with their new spouses even if they already have one from a previous marriage.

China says the birth limits have reduced the number of children per couple from about 5.8 children in the 1970s to 1.8 children now.

That success has brought “a string of demographic challenges,” Xinhua said in a separate report Thursday.

Fewer children will result in a smaller pool of young workers to support a large population of retirees, it said. And there is a widening gap between the numbers of boys and girls, leading to fears of social strains as millions of men in coming years are unable to find wives.

Government figures say 119 boys are born in China for every 100 girls, a gap blamed largely on parents aborting female fetuses so they can try again for a boy. Worldwide, fewer than 110 boys are born for every 100 girls. Officials say China could have as many as 40 million men who can’t find spouses by 2020 — just as China’s 1.3 billionth citizen is coming of age.

==============================

The World’s Tiniest Baby and the Abortion Debate (Christian Post, 050222)

After six months of hospitalization, the world’s smallest surviving baby was sent home – in good health – to face all of life’s challenges and promises. The survival of Rumaisa Rahman, who was born 14 weeks premature at just 8.6 ounces, is more than a medical miracle – it is an undeniable testimony that life begins long before “birth” and that choice comes at conception, not delivery.

Rumaisa, the smaller of a set of twins, was born at just 26 weeks’ gestation after her mother developed a fatally high blood pressure level. Although both the mother and children were at risk in performing the surgery, the Rahmans took their chance and were blessed with two beautiful baby girls – both with normal physical and mental developments.

Looking at Rumaisa’s story and reflecting on the past thirty two years of America’s social and cultural compass, one cannot help but cringe with pain. Over two hundred-million children have been killed since the infamous Roe v. Wade opened the flood gates to legalized abortion in the nation.

93% of the time, induced abortions are done for elective, non-medical reasons. What’s worse, three separate court rulings overturned a ban against partial birth abortions – a brutal technique of crushing the head of the unborn child while the rest of its body is exposed outside the womb – citing the lack of exceptions for the mother’s health as the reason.

While the Bush Administration and pro-life legislators are working to reinforce the ban, many activists on the pro-choice side are lobbying against it by claiming unborn babies do not feel pain.

However, medical studies have shown time and time again that those unborn children are more than capable of sensing emotions and pain. And in most partial-birth abortion cases, babies are older and bigger than Rumaisa was at birth.

Who could claim Rumaisa would not have felt pain six months before her date of birth?

President Bush pledged to support a “culture of life” during his State of the Union address. As Christians, we must be prepared to reclaim the culture of Christ that has been lost thirty two years ago by reminding ourselves of the ageless truth: choice comes long before than birth, and life is a sacred blessing that comes from God.

==============================

US sparks row at UN over abortion (BBC, 050301)

The US has insisted abortion should not be recognised as a human right, at a review of progress 10 years after a major conference on women’s rights.

The issue has dominated the opening proceedings of the UN session organised to re-affirm the world’s commitment to the Beijing declaration.

The US has submitted amendments insisting that any new declaration did not create “the right to abortion”.

The conference is also discussing Aids, sex trafficking and women’s education.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the conference: “Over this decade, we have seen tangible progress on many fronts.

“Life expectancy and fertility rates have improved. More girls are enrolled in primary education. More women are earning an income than ever before.

But he added: “We have also seen new challenges emerge. Consider the trafficking of women and children - an odious but increasingly common practice. “Or the terrifying growth of HIV/Aids among women, especially young women.”

The 150-page Beijing declaration called for governments to end gender discrimination in areas including education, health care, politics and employment.

‘Major obstacles’

It stated that women have the right to “decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality... free of coercion, discrimination and violence.”

But attempts at the time to refer to abortion as a sexual right were dropped amid heated debate, and instead it was treated as a public health issue.

However, the Beijing conference’s action plan did call for governments not to punish women who have undergone illegal abortions.

The US position at the current meeting reflects President George W Bush’s tough stance against abortion.

That contrasts with his predecessor Bill Clinton, who was in the White House at the time of the Fourth World Conference on Women.

The US amendments were submitted last week ahead of the start of the two-week meeting at the UN’s headquarters in New York on Monday.

Richard Grenell, the US spokesman at the UN, said: “We believe wholeheartedly that the Beijing document does not establish or guarantee a right for an abortion.”

About 100 government delegations, including 80 ministers, and 6,000 activists, are involved in the Beijing declaration progress review.

Organisers of the meeting stressed that the fresh declaration being formulated was not a legally binding treaty and did not create any new human rights.

==============================

Who’s Afraid of the Fetus? (Christian Post, 050204)

The front page of The New York Times may well be journalism’s most prized piece of real estate. That fact makes the appearance of one particular article all the more surprising and noteworthy.

In the paper’s February 2, 2005 edition, reporter Neela Banerjee reported on the use of ultrasound technology by crisis pregnancy centers. In an article headlined, “Christian Groups Turn to Sonogram to Turn Women from Abortions,” Banerjee offered a unique glimpse into one of the most transformative developments in the struggle against abortion.

The article began by introducing Andrea Brown, who at age 24, “desperate for an abortion,” came across the Bowie Crofton Pregnancy Center and Medical Clinic, a “church-financed organization that provides counseling and education about sexual abstinence” in Bowie, Maryland.

When she called the center, Ms. Brown was told that the facility did not perform abortions or provide abortion referrals, but that she could come in for an ultrasound that would ensure the viability of her baby. As Banerjee reported, “When she did, everything changed.”

“When I had the sonogram and heard the heartbeat—and for me a heartbeat symbolizes life—after that there was no way I could do it,” Ms. Brown recalled. Once she had seen the image of her unborn baby, abortion was no longer an option.

Andrea Brown’s testimony is hardly unique. That fact explains why The New York Times decided that the emergence of ultrasound technology in the abortion debate is front-page news. As Banerjee explained, “In the battle of abortion, opponents say they have discovered a powerful new tool: sonograms. And over the last 18 months, they have started major fund-raising campaigns to outfit Christian crisis pregnancy centers with ultrasound equipment.”

The ultrasound technology now employed by these crisis pregnancy centers offers unprecedented views into the womb, providing a three dimensional image of the baby as it develops. At some stages of pregnancy, the images come close to representing a real-time video image of the baby at play, at rest, and in motion.

According to the Heidi Group, a Christian organization that advises crisis pregnancy centers, up to 90% of women visiting the clinics who see their babies through the use of ultrasound technology change their minds and no longer seek an abortion.

Make no mistake—pro-abortion advocates understand what this new development represents. Susanne Martinez, Vice President of Public Policy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told The New York Times that the use of such images by pregnancy centers “is coercive.”

In an amazingly candid statement, Ms. Martinez put the issue in perspective. “From the time they walk into these centers, they are inundated with information that is propaganda and that has one goal in mind. And that is to have women continue with their pregnancies.”

Got it? Ms. Martinez clearly believes that something dreadful has happened when women are persuaded to continue with their pregnancies and not to seek abortions. Of course, all that makes sense when the Planned Parenthood Federation of America comes into closer view, and its real agenda is made clear.

Dr. Sandra M. Christiansen, Medical Director of the Carenet Pregnancy Center of Frederick, Maryland, countered Martinez’s argument. “Women have a right to know what is going on inside their bodies,” she insisted, “and we want to provide women with critical information as they face a life-altering procedure and decision. Women will be empowered to choose life.”

Dr. Christiansen made no effort to hide her motivation. “The motivation is that man and woman are made in God’s image, that life is precious.”

Nevertheless, Banerjee explained that pro-abortion advocates “see the technique as a pressure tactic.” The reporter quoted Nancy Keenan, President of Naral Pro-Choice America as saying that ultrasounds have medical legitimacy, but “shouldn’t be misused to badger or coerce women by these so-called crisis pregnancy centers.”

Of course, the women whose hearts are turned by the experience of seeing their unborn children are not being “coerced” by the pregnancy centers. They are being transformed by the sudden awareness that a living human being resides within their wombs.

As for Andrea Brown—who appeared with her smiling baby in a moving photograph published in the paper’s print edition—she intends to practice sexual abstinence until she gets married. Smiling at her daughter, she added, “I have a constant reminder of what can happen if I don’t.”

The national media have been watching the development of these crisis pregnancy centers and the impact of ultrasound technology for some time. Writing for the Newhouse News Service, reporter Mark O’Keefe traced the experience of Rebekah Nancarrow, a 23-year-old woman who visited a faith-based pregnancy center in Dallas, Texas. According to O’Keefe’s report, Nancarrow went into the clinic “95% certain I was going to have an abortion.”

Nevertheless, once Nancarrow saw her baby through an ultrasound technology, everything was changed. “She was moving, she was kicking, she had legs.” Nancarrow made a promise to her baby on the spot: “I will take care of you.”

O’Keefe reported that “abortion rights groups oppose the practice, arguing that ultrasound becomes a manipulative weapon when put in the hands of religious activists trying to persuade pregnant, vulnerable women.” Suzanne Martinez, also cited in O’Keefe’s article, charged that the use of ultrasound technology by pregnancy centers “isn’t a matter of providing more knowledge, but an attempt to manipulate women.” In other words, the abortion industry doesn’t want pregnant women to see inside their own wombs—and thus recognize the humanity of their unborn children.

Just how powerful is this new technology? Tom Glessner, President of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, headquartered in Fredericksburg, Virginia, argues that the use of ultrasound technology promises to change the entire landscape of abortion in America.

“I’m not a prophet,” Glessner told the reporter, “but I do have an educated feel for this thing and the bottom line is this: By the end of this decade, we want to have 1,000 pregnancy centers becoming medical centers with ultrasound. If those 1,000 medical centers provide, on the average, 1,500 ultrasounds for abortion-minded women per year, we will see the number of abortions in this country plummeting to 500,000 a year, compared to the current 1.3 million.”

In the Newhouse News Service article, Rebekah Nancarrow recalled that she had first visited Planned Parenthood in 2001, when she discovered she was pregnant. She went because her boyfriend was pressuring her to have an abortion. Nancarrow received an ultrasound test at the Planned Parenthood clinic, she related, but was not allowed to see the results because, as she was told, “that will only make it harder on you.”

This was just too much for Nancarrow, who then visited the Dallas Pregnancy Resource Center, where she recalls telling the personnel, “I’m only here to give you one shot to get another view on this.”

That one shot was all it took. Once she saw the image of her living baby, she lost all interest in an abortion.

“I honestly have to say that had I not had the sonogram (ultrasound), I would have had the abortion. But that sonogram just confirmed 100% to me that this was a life within me, not a tissue or a glob.”

The panic setting in among the abortion rights crowd is understandable. Once women see the baby living in their womb, abortion is revealed for what it is—the murder of a living human being.

Needless to say, this gets in the way of the abortion rights agenda and cuts into the profits of the abortion industry. Once the image of the baby is on the screen, the writing is on the wall for the abortionists.

The logic of panic is the only explanation for many pro-abortion responses to the use of ultrasound technology. Writing for The American Prospect, one of the nation’s most liberal political journals, Matthew Nisbet accused General Electric of promoting the pro-life agenda by advertising its new “4D Ultrasound” imaging system.

Back in 2002, GE ran a series of television advertisements demonstrating the use of the powerful imaging technology. As Ewan McColl’s ballad, “The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face” played in the background, a couple viewed their baby’s face for the first time.

The pro-abortion movement fears the impact of ultrasound technology the way Howard Hughes feared germs.

The Web site of the Feminist Women’s Health Center, a group that operates abortion clinics in several states, warns women that they should stay away from crisis pregnancy centers altogether. “Some of these centers offer ultrasound (also known as sonograms). But that does not mean the personnel operating the equipment are medically trained.” In truth, most states require a licensed physician to be present as the test is administered, but what the abortion advocates really fear is that the ultrasound technicians will be medically trained.

When all else fails, the Feminist Women’s Health Center shifts to scare tactics. “If you discover you are seeking help from an anti-abortion facility, protect yourself from further harassment. Leave the premises immediately and do not return. When you do locate a professional clinic that offers information about all options, be sure to share your . . . experience with your new counselor so that whatever distortions and misinformation you may have received can be corrected.”

There you have it. The abortion rights movement has finally met its match. The abortion industry is scared to death of the fetus, knowing that the mere image of a living baby in the womb is the refutation of every argument they can assert and all the coercion they would employ.

We stand at the threshold of a transformation in the struggle for life. In time, the impact of this one powerful technology may utterly reshape the abortion debate in America.

As Rebekah Nancarrow came to understand, she was carrying a baby, not a glob of tissue. That vision of life changed everything. Now, the question comes down to this: Who’s afraid of the fetus?

_______________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

The World’s Tiniest Baby and the Abortion Debate (Christian Post, 050322)

While the Bush Administration and pro-life legislators are working to reinforce the ban, many activists on the pro-choice side are lobbying against it by claiming unborn babies do not feel pain.

Who could claim Rumaisa would not have felt pain if her parents chose to give up on her life?

==============================

The filibuster and Roe v. Wade (townhall.com, 050530)

Star Parker

Polling on abortion reveals the complexities of the American psyche. On the one hand, the majority of Americans feel that abortion is morally wrong. Yet, at the same time, the majority of Americans poll in support of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion a legal procedure nationwide.

According to polling done over the past month by Gallup, 51% of Americans say that abortion is “morally wrong.” Yet, according to a current poll done by Quinnipiac University, 63% of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

Support of Roe v. Wade, however, is by no means unequivocal. Further polling by Gallup shows support for legal abortion “under any circumstances” at only 23%. The majority of those who support abortion feel it should be legal “only in a few circumstances.”

What this polling data tells me is that most Americans are not supportive of the spirit of Roe v. Wade. The legalization of abortion under this decision was under the rationale of a principle _ a so-called “right to privacy.” However, if most Americans agreed that legal abortion emerges as result of a fundamental right to do it, they would not respond in polls saying that it is immoral and should be legal “only in a few circumstances.”

It’s also sharp and clear from the Gallup poll that Americans are not happy about the moral state of our country. Only 19% feel that the current state of moral values in the country is “excellent/good”, and 39% see it as “poor.” With regard to the direction of our state of morals, 16% responded that things are “getting better” and 77% responded that things are getting worse.

I think the group of so-called moderate senators who cut the recent deal to defuse the nuclear device, which would have formally purged the Senate of the filibuster option on confirmation of judges, should pay attention to this information. That is, they should pay attention if they care about their political future.

It is crystal clear that Americans are unhappy and concerned with the moral state of affairs of our country. The central aspect of that concern, as it concerns our judiciary, is legal abortion, as defined by Roe v. Wade. This is what this fight over judge appointments is about.

The fact that most of our citizens see abortion as immoral, and that support for legal abortion is highly qualified, shows that there is underlying discomfort nationwide with today’s legal regime governing abortion. Americans want change.

These sentiments were expressed when we elected a conservative Republican president and a Republican congress.

Yet a handful of senators who call themselves moderates want to thwart the leadership of the president and mute the sentiments of the American electorate. On the verge of losing the filibuster tool to prevent straightforward up or down votes to confirm judges, these handful of so-called moderates went into the backroom and came up with a band-aid that will allow a few votes, but leaves the core problem in place. As happens too often today, our politicians use every opportunity to avoid leadership and responsibility.

The Roe v. Wade decision was allegedly made in the spirit of American freedom. However, time has shown that this was mistaken and ill advised. The president is showing needed leadership in the judges he is nominating. We need to make clear that these handful of obstructionist senators are not moderates but elitists and feel that they know better than our president and our voters what America needs.

Americans are both a moral people and a freedom loving people. George Washington, in his famous farewell address, said that being a moral people is a necessary condition for being a free people. At times, when it appears that moral principle impinges on our freedom, our tendency is to yield to the latter. The test of time, however, reveals whether such concessions in what appear to be in the direction of freedom really, to the point of Washington, make us less free.

We learned that lesson with slavery. We became a greater and freer people by banning it.

Americans know today that Roe v. Wade has pushed that envelope. We live daily with wholesale abuse of human life that devalues America and Americans. This loss of value and perspective has weakened us and made us less free. Far and away the worse toll is taken in the most vulnerable community, the African American community, where black women are three times more likely to have an abortion than their white counterparts.

Our nation is entering a new era of global challenge and competition. We need to be physically and morally strong to meet these challenges. Americans know what needs to be done. Let’s not allow a handful of senators, who pretend to be working in our interest, keep us from the challenges we need to meet.

==============================

What is the best way to prevent abortions? (townhall.com, 050529)

Nathan Tabor

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pain and heartache that abortion causes to three victims: death to the innocent unborn child, emotional trauma and possible physical injury to the mother who aborts her helpless baby, and outraged anger to the frustrated father who never gets to see his offspring alive.

But as some readers pointed out, all of these needless tragedies could be avoided by curtailing the illicit sexual activity that leads to unwanted pregnancies. Without intercourse, conception simply cannot occur. The sure-fire cure for unwanted pregnancy is not more classroom instruction in putting condoms on bananas, but sexual abstinence until marriage.

Most young people who find themselves in this difficult situation weren’t consciously trying to get pregnant, any more than most people who drive 90 miles per hour are trying to get a speeding ticket. But in the back of your mind, you know that it can happen. There are serious consequences when it does. Even without pregnancy, there are other big risk factors for sexually promiscuous people.

Young people rarely consider the fact that about 30 sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are running rampant through our post-Christian society. The Centers for Disease Control has called these STDs a “hidden epidemic” because they infect between 8,000 and 10,000 teenagers DAILY. Because the symptoms either are not evident or are misunderstood, 85% of teenagers infected with STDs don’t even know it.

Gonorrhea and syphilis had almost been wiped out before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 70s. Now they are back again in more virulent forms that are resistant to antibiotics. If not treated early, they can cause irreversible physical damage. Parents of middle-schoolers with chronic sore throats are often surprised to learn that the problem isn’t strep but gonorrhea of the mouth, caused by “giving a Monica,” or oral sex.

Some of these diseases are life threatening – like AIDS. And some of them – like genital herpes – are incurable. A pregnant mother with herpes may have no symptoms, but her baby may be born retarded, with a brain that looks like Swiss cheese on a CAT-scan. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, approximately 20% of Americans had herpes a few years ago. If present trends continue, up to half of all American men may be infected with herpes in another decade.

What about so-called “safe sex”? Well, the sad truth is, it isn’t safe. Yes, condoms may partially inhibit the spread of some diseases, just as they may stop some pregnancies from occurring. But in most cases, they don’t help girls much. One sobering statistic reveals that every time a teenage girl has extramarital sex, she has a 47% chance of catching the virus that causes cervical cancer. This disease, which can be deadly, once was found only in women age 50 and over; now it’s showing up in 13-year-old girls.

Many sexually promiscuous teens become depressed, and some either attempt or commit suicide. Why? Well, according to Dr. Armand Nicholi of Harvard Medical School, our contemporary acceptance of casual sex “has often led to empty relationships, feelings of self-contempt and worthlessness,” instead of the liberation, fulfillment and happiness implied by the suggestive Abercrombie and Fitch ads targeting teens.

Funny, you’d never guess that’s true from watching all those slick ads that glorify sex, like the new pornographic Paris Hilton commercial for Hardee’s hamburgers. Hollywood movies, TV sitcoms, and glossy magazines . . . everything in our popular culture screams SEX – JUST DO IT! Why not? Everybody else is.

Are today’s young people so enslaved by their raging hormones that they are incapable of making moral choices and exercising sexual self-restraint? That’s what Liberals want you to believe. But I disagree. Parents need to emphasize moral purity and teach our children to practice virtue. Abstinence not only works, it pays long-term dividends.

Old-fashioned sexual morality may not seem so cool or hip, but it can sure keep you out of trouble. In plain terms: young women and men need to learn to say “No” and mean it.

==============================

Planned Parenthood Perversity: A cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremist (National Review Online, 050603)

Can you say “perverse”? Planned Parenthood in Indiana and Kansas is effectively fighting to protect child rapists from potential prosecution in two high-profile legal fights. That an organization devoted to the interests of women finds itself in this position is a cautionary tale of abortion-rights extremism.

In Indiana, the attorney general is seeking the records of girls under the age of 14 who have visited Planned Parenthood clinics. Let that sink in: We’re talking about 12- and 13-year- old girls. It is a crime to have sex with a child under 14 in the state. Under law, individuals with reason to believe a child is a victim of sex abuse are required to report it to the proper authorities. In Kansas, the attorney general is carrying on the same fight (he is also looking for evidence of illegal late-term abortions).

An Indiana judge has just upheld the Indiana attorney general’s request, although the case is under appeal. “The great public interest,” the county superior judge wrote, “in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient’s interest in privileged communication with her physician because, in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure.”

The loopiest free-sex advocates might imagine that after sex-ed courses on how to put a condom on a banana, 13-year-old girls blissfully explore their bodies with 13-year-old boys. Put aside that this vision will make most parents gag — it’s not how it works. Teen sex often involves adult men exploiting teen girls. Estimates are that in 60% or more of teen births, the father is an adult. A California study found that the fathers in births to junior-high-school mothers were on average nearly 7 years older.

Why would a feminist organization not be eager to cooperate in a fight against the sexual exploitation of young girls? Well, Planned Parenthood represents that wing of the feminist billed as “sex positive.” Although that phrase doesn’t quite capture it. Planned Parenthood is developing the “statutory rape-positive” wing of feminism.

These feminists are unwilling to pass judgment on any sex in any circumstances, don’t care if parents are cut out of the equation entirely, believe the right to an abortion trumps any other consideration, and embrace a notion of privacy so sweeping it includes men who have, under law, raped their young sexual partners. If only Michael Jackson were interested in girls instead of boys, he might, in the right circumstances, have a friend in Planned Parenthood.

Privacy is a mere excuse not to provide the records. It is not at all unusual for criminal prosecutions to involve medical records. And no one is going to make public the names of the girls involved, which are being provided to the authorities, not the news media. “We’ve been doing these investigations since the 1970s, and there’s never been a case where we have not maintained the confidentiality of records,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter told a local columnist. In Kansas — where the case is pending before the state supreme court — Attorney General Phill Kline authored the state’s rape shield law when he was in the legislature. It is not the girl in any of these cases who will be in jeopardy, but her adult abuser (if there is one).

This fight is so important because our culture relentlessly sexualizes children. The message, for instance, of Britney Spears’s act before she came of age was “teen girls are hot.” Pop culture won’t change, but the law can at least try to send an opposite signal.

Key Democrats from Hillary Clinton to Howard Dean have of late said their party needs to become more moderate on abortion. They could add substance to the rhetoric by opposing Planned Parenthood’s position in these cases. Of course, that will never happen. The abortion absolutists control the Democratic party, a sad fact for those Americans who have moral qualms about abortion, but a happy one for men who impregnate 13-year-olds.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

==============================

Abortionist accused of eating fetuses: Kansas City clinic closed as grisly house of horrors (WorldNetDaily, 050614)

A Kansas City abortionist is out of business after investigators discovered a grisly house of horrors at his clinic – with fetuses kept in Styrofoam cups in his refrigerator and one employee accusing him of microwaving one and stirring it into his lunch.

The unsanitary conditions in Krishna Rajanna’s clinic prompted legislative approval of new abortion regulations in Kansas, a bill that was vetoed by the governor. Rajanna’s activities have reportedly been the subject of law-enforcement investigations for nearly two years.

Rajanna first came to the attention of police in September 2003 when he called police to investigate alleged employee theft.

Detective William Howard of the Kansas City Police Department responded.

“I thought I had heard and seen every vile, disgusting crime scene, but was in for a new shock when I started this investigation,” he would say later. Howard turned the matter over to the local district attorney and three state agencies.

Topping the list of horrors was an employee’s account that she and others witnessed Rajanna “microwave one of the aborted fetuses and stir it into his lunch,” as Howard recalled earlier this year when testifying before a Kansas House committee.

Rajanna denied the accusation. But he did keep fetuses in Styrofoam cups in the refrigerator along with food and drink.

“Dr. Rajanna lacked personal hygiene,” testified Howard. “His hair was messy, hands dirty, and his clothing was wrinkled and stained. He put on old, used foot booties while we were there.”

Howard testified the clinic was dark, dingy, had poor lighting and smelled musty. There were dirty dishes in the break-room sink and on the table, trash everywhere, and roaches crawling on the countertops. Howard was afraid to sit down.

Howard noted there were no hazardous waste containers anywhere. (An employee later testified Rajanna took home all contaminated, medical and biohazard waste for residential trash pick-up.)

As for the “procedure room,” Howard’s partner spotted dried blood on the floor and said the room looked “nasty.”

Two dishwashers located next to the staff toilet served as sterilizers, according to employee testimony. Photographs show the toilet was bloody and functioned as a human waste disposal in the literal sense.

On Saturday, the State Board of Healing Arts voted unanimously to revoke Rajanna’s license.

In March, a board inspector made two surprise visits to Rajanna’ clinic. He reported the facility was unclean and that he found syringes of medications in an unlocked refrigerator. The inspector also reported finding a dead mouse in the hallway.

Rajanna said in his 10 years of performing abortions in Kansas City, no patient has complained about care.

Rajanna can appeal the decision to district court. He argued that he had not been given an opportunity to meet with the inspector to correct the deficiencies. But board members concluded that Rajanna’s clinic represented a danger and said that as a doctor, he shouldn’t have needed the board’s prodding to keep a clinic clean and safe.

Board members also noted that Rajanna had been previously disciplined, in 2000 and 2001, for not properly testing his patients for their blood types and for improperly labeling medications. Also, in February, Rajanna signed an agreement to improve his clinic’s conditions and paid a $1,000 fine.

With Rajanna’s case pending, abortion opponents won legislative approval of a bill requiring abortion clinics to obtain an annual license from the Department of Health and Environment, hire surgeons as their medical directors and report patient deaths to the state within a day. The measure also mandated that the department set standards for equipment, medical screenings, ventilation and lighting.

But Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, an abortion-rights advocate, vetoed the measure, saying medical professionals – not legislators – should set standards.

==============================

Abortion Rates Raise Brows in India (Christian Post, 050727)

The Christian Medical Association of India has raised alarm over results of a study which highlights the practice of aborting girls in preference of boys.

The study noted that for families where the first two children are girls, the third child is overwhelmingly male; 219 girls for every 1000 boys. For parents with one girl, the second child is also more likely to be male, about 558 girls for every 1000 boys.

Although there are laws preventing sex-selection, parents continue to have a preference for boys. Parents in India have availed themselves of doctors’ ability to use technology to determine the sex of the child.

“Preference for the male child, combined with rampant misuse of medical technology, is proving to be a menace which needs to be curbed with immediate effect,” said Akhila Sivada, executive director of CMAI’s policy advocacy and research group (PARG), according to the Times of India.

One commonly given reason for the significant imbalance is the existence of a dowry system, which requires a family to pay a large sum of money when the female child marries. In poor families, this could mean financial ruin and hardship. However custom also plays a role in families that are well off.

The study uses information found in the 2001 national census. Researcher have noted that in some areas of the nation, there are fewer than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys.

“These findings reinforce the argument that any vigorous measures for control of population growth in India will be disastrous for the SRB (sex birth ration), which is already highly skewed against females,” said Dr. Joe Varghese, coordinator for the PARG and one of the authors of the report.

Dehli has one of the greatest demographic imbalances, where the SRB is 865 girls per 1,000 boys. This is a drop of 50 since 1991 in six out of the city’s nine districts.

==============================

Roberts Ad Reveals Intellectual Bankruptcy of Abortion Debate (Foxnews, 050817)

Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urged NARAL Pro-Choice America to withdraw an attack ad against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, who is seen as the penultimate threat to abortion rights. Specter called the ad “blatantly untrue and unfair.”

Given that he is pro-choice, Specter’s protest surprised those who no longer expect truth to be valued above ideology.

On the surface, this incident is remarkable enough but its underlying message is even more significant. I think it signals the defeat and decline of the pro-choice movement in the foreseeable future.

Senators will continue to debate; legislative battles will be waged on the state level; protesters will still scream at each other in the streets. But the very fact that NARAL — America’s leading advocate for abortion rights — thought blatant dishonesty was the strongest card to play reveals a shocking depth of intellectual bankruptcy that is too common in the overall movement.

NARAL’s pro-choice friends from both Left and Right have both openly opposed the anti-Roberts ad on the that it makes pro-choice advocates look like liars.

Walter Dellinger, a Solicitor General under Clinton, stated, “In order to prevent a downward spiral of our [pro-choice] politics, it is incumbent upon those who share a position to object when unfair statements are made to advance that cause.” Dellinger echoed Specter who stated, “ When NARAL puts on such an advertisement, in my opinion it undercuts its credibility and injures the pro-choice cause.”

Why did the ad stir such protest from friends?

It opens with the image of the 1998 abortion clinic bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. Emily Lyons, an employee, speaks of being injured in the blast. A narrator states, “Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.” An excerpt from a court brief is imposed on the screen.

Enter Factcheck.org, a self-declared “nonpartisan, nonprofit, ‘consumer advocate’ for voters” which monitors “the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players.”

Its monitoring revealed that the quoted Roberts’ brief was from a 1991 civil court case, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic case. The case was argued seven years before the bombing occurred. Roberts did not defend violence; he argued that a 1870s law designed to protect ex-slaves from the Ku Klux Klan should not be interpreted and expanded to ban pro-life protesters from blocking abortion clinics.

Roberts’ views on anti-abortion violence were clearly spelled out in a 1986 memo to President Reagan under whom he served as an Associate Counsel.

Roberts stated that clinic bombers should be “prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals.”

Nevertheless, NARAL’s ad ended by admonishing viewers, “Call your Senators….America can’t afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence…” In short, the ad portrays Roberts as both morally and legally defending the bombing of abortion clinics. And it is difficult to believe that a highly-sculpted falsehood that had a $500,000 broadcast budget was just an error and not deliberate. If so, it was outright lie meant to destroy a man’s reputation.

NARAL’s response to ‘friendly’ critics also reveals moral bankruptcy. The President Nancy Keenan responded to Specter by regretting that “many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement.”

Without backing down one whit, Keenan informed Specter that the ads would be pulled because “the debate over the advertisement has become a distraction from the serious discussion we hoped to have with the American public.” Lies do tend to distract from the truth.

Even the subsequent resignation of NARAL’s communications director David E. Seldin was accompanied by a defense of the ad as “100% accurate.”

As a pro-choice advocate, I am ashamed of NARAL, an organization with which I never associated. I am ashamed of the anti-Roberts ad that typifies much of pro-choice rhetoric: a scorched-earth policy in which goodwill and truth are the first two items incinerated.

To regain credibility, the pro-choice movement must debate fairly— an admonition that bears with equal force on pro-life advocates.

The first few steps should be easy ones:

—Pro-choice advocates must deal with arguments and avoid ad hominem or ‘guilt by association’ attacks. For example, stop using the likes of Eric Rudolph — the Birmingham, Ala., clinic bomber who killed a police officer and critically injured Lyons — to deflect criticism by implying all pro-lifers are pro-murder.

—The pro-choice side must acknowledge the legitimate arguments pro-life advocates have brought to the debate. For example, although I argue for legalized abortion, from listening to pro-life positions I now have profound moral doubts about abortion and strenuously encourage alternate solutions, like adoption.

—Instead of viewing slander as a ‘hard-edged attack’, pro-choice advocates should focus on the hard-edged social questions that accompany pro-life proposals. They should challenge pro-life advocates to explain how — short of a totalitarian state that monitors every pregnancy — do they intend to eliminate abortion and other ‘fetus abuse’? Would they really let a woman die in agony from a life-threatening pregnancy, thus placing greater value upon a potential life than an actual one?

But dialogue on abortion won’t work if only one side extends fairness. Pro-life advocates must come out cleanly and clearly against all forms of violence, especially the bombing of clinics. They should be more insulted and outraged by Rudolph than I am by NARAL. While the slander of Roberts is a form of verbal violence, the murder of a police officer in the Birmingham clinic bombing is true violence. So far, however, there has been a paucity of apology from the pro-life movement and not much commentary condemning Rudolph.

Whatever the pro-life side does, a good first step toward civil discussion would be for NARAL to apologize for its reprehensible ad…not just to Roberts and the pro-life movement but to the pro-choice advocates who have been equally smeared by its actions.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

==============================

Babies May Start Crying While in the Womb (Foxnews, 050913)

A baby’s first cry may happen in the womb long before its arrival in the delivery room.

New research shows that fetuses may learn to express their displeasure by crying silently while still in the womb as early as in the 28th week of pregnancy.

Video-recorded ultrasound images of third trimester fetuses show that they appeared startled in response to a low-decibel noise played on the mother’s abdomen and display crying behavior, such as opening their mouths, depressing their tongues, and taking several irregular breaths before exhaling and settling back down again.

Researchers say the results show that crying may represent a fifth, previously unknown behavioral state for human fetuses. Previously recognized behaviors in unborn fetuses include quiet sleep, active state, quiet awake, and active awake.

Babies May Cry in Womb

In a report published in the current issue of the Archives of Disease in Childhood, researchers describe stumbling upon the finding while researching the effects of tobacco and cocaine on pregnancy for another purpose.

In that study, researchers observed the response of third-trimester fetuses of mothers who used cigarettes or cocaine during pregnancy to a soft sound played on the mother’s abdomen.

During the course of the study, they found that several of the fetuses appeared to cry in response to the disruption.

For example, one video clip shows a female fetus turning her head, opening her mouth, depressing her tongue, and letting out a single short breath followed by a deep inhalation and exhalation in response to the sound. Then the fetus tightens her chest and lets out three quick breaths accompanied by a quivering chin and increasing head tilt.

Researchers say this crying response was found in 10 fetuses belonging to four mothers who smoked cigarettes during pregnancy, three who smoked and used cocaine, and three who neither smoked nor used cocaine, suggesting that these behaviors are not specific to tobacco or cocaine exposure.

They say documenting crying behavior in third-trimester fetuses may have developmental implications because crying is a complex behavior that requires coordination of various motor systems. It also requires reception of a stimulus, recognizing it as negative, and incorporating an appropriate response.

==============================

Myths of reproductive freedom: Part II — Repealing the law of cause and effect (Townhall.com, 050906)

Jennifer Roback Morse

It is startling to realize that the looming battle for the Supreme Court hinges on whether nominees will pledge their support for the utterly irrational demand to suspend the law of cause and effect. For that is what the claim that we have a constitutional right to “reproductive freedom” amounts to. All Americans are entitled to have the cause, namely, unlimited sexual activity, without ever experiencing the effect, namely, a live baby. To see the absurdity of this claim, try out a couple of analogies.

Consider eating, for instance. We can all agree that eating is a good and necessary thing, that everyone is entitled to eat. We might even agree that gourmet eating is one of life’s great pleasures. We would not conclude that everyone has a constitutional right to eat as much as they want, without ever getting heart disease, high blood pressure or other natural consequences of overeating. We could not coherently claim that every person has a constitutional right to eat without getting fat, and call it “gastronomical freedom.” (Although, considering the number of overweight people waddling around America, maybe people do think they have such an entitlement.)

Likewise, no one is entitled to eat as little as possible, with a guarantee that they will never succumb to anorexia. You are free to purge yourself after every meal, but you are going to create a whole string of negative consequences for yourself. The state can not reasonably promise to suspend the laws of cause and effect to provide its citizens with the gastronomical self-determination that would allow them to eat or not eat, as much or as little as they want, without any negative consequences.

This is not an ideological argument, because it does not depend on any particular view of the proper role of the state, and the proper scope of its guarantees. Advocates of the welfare state might well argue that everyone has a right to food, at state expense if necessary. It does not logically follow from this that everyone has a right to eat nothing but butter and never get heart disease. Advocates of more minimal government might argue that people have every right to such food as they can obtain through fair market exchanges and gifts. But no libertarian would claim that people have a right to eat without consequences. No legislator in his right mind would attempt to pass a law guaranteeing such a thing. The very idea is reminiscent of a state legislature’s notorious attempt to pass a law declaring the value of “pi” to be an even 3, rather than that irrational number with lots of pesky decimal places.

We don’t usually think of freedom as the right to suspend the laws of cause and effect in order to obtain what we want. We don’t think of freedom of movement as meaning the right to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge and not die. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean an entitlement for an entire fraternity to actually fit inside a telephone booth, however much they might enjoy trying. Freedom of speech can’t mean the right to shoot off our mouths any time we want, and still have friends. No court of law could grant such a right.

Nor do sensible people think of freedom as the equivalent of “being in possession of all good things.” Central heating and air conditioning are wonderful inventions that have greatly improved people’s comfort and well-being. That doesn’t mean that being without air conditioning is a deprivation of freedom. It is an inconvenience if the central heat goes out, but it is not the equivalent of slavery. You may regard contraceptive devices as the greatest things since sliced bread. That doesn’t mean freedom means using them without failure. You may think that low-cost abortion is on balance, a good thing. That doesn’t mean women are slaves if they must bear some costs associated with abortion.

Reproductive freedom is different in kind from the more basic economic and political freedoms. These older freedoms guarantee that people have the opportunity to participate in the economic and political systems under a set of transparent rules that apply to everyone. Political and economic freedoms are not guarantees of getting the particular outcomes we want.

Economic liberty doesn’t mean the right to succeed in business, only the right to try. And economic freedom certainly doesn’t mean that we are entitled to have the job we want, at the wages we want, whether or not we show up for work. Implicit in the notion of economic freedom is the individual’s responsibility to play by the rules of the marketplace.

We don’t think of political freedom as the right to have our preferred candidates always win elections, only that they have a right to compete in any election. It simply can’t be that I am unfree if my candidate doesn’t win, or if my policies are not enacted. Losing an election does not make me unfree.

Legal scholars will argue that the right to privacy upon which Roe v. Wade depends exists nowhere in the Constitution. I go one step further: the concept of “reproductive freedom” which Roe attempts to establish is incoherent. It truly is irrational to insist that nominees to the Supreme Court their allegiance to the doctrine of abortion on demand.

==============================

Michigan’s Partial-Birth Ban Ruled Unconstitutional (Foxnews, 050915)

LANSING, Mich. — A federal judge has declared unconstitutional Michigan’s law aimed at banning partial-birth abortion.

In a ruling dated Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Page Hood in Detroit ruled the law places an “undue burden” on women’s right to choose an abortion. The parties in the lawsuit learned of the ruling Wednesday.

Hood also said the law is confusing and vague, and its exceptions for the health or life of the mother are meaningless and unconstitutional.

“The act does not describe any specific procedure to be banned,” Hood wrote. “The act also does not distinguish between induced abortion and pregnancy loss.”

Previous attempts by state lawmakers to stop the abortion procedure were struck down by federal courts in 1997 and 2001.

The Michigan Catholic Conference said it disagrees with the judge’s ruling and will urge Attorney General Mike Cox to appeal.

“The fight to end heinous partial-birth abortions will continue,” Michigan Catholic Conference spokesman Dave Maluchnik said.

Doctors label the procedure “intact dilation and extraction,” or D&X. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured. Some doctors say it is the safest option for women in some circumstances.

The state Legislature approved a new law attempting to ban the procedure in June 2004. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate — both of which are controlled by Republicans — after Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm vetoed it.

Although similar laws have been struck down, anti-abortion advocates tried a new approach with the latest ban.

Rather than name the procedure specifically, the law defined birth as the moment any portion of the fetus emerges from a woman’s body. The fetus then would be a legally born person. A doctor could not do D&X unless it was necessary to save the mother’s life or to avoid an “imminent threat” to her physical health.

==============================

Court upholds law protecting pro-life doctors: Abortion-rights group sought to overturn Weldon Amendment (WorldNetDaily, 050930)

A federal court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the Weldon Amendment, a law forbidding state and local governments that receive federal funds from discriminating against health-care providers because they refuse to perform or refer patients for abortions.

“This is a significant victory for pro-life health care workers who are protected by the Weldon Amendment,” said Chief Litigation Counsel Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

The law was signed by President Bush in 2004.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made its decision Wednesday after granting two associations of pro-life medical professionals – Christian Medical Association and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists – the right to intervene as defendants.

The groups were represented by Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund attorneys.

The court then dismissed the case filed by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, saying the arguments against the amendment “fall short” and have no “satisfactory basis.”

The NFPRHA argued the amendment is unconstitutional.

“NFPRHA’s lawsuit was without merit,” Aden said. “We applaud the court’s decision to dismiss the case and agree with its decision to allow our clients the right to be represented in any appeals, since it so clearly has ramifications for their members.”

In its opinion [pdf file, the court said it cannot conclude “that the Weldon Amendment overreaches Congress’s spending powers, exceeds the permissible boundaries of legislative delegation, meets the rigorous void-for-vagueness test, or is otherwise constitutionally infirm on its face.”

Aden said the decision upholds Congress’ intentions in enacting the legislation

“The thousands of pro-life physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals in the pro-life medical groups we represent in the lawsuit are thankful that their convictions will continue to be protected by the Weldon Amendment,” Aden said.

“The court saw through the false cries of ‘wolf’ raised by the pro-abortion groups who are arrayed against conscience protections in the medical community.”

==============================

The Blackmun Papers: One Man’s Shadow (Christian Post, 050928)

When the constitutional framers established the Supreme Court as the third branch of America’s government, they left the role of the Court largely undefined and unfinished. In recent years, the Court has taken on an entirely new importance, with a majority of justices pushing an activist agenda that now assumes a legislative responsibility—encroaching on the constitutional powers of Congress and the President.

The growing supremacy of the nation’s high court has been propelled by individual justices, whose personal influence decided not only individual cases, but also the future direction of the court.

By any measure, Justice Harry Blackmun was one of those rare justices whose personal influence continues to cast a decisive influence on the Supreme Court. In this case, the legacy of Justice Blackmun is reducible to the raw exercise of judicial activism, best symbolized in his infamous majority opinion for the case Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout America.

A more comprehensive picture of Harry Blackmun has emerged with the recent release of his papers at the Library of Congress. Blackmun was something of a pack rat, and his papers include more than 500,000 individual items. A product of St. Paul, Minnesota, Blackmun was appointed to the nation’s high court in 1970. He was President Nixon’s third choice to replace Justice Abe Fortas, and Blackmun was considered to be a safe, conservative appointee. That soon proved to be a very unsafe assumption.

It was the issue of abortion that catapulted Blackmun to national prominence. When the case, Roe v. Wade, appeared at the Supreme Court, only seven justices were involved in the original oral arguments. For this reason, the case was later re-argued and as the justices met in conference, Blackmun was assigned to write the opinion for the majority. As has already been documented, Blackmun and his colleagues were determined to “find” a right to abortion in the Constitution, and they went searching for an argument in order to make their case. The release of Blackmun’s papers reveals an early readiness on his part to overthrow laws restricting abortion. In the 1971 case, United States v. Vuitch, Justice Blackmun dictated a memo to himself, indicating that he was already looking to find a right to abortion in a supposed constitutional guarantee of privacy. As reported in The New York Times, Blackmun said: “I may have to push myself a bit, but I would not be offended by the extension of privacy concepts to the point presented in the present case . . . I think I could go along with any reasonable interpretation of the problem in principles of privacy.”

Blackmun was initially displeased to be given the assignment of writing the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade. In an early draft, Blackmun outlined his thought: “The right to privacy as exemplified in the decided cases here. This is broad enough to encompass the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy . . . . But, despite the arguments, the right is not absolute. There is a point at which another interest is involved—life or the potential of life . . . . I avoid any determination as to when life begins. Therefore, a balancing of interest.” Those random thoughts actually provided the structure for Blackmun’s argument in the Roe decision.

The Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade stands as the most significant milestone in America’s slide toward the Culture of Death. The decision, grounded in the opinion written by Justice Blackmun, opened the door for abortion on demand in all 50 states. Since 1973, well over 40 million unborn Americans have been murdered in the womb—all legally justified according to the dark logic offered by Justice Harry Blackmun.

The recently-released papers indicate the depth of Blackmun’s commitment to the abortion cause. The justice delayed his retirement from the high court, timing his exit so that a pro-abortion president—in this case President Bill Clinton—would have the opportunity to name his replacement. Blackmun, who had been appointed to the court by President Richard M. Nixon as a conservative, retired as one of the most liberal justices in the nation’s history.

Of course, the cultural elite applauds when a jurist moves leftward. This is explained as the “maturing” of the judge’s legal philosophy. In this case, Blackmun “matured” into the primary legal theorist for the abortion movement.

At the same time, the release of these papers also underlines the dramatic and strategic importance of the role played by individuals such as Harry Blackmun. Republican presidents, hoping to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, have often failed in their attempt to influence the Court’s direction. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush each appointed justices to the Court who turned out to be judicial activists of a liberal bent. President Eisenhower appointed California Governor Earl Warren as the Court’s Chief Justice, only to see Warren transform the Supreme Court into an engine for social revolution. Nixon appointed Blackmun, and President Reagan appointed both Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, while President George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter to the Court.

When the Court faced its most strategic opportunity to reverse Roe v. Wade, it would be Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy who would “save” Blackmun’s legacy. The released papers document what was known by many at the time—that Justice Kennedy “flipped” on the question, eventually switching sides and joining Justice Blackmun in a support of Roe v. Wade. Kennedy would flip in other cases as well, joining Blackmun again to rule against graduation prayers in the case Lee v. Weisman.

Blackmun’s papers also provide a window into the personal lives of the justices. Significantly, the papers document the dissolution of Blackmun’s long friendship with Chief Justice Warren Burger. The two had met in kindergarten, grew up together in St. Paul, Minnesota, and were intimate friends—at least until both arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the end, Justice Blackmun’s legacy rests on his judicial philosophy, and his philosophy was unapologetic judicial activism. Blackmun serves as “Exhibit A” of what inevitably results when justices confuse the rule of law with their own political causes. Blackmun saw himself as a crusader for individual rights and his selected moral principles. He simply decided that abortion should be a legal right, and thus he invented that “right” out of whole cloth, using the concept of privacy as a lever to distort the Constitution. His example must serve to warn all Americans about the importance of judicial appointments and the Supreme Court’s role in our society.

Individual justices do make a difference, and the disastrous legacy of Harry Blackmun serves as a graphic reminder of this reality. Our constitutional ideal of separated powers makes sense only when each of the three branches of government understands its proper place. America entered a period of great peril when the Supreme Court undertook a legislative responsibility and took the power to decide issues such as abortion away from the elected representatives of the people and into its own hands. Unless this direction is checked and reversed, there is no hope of returning the Court to legal sanity and judicial restraint.

With John G. Roberts poised to become the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and with another nomination to the bench expected within days, it is good for Americans to be reminded just how much influence one person on the High Court can have on the moral direction of the entire nation.

______________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

Abortion Politics, California-style: Could Proposition 73 help put Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reform slate over the top? (Weekly Standard, 051128)

LATE LAST MONTH, and with little fanfare other than a brief mention in a press release, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law making it a $250 fine to pierce the body of someone under the age of 18 without parental or guardian consent. It was a law which had expired the previous January; Schwarzenegger’s action put it back on the books and made it permanent.

What does this little-noticed law have to with California’s special election? Supporters of Proposition 73, the first of the eight initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot, use it as a metaphor for the inconsistencies of California’s approach to abortion. In the Golden State, a minor needs parental permission for matters as mundane as receiving an aspirin from the school nurse. Yet, abortion services are legally available without parental involvement—neither notification nor consent.

If approved, Prop. 73 would constitutionally amend that by making California the 16th state with a parental notification law (another 19 require parental consent).

Specifically, the measure would:

* Prohibit abortions for minor girls until at least 48 hours after a parent or legal guardian is notified.

* Allow a pregnant minor to ask a juvenile court to waive the notification requirements.

* Waive the notification requirement if the mother’s life is certifiably at risk.

* Allow a minor/parent/guardian to seek civil damages against physicians who “knowingly or negligently” fail to comply with the notification requirement.

* Define abortion as “the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with the knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”

It’s not the first time that California has delved into the subject. In 1987, the Democratic state legislature passed a law requiring parental consent or judicial approval for teens seeking abortions. It was signed by then-Gov. George Deukmejian, a Republican, but a legal challenge kept the parental consent law from going into effect. After a decade of litigation, the state Supreme Court upheld the law, only to later reverse itself and declare the matter unconstitutional.

Nor is it the first time the state has taken notice of legal nuances regarding the unborn. Scott Peterson, who’s currently sitting on San Quentin’s Death Row, was charged with murdering his unborn son because Section 187 of the state’s Penal Code states that “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” So why isn’t abortion legally recognized as murder in California? Section 187 contains two fetal exceptions—one to save the life of the mother; the second for abortions performed legally under the Therapeutic Abortion Act (signed, in 1967, by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan).

IN THREE IMPORTANT RESPECTS, Prop. 73 provides a yardstick for both California and the nation.

First, there is the big-picture question of the U.S. Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade. Earlier this year, the high court said it would rule on the constitutionality of New Hampshire’s parental notification law, which like Prop, 73 requires 48 hours notice before the procedure, unless a judge grants an exception or the girl’s life is at risk (unlike 73, New Hampshire’s law makes no exception for cases in which the health of the pregnant girl is at risk, which is why it’s been challenged). Prop 73’s opponents see the initiative as a challenge to Roe, in particular the amendment language saying that the abortion “causes the death of an unborn child.” California Sen. Barbara Boxer says that this descriptor “sets it to overturn Roe . . . in our state.” On the yes side, the argument is that the initiative’s intent is to reduce California’s teen abortion rate, currently the fourth highest in the nation.

The second factor: how the idea of amending abortion laws plays in a Democratic state. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California indicates that 70% of likely voters would not support overturning Roe. But the same poll found voters split on Prop. 73, with 48% opposing and 44% supporting (a September Field Research poll has voters evenly split at 45-45, while a Survey USA poll has Prop. 73 in the lead, 59-39). With the public divided, Prop. 73 becomes a chance for both sides of the abortion divide to flex their muscles.

On the “yes” side, that includes the California Catholic Conference of Bishops, the California Prolife Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Campaign for Children and Families, and prominent individuals such as Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan and Sonoma vintner Don Sebastiani. The big artillery on the “no” side includes Planned Parenthood of California, the California Family Health Council, the ACLU, and the Abortion Right Action League.

But the fight won’t be expensive. Life on the Ballot, Prop. 73’s main committee, has raised about $1.2 million, which is roughly the same amount budgeted by Planned Parenthood of California. That means little in the way of televised advertising on the measure, but enough resources for direct mail, newspaper advertisements, and other get-out-the-vote efforts, which is not to be underestimated in a low turnout affair like California’s special election.

Which leads to the third factor: how Prop. 73 could work to Schwarzenegger’s advantage. The pro-choice governor is on the record in support of parental rights. (“I wouldn’t want to have someone take my daughter to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell me. I would kill him if they do that,” Schwarzenegger told reporters last month.) And that support could pay off on November 8. A stronger-than-expected turnout from pro-life voters could give the governor’s slate a conservative bump, the thought being that those voting yes on Prop. 73 will continue to vote yes on the next four initiatives in Schwarzenegger’s reform ticket.

It could make for an ironic ending to this special election: for all the talk about his moderate beliefs, it may take a fight over abortion to rescue Arnold Schwarzenegger on November 8.

Bill Whalen is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he follows California and national politics.

==============================

Internet outreach saves lives of unborn: Ads direct women with crisis pregnancies to those who can help (WorldNetDaily, 051026)

Harnessing the technology of the Internet to reach a generation much more likely to go online than use a phone book, a pro-life program is helping to educate pregnant young women about their options to abortion, saving countless unborn lives in the process.

The Life Donor Program places banner ads on the Internet on websites, chatrooms and search engines where girls and women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant will see them. Clicking on the ad brings the Net surfer to OptionLine.org, a site that explains abortion and the alternatives available, offering personal help to those facing a crisis pregnancy. The goal of the program is to have the women visit a care center in their local areas to get the help they need to carry their babies to term.

Along with images of young women, the ad includes the text: “Pregnant? Scared? You have options. Click here now.”

“Research has indicated that 70% of women contacting OptionLine and believing they may be pregnant are considering an abortion,” the Life Donor Program website explains. “However, once they visit a Care Net pregnancy center, less than 10% follow through with terminating their pregnancy. 90% will choose life!”

Care Net is a nationwide network of pregnancy centers that sponsors the program, along with Heatbeat International.

States the site: “Imagine a woman choosing an abortion because she was unaware of the caring support and alternatives already available to her. Now you can help save the lives of unborn babies by showing those with unplanned pregnancies that they do have options.”

The program seeks donors who will give a tax-deductible gift of $24 a month to the effort. Organizers say $24 translates into six pregnant women contacting Care Net about their options.

The OptionLine website includes a phone number women can call to talk to a counselor who then refers callers to local care centers. There also is a page discussing the stages of human gestation along with images of developing babies in the uterus.

Another page, entitled “Considering abortion?” states, “Abortion is not just a simple medical procedure. For many women, it is a life-changing event with significant physical, emotional and spiritual consequences. Most women who struggle with past abortions say that they wish they had been told all of the facts about abortion and its risks.”

The page goes on to explain various abortion procedures and presents the risks of abortion.

The site also offers help with those who are struggling after having an abortion.

Said one woman helped by the service who is quoted on the website: “The consultant listened to my needs and connected me to a local center that helped me the very same day.”

Another woman helped by the service says she definitely would have had an abortion if she had not seen the OptionLine ad.

“My daughter Quiasia is already 7 months old – I can’t believe it,” Sherita says. “She has just learned to sit up on her own and feed herself. I love it! The truth is, if I didn’t see the ad offering free help when I was pregnant, I would have had an abortion, and my precious baby, Quiasia, wouldn’t be here today. That center saved me from making the most horrible decision I could have ever made. Thank you for helping me choose life.”

==============================

Defining Life Down: Are we okay with eliminated a class of humans? (National Review Online, 051130)

The Spine-Chilling Euphemism of the Month Award goes to the Washington Post for its recent front-page headline: “Down Syndrome Now Detectable In 1st Trimester: Earlier Diagnosis Allows More Time for Decisions.”

One “decision” is, of course, whether to terminate the pregnancy — the “A” word (abortion, for those not into subtlety). The less-nuanced, terribly un-P.C., and perhaps you’ll consider downright mean among us might use a k-word. The decision being over whether to kill an innocent child, who is completely dependent on his mother’s choices. Doctors estimate that between 80 and 90% of Down children are now aborted once pre-natal tests issue “warnings.”

The Post story was one of a few reports on Down Syndrome to make the pages of that Beltway paper lately. The first notable piece showed up on its op-ed page in mid-October. A former Post reporter, mother of a girl with Down Syndrome, Patricia Bauer, living in the Botoxed state of California wrote:

As Margaret bounces through life, especially out here in the land of the perfect body, I see the way people look at her: curious, surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed. I know that most women of childbearing age that we may encounter have judged her ... to be not worth living.

To them, Margaret falls into the category of avoidable human suffering. At best, a tragic mistake.

I’m sorry but I can’t bring myself to think of anyone as and “avoidable” human being. She’s a girl with special challenges, but she’s a girl, as worthy of life as any of the rest of us with problems and imperfections.

Bauer’s piece, predictably, caused some controversy, judging by the letters the Post wound up publishing. But the most painful, heartbreaking, infuriating response came from an altogether separate opinion piece that showed up in the paper about a month later. The author, Maria Eftimiades, another journalist, defended her choice to abort her baby after learning that he would have Down syndrome. She tells us about her grieving for the child, she throws a hostile shot at abortion opponents, and ends up assuring the reader, unconvincingly: “As for that baby that will never be, I will remember him always. But I’m quite certain that I made the right choice... .”

I know abortion is one of our most contentious issues. People don’t want to judge. They don’t want to put their rosaries on your ovaries. People often just don’t want to talk about it. But we have to talk about it. And we have to especially talk about Down Syndrome and abortion — and this class of people “sophisticated” types seem to think can (and should?) be eliminated. A civilized society cannot tolerate this reality.

As Patricia Bauer put it: “What I don’t understand is how we as a society can tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. I’d like to think that it’s time to put that particular piece of baggage on the table and talk about it, but I’m not optimistic. People want what they want: a perfect baby, a perfect life. To which I say: Good luck. Or maybe, dream on.”

That “want[ing] what they want” has chilling eugenic possibilities. If we shrug off a majority of Down kids being aborted now, how far off can deeper cultural inoculation to the impossible quest for reproductive perfection be? It’s a spine-chilling road we’re walking on.

Bauer cites a pediatrician who notices his once-steady stream of Down Syndrome patients has dissipated. Breaking news: No one has found a cure.

You figure it out.

And in denying children with Down Syndrome their lives, parents close themselves off to beautiful blessings. John McGinley, who plays Dr. Perry Cox on the NBC comedy Scrubs, was pretty down to earth about it in an interview last year, “[W]hen you have a child who was born with special needs, it’s very confusing and disconcerting and you really don’t know which end is up and you feel like you’re from Mars and you did something wrong. It turns out that God blessed you with a really special package.”

McGinley’s son, Bauer’s daughter — they are special packages for not just their parents, but for our culture. Their lives have the potential to save us from a Brave New Future that’s not so much a brave world as it is a tragic assembly line, different need not apply.

==============================

Supreme Opportunity: Will the Court fix its abortion mess? (National Review Online, 051130)

An overwhelming majority of Americans (70-80%) support notifying parents before an abortion on a minor girl, and for good reason. Minors are usually too immature to assess the safety of abortion clinics, the alternatives to abortion, or to recall their own medical history. In addition, they need the guidance of parents to assess the risks of abortion — like increased risk of placenta previa and premature births in future pregnancies, increased alcohol and drug abuse after abortion, or the increased risk of suicide after abortion.

And parental notice is necessary to enable parents to care for their daughter afterwards. If parents don’t know what their daughter has been through, how can they check for any signs of extensive bleeding, fever, infection, or psychological distress? Even if there’s a life-threatening medical emergency, parents need to be notified, if only after the emergency subsides.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has repeatedly approved parental-notice laws — at least rhetorically — since 1981. While half the states have parental-notice or consent laws, half have no laws in place, including New Hampshire. Most laws are passed only to be bottled up for years in litigation filed by Planned Parenthood or abortion clinics.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood about the validity of the New Hampshire parental notice of abortion law, which a federal appeals-court decision struck down last year.

There are two major questions in this case. First, will the Court uphold the law and allow parents to have notification in New Hampshire? Second, will the Court recognize the mess it has created with its vague and contradictory decisions and clarify the standards for federal courts to assess critical requirements like parental notice?

New Hampshire patterned its law after the Minnesota parental-notice law which has been in effect for nearly 20 years with a positive impact on reducing adolescent pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates. The Supreme Court upheld the Minnesota law in 1990.

The New Hampshire law (copying the Minnesota law) has a narrowly drafted exception for real, life-threatening medical emergencies. The general rule for medical treatment is that parents must give consent (not just notice) before a doctor can treat any minor child, unless there is a life-threatening medical emergency. While some state legislatures have adopted exceptions to this general rule over the past decades — for prenatal care, sexually transmitted disease, and drug addiction — the exceptions are relatively narrow.

Planned Parenthood challenged the New Hampshire law because Planned Parenthood insists that parental-notice and consent laws in every state must have a “health” exception rather than a “medical emergency” exception.

But the Supreme Court has created its own unique and unlimited definition of “health” in abortion law, defining “health” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.” “Health” means emotional well-being without limits. Thus, a “health” exception in abortion law is virtually the opposite of a real “medical emergency.”

Any potential emotional reservation a minor girl might have about a pregnancy (including pressure to have the abortion from her 22-year-old “boyfriend”) would be a “health” reason for the abortion without parental notice. Since this unlimited “health exception” would swallow the requirement of parental notice, the Supreme Court should reject the “health” exception and uphold the New Hampshire medical emergency exception.

Beyond the specifics of the New Hampshire law is the larger question of the mess the Supreme Court has created with its vague and contradictory decisions over the past 32 years. Thirteen years ago, in its 1992 Casey decision, the Supreme Court said that it was clarifying its judicial standards for reviewing state legislation (what lawyers call the “standard of review”) and wanted federal courts to be more deferential toward state regulations of abortion.

Exactly the opposite has happened. Substantial confusion abounds in the federal courts over the standards that the Supreme Court issued in Casey. The courts apply different standards — harsh, intermediate, and deferential — to assess the validity of state legislation. An increasing number of federal courts have expressed confusion as to whether they should apply harsh, intermediate, or deferential standards to assess state abortion legislation.

Some federal judges have been quite blunt in expressing their frustration over this confusion. As the Seventh Circuit appeals court wrote in 2002: “When the Justices themselves disregard rather than overrule a decision...they put courts of appeals in a pickle.” In 2003, the Sixth Circuit appeals court wrote: “We cannot ignore the difficulty of legislating against a backdrop of constitutional standards that invite state regulation on one hand while barring it with the other.”

The most recent expression of growing frustration came from federal judge Sandra Beckwith this past September. In reviewing Ohio’s parental consent for abortion law — which has been bottled up in court for seven and a half years — she emphasized that “applying the standards...is not an easy task in abortion cases...because...it becomes evident that it is difficult or impossible to apply predictably the legal standards that do exist.” Noting that the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the Ayotte case, Judge Beckwith practically begged the Court to fix the mess: “At a minimum...[this] Court hopes that the Ayotte Court will take the opportunity to clarify the Casey undue burden standard.” These are just three of several examples.

The Court could — and may — uphold the New Hampshire parental-notice law without addressing or resolving the confusion that it has created. The Court is long overdue to correct this situation, but, since the Court ignored the confusion in 2000 in its Stenberg decision, there’s no guarantee the Court will fix the mess in Ayotte.

— Clarke D. Forsythe is attorney and director of the Project in Law & Bioethics at Americans United for Life, Chicago.

==============================

The Perverse Logic of Abortion (Christian Post, 051130)

Abortion is back as front-page news and is once again in the forefront of the nation’s concern. The nomination of Judge Samuel L. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court’s consideration of an important abortion case this week have focused attention on the issue and energized both sides in the controversy.

Nevertheless, the issue of abortion is not merely a major front in the nation’s culture war. It is also a deeply personal tragedy. Every single abortion terminates an innocent human life, and each abortion represents an individual moral catastrophe. Yet the vast majority of Americans go about their everyday lives, even as the death toll from abortion continues to rise.

A poignant and chilling perspective on the issue of abortion has been provided by an article published in the November 29, 2005 edition of the Los Angeles Times. In “Offering Abortion, Rebirth,” reporter Stephanie Simon takes readers into the life and logic of one of the nation’s most notorious abortion providers.

Simon focuses on Dr. William F. Harrison of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Dr. Harrison has performed abortions at his clinic on College Avenue in Fayetteville for more than twenty years. Now, at age seventy, Harrison estimates that he has terminated at least twenty thousand pregnancies.

Readers of Simon’s article will be shocked by Harrison’s candor. He refers to himself as an “abortionist” and acknowledges, “I am destroying life.” According to the article, Dr. Harrison gave up his practice of obstetrics in 1991, having delivered six thousand babies. “‘Childbirth,’ he says, ‘should be joyous; a woman should never consider it a punishment or an obligation,’” Simon reports. As Dr. Harrison states, “We try to make sure she doesn’t ever feel guilty for what she feels she has to do.”

The very fact that Dr. Harrison has delivered six thousand babies and aborted twenty thousand others, coupled with his shocking candor, means that a look into his practice and philosophy of life offers rare insights into why a highly trained medical practitioner, supposedly committed to the preservation of all life, would dedicate the largest part of his professional career to abortion.

Simon takes her readers right into Dr. Harrison’s clinic. She describes an eighteen-year-old with braces who has come for an abortion. “A pink blanket is draped over her stomach. She’s 13 weeks pregnant, at the very end of the first trimester. She hasn’t told her parents,” Simon reports.

Once the young woman has been given an anesthetic, along with Valium and a drug intended to dilate her cervix, Harrison administers a dose of Versed, a sedative that “will wipe out her memory of everything that happens during the 20 minutes she’s in the operating room.” As Simon comments, “It’s so effective that patients who return for a follow-up exam often don’t recognize Harrison.”

“This is not going to be nearly as hard as you anticipate,” Harrison tells the patient. After the doctor has observed the fetus on an ultrasound screen, noting the curve of the baby’s head, the bend of an elbow, and the ball of a clenched fist, he tells his patient: “You may feel some cramping while we suction everything out.” This warning is followed by his observation, “You’re going to hear a sucking sound.”

According to the report, the abortion took only two minutes. “We’ve gotten everything out of there,” Harrison assures her.

Speaking to the reporter, this young woman acknowledged that she understood that abortion is, at least in some sense, morally wrong. “There’s things wrong with abortion,” she commented. “But I want to have a good life. And provide a good life for my child.”

Simon also provides insights drawn from other patients who have come to Dr. Harrison’s clinic for abortions. One high school volleyball player “says she doesn’t want to give up her body for nine months.” A single mother of three “says she couldn’t bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved.” As Simon reports, this woman believed that ending the pregnancy would be easier, so long as she doesn’t think about “what could have been.”

The logic offered by many of these women appears to be little more than an effort to convince themselves that they are not killing an unborn baby. Simon writes of a seventeen-year-old who assures Harrison’s nurse that she does not consider the unborn child within her to be a baby. “Not until it’s developed,” she explains. The nurse tells her that the fetus will not be completely formed until about the ninth week. “Yours is more like a chicken yolk,” she asserts. “Then no,” the girl said, “it’s not a baby.”

According to Dr. Harrison, the moral status of the unborn child is entirely up to the woman herself: “It’s not a baby to me until the mother tells me it’s a baby,” he stated.

The stories of other women visiting the clinic are both heartbreaking and deeply troubling. A twenty-year-old administrative assistant, preparing to end her first pregnancy, assured herself: “It’s an everyday occurrence. It’s not like this is a rare thing.” She didn’t like having to pay 750 dollars for the abortion, but she demonstrated no doubt about her decision. “It’s not like it’s illegal. It’s not like I’m doing anything wrong.” Furthermore, “I’ve been praying a lot and that’s been a real source of strength for me. I really believe God has a plan for us all. I have a choice, and that’s part of my plan.”

That last statement represents one of the most convoluted—and yet revealing—comments made by any of the women interviewed in Simon’s article. The logic of “choice” finds its ultimate culmination in this young woman’s decision to abort her baby as “part of my plan.”

Another young woman has come to the clinic seeking to terminate her pregnancy so that she can fit into her wedding dress in coming weeks. A 32-year-old college student acknowledges that she has already had four abortions in the last twelve years. Abortion, she tells Simon, “is a bummer, but no big stress.”

Dr. William F. Harrison is one of the most outspoken abortion providers in the United States. In a statement provided to Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Dr. Harrison commented: “I provide abortions because if I did not, my patients would have to travel anywhere from 90 to 200 miles to get this service in an abortion clinic from someone whose qualifications are totally unknown. I am firmly committed to the ideal that all people, male and female, should have as much autonomy as possible and that they should have the best medical care feasible. That means that some caring and competent physicians in each community should provide abortions.” He continued: “In my community, all the other physicians providing abortions from the early 1970s to 1984 were frightened away from their duty to their patients by pro-life militants. I have no intention of permitting extremists to dictate my morals, my ethics or my professional activities then, now or ever.”

In an article published in the August 2002 edition of the newsletter of the Reproductive Freedom Task Force, Dr. Harrison explained, “No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at any time, unaware that they are ending a life. We just don’t believe that a developing embryo or fetus whose mother cannot or will not accept it, has the same moral claims on us, claims to autonomy and justice that an adolescent or adult woman has.”

Perhaps the most shocking dimension of Dr. Harrison’s candor is the manner in which he cloaks his practice of abortion in religious language. In the Los Angeles Times article, Harrison refers to women who have terminated their pregnancies as being “born again” through the experience.

In his statement published in the Reproductive Freedom Task Force newsletter, Harrison claimed to have heard “a still, small voice asking, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ to which I was at last compelled to reply, ‘Here am I, send me.’” Here we confront the breathtaking delusion of a man who would cite God’s call to the prophet Isaiah as a parallel to his “calling” to be an abortionist.

The debate over abortion is often reduced to a battle over statistics and politics. Stephanie Simon’s article should remind us all that the reality of abortion is unspeakably ugly, undeniably tragic, and morally corrupting. The statements made by these women seeking abortions—and by the doctor who so gladly performs them—reveals the true nature of the challenge we face. The culture of death is rarely revealed with such clarity.

________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

==============================

Pro-Life Doctors Engage in Abortion Battle to Protect Right to Refuse (Christian Post, 051215)

After being denied by a lower court, three pro-life medical groups are in the process of asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to let them take part in a case which could have major implications for health care workers who are conscientious objectors to abortion.

The groups battling for the right to refuse to perform abortions against their conscience received additional help on Tuesday when their attorneys filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of their effort to be included as defendants in State of California v. United States.

The three non-profit groups are trying to intervene to protect an amendment to a federal “conscience” law that President George W. Bush signed last year and that is being challenged by the State of California. One of their reasons for taking part, they say, is that the government may have a broader interest in the case and may not argue their objections with their own religious, ethical and medical perspective.

The case pits the authority of the federal government with that of California. The state’s attorney general, Bill Lockyer, argues that the federal government is overstepping its bounds by giving people the option to avoid performing abortions. He says California should be able to determine for itself how to enforce its own laws. He also alleges that the federal law is a “backdoor” entrance to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

“The government shouldn’t force pro-life medical professionals to participate in abortions against their conscience. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the state of California wants to do by pursuing this lawsuit,” said Casey Mattox, an attorney with the Christian Legal Society Center for Law & Religious Freedom. He is one of several lawyers representing the three medical groups

The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is being made because a lower district court refused to allow the pro-life groups to enter as defendants in the suit. The organizations, which represent thousands of medical professionals, are the Christian Medical Association (CMA), the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Fellowship of Christian Physicians Assistants in California (FCPAC).

The CMA, which claims over 16,000 Christian physicians, opposes abortion based on Scripture and traditional Judeo-Christian medical ethics. According to the brief filed with the court on Tuesday, the group worked specifically to help pass the Weldon amendment, the provision to a conscience law at the center of the court battle.

The provision, which supporters say adds strength to a conscience law, states that government agencies cannot discriminate against health care providers who refuse to offer services related to abortion.

Hospitals, medical centers and health insurance providers are protected under the Weldon Amendment. There have previously been some states and local governments that have denied mergers to hospitals because of their refusal to provide abortions, according Knight-Ridder news.

The CMA, AAPLOG, and FCPA are fighting to keep the protection their members enjoy under the Weldon Amendment, the brief states.

An additional reason for including them in the lawsuit, their attorneys argue, is that their interests “may not be adequately represented” by the parties currently in the case.

They say the action being taken by the State of California affects them directly. In addition they say that letting in parties with a practical interest in the outcome of the case, like their own, can simplify future litigation that may result. Not only did they advocate for getting the Weldon Amendment passed, but they also have an interest in protecting it because they benefit from it, they say.

The lower district court disagreed because it said that “the Medical Groups do not object to providing medically necessary abortions.”

The medical groups, however, say the lower court misconstrued their statements.

They say they oppose abortion but “do not object to providing emergency services and care in circumstances involving cases of emergency medical situations” where the life of the mother is at risk.

While the groups’ members “may assist in providing abortion-related services in a hypothetical true medical emergency, i.e. where the mother’s life is seriously threatened, their members would certainly object to providing, assisting in, or referring for abortions in a large number of cases that California law would deem ‘medically necessary,’” stated the medical groups’ attorneys in the brief.

The recently argued Supreme Court case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New Hampshire on Nov. 30 also touched upon the issue of medical emergencies and how they should be handled by the law. Abortion provider Planned Parenthood objected to a parental notification law for teens in the Ayotte case because the law did not contain a clause that would allow doctors to perform abortions in cases of medical emergencies.

California’s district attorney was also cited in the brief expressing a similar concern about medical emergencies.

“The Weldon Amendment contains no express exception for situations where the life or health of the woman is at risk,” Lockyer wrote. Without it, the D.A. argued, the state of California cannot enforce disciplinary action against those who do not protect the life or health of the woman or girl.

For the pro-life medical groups seeking to intervene in the case, the definition of “health” is too general, finding many cases under the current definition to be objectionable.

If the California Attorney General prevails, the medical groups would be subject to criminal action against them and would be giving up their lawful, constitutional and ethical rights to refuse to participate in abortions that go against their conscience, say lawyers in the brief.

The brief also states that medical groups cannot say they would object to “every theoretical case” but they would object to many cases considered “emergencies” under current California law.

The attorneys for the groups also argue that since “major issues in this case are still to be determined” their decision to intervene in the case is still timely and a good reason why they should be allowed to become defendants in the case.

==============================

‘Anguish of abortion is worse than miscarriage’ (Daily Telegraph, 051212)

Women who have an abortion can suffer mental distress, anxiety, guilt and shame at least five years afterwards, researchers say today.

A study in Norway compared a group of 40 women who had suffered a miscarriage with 80 women who had an abortion, questioning them 10 days, six months, two years and five years after the event.

Although women who had a miscarriage suffered more mental distress up to six months after losing their baby, women who had an abortion experienced more mental distress at the two- and five-year intervals.

The study, by the University of Oslo, published in the journal BMC Medicine, measured the extent of intrusive thoughts, feelings and flashbacks about the end of pregnancy. The researchers also assessed how much women avoided thinking or talking about the event.

They found that after 10 days 47.5 per cent of women who had miscarried suffered from mental distress compared with 30 per cent of the abortion group. The proportion of women who had a miscarriage suffering distress fell to 22.5 per cent at six months and 2.6 per cent at two years and five years.

However, levels of distress remained high in the abortion group, falling to 25.7 per cent at six months and 18 per cent at two years but rising to 20 per cent at five years. The women in the abortion group also had high levels of anxiety, guilt, shame and relief.

Anna Pringle, from the pro-life charity Life, said the research confirmed that abortion can cause “massive” emotional suffering. “We believe it is time that the Government acknowledges the fact that abortion carries with it psychological risks that can affect women long after the actual event,” she said.

Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said it showed the need for continuing counselling and the importance of family planning. But a spokesman for the Family Planning Association said: “There is no evidence to suggest that abortion directly causes psychological trauma.

“Women can experience mixed feelings after an abortion such as relief or sadness. These are natural reactions and few women experience long-term problems.” [comments by Kwing Hung: simply ignoring evidence]

==============================

Ten million girls aborted as Indians seek male heirs (Independent New, UK, 060109)

At least 10 million female foetuses have been aborted in India over the past two decades by middle-class families determined to ensure they have male heirs.

The figure is revealed by a survey of more than a million homes published today which found that sex determination in pregnancy and selective abortion accounted for 500,000 missing girls each year.

Termination of pregnancy on the basis of sex was made illegal in India in 1994, but better-off families find ways round the law. Many couples believe their family is unbalanced without a son who will continue the family name and bloodline, earn money, look after the family and take care of his parents in old age in a country which has no social security system.

Population censuses in India show that the number of girls has been falling steadily for the past 20 years relative to the number of boys. For every 1,000 boys up to the age of six the number of girls dropped from 962 in 1981 to 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001.

Researchers say the most likely reason for the fall is the availability of ultrasound which allows parents to discover the gender of their child before birth and has been widespread in India for most of the past two decades.

Writing in The Lancet, which publishes the findings online today, Shirish Sheth of Breach Candy hospital, Mumbai, says: “To have a daughter is socially and emotionally accepted if there is a son, but a daughter’s arrival is often unwelcome if the couple already have a daughter.

“Daughters are regarded as a liability. Because she will eventually belong to the family of her future husband, expenditure on her will benefit others. In some communities where the custom of dowry prevails, the cost of her dowry could be phenomenal.”

Researchers from the University of Toronto in Canada and the Institute of Medical Education in Chandigarh, India, studied almost 134,000 births in 1997 among 6 million people living in 1.1 million households who are part of the ongoing Indian National Survey. They found the sex of the previous child born affected the sex ratio of the current birth, with fewer girls born to families who had yet to have a boy.

The effect was more than twice as great among educated mothers compared with those who were illiterate, but did not vary by religion.

Based on the natural sex ratio from other countries, the researchers estimated that 13.6 to 13.8 million girls should have been born in India in 1997 but the actual number was 13.1 million. The deficit amounts to between 590,000 and 740,000 female births.

Prabhat Jha and colleagues say: “We conservatively estimate that prenatal sex determination and selective abortion accounts for 500,000 missing girls yearly. If this practice has been common for most of the past two decades since access to ultrasound became widespread, then a figure of 10 million missing female births would not be unreasonable. Women who have already had one or two female children are clearly at highest risk.”

The research team found that when the first birth was a girl, at the second birth there were 759 girls born to every 1,000 boys. At the third birth, the sex ratio declined further to 719 girls to every 1,000 boys when the first two births were girls. By contrast, when the first or second child was a boy, the number of girls born at second or subsequent births exceeded the number of boys.

The practice of female foeticide has taken the place of infanticide and is extensive in China as well as India, aided by the development of ultrasound. Dr Sheth says: “Female infanticide of the past is refined and honed to a fine skill in this modern guise. It is ushered in earlier, more in urban areas and by the more educated ... A careful demographic analysis of actual and expected sex ratios shows that about 100 million girls are missing from the world - they are dead.”

==============================

Does Abortion Impact the Mental Health of Women? (Christian Post, 060112)

A new study from New Zealand, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, raises important questions about the impact of abortion on the mental health of women. Researchers found that those reporting abortion prior to age 21 had rates of mental disorders from age 21 to 25 that were over 1.5 times higher than the rates for women who did not become pregnant and those who became pregnant and did not have an abortion. The relationship between abortion and mental health problems persisted even when the researchers took into account the mental health status of the women prior to the abortion. The researchers concluded that “abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.”

Although virtually ignored in the United States, the study is provoking intense political debate over abortion in the lands down under. Predictably, pro-choice groups have criticized the study and New Zealand pro-life supporters have petitioned their government to review abortion laws and procedures.

Does the New Zealand study provide support for policies aimed at restricting access to abortion in the United States?

No, according to Nancy Felipe Russo, Regents Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at Arizona State University. The American Psychological Association referred me to Dr. Russo when I contacted them for comment on the New Zealand study. Dr. Russo pointed out that in 1969 the APA adopted the position that abortion should be considered a civil right. She added, “To pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguing for policies to restrict access to abortion.”

According to Dr. Russo, pro-choice researchers have a different agenda. “To someone who believes that the decision to have a child is a personal decision, protected by a right of privacy, evidence about negative effects of abortion is important, but for a different policy goal – to provide women accurate information so they can make informed choices in their pregnancy decision-making process.”

Thus, Dr. Russo considers the more interesting scientific question to be, “Why do women vary in their responses to abortion?” She believes for U.S. women, pre-existing mental health problems, partner relationship quality, whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted, and social support for the women’s decision are the key factors determining post-abortion mental distress, not the abortion itself.

She also believes that those who tell women they are wrong for having an abortion may create guilt and shame in some, but the cause of those feelings is rooted in social disapproval and not abortion per se.

Commenting on the Fergusson study, she said, “The study was not designed to separate the effects of abortion from simply having an unplanned pregnancy. It does show that women who have unplanned pregnancies terminating in abortion have a poorer mental health profile than other women. But this is not a new finding.” Dr. Russo asserts that studies linking abortion and mental distress have been poorly designed. She concludes, “There has yet to be a well designed study that finds that abortion itself contributes to increased risk for mental health problems.”

On the other hand, Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand report, said the results cannot be so easily dismissed. He explained, “We took into account social background, education, ethnicity, previous mental health, exposure to sexual abuse, and a series of other factors. It is true that we did not take into account specifically whether a pregnancy was wanted or not. However, this limitation is not sufficient grounds for dismissing the results.”

In his report, Professor Fergusson singled out the APA for criticism over the way that association has handled the entire body of research regarding post-abortion psychological adjustment in women. He pointed out that the APA’s briefing paper on abortion says, “Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates.”

In an interview, Professor Fergusson said he believes the APA’s conclusions are inconsistent with his research and imply greater certainty than is warranted by existing studies. Given the inadequate state of the research on the question of how abortion impacts mental health, he says the APA should take a much more tentative approach. In fact, Professor Fergusson is generally critical of the entire body of research on post-abortion distress saying, “It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures.”

Why is there such poor research on the impact of abortion on women?

According to Professor Fergusson, the political issues surrounding abortion crowd out scientific objectivity. In his view, “The abortion debate and its implications drive out the science.”

In her own way, Dr. Russo agrees, “There is a pro-life political agenda to prove abortion is harmful to women in order to overturn Roe v. Wade. The research that specifically aims to causally link mental health problems and abortion has been conducted by those opposed to abortion.”

So was Professor Fergusson out to link mental health problems with abortion?

“I’m immune from that charge because I’m pro-choice,” he says. In a remarkably candid statement, Professor Fergusson reveals that he was warned by fellow pro-choice researchers not to publish his work to avoid getting caught up in the debate. However, he believes that would not have been ethical. “I might rather not have found what we did, but we did find it and you can’t be intellectually honest and only publish results you like.”

Although Professor Fergusson agrees with Dr. Russo that abortion should be a civil right, he is critical of the APA’s rejection of the possibility that abortion per se might lead to adverse reactions for an undefined number of women. About his views, the researcher says, “It’s one thing to have a civil right to do something and quite another thing is the consequences of doing it. It may well turn out that the procedure has risks we did not foresee.”

It is the possibility of those “risks that we did not foresee” that should inspire less certainty and more research regarding abortion risks. In the mean time, health professionals might consider this: when women come forward, unprovoked, saying that their abortion decision continues to impact them, they might just be right.

_________________________________________________

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Public Policy and Psychology at Grove City College and the Center for Vision and Values.

==============================

Sandra D’s Swan Song: It could’ve been the blues. (National Review Online, 060119)

The Supreme Court’s decision today in the New Hampshire parental-notification case is, realistically, the best that New Hampshire could have hoped for under the circumstances. With the Court balanced 4-4 (assuming Chief Justice John Roberts votes with the other conservatives) on the permissibility of abortion regulations, and with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the middle, the justices settled for a narrow and unanimous ruling which does little to clarify the numerous confusions surrounding this law. By reversing the lower court and sending it back for further consideration, the decision preserves the status quo while the Court is in transition, and the federal courts are reined in without the Court’s abortion jurisprudence being changed.

The Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice O’Connor, with no dissents or concurring opinions, said that the lower court went too far in striking down the law, when the law could be constitutionally enforced in almost all circumstances. The decision throws out the overreaching decision of the federal appeals court and sends it back for reconsideration, and it suggests that New Hampshire, sooner or later, will be able to require parental notice for the vast majority of adolescent abortions. The unanimous decision also said that the states “unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy.”

Although the Court did some minimal house-cleaning, the decision does nothing to resolve the standard of review for laws about parental notice of abortion, nor does it alleviate the confusion of the lower courts on this issue. So it leaves in place for the foreseeable future the the mess brought about by the Court.

Citing Casey at one point, the Court said that “a State may not restrict access to abortions that are ‘necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for preservation of the life or health of the mother’”. But this decision does not go much further in protecting abortion, if at all, than Casey itself did. Again, the status quo, for better or for worse, is preserved.

The potential downside of the decision is that it relies on First Amendment overbreadth cases in discussing the issue of remedy. Abortion advocates will undoubtedly use this to argue that the Court has treated abortion as a First Amendment right. But this surely would have sparked dissent from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas if this were seen as anything like a dictum.

It is ironic that Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts figured that the only way to achieve a quick, narrow, unanimous decision, was to assign the decision to her — any other author might well have sparked dissents and drawn out the decision for many months. However, Justice O’Connor is the author of the mess that the Supreme Court has caused since 1992 in its abortion decisions, sparking an increasing number of opinions by lower court judges (the most recent by federal district Judge Sandra Beckwith from Ohio in September) expressing a great deal of frustration with the Court’s confusing decisions, and asking the Court to clean up the mess. The Court refused to do so in 2000 in Carhart, and, six years later, it has refused to do so in Ayotte. Justice O’Connor’s confusion has been unanimously preserved in her latest judgment.

Justice O’Connor concludes her opinion with an additional irony that will simply breed more confusion. The New Hampshire statute contains a very clear and explicit severability clause that practically anticipated the federal courts’ potential overreaching. The statute stated that “if any provision...or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions or applications...which can be given effect....” After quoting this, Justice O’Connor says that it is nevertheless an “open question” whether the New Hampshire legislature would want the rest of the statute enforced if the statute were found unconstitutional in a few applications. If that severability clause is not clear and explicit enough for federal judges, what will be? Instead of ordering the lower federal court to implement this clear and explicit expression of intent by the New Hampshire legislature, the Supreme Court adds yet another twist to the confusion.

So lower federal courts will continue to be confused and frustrated, and the Court leaves its growing mess to be cleared up in the future. All the while, the status quo serves the interests of abortion clinics and their advocates by keeping state legislative regulations like parental notice and informed consent bottled up in courts for years.

Wednesday’s decision in Ayotte indicates that there aren’t five justices on the Court who are concerned enough about confused lower court judges and the will of the people expressed through popular legislation to do anything to resolve the confusion. A few days before Christmas, the media reported the story of some practical joker who left a beautifully wrapped package on someone’s door step. Inside was a dead rat. The Court is giving a similar gift to welcome Judge Alito.

— Clarke D. Forsythe is attorney and director of the Project in Law & Bioethics at Americans United for Life, Chicago.

==============================

Marching for life and against the “Negro Project” (townhall.com, 060123)

by La Shawn Barber [KH: a black lady]

On January 8, 2006, I attended the Justice Sunday III conference at Greater Exodus Baptist Church, a predominantly black church in Philadelphia. Reverend Herbert Lusk preached passionately against abortion and called it murder. Today, I will attend the Blogs4Life Conference, then head to the National Mall for the March for Life rally. I hope to see a large number of the kind of people who nodded in agreement with Rev. Lusk’s sermon.

Black women are three times as likely to have abortions as their white counterparts. Blacks and Hispanics are about 25% of the population, yet they account for 57% of all abortions. Aside from the fact that abortion is murder, there are two very important reasons why black people should be represented in great numbers at the March for Life rally:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was the ultimate white supremacist

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America makes a futile effort to deny that its founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Eugenics is a pseudo-science that claims some races are genetically superior and more fit to survive than others. As a eugenicist, Sanger’s goals were to discourage the “unfit” and “inferior” from reproducing. In her 1922 book Pivot of Civilization, she called for segregation of “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted” and sterilization of “genetically inferior races.”

Can you guess which race in particular she considered genetically inferior?

Sanger even suggested that the federal government pay “obviously unfit parents” not to have children and advocated limiting and discouraging “overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

In 1916, Sanger founded the Birth Control League, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood. She appointed a man named Lothrop Stoddard, a Nazi sympathizer, fellow eugenicist and author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy to the Board of Directors. At some point, after Adolph Hitler’s atrocities against the Jews became known, Sanger changed the league’s name to Planned Parenthood, because “birth control” was too closely associated with eugenics.

More controversial is Sanger’s “Negro Project,” devised in 1939. The eugenicist set out to implicate black ministers and doctors in her efforts to spread her message of contraception, sterilization, and abortion in the black community. “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it occurs to any of their more rebellious members,” she wrote.

People in poorer areas, particularly the South, were producing “alarmingly more than their share” of babies. Sanger was able to enlist black men such as W.E.B. Dubois and Dr. Adam Clayton Powell (a minister) to her cause. Even Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a part to play. In 1966, he received an award from Planned Parenthood, writing, “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts.”

Margaret Sanger’s project worked better than she could have hoped. Not only do black women have abortions at higher rates, a solid 90% of black voters shamelessly cast ballots for the Democratic Party, an unabashed supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood targets minority women

Sanger would be very proud of what her modest Birth Control League has become.

The Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population figures from the 2000 Census:

“In nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of the comparisons, the communities with a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic had a higher percentage of blacks than the state did as a whole.

In Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio, the communities containing all of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics had much higher black populations than their respective states, while Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming — all of which have low black populations — have none of the organization’s abortion facilities.

Two states with high black populations — Louisiana (32.5%) and Mississippi (36.3%) — also have no Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, due in large part to the strength of pro-life forces in that part of the nation and state laws that restrict access to abortion, according to Jim Sedlak, executive director of STOPP International.”

Even after her death, Sanger’s Negro Project lives on. Black ministers and so-called civil rights organizations that support Planned Parenthood ensure that minority women remain targets. Carlton W. Veazey is a minister, supporter of Planned Parenthood, and president and CEO of an organization once called the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, now disguised as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).

Veazey founded a program called the Black Church Initiative, purportedly in response to the high pregnancy rate among black teens. According to RCRC’s web site, the initiative “encourages and assists African American clergy and laity in addressing teen childbearing, sexuality education, unintended pregnancies, and other reproductive health issues within the context of African American culture and religion.”

For the first time in its 95-year history, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which once fought to protect black lives, took an official position in favor of abortion in 2004.

While black liberals and so-called men of God continue to align themselves with Margaret Sanger’s “offspring,” I intend to campaign for the protection of all unborn babies, no matter what race or genetic inheritance.

==============================

Uninformed Consent: Abortion and Mental Health Consequences (Christian Post, 060121)

Recent research from Norway and New Zealand has reported an association between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. Although the two investigations are not the first to suggest such a relationship, they are well-designed studies suggesting that abortion may be linked to negative mental health reactions for some women.

The Norwegian study, published online by the journal BMC Medicine, compared the experiences of women who had miscarriages with those who had abortions. Six months after pregnancy termination, women who had a miscarriage were more distressed than women who had abortions. However, after 5 years, women who had abortions were more likely to suffer anxiety and intrusive thoughts of the event than women who miscarried.

The New Zealand study, published by the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts, were more likely to occur among women who had an abortion than women who had never been pregnant or pregnant women who did not terminate the pregnancy. The study concluded, “Abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.”

Are women being advised of these risks?

To explore this question, I examined consent information developed by affiliates of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. One such informed consent form, posted on the website of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, delineates possible emotional reactions from abortion:

Emotional reaction — Most women report a sense of relief after abortion. Some women also experience sadness, guilt, or other emotional reactions, although these feelings usually go away quickly. Serious psychiatric disturbances (such as psychosis or serious depression) occur rarely and less frequently after abortion than they do after childbirth.

To help evaluate this statement, I asked David Reardon, of the Elliot Institute for his review. Dr. Reardon has conducted several research investigations into the psychological impact of abortion. Most recently, in the journal Sleep, his team reported that sleep disturbances are more frequent in women who abort versus women who carry a pregnancy full-term. The differences were observed up to three years post-abortion for many women he studied.

About the Planned Parenthood consent information, Dr. Reardon said, “The Planned Parenthood statement is inaccurate and misleading. Most women reporting relief also report negative reactions. Indeed, the combined number of women reporting negative reactions far exceeds the number reporting relief. Also, relief has never been carefully defined. It includes relief from fear that parents will find out about the pregnancy, relief that the boyfriend will no longer be pushing for the abortion, and other temporary advantages. The same women feeling relief from immediate problems may also experience extreme sense of grief, shame, or traumatic reactions.”

Dr. Reardon also argues that existing research has not shown any specific benefits from abortion. “The benefits are simply presumed. The promise that abortion of unintended pregnancies would reduce anxiety, depression, and child abuse has simply not been fulfilled.”

Some may disregard Dr. Reardon’s perspective because he openly describes abortion as both dangerous to women and unfair to unborn children. So I asked Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study, if the Planned Parenthood disclaimer information is accurate and sufficient. Professor Fergusson is politically pro-choice.

Dr. Fergusson replied that the Planned Parenthood information “is both sparse and disappointing in its presentation. Women need to be advised that compared to women who give birth, those having abortions appear to have a moderate increase in rates of later mental health problems.”

Regarding post-abortion relief, Professor Fergusson replied, “While abortion is likely to mitigate some of the adverse consequences of unplanned pregnancies, including educational disadvantage, reduced income and welfare dependence, there is no clear evidence of mental health benefits.”

To be fair, not all experts think the potential mental health consequences of abortion warrant serious concern. Leslie Cameron of the American Psychological Association’s Public Policy Office told me that the “APA has a long history monitoring research related to psychological aspects of abortion, beginning with a policy resolution adopted in 1969, which identified access to abortion as a mental health and child welfare issue.” According to the APA, not having access to an abortion is potentially more hazardous to mental health than having one.

She pointed out that the APA examined the evidence about the mental health impact of abortion in 1989 and “should the preponderance of good science indicate a need to revise policy, APA has mechanisms in place to do that.” The APA briefing paper on the subject says: “Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates.”

The APA briefing sounds very much like the Planned Parenthood statement but very different from Professor Fergusson’s assessment of the current research. His view is that “women need to be advised that there have been ongoing and as yet unresolved debates about the extent to which abortion may be associated with adverse mental health outcomes.”

It seems to me that when researchers of pro-life and pro-choice perspectives suggest that “the preponderance of good science indicates a need to revise policy,” it is time to rev up those mechanisms the APA has in place.

After all, 1989 was a long time ago.

_________________________________________________

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values, Grove City College.

==============================

Pro-life laws save lives (townhall.com, 060124)

by Rebecca Hagelin

Unanimous verdicts by the Supreme Court are rare. Yet, last week, we witnessed one — and in an abortion case, no less.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood concerned a law that New Hampshire passed in 2003 requiring minors to give parents 48-hours notice before an abortion. Although the law contains some restrictions (e.g., the requirement was waived if a judge decided that the minor in question was mature enough to give informed consent), it lacked an explicit health exception. That’s been the sticking point in past parental-notification cases, so the justices told a lower court to decide whether the New Hampshire legislature would have passed the law if a health exception had been included.

Neither side in the abortion debate was entirely happy with the verdict. But it raises an interesting question: Is such pro-life legislation effective? Do parental-notification laws, partial-birth abortion bans and informed-consent laws make a difference? According to a new Heritage Foundation paper, the answer is yes.

This isn’t merely the author’s opinion or a case of wishful thinking. Michael New, an assistant professor in political science at the University of Alabama, carefully and scientifically analyzed the numbers using a methodology that’s included with the paper. His research began with these two facts: During the 1990s, the number of abortions dropped by around 18% (after rising in the 1970s and ‘80s) even as the amount of pro-life legislation mentioned above — parental-notification laws, etc. — increased substantially:

• In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed consent laws. By 2000, 27 states had informed consent laws in effect.

• In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion. By 2000, 12 states had bans or restrictions in effect.

• In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental involvement statutes. By 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.

Is there a connection between more pro-life legislation and declining abortion levels? That’s what Professor New wanted to prove. There certainly appears to be one, but as he notes, “correlation is not the same thing as causation.” It could be just a coincidence. Or it might be this: The states that are enacting pro-life legislation have shifted toward more conservative values. The women who live there are seeking fewer abortions anyway, so the legislation isn’t having that big an effect.

But we don’t have to throw up our hands. As New points out, there’s a built-in way to judge whether the laws are making a difference. In some states, courts have struck down the pro-life legislation in question; in others, obviously, it has become law. By comparing the two groups, we can find which has a greater effect: changes in values or changes in law. If it’s a shift in values, then states that have had their pro-life laws nullified will show a decline in abortion similar to states where the laws are allowed to take effect.

I’ll have to refer you to Professor New’s paper for the technical explanation of how he did it, but the bottom line is this: The laws made a real difference. As New puts it:

Overall, this research finds that value shifts have little impact on the incidence of abortion. Conversely, enacted legislation results in statistically significant reductions in abortion rates and ratios. This provides even more evidence that state pro-life legislation has been effective in reducing the number of abortions in a given state. Furthermore, it provides additional support for the idea that pro-life legislation was partly responsible for the substantial decreases in abortion rates and ratios during the 1990s.

Several positive conclusions can be drawn from this. One is that pro-lifers shouldn’t let their discouragement over Roe v. Wade’s 33-year history as settled law keep them from pursuing laws that will at least cut down on the number of abortions. It shouldn’t be “all or nothing.”

And since these laws work, pro-lifers should make every effort to make them as widespread as possible. This shows the good that people who live “outside the Beltway” can accomplish when they change things for themselves, rather than wait passively for somebody in Washington to do it for them.

Just think: Working with their state officials, citizens around this great nation of ours have helped cut down on the number of abortions. No matter what you think of how Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood was decided, that’s a clear-cut victory for life. Let’s pray there are many more.

==============================

Sleep Disorders Increase After Abortion Says New Study (WorldNetDaily, 060125)

SPRINGFIELD, IL, January 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study published in Sleep, the official journal of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies, has found that women who experienced abortion were more likely to be treated for sleep disorders or disturbances compared to women who gave birth.

The researchers, David Reardon of the Springfield, Ill.-based Elliot Institute and Priscilla Coleman of the University of Bowling Green, examined medical records for 56,284 low-income women in California who gave birth or underwent an abortion in the first six months of 1989. Researchers examined data for medical treatment for these women from July 1988 to June 1994 and excluded women who had been treated for sleep disturbances or disorders in the 12 to 18 months prior to abortion or delivery.

The findings showed that, up to four years following abortion or delivery, women who underwent abortions were more likely to be treated for sleep disorders following an induced abortion compared to a birth. The difference was greatest during the first 180 days after the end of the pregnancy, when aborting women were approximately twice as likely to seek treatment for sleep disorders. Significant differences between aborting and child bearing women persisted for three years.

Numerous studies have shown that trauma victims will often experience sleep difficulties. The authors believe their findings support a growing consensus that some women may have traumatic reactions to abortion.

A recent study published in the Medical Science Monitor in 2004, found that 65% of American women studied experienced multiple symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which they attributed to their abortions, and over 14% reported all the symptoms necessary for a clinical diagnosis of abortion induced PTSD. That study also found that 23% of the women reported sleeping difficulties they attributed to their abortions and 30% reported nightmares.

According to Reardon, a co-author of both studies, the prior study was limited by its reliance on women’s self reported symptoms. “This new record- based study examines actual treatment rates for sleep disorders which have been confirmed by the treating physicians and it also has the advantage of employing an appropriate control group.”

Reardon pointed out that the new study was limited by the fact that the authors did not have access to data on sleep disorders among women who had not been pregnant. He said more research is needed to see if women who have abortions are more likely to experience specific symptoms of sleep disturbance and whether those symptoms may be markers for PTSD and other psychiatric reactions.

Other recent studies have found that women with a history of abortion are subsequently at increased risk for depression, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, poor bonding with and parenting of later children, and psychiatric hospitalization.

Reardon and Coleman encourage mental health care providers to regularly inquire about prior pregnancy loss. Doing so, Reardon says, will “give women permission” to discus unresolved grief issues and may thereby improve treatment of sleep disorders, anxiety, and other psychiatric problems linked to abortion.

==============================

The Right to Refuse vs. The Right to Abort (Christian Post, 051219)

A clash between interests – namely the interest of a medical professional who feels he or she should not be forced to perform procedures or dole out drugs that violate his or her personal beliefs, and the interest of the one seeking the procedure or drugs – has escalated in recent weeks as officials in several states mount efforts to make the controversial “morning-after pill” easier to get.

“Doctors are pitted against pharmacists and the FDA, druggists are fighting their employers, drugstores are fighting state regulators, and states are challenging the federal government,” noted Daniel C. Vock of the Kansas City infoZine.

Last month, Illinois pharmacist Rich Quayle lost his $100,000-a-year job at a Walgreen Co. pharmacy in Madison County when he refused to sign a pledge for his employer promising to dispense the morning-after pill, also known as Plan B, in accordance with a new state rule. He made no apologies for refusing to violate his religious beliefs and dispense emergency contraception.

“People try to paint us as being religious zealots,” said Quayle recently, according to the Associated Press. “I have firm religious beliefs, and I choose not to destroy a human being. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad moral stance to take.”

Editorial cartoonist Ted Rall, in a recent column playfully titled “The War Over Our Genitals” and subtitled “Pharmacists and Doctors Turn Judgmental,” addressed the question of how society can reconcile two competing, “yet equally compelling interests.”

In discussing the issue, Rall – who seemingly attempted to give a neutral suggestion on the matter – compared the decision of Quayle and those like him to a doctor’s decision to refuse to perform optional cosmetic surgery.

“If I were a doctor, I would refuse to perform these operations or refer patients to a physician that did,” he wrote, describing such operations as “degrading and obscene, symptoms of a shallow society’s contempt for natural beauty and aging.”

However, Rall also said those on the other hand should be able to walk into a clinic “with the reasonable expectation” of getting the help they seek.

While it may be true that optional cosmetic surgeries – such as face lifts, “tummy tucks,” and breast enlargements – are questionable over their superficial worth, they are certainly not comparable to the dispensing of drugs engineered to put an end to an unborn child. Life is not something so trivial.

It is one thing to distort a creation of God; it is another to abort a creation of God.

If anything, it should be the freedom to cut off life that should be put on trial, not the freedom to protect it.

==============================

Brokeback Syndrome—More Than One Way Off the Mountain (Christian Post, 060213)

By now, the plot line of Brokeback Mountain is well known. For those just returning from another planet, here it is: in the early 1960s, two young, male sheep herders, Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar become sexually involved for a summer on Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming. Then, with no strings attached, they move on to marry heterosexually. After a few years they reunite and go on periodic fishing trips together where their fishing lines never get wet. Eventually Ennis’ marriage falls apart and Jack dies via suspicious circumstances.

Brokeback Mountain has been billed by some as a universal love story. For instance, the Los Angeles Times said the movie depicts a love story that “deals with the uncharted, mysterious ways of the human heart just as so many mainstream films have before it. The two lovers here just happen to be men.”

Others disagree. Daniel Mendelsohn, in a New York Times column, declared, “Both narratively and visually, Brokeback Mountain is a tragedy about the specifically gay phenomenon of the “closet”—about the disastrous emotional and moral consequences of erotic self-repression and of the social intolerance that first causes and then exacerbates it.” In other words, Brokeback Mountain is not a universal love story, but rather a tragic gay story portraying the social oppression and “erotic self-repression” of homosexuals who hide or suppress their feelings.

On the heels of Mr. Mendelsohn’s essay is another New York Times op-ed by Dan Savage generalizing the fictional Brokeback plotline to all men who experience attractions to other men but desire a heterosexual marriage. Call it the Brokeback Syndrome.

Throwing down a challenge, Mr. Savage writes: “…if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?”

Is Mr. Savage correct? Is it impossible for some men who experience attractions to other men to buck the Brokeback Syndrome? If even possible, should they? Should societal norms encourage men in such situations to leave their marriages and come out as gay if they experience persistent attractions to the same sex? According to writers for the official newspaper of the Brokeback Buzz, “erotic self-repression” is so destabilizing that being an ex-gay cowboy is not only impossible but the attempt invariably produces “disastrous emotional and moral consequences.”

Don’t tell that to Rob and Lois Winslow of Lafayette, CO. For approximately 25 years, Rob was one of those closeted people pitied so by the Times’ writers. Prior to marrying, Rob had disclosed his same-sex attractions to his fiance’ Lois, but they went ahead with marriage. About 10 years ago, Rob confessed to Lois that his struggle had not ceased. Their world was turned upset down. Although Lois was supportive and loving, the road they traveled together to save their marriage was painful.

Rob is not a cowboy nor does he play one on TV. Rather, he is a businessman who had come to the decision that he was indeed a gay man who was about to declare it. Concerning the Brokeback Syndrome, Rob said, “I really felt that way. I wanted to leave my family and find Mr. Right.”

In December 1995, after 2 children and 15 years of marriage, Rob set off on a business trip he hoped would turn into a weekend of sex with a male co-worker. What he found instead was an encounter with a man who described what he called “sexual healing.” Not the Marvin Gaye kind, but rather the co-worker described how he had experienced healing from compulsive sexuality and a renewed commitment to his marriage. Rob was intrigued. “When I learned that there was another way, I wanted to know more. I always felt a need for men in my life and had settled for a sexual closeness. My friend offered me a different option.”

His pursuit of that option came through various counselors, religious commitment and eventually involved an Exodus International ministry. He told me recently in an interview that he has not had a homosexual experience in 10 years and says, “I am no longer attracted to men at all.”

Concerning men experiencing the Brokeback Syndrome, Rob says he can empathize with their situation. “I think I can relate to them. These (same-sex) feelings seemed like they had always been a part of my life.” Now however, Rob sees this issue from a different perspective. “Although I think I understand what men who relate to Jack and Ennis are feeling, I think it is an unnecessary choice to give up on their marriage commitment. What I have now is so much better.”

Even though Rob doesn’t experience attractions to men now, the point of his story is not to generalize claims about sexual orientation change to others. Rather, the Winslows see Rob’s experience as demonstrating that love is more than eroticism. Their choice to preserve family for each other and their children was a loving thing to do, even when faced with a season of “erotic self-repression.”

As far as married men struggling with the Brokeback Syndrome, Rob does not recommend it. He just wants people to know there is more than one way off the mountain.

_________________________________________________

Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values, Grove City College.

==============================

Supreme Court Plunges Into Abortion Debate (WorldNetDaily, 060221)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito’s nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O’Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote vote in a New Hampshire case reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother’s health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman’s health.

==============================

Who’s Afraid of an Argument? The Insecurities of the Abortion Rights Movement (Mohler, 060220)

“Don’t waste time talking to anti-choice people.” That is the straightforward instruction provided by NARAL Pro-Choice America in its “Campus Kit for Pro-Choice Organizers.” The director of the Pro-Choice Action Network answered a question about why his group does not engage in conversation with pro-life advocates with this statement: “Along with most other pro-choice groups, we do not engage in debates with the anti-choice.” In other words, they are scared to death of a genuine argument.

This point is made abundantly clear in a recent article by Jon A. Shields of the Center on Religion and Democracy at the University of Virginia. Shields’ article, “Bioethical Politics,” is published in the March/April 2006 issue of Society, one of the nation’s most influential social science journals.

“If the conventional wisdom is correct, the religious right is once again corrupting American democracy by pushing religious dogma over and against science and reason,” Shields asserts. Nevertheless, he goes on to prove that the “conventional wisdom” is anything but wise.

“These critics . . . have got it almost nearly backwards,” he argues. “Ironically, it is actually the secular left that has undermined a national discussion on vital bioethical questions—such as when a human organism deserves state protection—by depicting them as fundamentally religious and therefore beyond legitimate public debate.” Another of Shields’ assertions is likely to catch considerable attention: “Even more surprising, the religious right increasingly embraces sophisticated philosophical arguments in its effort to convince Americans from across the political spectrum that embryonic stem cell research and abortion are not religious issues.” Or, that they are not merely religious issues.

Shields is a keen observer of the contemporary scene, both in terms of the cultural debate and of the moral significance of the arguments offered by both sides in the abortion controversy. As pro-lifers attempt to assert arguments on behalf of the sanctity of human life in the public square, abortion rights advocates stalwartly refuse to debate or discuss the issue. One technique used by the pro-abortion movement is to label all opposition to abortion or stem cell research as “religious,” and therefore beyond legitimate debate or state interest.

“Proponents of abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research correctly recognize that if the moral status of embryos and fetuses is solely a religious question, it is properly quarantined to the private realm of faith. It cannot be a matter of public political debate. Any effort to restrict abortion or stem cell research, therefore, is an unjustified assertion of sectarian metaphysics,” he explains. Thus, the pro-abortion movement must, in order to maintain their public argument, assert that any concern about the moral status of an embryo or an unborn human child is simply “a religious question.”

Shields demonstrates how this technique plays out in the realm of politics and national debate. The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry argued that his own personal pro-life view would have no impact on public policy because it was merely an “article of faith.” Of course, describing Kerry’s personal position as “pro-life” stretches the term more than is useful, but the candidate did argue that he was personally opposed to abortion (at least in some vague sense) but believed that it should be fully legal as a matter of public policy. Why? Because his “personal” beliefs about abortion were merely matters of “faith.”

Similarly, NARAL and Planned Parenthood have argued that all decisions related to abortion are inherently religious. As they have famously argued, the abortion decision should be left to a “woman, her doctor, and her God.”

Shields also documents the influence of groups such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, “which concludes that abortion decisions are properly left to individuals because ‘of the wide range of religious beliefs on this sensitive issue.’”

The argument that opposition to abortion—or the very question of when human life deserves protection—is inherently religious even made its way into the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun argued that philosophy and science were fundamentally unhelpful in determining the morality of abortion, and that the court therefore should not go so far as to “speculate as to the answer.”

Meanwhile, in terms of public debate, “the left routinely promotes a pro-choice resolution to bioethical conflicts by framing them as religious in nature,” Shields explains. In doing so, the left accuses the right of pushing theologically based arguments. Nevertheless, Shields asserts that the left “actually struggles to find evidence for this claim.”

The largest part of Shields’ article concerns the intellectual maturation of the pro-life movement and its engagement with philosophers and scientists on the key questions of human life and its protection. In particular, he considers the influence of groups like Stand to Reason, a Christian organization dedicated to promoting credible arguments against abortion in the public square, along with other apologetic interests. Stand to Reason works with the “Justice for All” program that takes pro-life volunteers onto college and university campuses in order to foster philosophical discussions about abortion. Shields provides a fascinating view into the work of Stand to Reason and Justice for All, featuring the arguments offered by Steve Wagner in his “Pro-Life 101” seminar. Wagner shows his students how to argue the case for a pro-life position, demonstrating the inherent weaknesses in the pro-abortion argument.

Wagner, for example, argues that newborn babies are more developed than fetuses. “But then, Wagner added, the adolescent is also far more developed than the newborn and yet society values both lives equally. The burden for pro-choice advocates, therefore, is to demonstrate that the change a human undergoes as she develops from a fetus to a newborn [is] so different from all future developments that it alters her ontological status entirely. They must also show that the value of a human being depends on the characteristics that he or she acquires rather than on the kind of thing that it is,” Shields reports.

Significantly, the approach promoted by these organizations points to the importance of raising the right questions. Is it possible that America has allowed the intentional destruction of over forty million human beings since Roe v. Wade in 1973? “Framed this way,” Shields explains, “pro-life advocates want to place the philosophical burden of proof on the other side even as they offer their own evidence for the value of fetal life.”

The article describes what happened when JFA staff and volunteers showed up on the Auraria campus in downtown Denver—home to the University of Colorado, the Metropolitan State College, and the Community College of Denver. The program set up its characteristically large displays that featured pictures of aborted fetuses throughout the process of gestation.

As expected, many of the students walking by the exhibit, especially women, responded with initial disdain and little interest in conversation. Nevertheless, the JFA volunteers and staff were eventually able to engage many of these students in conversation about abortion and the meaning of human life.

The pro-life advocates “labored to focus their conversation on ontological questions,” Shields recalled. This is important, for it indicates the centrality of questions of being to the controversy over abortion, stem cell research, and other urgent biomedical questions. Is this embryo a human life or not? Is the fetus something other than human until at some point it magically becomes a human being? “For most Auraria students,” Shields reports, “it appeared that this intellectual exercise was altogether new and that most had never thought about the ontology of the fetus before.”

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Shields’ article is his demonstration of the fact that pro-abortion advocates are generally unwilling even to enter a serious debate on the question. As he explains, “pro-choice student groups refuse to debate their opponents despite the persistent efforts of pro-life students.” Most of the pro-choice activists “seem either unwilling or unprepared to confront the growing philosophical sophistication of pro-life advocates.”

All this points to a most interesting contemporary dilemma. Conservatives are pressing for a revolution on behalf of human life and its sanctity while the left is determined to hold fast to abortion rights and knows that any serious questioning of its positions will put it into big trouble.

Beyond this, Shields demonstrates that pro-abortion activists have alienated themselves from any sustained bioethical debate. “Such unwillingness to engage in public deliberation, moreover, will likely be perpetuated by yet another political irony,” he explains. “Whereas many religious conservatives have comfortably embraced distinguished allies in the academy, the left cannot easily do so. First, entering this bioethical debate makes it difficult to argue simultaneously that science and philosophy cannot shed light on human ontology, which has been the principal pillar that undergirds a woman’s right to choose and stem cell research. Second, the left actually has a serious intellectual problem.”

As Shields explains, that “serious intellectual problem” is, as articulated by Rosamund Rhodes, the pro-choice director of bioethics at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, the abortion rights movement must explain “how or why the fetus is transformed into a franchised ‘person’ by moving from inside the womb to outside or by reaching a certain level of development.” This important article by John A. Shields deserves careful attention. If nothing else, he reminds the pro-life movement of our responsibility to offer serious arguments and engage in serious debate. The very fact that the other side is increasingly resistant to debate indicates that we are winning—at least in terms of putting the abortion rights movement into a defensive posture. Intellectual defensiveness is a sign of the inherent weakness of the pro-choice movement.

So, the next time you hear a media report on the abortion “debate” in America, remember that the abortion rights movement is increasingly resistant to any debate. They are literally afraid to debate, and for good reason. They are fast running out of arguments.

==============================

Supreme Court rules against abortion clinics: Leading pro-life activists prevail in case brought by NOW (WorldNetDaily, 060228)

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled for the third time in favor of pro-life activists who were sued by the National Organization for Women for their aggressive demonstrations at abortion clinics.

The high court said federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban the protests.

As WorldNetDaily reported, NOW lost its second round in the Supreme Court in 2003 in a decisive 8-1 ruling. The feminist group charged that protests organized by Scheidler’s Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League amounted to extortion under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

“Naturally I am gratified to be vindicated once again by the United States Supreme Court,” said Scheidler. “I am mystified that I had to go to the trouble and expense of appearing before the Supreme Court three times.”

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion today Congress did not intend to create “a freestanding physical violence offense” in the federal extortion law.

Scheidler and the other defendants were supported in the case by an unusual coalition of about activists and groups that included actor Martin Sheen and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who argued similar lawsuits could be used to stop their efforts.

Scheidler’s attorney Thomas Brejcha said, “This unanimous ruling is not just a victory for pro-life activists, but for anyone who chooses to exercise his First Amendment rights to effect social change.”

The 2003 decision had reversed the RICO charge against Scheidler’s group and vacated a nationwide injunction and damage award of $257,780 on the pro-life defendants.

Nevertheless, the feminist group – which has stated an intent to crush groups opposing abortion – stood to collect $1.2 million in damages and legal fees from Scheidler and his colleagues.

The Supreme Court returned the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to carry out the 2003 decision, but NOW convinced a three-judge panel to send it back to district court, where the high court’s ruling could be overturned.

NOW’s persistence in the case despite the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling coincided with its stated determination to shut down pro-life groups.

In a 1998 statement that referred to the Scheidler case, NOW’s former president, Patricia Ireland, said, “We will continue our litigation strategy until the terrorists are bankrupt and out of business.”

Ireland also was a NOW attorney working on the case before she became head of the organization.

The Supreme Court said in its 2003 ruling all of the 117 alleged acts of extortion against Scheidler and his group “must be reversed,” including four alleged acts of violence. But NOW attorney Fay Clayton convinced a 7th Circuit panel those four “acts” should be considered separately.

The case was further complicated by the fact the jury in the 1998 trial was not required to reveal which acts it deemed violent. Furthermore, Pro-Life Action League presented evidence, including photographs and news footage, that indicated some of the key witnesses lied.

The case began in June 1986 when NOW filed a federal lawsuit against Scheidler and two other pro-life activists. NOW charged that Scheidler and his colleagues interfered with interstate commerce in an attempt to shut down abortion clinics.

Three years later, NOW incorporated RICO violations into its complaint and expanded the scope to a class-action suit that included every woman in the United States seeking an abortion – past, present or future – and all abortion clinics. Operation Rescue, two members of Scheidler’s group – Tim Murphy and Andy Scholberg – and another 100 alleged “co-conspirators” also were named as defendants.

==============================

Most Americans believe abortion wrong: Poll also shows 61% know someone who has had procedure (WorldNetDaily, 060307)

With the abortion debate in focus following South Dakota’s new law challenging the Roe decision, a new poll finds 55% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time.

Just 32% disagree, according to the survey by Rasmussen Reports.

Americans under 50 are slightly more likely than their elders to believe abortion is morally wrong, the poll found.

As WorldNetDaily reported, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law Monday a highly restrictive bill aimed ultimately at overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, banning abortion in nearly every case and punishing doctors who perform one with a $5,000 fine and five years in prison. It allows abortion only in the event a mother’s life is in danger, making no exception for rape or incest. The legislation is expected to be held up by court challenges, however.

The Rasmussen study found three out of five Americans, 61%, know someone who has had an abortion. Among those people, 55% believe the procedure is morally wrong most of the time.

“This fact suggests that many Americans are faced with the emotional complexity of an issue that activists on both sides want to paint in simplistic, theoretical terms,” Rasmussen comments.

The survey also revealed 47% of Americans believe it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion in the U.S. Just 21% say it’s too hard, while 21% believe the balance is about right.

Among respondents who believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time, 74% think it’s too easy for a woman to get an abortion.

Among those who accept abortion morally, 49% believe it’s too hard for a woman to get an abortion.

“The fact that a solid plurality of Americans believe it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion helps explain the strong public support for legislation mandating waiting periods before an abortion and other limitations that stop short of an outright ban on the procedure,” Rasmussen says.

The poll found only 50% of Americans have followed news stories about the legislation passed in South Dakota and just 21% are following the issue very closely.

A Rasmussen survey in South Dakota indicated the state’s voters are evenly divided on the issue, with 45% in support of the ban and 45% opposed.

==============================

South Dakota’s monkey wrench (townhall.com, 060307)

by William F. Buckley

There is furtive glee in the eyes of such as Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The reason for it is that she calculates that the effrontery of South Dakota’s legislature will bring on massive retaliation by the Supreme Court.

Chinese vigilantes rejoiced a few weeks ago when a group of dissenters published a call for diminished censorship. They were confident about what would happen, and it did: Beijing brought on reinvigorated party-line censorship. Ms. Keenan and some of her followers in NARAL Pro-Choice America figure that what South Dakota has done will compel the Supreme Court to act — and perhaps in such a way as to smash the little signs of life in the pro-life moment which, in South Dakota, gave rise to regicidal inclinations.

The governor of South Dakota, Michael Rounds, signed a bill that would outlaw the practice of abortion except in certain extreme cases. In signing, he said things which, a generation ago, would have been thought too routine to notice, let alone pause over, but today are fighting words. “The true test of a civilization,” he said, “is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.”

Here in three sentences the governor of South Dakota tramples on the neck of cherished modern icons. To begin with, he refers to a fetus as a “child.” He refers to “unborn children” as “helpless.” Again, they are “persons.” And he invokes the heart of civilized society to give them succor.

Mike Rounds was a college student on the sacred holy day of the abortionists in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was pronounced by the Supreme Court. He was the oldest child in his family; 10 siblings would come along. The bill outlawing abortion restores to South Dakota a ban that until 1973 had been the law in almost every state of the union. Rounds was only 18 years old when the Supreme Court excogitated the proposition that the Constitution conferred on everybody the right to eliminate an unborn child.

In the years since then, various states and various jurisdictions have sought to refine the right to abort. The South Dakota law could be the springboard to the direct reversal of Roe. But it is thought by many abortion supporters that this totalist challenge, posed by South Dakota, will necessarily be met by a totalist re-endorsement of Roe by the Supreme Court.

Now everybody concedes that all this will take a few years. Nobody managing an abortion clinic in South Dakota is about to shut it down. There will be injunctions sought against the new law’s enforcement. Both sides have promised to bring money, as required, to mobilize every legal thought, afterthought and presumptive thought, arguing in conflicting directions.

The choicers count five members of the Supreme Court who are publicly committed in favor of Roe v. Wade. They have this fear, that a sitting member of the court will retire in the period immediately ahead, when the incumbent president is still there to nominate a successor. That would mean five votes, counting Roberts and Alito as dormant dissenters from Roe v. Wade, who would, in the nightmare scenario, renounce the 1973 decision as forcefully as the court, in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, renounced the segregation authorized by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896.

But assume that before the Supreme Court acts, injunctions against the new law fail. Assume, then, that there would be a period in which, in South Dakota, women could not get an abortion. What would they do? Well, of course, there is the alternative that they could bear the child whose life they had brought on. But if that alternative were excluded, what then?

Someone seeking relief could go north to North Dakota, or south to Nebraska. Or east to Minnesota, or west to Wyoming. We are talking about bus rides.

And of course so would it be if Roe were reversed. It is inconceivable that all the states of the union would imitate South Dakota. To demonstrate just how progressive is its vision, the state of Connecticut voted contingently some years ago, that if ever abortion were proscribed elsewhere, pilgrims would be welcome in Connecticut, where abortion rights would be faithfully observed.

We are very much driven, in modern days, by the democratic imperative. Well, the people of South Dakota have expressed themselves on a political question, resolving that unborn life is life notwithstanding. And they hold high what they deem, in their governor’s words, their dedication to stand by “the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society.”

==============================

Poll: Americans Inconsistent on Abortion (Washington Post, 060312)

WASHINGTON — For all the recent tumult over abortion, one thing has remained surprisingly stable: Americans have proved extremely consistent in their beliefs about the procedure _ and extremely conflicted in their views.

A solid majority long have felt that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Yet most support at least some restrictions on when abortions can be performed. Most think having an abortion should be a personal choice. But they also think it is murder.

“Rock solid in its absolutely contradictory opinions” is how public opinion expert Karlyn Bowman describes the nation’s mind-set.

If public opinion is stable, the political landscape is anything but.

The arrival of two new justices on the Supreme Court has stoked speculation about how abortion laws could be affected. Also, there has been a flurry of action at the state level to ban or sharply restrict access to the procedure.

In 2005, states enacted 52 measures to restrict access to abortion, according to the private Guttmacher Institute, and more are pending. Most notably, South Dakota this month outlawed almost all abortions. Supporters hope the move will provoke a legal challenge that results in the new, more conservative Supreme Court overturning Roe.

Even with the new justices, however, there still are five votes to uphold the 1973 landmark ruling that established a woman’s right to an abortion.

There is no evidence that all this activity is causing Americans to rethink their views.

“When we as a society make up our minds about something, as we have about abortion, most people tend to pull away from it,” says Bowman, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who has studied abortion opinion over the decades. “Something really significant has to occur to bring Americans back into the debate.”

An AP-Ipsos poll finds that most Americans are ensconced in what one policy analyst calls the “big mushy middle” on this issue.

In this latest poll, 19% of Americans said abortion should be legal in all cases; 16% said it should never be legal; 6% did not know. That left nearly three-fifths somewhere in between, believing abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Dicing the same data a different way, 52% of those surveyed thought abortion should be legal in most or all cases; 43% said it should be illegal most or all of the time.

The survey, taken Feb. 28-March 2, found that men’s and women’s views were similar, although men were a little more likely to be undecided.

With slight shifts one way or another, this is about where Americans have been for decades.

“You have this very stable support for a principle, but a willingness to limit it in lots of circumstances over the last decade,” said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

If Americans are fairly set in what they think, the challenge for interest groups and politicians is to frame the debate in ways that will alter how people vote, whether they get involved and to whom they contribute money.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said recent activity has served as a wake-up call to supporters who had not felt that abortion rights were threatened. She said the organization has seen an increase in interest that could translate into a shift in votes in future elections.

David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the discussion about a late-term procedure that opponents call “partial-birth abortion” has helped solidify anti-abortion sentiment. The Supreme Court will hear arguments this fall on a federal ban of the procedure; a ruling is likely next year as the presidential campaign gets under way.

With all the recent activity, abortion is more likely than ever to play a central role in coming elections, and political consultants of all stripes are pondering how to use it to best advantage.

In the AP poll, two-thirds of Democrats said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while two-thirds of Republicans said it should be illegal all or most of the time.

Bowman said that about 9% to 13% of voters tend to cast their ballots based on a candidate’s stance on abortion, with Republicans tending to benefit the most from these single-issue voters at the national level while results are more mixed in state races. The recent developments could be significant in rallying voters, particularly in off-year elections, she said.

Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a strategy group for moderate Democrats, said anti-abortion forces made significant inroads during the 1990s by appealing to what he calls the “abortion grays” _ those in the middle who do not think abortion should be completely legal or illegal.

They did this, he said, by pushing restrictions on access to abortion rather than making a direct challenge to Roe. Abortion rights supporters, he said, alienated those in the middle with their rigid opposition to any restrictions.

With South Dakota’s move to ban almost all abortions, progressive Democrats have an opportunity to “win the battle of reasonableness” by positioning the party as one that wants to reduce abortions while preserving a woman’s right to have one, he said.

A Third Way “message memo” suggests candidates promote policies to reduce unintended pregnancies, such as improving access to contraceptives, and back efforts to support pregnant women who want to give birth, including helping them remain in school.

==============================

Winning, and Losing, on Abortion: How go the wars? (National Review Online, 060508)

RAMESH PONNURU

President Bush has done almost nothing for the NRA. He hasn’t had to. Partly that’s because a Republican Congress has kept anti-gun legislation from reaching his desk. The ban on assault weapons expired without any congressional action to renew it. But even more, it’s because Democrats no longer fight for gun control. Many Democrats blamed their loss of Congress in 1994 on the assault-weapons ban, which had been enacted that year. Even more Democrats concluded that guns had lost them the 2000 election: If Al Gore had won Tennessee, Arkansas, or West Virginia, all relatively pro-gun states, he would have been president.

Gun control was one of three issues that were widely expected to bring about a Democratic majority in the 1990s. Gun control, education, and abortion were chipping away at Republican strength in the suburbs, especially in the inner ring of suburbs and among women. But the Democrats abandoned gun control after 2000. Democrats lost their huge advantage on education between 1999 and 2002, when George W. Bush changed the topic of debate from the abolition of the Department of Education to the No Child Left Behind Act.

Now it is becoming increasingly difficult for Democrats to deny that their support for “abortion rights” is hurting them, not helping them. They are trying to devise strategies to limit the damage.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Democrats — and not a few Republicans — were convinced that being pro-abortion was a winning position. In the twenty years following Roe v. Wade, the abortion rate and public support for abortion had crept steadily up. When the Supreme Court threatened to overturn Roe in 1989, many pro-life politicians decided to appease pro-choice voters by flipping on the issue. The 1992 Republican convention was widely regarded as a disaster in which the party’s social conservatives had turned off swing voters. And the public elected Bill Clinton, the most pro-abortion president since Roe came down. On his first day in office, he issued a series of executive orders liberalizing abortion law.

Since most of the leaders of the House and Senate favored abortion rights, pro-choice activists had high hopes of enacting the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that mirrored Roe by preventing states from prohibiting abortion, even late in pregnancy. By the end of 1993, Clinton would propose a health-care plan featuring subsidized abortion. “The great abortion debate is over,” wrote columnist Charles Krauthammer: The pro-lifers had lost.

But pro-choice dreams quickly turned to ashes. Congress never even voted on the Freedom of Choice Act or the Clinton health plan. Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, a year in which not a single pro-life incumbent lost to a pro-choice challenger. The new Republican leaders of Congress were pro-life. Suddenly, the abortion lobby found itself having to fight legal restrictions rather than fighting for government subsidies. The abortion rate peaked in 1990 (at 1.6 million), and public support for abortion peaked soon thereafter.

In retrospect, it is easy to see that even at its height the pro-choice movement had major weaknesses, some of them hidden, most of them growing. Abortion had never been normalized in the culture. The public refused to see it as just another medical procedure. The reluctance of most doctors to perform it was a constant source of consternation to pro-choicers, who naturally blamed that reluctance on intimidation by violent pro-lifers. (What other reason could there be not to do abortions?) Characters on television shows, no matter how much bed-hopping they do, rarely have abortions. In 2005, one pro-choice writer noted, with disgust, that on soap operas more characters had come back from the dead in one season than had gotten abortions in the history of the genre.

By the ‘90s, medical developments were starting to weaken further the hold of abortion on the culture. In the early years of the debate it was common for advocates of legal abortion to dismiss the human fetus as a mere “blob of tissue” or as “protoplasm.” But as more and more people looked at ultrasound images of their children, nephews and nieces, or grandkids in the womb, they could see even early in pregnancy that those descriptions were grossly inadequate. The date of viability kept (and keeps) moving back, too.

The polls had always registered ambivalence about abortion. If asked whether abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor,” a majority would say yes. But if given three options on abortion policy — legal under all circumstances, legal only in the cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life, and illegal under all circumstances — a majority would also choose the two restrictive policies. Large majorities of the public favored mandatory waiting periods, parental-consent laws, spousal-notification requirements, and prohibitions on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy.

And the people who were most inclined to vote for or against candidates based on their positions on abortion were pro-life. Even in the midst of the drubbing the first George Bush received in 1992, exit polls showed him beating Clinton 55 to 36% among voters who said that abortion was one of their top issues. That greater pro-life intensity was present even in relatively pro-choice states.

So even at the high tide of the pro-choice movement, Clinton found it politic to say that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

A STRATEGY FOR LIFE

Besides the increased use of ultrasound, the most devastating development for pro-choicers in the 1990s was a shift in pro-life strategy. For years, it had been easy for pro-choicers to put the spotlight on the issues that divided pro-lifers from the public. Most pro-life activists wanted to ban abortion even in the cases of rape and incest; the public strongly disagreed. Most pro-lifers wanted to amend the Constitution to ban abortion; the public saw that as a radical step.

In 1995, however, pro-lifers gave up on the all-or-nothing approach and adopted an incrementalist strategy. They began to campaign for a ban on partial-birth abortion. Now pro-choice extremism was at the center of the debate. And if being pro-choice meant approving of partial-birth abortion, a lot of voters were not willing to take the label. In September 1995, Gallup found that 56% of the public thought of itself as pro-choice and 33% identified as pro-life. By August 1997, however, the pro-choice advantage on that measure had shrunk from 23 points to only three (47–44). It then stayed in single digits.

Young people started to turn against abortion. UCLA’s nationwide survey of incoming college freshmen showed 67% of them supporting legal abortion in 1992. By 2004, only 54% did — the lowest number since the survey had started asking the question in 1977.

In 2005, the women’s magazine Glamour ran a story on the “mysterious disappearance of young pro-choice women.” It noted that a 2003 CBS/New York Times poll had found that 35% of young women (aged 18–29) thought that “abortion should be available to anyone who wants it.” 50% of the young women of 1993 had thought that. It quoted Alexander Sanger of Planned Parenthood: “I’ve seen the numbers and I find them unbelievably shocking. Isn’t it obvious that young women have to be at the forefront of fighting for their reproductive rights because they’re the ones who need them?” It isn’t obvious to many young women.

Republicans had been divided on abortion. But almost all of them were willing to oppose partial-birth abortion, and they were not nervous about doing so. The campaign weakened pro-choice Republicans by dividing them. The pro-choice ultras, like New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who refused to oppose partial-birth abortion, found themselves marginalized.

The incremental strategy also appeared to reduce the abortion rate. Economist Michael New, in a series of papers, has found evidence that informed-consent laws, parental-consent laws, and restrictions on abortion funding brought down the number of abortions.

By the time John Kerry ran for president in 2004, the savviest Democratic strategists knew they had a problem. Kerry’s first statement in the Senate had been a defense of abortion, and he went on to compile a consistently pro-choice voting record. It was a record he had to downplay as he tried to court the blue-collar, socially conservative swing voters of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

While campaigning in the Midwest, Kerry explained that he was “very serious about my faith,” believed that life began at conception, and personally opposed abortion. “But I can’t take my Catholic view and legislate it on a Protestant or Hindu.” His comments distressed some of his pro-abortion supporters, and led others to question his consistency. He tried to clarify his views in an interview with Peter Jennings. It was his “personal belief” that fertilization formed a “human being”: “That’s when life begins.” But “that’s not a person yet.” In order to defend his position, Kerry had taken up residence in Peter Singer land, where the concept of a “human non-person” makes sense.

Neither Kerry nor his running mate John Edwards pledged to defend abortion rights in his convention speech. The presidential nominee, the vice-presidential nominee, or both had made that pledge at the three previous Democratic conventions. Kerry not only refused to utter the word “abortion”; he did not even use the euphemism “the right to choose.” His campaign disinvited Kate Michelman, the longtime head of the major abortion lobby, NARAL, from a rally.

After the election — which saw not only Bush’s reelection but pro-life gains in the Senate — Democrats started to go public with their doubts about the party’s abortion strategy. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg pointed out that abortion was one reason that the Catholic vote had gone Republican for the first time since 1988. Another postmortem, by William Galston and Elaine Kamarck, concluded that Democrats should “continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial-birth abortion.” Strategist Donna Brazile confessed to the New York Times: “Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies.”

Emily’s List, a pro-abortion activist group, put out its own analysis, arguing that the “pro-choice majority” still existed. But Kerry himself, when the president of that group asked him about the party’s future, had a different analysis. The party came across as though it liked abortion and needed to run more pro-life candidates, he said — to gasps from the liberal crowd.

Since then, Democrats have adopted three basic strategies for dealing with their abortion liabilities. The first is to follow Kerry’s advice by running pro-life Democratic candidates and elevating pro-life Democratic officeholders. Right after the 2004 elections, the Senate Democrats made Harry Reid, a moderate pro-lifer, their leader. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who runs the Democrats’ Senate campaign, courted pro-lifer Robert Casey Jr. to run against Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.

It was a smart move, and it testifies to the pro-choicers’ political bind. This is shaping up to be a pretty good year for Democrats. But their top opportunity to pick up a Senate seat is in Pennsylvania, and it’s their top opportunity only because the abortion lobby has been sidelined. The question now is whether pro-choice Democrats will vote for Casey when they learn his position. Howard Dean, the party chairman, has argued that they should because Casey would be less likely than Santorum to vote for “extremist” judges: in other words, for justices who might vote to overturn Roe.

This strategy — a partial surrender — has real limits. When Reid and Nancy Pelosi tried to install a pro-lifer as party chairman, they were quickly rebuffed. The job went to Dean, who opposes even parental-notification laws.

The second strategy, that of Dean himself, is to give the party a rhetorical makeover. “We’re not the party of abortion,” he told Tim Russert a month after the 2004 elections. A few months later, he was back on Russert’s show, trying to reframe the debate: “I don’t know anybody who thinks abortion is a good thing. I don’t know anybody in either party who is pro-abortion. The issue is not whether we think abortion is a good thing. The issue is whether a woman has a right to make up her own mind about her health care.”

In a later appearance by Dean on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked him six times whether the party was “pro-choice” and supported “abortion rights.” Each time, Dean refused to adopt either phrase, instead saying variants of “the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women.” These are rather clumsy rhetorical pirouettes. For a generation, Democratic politicians have been saying that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. Dean is just doing the same old thing, although he always gives the impression that he thinks he has just invented the wheel when he does it.

The third strategy is to try to win over what Third Way, a “progressive group,” calls the “abortion grays”: people who are ambivalent about abortion. Sen. Hillary Clinton has followed this strategy. She has gotten great press for allegedly seeking “common ground” with pro-lifers. In a January 2005 speech, just after Roe’s anniversary, she claimed to “respect” pro-lifers. She said that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers favor reducing the number of abortions. (“Abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.”) She said that they should therefore join forces to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by promoting contraception.

THE MASK OF DEATH

Amid the media’s paeans to Clinton’s alleged centrism, political brilliance, and willingness to seek compromise, it seems to have escaped almost everyone’s attention that her speech began by implicitly comparing pro-lifers to the brutal Communist dictators of Romania and China. The alternative to unrestricted abortion, on her telling, was forced monthly gynecological exams by the government for all women of child-bearing age. The introduction to the speech could have been lifted from The Handmaid’s Tale.

It’s also not clear why this speech was so widely taken to have broken new ground. It is certainly politically shrewder for Clinton to call abortion a tragedy than it would be for her to celebrate it as liberation. “Safe, legal, and rare” was a shrewd slogan by her husband, too. But it didn’t stop pro-choicers from losing ground during his presidency. Senator Clinton herself gave essentially the same speech back when she was First Lady, in 1999.

Clinton’s position is that abortion is such a terrible, terrible tragedy, it has to be defended against any legal restrictions and, indeed, subsidized. When she ran for the Senate in 2000, she attacked her Republican opponent, moderate pro-choicer Rick Lazio, for favoring parental notification, opposing partial-birth abortion, and being willing to vote for judges who oppose Roe. As a senator, she has co-sponsored Barbara Boxer’s version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which nullifies states’ informed-consent laws and restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortion.

Clinton’s strategy will backfire to the extent that it raises the question: What’s so tragic about abortion anyway? It can’t be just that many women feel bad after having abortions, which is the closest she has come to an explanation. If that were the only problem, the solution would be to counsel the women and to do what could be done to change the culture so that people regarded abortion the way they do appendectomies. Abortion is regrettable, and needs to be minimized, for the same reason that abortion is wrong and unjust: because it kills an innocent human being. That is also the reason it should be prohibited.

There is a cord that binds premise and conclusion, that moves from recognition of the wrongness of abortion to recognition of its injustice to support for laws against it; and this fact has real political implications. Clinton wants to cast pro-lifers as rigid ideologues who want to throw people in jail but won’t take practical steps to reduce abortion, such as increasing access to contraception. Harry Reid’s Prevention First Act, which also promotes contraception, is similarly designed to wrong-foot pro-lifers by dividing them.

But these bluffs can be easily called. If Clinton wants to find common ground to reduce abortion, why won’t she endorse modest regulations that the vast majority of Americans support and that appear to have reduced abortion rates? If pro-lifers offer a few amendments to Reid’s bill, they can expose Clinton’s pose of besieged reasonableness for what it is. And throwing people in jail need not be central to the pro-life agenda. Some pro-lifers would be perfectly happy to see a legal regime that consisted of removing the medical licenses of doctors who perform proscribed abortions and levying steep fines on anyone who performs one without a license. Many pro-lifers want to go further, of course. But the point is that Clinton wouldn’t go anywhere near this far. Her real objection to pro-life policies is not that they would throw people in jail.

It would be a mistake for pro-lifers to turn triumphalist. They can’t be said to be “winning” when abortion remains legal at any stage of pregnancy throughout the country, and is performed 1.3 million times a year. Pro-choice candidates can certainly win elections. Nancy Pelosi could be Speaker of the House next year, and Hillary Clinton could win the presidency in 2008. Pro-lifers could make strategic mistakes that help the pro-choice side. South Dakota has enacted a ban on abortions even in the case of rape and incest, even though Roe is still on the books. It is a foolish repudiation of a successful incrementalist strategy.

Absent such gratuitous mistakes, however, pro-choicers will remain on the defensive for some time to come. The conventional wisdom of fifteen years ago — that opposition to abortion was an albatross for Republicans — has been thoroughly upended.

In the days after Terri Schiavo died, one Democratic operative warned, “We can’t just be the party of death.” That’s right. But it is not a fate from which the Democrats seem prepared to deliver themselves.

Mr. Ponnuru is the author of Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life (Regnery), from which this article is adapted.

==============================

Scalia Criticizes ‘Roe v. Wade’ Ruling (Christian Post, 060505)

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday he doesn’t want an overly broad job description. In fact, he wants the U.S. Supreme Court to stay out of the nation’s most important decision making.

Scalia said too much regulatory power has shifted to the judicial branch during his speech before hundreds of attorneys at a Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis luncheon.

Over the last 50 years, the United States has put too much emphasis on letting bureaucratic experts make important policy decisions, Scalia said. Such decisions, he said, ultimately come down to a moral judgment.

“There’s no right answer — only a policy preference,” Scalia said. “It is utterly impossible to take politics out of policy decisions.”

Scalia criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which established the constitutional right to abortion. He said such decisions can’t be made without a moral judgment, and should therefore be left to voters or the politicians they elect.

Scalia compared Roe v. Wade with a ruling in 2000 by the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the privacy of a homosexual man who engaged in group sex. Scalia said the ruling prohibited nations in the European Union from grappling independently with the question of whether homosexuality is morally acceptable.

“Surely the binding answer to that question should not be decided by seven unelected judges,” Scalia said, drawing applause from the crowd.

Scalia drew laughter from the crowd several times, once when he sarcastically commented on the notion judges should liberally interpret the U.S. Constitution to keep pace with America’s maturing moral standards.

“Societies only mature; they never rot,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Scalia attended a Law Day Mass celebrated by Archbishop Raymond Burke at the Basilica of St. Louis. They were joined by Gov. Matt Blunt and Mayor Francis Slay.

==============================

Dems’ Abortion Problem: The absolutist pro-choice position on abortion is a political loser. (National Review Online, 060509)

Bob Casey Jr. isn’t being punished for the sins of his father, even though he shares them. Casey is a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate. His late father, then the governor of Pennsylvania, was banned from the podium of the 1992 Democratic Convention because he was pro-life. Casey Jr. is pro-life too, but the national party is embracing him.

This shift is a sign that the Democrats are beginning to grapple with a painful truth, one that will hurt even more as its full weight becomes evident to them: The absolutist pro-choice position on abortion is a political loser. In his brilliant and incisive new book, The Party of Death, my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru demonstrates why.

In the early 1990s, no one would have guessed that Democrats would be eager for a Casey do-over. Then, it seemed that all pro-lifers were headed to oblivion, bulldozed under by the Soccer Mom ascendancy and the public’s reaction to the (supposedly) noisome social conservatism of the failed 1992 Republican Convention. But a funny thing happened on the way to the rout of pro-lifers—the rout began to happen the other way.

Now, it looks like abortion is going the way of the other cultural issue that ten years ago was considered a boon to the Democrats, but became a liability: gun control. Ponnuru argues that the pro-choice position was never as strong as it seemed because abortion “had never been normalized in the culture.” It has never been considered just another medical procedure, the way pro-choicers had hoped.

Ultrasound images worked to undermine pro-choice premises. What was called a “blob of tissue” that was easily disposed of, looked instead on the scans like a little baby. Asked to believe the pro-choice rhetoric or their own lying eyes, most people preferred the evidence of their eyes.

Then, the pro-life side began to exploit its openings with a shrewd incrementalism. Gone were the calls for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, replaced instead by a push to ban a particularly gruesome form of the procedure, partial-birth abortion. Now it was pro-choicers opposing this targeted ban who seemed like extremists. The hit that pro-choicers took was almost immediate. In September 1995, 56% of people described themselves as pro-choice and 33% as pro-life; by August 1997, this 23-point gap had sunk to just three points, 47-44.

By 2004, Democrats knew they had to adjust. John Kerry said he believed that life begins at conception—not that he would actually do anything about it. Neither he nor his running mate, John Edwards, pledged to defend abortion rights at the Democratic Convention. Suddenly, the uninviting was aimed in the opposite direction than it had been in 1992—former NARAL Pro-Choice America head Kate Michelman was uninvited to a Kerry rally.

Still, Democrats lost the Catholic vote for the first time since 1988. Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said, “Even I have trouble explaining to my family that we are not about killing babies.” So the Democrats are trying even harder. Democratic chairman Howard Dean has refused to call the party “pro-choice.” Hillary Clinton has called abortion “a sad, tragic choice,” and said the number of abortions should be reduced.

But these rhetorical feints can’t gain Democrats much, especially when they are at odds with their opposition to any restrictions on abortion. “What’s so tragic about abortion anyway?” Ponnuru asks. “Abortion is regrettable and needs to be minimized, for the same reason that abortion is wrong and unjust: because it kills an innocent human being. That is also the reason it should be prohibited.”

Democrats, of course, will resist that logic strenuously. They might stomach Bob Casey Jr., but only because he is running against pro-life leader Sen. Rick Santorum, and a Casey victory could help deliver the Senate to pro-choice Democrats. This Casey is welcome, but only so long as he is useful to the uncompromising and ultimately untenable cause of abortion on demand.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

==============================

La. Gov. Signs Strict Abortion Ban into Law (Christian Post, 060619)

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed a strict abortion ban into law and a group supporting abortion rights condemned the move as an example of “misplaced priorities of politicians in Louisiana.”

The ban has no immediate effect - it will only take effect if the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to ban abortion or if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down its own 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that provides for a right to abortion.

Blanco signed the measure on Saturday. Planned Parenthood of Louisiana issued a statement saying the new law “endangers women’s health by criminalizing abortion at a time when the state is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and scrambling to prepare for the start of the new hurricane season.”

The measure, sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, includes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. It would allow abortion only to save the life or the health of the mother.

Doctors found guilty of performing abortions under other circumstances would face up to 10 years in prison and fines of $100,000.

The law is similar to one passed in South Dakota earlier this year that is expected to land before the Supreme Court. A majority of the high court’s nine justices has voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in the past.

==============================

Supreme Court Rejects Roe v. Wade Companion Case (Christian Post, 061011)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned aside the case of Sandra Cano, one of the women behind the legalization of abortion, who had sought to reverse the victory she won 33 years ago.

Cano says she never wanted an abortion and that her difficult early life resulted in her becoming the anonymous plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, the lesser-known case which the justices ruled on the same day in 1973 as the landmark Roe v. Wade.

“We’re very disappointed that the Supreme Court has not decided to protect women and children from the harm of abortion,” said Allan Parker, one of Cano’s attorneys. “The court has aborted the normal regulation of medicine in this area.”

Cano says she was a 22-year-old victim of an abusive husband and that her children were in foster care when she sought legal assistance in getting a divorce and in getting her children back.

She said an aggressive attorney pushed her into the abortion case.

“What I received was something I never requested — the legal right to abort my child,” Cano said in an affidavit six years ago.

Her current lawyers’ legal brief says that despite advances in medicine, science and technology, the justices have “frozen abortion law based on obsolete 1973 assumptions and prevented the normal regulation of the practice of medicine.”

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that neither it nor a U.S. District Court had the authority to reverse the Supreme Court’s decisions in Doe v. Bolton or Roe v. Wade.

==============================

Hospital admits to burning aborted babies in waste incinerator (WorldNetDaily, 061025)

One of the country’s leading hospitals is throwing aborted babies into the same incinerator used for rubbish to save only £18.50 each time, it has emerged.

Addenbrooke’s Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.

Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital’s main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste.

The revelation sparked anger and distress among church leaders and pro-life groups, as well as women whose pregnancies were terminated at the hospital.

Addenbrooke’s adopts a different policy for unborn babies which are miscarried before 24 weeks.

They are either cremated at a crematorium, buried at a cemetery, or passed to the parents if they wish to make their own arrangements.

Dr Anthony Russell, Bishop of Ely, said: “I am sorry to know this is the practice currently being adopted by the hospital. I recognise there is a wide range of responses to this issue, but believe the disposal of foetuses should be undertaken reverently and with dignity.”

Pro-life groups claim that, while not illegal, it goes against the spirit of guidelines issued by the Royal College of Nursing.

The RCN’s guide, Sensitive Disposal of all Foetal Remains, says disposal alongside clinical waste is ‘completely unacceptable’.

It adds: ‘It is acknowledged that sometimes parents don’t recognise their loss at the time, but may return months or even years later to enquire about the disposal arrangements.

‘Therefore, it is important to respect the wishes of parents who may not want to be involved, but to ensure also that sensitive and dignified disposal is carried out.’

Lisa Wilson, of the ProLife Alliance, said: “What absolute horror. Has our society lost even a minimum concept of the humanity of the unborn child and the respect due to these tiny victims of our ruthless legislation?”

Michaela Aston, spokesman for pro-life charity Life, said: “The fact they are now disposing of human remains like they would any other waste product shows what society and this hospital has come to. It is just so disgusting. What has happened to the dignity of the human being? It reflects increasingly certain people in society’s attitudes to the unborn child just flushing them away, or burning them like any other waste. How can we let this happen in a civilised society?”

One local woman, who asked not to be named, said after the heartache of deciding to have an abortion she was mortified to find the hospital had used the same furnace they burn rubbish in to incinerate her terminated baby.

She said: “I am furious and very hurt. Imagine my horror when I discovered that my baby was incinerated in the same furnace as the hospital rubbish.”

Hospital managers said they had to take the decision after ‘significant increases’ in the fees charged by Cambridge City Crematorium, where they were previously buried or cremated.

The hospital, under pressure along with the rest of the NHS to make millions of pounds of savings, said it was trying to be ‘careful with the use of limited resources’.

In June, it emerged cash-strapped health chiefs had to cut a total of £28 million from NHS spending in Cambridgeshire.

==============================

Why are we paying for Planned Parenthood? (Townhall.com, 061030)

By Jay Sekulow

In just a little over a week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in two cases involving the constitutionality of Congress’s ban on partial-birth abortion. We filed briefs in both cases representing members of the House and Senate who sponsored the legislation outlawing this gruesome act that many, including Justices of the Supreme Court, consider to be infanticide.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this case is the fact that the plaintiff, Planned Parenthood, has received in the last two years - that they’ve reported - over $500 million in taxpayer money. America needs to wake up to this disturbing fact! On one hand, Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, is funded in large part by our hard-earned tax dollars. This money is allocated from Congress. Then Planned Parenthood turns around and sues Congress for passing a law banning partial-birth abortion. In essence, Congress is taking our money, giving it to Planned Parenthood, who then sues Congress with the aid of the money we’ve already given them.

Last year, Planned Parenthood showed revenue totaling nearly $810 million dollars. Of their $810 million in revenue, $265 million came from taxpayers in the form of government grants and contracts. In 2004 and 2005, Planned Parenthood received $551 million in governmental funding. This is money coming out of our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood uses our tax dollars to promote, advertise and market the benefits of abortion, including partial-birth abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood performed almost 250,000 abortions, a number that has steadily increased since 1997. They also use tax dollars to fund explicit materials promoting abortion directed at teens. Over the past three years, Planned Parenthood has reportedly spent over $110 million of taxpayer money bringing lawsuits, challenging legislation and promoting their agenda.

What is outrageous in all of this is that Congress passed a law that bans partial-birth abortion, then your tax dollars provided Planned Parenthood the ability to sue Congress over the partial-birth abortion statute that they already passed. None of us want our tax dollars spent on this. Now is the time to take a stand against this horrible misuse of public funds and against Planned Parenthood. U.S. Senator David Vitter has proposed legislation that would stop the practice of taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. Senate Bill 2206 states: “None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be distributed to grantees who perform abortions or whose subgrantees perform abortions…” It is about time that Congress passed this legislation. Forced support for Planned Parenthood from taxpayers is a form of tyranny that we should not allow in the United States.

==============================

A Sterile Worldview (Christian Post, 061028)

By Chuck Colson

According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, Russia “has lost the equivalent of a city of 700,000 people every year since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.” We’re talking about the population of San Francisco or Baltimore—a grim reminder of how fruitless some

If demographic trends hold steady, Russia’s population, which stands at 142 million today, will drop to 52 million by 2080. At that point, according to Sergei Mironov, the chairman of the upper house of the Dumas, the Russian parliament, “there will no longer be a great Russia . . . it will be torn apart piece by piece, and finally cease to exist.”

Mironov isn’t alone in his fears. Russia’s demographic crisis raises “serious questions about whether Russia will be able to hold on to its lands along the border with China or field an army, let alone a workforce to support the ill and the elderly.”

Even more disturbing than the numbers are the reasons behind them: that is, “one of the world’s fastest-growing AIDS epidemics . . . alcohol and drug abuse . . . [and] suicide” are among the leading causes of Russia’s shrinking population.

What’s more, last year there were 100,000 more abortions than births in Russia. And many women who want children can’t have them: “[A]n estimated 10 million Russians of reproductive age are sterile because of botched abortions or poor health.”

As Scripps-Howard columnist Terry Mattingly puts it, “we have suicide, AIDS, substance abuse, rampant abortion, and a loss of hope in the future . . . in a nation that, in the past century, saw the rise of an atheistic regime that tried to stamp out the practice of faith . . . Do you think there might be a religion element in here somewhere?”

Well, not according to the Los Angeles Times or the Russian government. The Times’s story did not mention the role of religion—or, in this case, its absence—in its analysis of Russia’s plight. And the Russian government is trying to avert catastrophe by using the same techniques that have failed in the rest of the world: that is, bribing people to have children.

They will fail in Russia, as well, because they don’t address the real problem: The real problem is a loss of faith. Life has always been tough in Russia, and Russians are famously fatalistic. But, as writers such as Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn told us, Christianity helped Russians to see their suffering as redemptive and not to lose hope.

Seventy-four years of official atheism robbed the Russian people of this source of hope. This, more than a ruined economy and environmental degradation, is what has put Russia on the road to extinction. It’s a tragic reminder that ideas, and the worldviews and attitudes they engender, have very real consequences.

It’s also a cautionary tale, for what happened to Russia is, in many ways, just an exaggerated and accelerated version of the secularism and materialism overtaking much of Europe. There, as in Russia, secularism is proving to be literally sterile. And maybe it is a lesson we had better learn here as courts and cultural elite continue to marginalize the Christian faith in America.

==============================

A Tale of Two Humanities: The Humane Society’s annual congressional scorecard and the vote for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (Weekly Standard, 061220)

by Daniel Allott

AT THE CONCLUSION of each congressional session, the Humane Society releases its Humane Scorecard, “A snapshot of U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives and their records on major animal welfare policies.” In the 109th Congress, as is typical, Democrats scored much higher than Republicans on an array of legislation, ranging from criminalizing the slaughter of horses for human consumption, to the sale of “downed” livestock, to making cockfighting a felony, to providing disaster relief for pets.

In fact, of the 104 members of Congress who received a perfect score from the Humane Society, 83, or 80%, are Democrats. In total, congressional Democrats’ average score was 70%, while Republicans averaged 38%.

Of course, Democrats have always been at the forefront of the battle to protect animals. From championing the Humane Slaughter Act of 1902 and the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, to leading the way in support of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Democratic party has always stood firmly on the side of the ethical and compassionate treatment of animals.

But, as the Humane Scorecard highlights Democrats’ dedication to the protection of the weak and defenseless in the animal kingdom, it also uncovers a disturbing double standard when it comes to the party’s treatment of the most vulnerable and voiceless human beings: the unborn.

On December 6th, the House of Representatives held its first-ever vote on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (UCPAA), legislation that would have required abortion facilities to inform women considering abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy that it will likely cause her unborn child intense pain. The bill would have also required abortionists to offer mothers a chance to give their babies anesthesia before the abortion.

Sadly, while the UCPAA received majority support in the House, it failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass under special parliamentary procedures employed during the last week of the legislative session. In all, 250 members voted in favor of providing women more information about their developing children; 162 members voted against it.

Even a cursory analysis of the voting patterns reveals a deep partisan divide. While 210 of 219 Republicans (96%) voted for the UCPAA, just 40 of 192 Democrats (21%) did likewise. These statistics stand in stark contrast to the Democrats’ 70% average score on legislation concerning the treatment of animals.

Even worse, of the 6 Democratic congressmen recently recognized by the Humane Society as “The Best of the Best” (meaning they received a perfect voting score and sponsored animal protection legislation), not one voted for the UCPAA. Conversely, four out of the five Republican Representatives at the top of the Humane Society’s list also voted for the UCPAA, including the legislation’s primary sponsor, New Jersey Representative Chris Smith.

Some Democratic members said that they voted against the UCPAA because there is still insufficient evidence that unborn children feel pain. But there’s been a developing consensus that babies feel pain in utero since the 1940s. In a recent congressional hearing, Dr. Robert White, director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before the House Constitution Subcommittee that a human fetus at 20-weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain.” How bad is the pain? Dr. Paul Ranalli of the University of Toronto has testified that at 20- to 30-week gestation, children in the womb may feel even more intense pain than at any other time before or after birth, because there are more pain receptors per square inch than at any other time and only a very thin layer of skin for protection.

Let’s be clear: the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act is not an anti-abortion bill. It does not in any way restrict women from obtaining abortions. In fact, some pro-life groups have opposed the legislation on the grounds that its wording strongly suggests that anesthetized abortions are better than other abortions, and because the bill still offers women the “option” to abort.

Leaving aside the prudential arguments against the legislation, the notion that pregnant women ought to be informed that their child can feel intense pain during an abortion is not lost on the American people. A spring 2005 Zogby poll showed three in four Americans think women should be told about pain felt by their child in utero. Even more, a 2003 Gallup survey found that while 71% of respondents believe animals are entitled to some protections from harm and exploitation, just 25% think that animals deserve the same rights as people.

Even the primary players in the abortion lobby, the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood, stayed out of the UCPAA fight. NARAL announced it would not oppose the legislation because, “women deserve access to all the information relevant to their reproductive health decisions.” While experts maintain that perhaps only 1% of abortions would be affected by this law (as the vast majority of abortions take place before 20 weeks gestation), with over a million yearly abortions in America, that is over 10,000 unborn children (and their mothers) who would be affected in a very profound way.

Ultrasound technology has been an invaluable tool in helping reveal the unborn child as a living, breathing, feeling human being—and at earlier stages than ever before. Although it failed to become law, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act was similarly valuable in revealing the sham of a political party that places the suffering of animals ahead of that of human beings.

Daniel Allott is a policy analyst and writer for American Values, a Washington D.C. area public policy organization.

==============================

A “Search and Destroy” Mission Against Down Syndrome Babies (Mohler, 070122)

“What did Jon Will and the more than 350,000 American citizens like him do to tick off the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? It seems to want to help eliminate from America almost all of a category of citizens, a category that includes Jon.”

Those are the opening words of George F. Will’s powerful column published in the January 29, 2007 issue of Newsweek. Will writes with unusual passion — as well he should. He writes not only as an influential columnist, but as Jon Will’s father. Jon Will has Down syndrome.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now calling for all pregnant women to be tested for Down syndrome. Here is a section of the ACOG’s press release:

All pregnant women, regardless of their age, should be offered screening for Down syndrome, according to a new Practice Bulletin issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Previously, women were automatically offered genetic counseling and diagnostic testing for Down syndrome by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) if they were 35 years and older.

The new ACOG guidelines recommend that all pregnant women consider less invasive screening options for assessing their risk for Down syndrome, a common disorder that is caused by an extra chromosome and can result in congenital heart defects and mental retardation. Screening for Down syndrome should occur before the 20th week of pregnancy.

Here is how Will sees it:

The ACOG guidelines are formally neutral concerning what decisions parents should make on the basis of the information offered. But what is antiseptically called “screening” for Down syndrome is, much more often than not, a search-and-destroy mission: At least 85% of pregnancies in which Down syndrome is diagnosed are ended by abortions.

Will is precisely right. This is a “search and destroy mission” aimed at the elimination of Down syndrome births. The screening is not value-neutral. America has seen a radical drop in Down syndrome births — not because the syndrome has disappeared, but because the babies are being aborted

The pattern grows more clear when women who are told that their babies are likely to have Down syndrome are just not seen again by their obstetrician. The next stop is the abortionist.

Some even suggest that parents advised of this diagnosis have a “duty to abort” the baby, so that they do not inflict the world with another individual marked by Down syndrome. As George Neumayr commented in 2005, “Each year in America fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.”

The world would be a poorer place without Jon Will and other Americans with Down syndrome. Many eventually lead independent lives and all deserve our love, respect, protection, and care.

Who else would we eliminate by prenatal testing and abortion? Which category of human beings is targeted for the next genetic “search and destroy mission?”

==============================

Planned Parenthood access to public purse in jeopardy: Rapists protected when rules ignored –grounds for clinics to lose Title X money (WorldNetDaily, 070122)

Al Capone, one of the biggest influences in the annals of American crime, was brought down by the paperwork requirements of the federal tax system. Now pro-life activists believe the nation’s abortion industry could face a similar collapse, all because of the paper trail that they believe shows the industry has failed to follow the rules and file the proper reports.

“It’s a simple audit function,” Mark Crutcher, the chief of Life Dynamics, told WND. “All you have to do is go into a state … and look at Title X applications and service reports. Look for all the girls they provided treatment to – pregnancy tests, STD treatments, abortion or birth control. If they provided one of those services to a girl beneath the state’s age of consent, that triggers a report.”

“Then go to the … Department of Child Protective services (and look at reports). If those numbers don’t match, you’ve got a violation,” he said.

He said his research shows that the abortion industry “services” provided to underage girls across the nation outnumber the “reports” of suspicion of assault on a child by 11-1 – under the best of circumstances. “And most reports are not by providers; they’re made by pediatricians and emergency room physicians,” he said.

So what’s the big deal with the numbers aligning – or not? Money, money and more money. Millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. And the Title X funding mechanism for the nation’s abortion industry that requires industry members to follow state laws, including those pesky reporting requirements – or lose the money.

Crutcher, in a Life Dynamics report, said the information about the reports comes from government sources, medical journals, independent researchers and the abortion industry itself.

“The fact that these family planning facilities are in clear violation of child abuse or statutory rape reporting requirements creates an environment for us to demand that their funding be immediately cut off,” Crutcher said. “Given their heavy reliance on state and federal tax dollars, losing that money would be nothing less than a financial catastrophe for these organizations.

“Better yet, their failure to adhere to state and federal law means that funds allocated in past years were obtained fraudulently. Because of that, we may be able to force a return of those funds. Needless to say that could literally cripple the entire abortion industry,” he concluded.

That means, according to Crutcher and Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, if the report numbers don’t line up, the abortion industry could be liable to return hundreds of millions of dollars in past and current payments.

“In all 50 states, sexual activity with underage children is illegal. Also, every state mandates that if a healthcare worker has reason to suspect that an underage girl is being sexually abused, they are required by law to report that information to a designated law enforcement or child protective services agency. That agency is then responsible to investigate the possibility that the child may be the victim of sexual abuse or statutory rape,” according to Life Dynamics.

A pregnancy in an underage girl is evidence of sexual abuse, and “any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to the state,” the report said.

Abortion industry lawyers repeatedly have claimed that their clients follow the law, including a special case in Kansas recently where a local prosecutor held a news conference to say late-term abortionist George Tiller had followed those reporting requirements, even though a case that had been brought against him didn’t make that accusation.

Government budgets show that in 2004 alone U.S. taxpayers allocated more than $280 million for birth control functions, focusing mostly on abortion services, including an estimate of between $50 million and $60 million just for Planned Parenthood, the industry’s biggest chain of businesses.

“If you’re not following state law, you’re not entitled to Title X funds,” Newman told WND. “As soon as you defund abortion clinics, they dry up and blow away.”

The U.S. “is funding the nation’s largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion, Planned Parenthood (report murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with over $50 million per year through each program,” said Steve Lefemine, who was the Constitution Party’s candidate for Congress in South Carolina’s 2nd District.

Crutcher, who has spent years opposing the abortion industry agenda, said the industry used to be vulnerable to claims of malpractice from patients who were injured and left with permanent injuries.

But tort reform made such lawsuits negligible for the industry, and now he believes one option for pro-life advocates will be to have parents whose children have been victimized in abortion clinics to come forward, document their cases and possibly sue the clinics – or join a class-action case against the industry.

“We need a nation-wide well-funded effort to basically recruit parents whose children have been the victims of abortion clinics’ failure to adhere to state reporting laws. There are literally hundreds of thousands of these situations over the years,” he said.

The clinics have a vested interest in not having to report those child rape or child assault cases; the men who are doing the assaults are paying the fees for the abortions, but the price for the girls “is extremely high.”

“What happens when a 13-year-old girl goes into a Planned Parenthood facility. She’s demonstrating that she’s sexually active, obviously. According to the most reliable statistics out there now, (of girls 15 and younger) the chances are 60-to-80% that she’s sexually active with an adult,” Crutcher said.

“If this young lady is given an abortion, birth control or anything, and the health care provider fails to meet the state’s mandatory reporting laws, the child is sent right back into the hands of the rapist,” he said.

“The behavior of these abortion clinics, as we proved in our undercover survey, makes it absolutely clear they’re protecting the men, not the girls,” he said. “The result is that a child predator now is given the knowledge that he can get away with it.”

That undercover project involved Life Dynamics arranging for an adult volunteer to pose as a 13-year-old and call every Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States. She posed as that young teen, pregnant by her 22-year-old boyfriend, and asked for help because she didn’t want her parents to know. Almost without exception the recorded responses from the clinics advise her not only how to obtain an abortion without her parents’ knowledge, but also how to protect that adult boyfriend who is guilty in any state of statutory rape on child.

“While many clinic workers can be heard on the tapes telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state, 91% of these facilities still agreed to illegally conceal it,” Life Dynamics reported. “So it’s no wonder that abortion clinics are refusing to cooperate with law enforcement efforts to investigate child abuse. In Kansas, abortion clinic representatives have even gone so far as to state in published reports that they will not comply with the state’s mandatory reporting laws.”

Crutcher said in his investigation, clinic workers even have been taped telling a person they believe to be a pregnant 13-year-old to have her “boyfriend,” a statutory rapist, take her across state lines without her parents’ knowledge for an abortion.

“What we have is a conspiracy to cover up the crimes that are being committed across the nation by sexual predators on behalf of the abortion cartel. Their love for money, their love for abortion is greater than their care for what actually is happening [to children],” said Newman.

Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, who battled the secrecy of the abortion industry for years, did obtain some records prior to the end of his term in office earlier this month, and confirmed that he had sent to various local prosecutors information regarding 25 underage girls who, abortion clinic records show, probably were assaulted or molested or raped.

Those cases are being evaluated by those prosecutors now, but Newman said the tragedy there is that stalling tactics utilized by abortion business interests delayed Kline’s investigation long enough that 28 other cases were lost because of the statute of limitations.

“That’s disturbing. There’s an obstruction of justice going on,” he said.

“When a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old walks into an abortion clinic pregnant, that’s evidence of abuse. It is by definition evidence of abuse. Slap the cuffs on them and figure out the details later,” he said.

Crutcher said the “circle-the-wagons” attitude about the abortion industry protecting its own interests was what he saw happening recently with Kline in Kansas, when the attorney general sought documentation from two abortion clinics that he believed could show evidence of crimes.

He was defeated in his bid for re-election when abortion interests donated heavily to his opponent’s campaign, and a special interest group with ties to prominent Wichita abortionist Tiller sent out a series of mailings severely critical of Kline.

His opponent at the same time publicly made campaign statements that he didn’t see the need to investigate abortion clinics in Kansas, and has fulfilled a campaign promise by firing a special prosecutor Kline had appointed to oversee a case he had assembled against Tiller.

Kline needed to appoint the special prosecutor, Don McKinney of Wichita, because when he filed a series of 30 criminal charges against Tiller, the local prosecutor, Nola Foulston, argued the state’s top law enforcement official had no authority to file those counts in her district if she didn’t want him to, and worked with a judge to have them dismissed.

“The concern clearly is not the girl, but the abortionist,” Crutcher said. “They filed lawsuits, stonewalled, they refused to adhere to court orders that were issued; all just to keep AG Kline from investigating alleged crimes.”

“Any time you see an entity that just moves heaven and earth in order to stop an investigation, you know they’ve got something to hide,” Crutcher said.

The potential loss of all Title X funding, especially since it could be made retroactive, would be enough to force that “circle-the-wagons” mentality, he noted.

Newman also said he has a tape recording of abortionists, including Colorado’s Warren Hern, discussing how they cannot raise prices for abortions, which run generally from $325 to $400, because every time there’s a price hike, business drops off.

At the same time costs including insurance, salaries, rent and the like have gone up over the years, leaving public funding often a lifeline that keeps such clinics open.

Crutcher also said a second attack on the abortion industry also could come from private litigation. “To capitalize on this, Life Dynamics is developing several exciting new litigation strategies and support services to be used by attorneys who represent the girls and parents victimized,” Crutcher said.

He said the firestorm involving pedophile priests within the Catholic Church is well-known. “Already, dioceses have either settled or lost lawsuits totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and some have been forced to close schools and sell property to pay off these awards. If you look at these suits, what you find is … they are being sued for negligence because they allegedly knew about the sexual abuse of children and failed to report it to authorities.”

Lawsuits against abortion providers who give an underage girl an abortion, then fail to do the necessary reports so a law enforcement agency could investigate, and the child was raped again, could prove devastating for the businesses.

“What we need is parents whose children have been injured to come forward and file suits against the abortion providers who failed to protect the children,” Crutcher said. “They need to be held accountable. When you’ve had almost 50 million abortions, one-third on girls under 18, we know there are hundreds of thousands of potential plaintiffs.”

The stigma of being assaulted, sometimes, is what holds people back from filing complaints. He said there was a case where a young girl overdosed on drugs given by an abortionist, and was left, essentially, in a vegetative state.

The father told Crutcher that if had been any other circumstance, he would “nail this guy’s hide to the wall,” but he didn’t want to pursue a case because the abortion would have to become public knowledge.

A third attack flank already is being implemented by Life Dynamics, which confirmed it is alerting attorneys general and district attorneys across the nation about the activities within the abortion industry.

“Failing to report an abortion may suggest that they are only guilty of concealing a crime that has already been committed. But providing birth control to a child without reporting might be interpreted as participating in an ongoing or future crime,” Crutcher said. “If that is so, the issue is no longer simply a failure to report child sexual abuse or statutory rape, but actual complicity in child sexual abuse or statutory rape.”

==============================

The aftermath of legalized abortion (WorldNetDaily, 070122)

Chuck Norris

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (via Roe v. Wade) existing laws against abortion (at both federal and state levels) violated a constitutional right to privacy and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

As a result all national laws prohibiting or limiting abortion were reverted. The primacy of a woman’s rights prevailed and the rights of the unborn were not only abandoned, but their nature legally reduced to nonhuman.

A history of justifications

Both Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist strongly dissented the 7-2 majority decision on that winter day 34 years ago. In fact Rehnquist jeered their justification, “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

We’ve continued to cloak the truths about abortion with a vast network of ethical justifications, inconsistencies and avoidances. “The child will not be taken care of properly,” “She’s too young to have children,” “Aborting unwanted children reduces the number of abused children,” “Nobody can tell me right from wrong,” “It’s a woman’s right to choose,” “If abortion is outlawed women will return to back-alley abortion clinics,” etc.

And guilt and accountability are often subsided by an interchange in language: instead of baby we say fetus; instead of killing we say aborting; instead of dissect we say research; instead of extermination chambers we say abortion clinics – ad nauseam. Who could ever imagine the aftermath of three decades of legalized abortions?

What is human? And what’s its worth?

In an evolutionary, self-centered world, in which man is nothing more than a glorified ape aimlessly shooting for stars of deification, it’s not difficult to understand how the slippery slope of human degradation has led from fetal devaluing to discarding.

At the heart of these issues, however, are a couple of questions we all must answer: What is human? Is a fetus human, even in its embryonic stage? And does human life have any intrinsic worth?

Our contemporary world has indoctrinated us to believe humanness cannot be uniquely defined, a fetus is nothing more than a cellular mass, and there is no special value to being human.

I beg to differ.

Seeing is believing

Before our embryonic twins were surgically placed into my wife Gena, the nurse told her, “I want to show you something.” She wheeled Gena to the incubator where they were kept and gently opened the door. The incubator was bathed in warm light and soft classical music. Gena later told me it was the most incredible sight she had ever seen. “It was like looking at something from heaven,” she explained. That was only 2 days after conception! Whether or not Gena had become pregnant, we were fully convinced at that moment that life begins at conception. Thirty-two weeks later our twins were born.

A creed that needs to be cloned

From our Founding Fathers forward, there were some basic creeds by which most Americans lived, and I believe we should go back to if we are to restore civility in our land. Here are three:

1. I believe human life is made in the image of God and as such has intrinsic value, worthy to save.

And, as human beings, all zygotes are “created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Preamble of the Declaration of Independence).

2. I believe aborting or destroying human life is morally wrong and goes against God’s law.

3. I believe ours and others’ mistakes can be forgiven and even turned around for the good.

In my autobiography, “Against All Odds,” one chapter is appropriately titled, “A Sin That Became a Blessing.” It’s about my failed attempt to keep my wedding vows by having an affair. It’s also about me finding forgiveness from God and others. And yet it’s also about the blessing of my daughter, Dina, who was bore from that illicit relationship. The harm I brought to my family God turned around and used for the good. And now Dina is a part of my life and my family, and I love her with all my heart, as I do my other children.

There might be illegitimate parents in the world – I know because I was one, but there are not illegitimate children. God has a plan and purpose for each of our lives. And He can turn around what we and others mean for harm and use it for good.

“Empty Playgrounds” by “Jane Roe”

In 1995, the former “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a Christian and began the Crossing Over Ministry, encouraging women to save babies, not abort them. She told WND a few years ago, “I long for the day that justice will be done and the burden from all of these deaths will be removed from my shoulders. I want to do everything in my power to help women and their children. The issue is justice for women, justice for the unborn, and justice for what is right.”

McCorvey also wrote a fitting poem and prayer for the moment, titled, “Empty Playgrounds.”

“Empty Playgrounds”

A poem by Miss Norma McCorvey

I sit across from a playground that I visited this eve with a small child.

I know of such places where children play.

I know that I am the cause of them not being here today.

These playgrounds for “innocent children” now dead because of sins I helped do.

I hope, Lord, that the wonderful playground is well guarded with angels.

Angels who will protect them keep them happy and safe.

Angels who will make them smile and laugh.

So that when that glorious day comes; the children will not hold “the sin” against me.

For every time I see a playground empty, I will know that yours will be full.

The sun is now setting, and my heart hurts, Lord.

For the numbers who from abortion have been torn apart.

I pray you can put them back together and make them whole.

If you like, Lord, use my body to make your precious children whole again.

I ask you to do this not only for them, Lord, but also for the love I have for each of them.

Lord, God, you gave your only Son, and He died and shed His blood for us.

All I did was give my baby away so that “women could tear theirs apart.”

For this I will never be able to look in your face out of shame.

Fight for life – yours and others

If you or someone you know has aborted a baby or is contemplating such a decision, I strongly encourage you to seek some help.

There are options to abortion and immediate confidential assistance at 1-800-395-HELP.

There are also good resources on the Internet, at least 50 ways to help others.

Most of all, don’t ever forget, your life matters, and so does every life in the womb.

God isn’t through with anyone’s life, least of all yours.

==============================

25,000 S.F. Anti-Abortion Marchers Younger, Larger than Expected (Christian Post, 070122)

One of the largest pro-life marches in the nation took place on Saturday in the heart of liberal San Francisco known for the Gay Pride Parade and anti-war protests.

The third annual Walk for Life West Coast attracted more than 25,000 participants, up from 15,000 last year, from all over California to support life. The rally took place two days prior to the 34th anniversary of the historic date when the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion in the Roe vs. Wade case of Jan. 22, 1973.

“Walk for Life’s primary goal is to reach out to women and men of all political persuasions with the message that abortion hurts all women,” said Eva Muntean, Walk for Life co-founder, in a statement. “Why San Francisco? We live here. This is our home.”

Several pro-life women shared about their own abortion experience and the regret they continue to have about their choice.

“No matter what politically correct nickname we’ve given abortion, there comes a moment when we know what we have done,” said Vera Lord, who had an abortion at age 34 and is now a national pro-life speaker, at the march according to Walk for Life West Coast.

“The dirty little secret behind what they call choice is that the baby isn’t the only one who dies; part of our souls dies, too,” said Lord. “We must make abortion not just illegal, but unthinkable.”

Organizers expected about 20,000 people - mostly older, white and conservative as in past marches. However, they reported a larger, younger, and more diverse crowd this year.

Alfredo Abarca of San Francisco Activist for Life and Family said he was “very impressed” with the number of young participant at the march that showed there is “another culture in society which defends and appreciates life.”

“The Walk for Life West Coast is a growing movement that is young, wonderful and vibrant,” said Meehan, co-founder of Walk for Life West Coast. “Clearly, the pro-life movement is quite alive in California.”

Speakers this year included Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr., regional director of the Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN); Talitha Phillips, speaker from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign; and Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life.

“For too long, San Francisco has been co-opted by the abortion industry,” said Meehan. “With over 30 million women reported as having had abortions performed on them, it stands to reason that city that leads the nations in abortions, also leads the nation in women and men who have been hurt by abortion. The purpose of the Walk for Life is to reach these men and women with a message of hope and healing.”

Thousands of pro-lifers will gather in Washington on Monday to commemorate the 34th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision for the annual March for Life rally at the nation’s capitol.

==============================

Young Pro-Lifers Emerge as New Anti-Abortion Force (Christian Post, 070123)

WASHINGTON – The pro-life movement has a new face and it’s younger and ready to challenge abortion rights activists.

A significantly large number of young adults were among the tens of thousands of pro-lifers who trekked out in the cold and muddy streets towards the U.S. Capitol on Monday to protest against the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize abortion 34 years ago in the Roe v. Wade case.

Speakers at the annual March for Life rally at the National Mall, one of the nation’s largest pro-life events, repeatedly praised in excitement the large turn out of young adults.

“As all the members of congress are recognizing, we have all of you wonderful young people [with us] today and we welcome the young people who are going to work from their schools,” said Nellie J. Gray, president of March for Life.

Busloads of young adults from Christian high schools and colleges across the country came to join religious leaders, activists and congressmen in support for life.

The students heard from dozens of pro-life Congressmen, many of whom shared openly about the influence of their Christian faith in their pro-life stance.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), known for his Christian faith and conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage, shared a personal story that made him an even stronger pro-life advocate.

Brownback spoke about a little Chinese girl he met seven years ago in China.

“Her name now is Jenna Joy Brownback and she is my daughter,” the Kansas senator said, sparking wild applause and shouts. “I mentioned her because some woman in China, that I will probably never meet, fought for her life…She fought for her life and you are fighting for someone’s life.

“Life is beautiful,” he continued, “And there is nothing ashamed about being pro-life. We want and we need a culture of life that respects and affirms life from conception to natural death. Life is too precious to do otherwise.”

An African American church leader shared how the African community has especially suffered from abortion. Pastor Luke J. Robinson of Quinn Chapel AME Church in Frederick, Md., said that over 500,000 babies were aborted last year in the African community– a number of unborn lives that could have populated the whole city of Frederick, Robinson pointed out.

“African American must come aboard and fight for life,” declared Robinson.

Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terry Schindler Schiavo, also spoke at the March for Life event about euthanasia.

“Never forget who you are,” concluded Congressman Todd Akin (R-Mo.). “We are a people who assembled here on this continent under the belief that there is a God who grants certain unalienable rights to all people – among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…

“Never forget who we are, Americans,” emphasized Akin. “We are a unique people based on the idea that God grants right to life to all people, we can never forget that.”

==============================

Sliding Fast Down the Slippery Slope (Mohler, 070515)

Just days after reporting that 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are now aborted, Amy Harmon reports in The New York Times that the real reach of the question goes far beyond Down syndrome. Now, some babies are aborted for virtually any trait considered undesirable by the mother or parents — and ethicists seem unwilling to draw any clear lines.

As Harmon reports:

Abortion rights supporters — who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body — have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable. And many are finding that, while they support a woman’s right to have an abortion if she does not want to have a baby, they are less comfortable when abortion is used by women who don’t want to have a particular baby.

“How much choice do you really want to give?” asked Arthur Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. “That’s the challenge of prenatal testing to pro-choicers.”

We knew this was coming, and the expanding availability of genetic testing will make the situation ever more complex and the options even more ominous. What about those who would abort a baby of the wrong sex . . . or eye color . . . or likely intelligence?

Here is a frightening section of the paper’s report:

But Kirsten Moore, president of the pro-choice Reproductive Health Technologies Project, said that when members of her staff recently discussed whether to recommend that any prenatal tests be banned, they found it impossible to draw a line — even at sex selection, which almost all found morally repugnant. “We all had our own zones of discomfort but still couldn’t quite bring ourselves to say, ‘Here’s the line, firm and clear’ because that is the core of the pro-choice philosophy,” she said. “You can never make that decision for someone else.”

There is a brutal honesty in Kirsten Moore’s candid admission that her inability to rule out any reason for an abortion is inherent in her pro-choice philosophy.

That same point is made by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. She provided the paper with a statement that included these lines:

“This issue underscores the importance of families making personal, private decisions without political interference . . . The decision should be with women, their families, and their doctors.”

As Amy Harmon reports, there are a good many people who consider themselves pro-choice who cannot go along with this logic. Ann Althouse, a law professor who considers herself a supporter of abortion rights, asked the key question: “Shouldn’t they have moral standards about what reasons are acceptable for an abortion?”

The answer coming from groups like NARAL is a simple “no.” And they apparently mean it.

Professor Althouse should talk to Dan Neil, whose argument for unrestricted abortion rights sends chills down the spine.

Neil’s column, “The Abortion Debate Brought Home,” was published in the May 6, 2007 edition of The Los Angeles Times.

Here is how he begins:

My wife and I just had an abortion. Two, actually. We walked into a doctor’s office in downtown Los Angeles with four thriving fetuses — two girls and two boys — and walked out an hour later with just the girls, whom we will name, if we’re lucky enough to keep them, Rosalind and Vivian. Rosalind is my mother’s name.

We didn’t want to. We didn’t mean to. We didn’t do anything wrong, which is to say, we did everything right. Four years ago, when Tina and I set out on this journey to have children, such a circumstance was unimaginable. And yet there I was, holding her hand, watching the ultrasound as a needle with potassium chloride found its mark, stopping the heart of one male fetus, then the other, hidden in my wife’s suffering belly.

Neil and his wife aborted two boy fetuses in order to increase the chances for two healthy girls. All of this resulted from an IVF procedure and the option of ”selective reduction” that is urged upon parents by many doctors.

As Neil explains, “We don’t feel guilty. We don’t feel ashamed. We’re not even really sad, because terminating these fetuses — at 15 weeks’ gestation — was a medical imperative.”

That is a redefinition of “imperative,” and the claim completely side-steps the moral responsibility of using a technology that is almost certain to present this awful choice. Furthermore, Neil and his wife used advanced diagnostic testing to determine which fetuses to abort.

Added to all this, Tom Strode of Baptist Press reports that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in Britain has allowed human embryos to be tested for eye squint. As Strode explains, “The news marked an ominous milestone -– supposedly the first embryo screening for a cosmetic flaw.”

The director of the London Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology and Genetics Centre, which gained the license from the HFEA, told BBC News it was more than a cosmetic condition.

“Whereas we all know somebody who’s got a squint, in this particular condition the muscles that control the gaze of direction of the eyes [are] grossly abnormal, so the gaze of the eye might be 90 degrees different from the direction which one might be looking, so to speak, the direction of one’s face,” Gedis Grudzinskas said.

Grudzinskas is not opposed to using PGD for cosmetic reasons, however.

“We will increasingly see the use of embryo screening for severe cosmetic conditions,” he said, according to The Telegraph, a British online newspaper.

The clinic director said he would be willing to try for permission to test for any genetic factor that would produce severe distress in a family.

When asked about hair color, Grudzinskas said, “If there is a cosmetic aspect to an individual case I would assess it on its merits. [Hair color] can be a cause of bullying which can lead to suicide. With the agreement of the HFEA, I would do it.

There is no honest way to deny the slippery slope toward the wholesale denial of human dignity. We are frighteningly far down that slope already.

==============================

Group: 61 Babies in China Forcefully Aborted (Christian Post, 070421)

Dozens of pregnant women in a south China province were allegedly injected with drugs by the Chinese government recently to end the lives of their unborn babies in accordance with the country’s one-child policy.

Within a 24-hour period, at least 61 pregnant women who did not want an abortion were left childless after the massive forced abortion campaign in southern China’s Guangxi Autonomous Region, which borders the South China Sea, according to China Aid Association.

Family Planning officials reportedly transported more than 20 women Wednesday to the Youjiang District People’s Hospital, where about ten of the women were forcibly injected with abortion drugs within half an hour.

However, not all the women lost their second child. It was the first child for Ms. He Caigan at bed number 37, according to CAA. The mother-to-be was reportedly nine months pregnant at the time the Family Planning officials took her to the hospital. They injected her baby’s head with drugs and 20 minutes later the baby stopped moving and died, CAA reported. She was not allowed to have a child ,according to Family Planning officials, because she did not have a marriage certificate, reported Bob Fu, founder and president of CAA, who interviewed her.

Fu, who has been jailed and beaten for his involvement in house churches when he lived in China, was commended recently by President Bush in a personal letter for his “good work” and “extraordinary acts of service” on religious freedom in China last month.

According to the CAA president, forced abortion is not only isolated to the region of Guangxi but is widespread throughout China with some areas being stricter than others.

The one-child policy officially took effect on Sept. 1, 2002 when the central Chinese government stringently held local officials accountable for the birth control policy.

Despite the fact that the one-child policy only officially took effect a few years ago, Fu recalled to The Christian Post on Friday how the policy affected his own family even as far back as 15 years ago. He said that his sister-in-law had accidentally become pregnant with a second child and had to run away to escape forced abortion. Officials had wrapped his brother in a blanket, taken him away to be arrested and beaten for having more than one child.

Yet surprisingly the policy has not been ill-received by all Chinese. There has been mixed reaction with the one-child policy campaign being “pretty successful” among intellectuals in the city who agree with the idea that if people want to live a better lives then they shouldn’t have more than one child, among other reasons given by its proponents.

But in the rural areas and especially among the Christian community, which believe in the value of protecting life, many have resisted the policy and would rather be arrested than carry out the practice.

Support has flooded in to help fight China’s one-policy law with the hospital’s phone being inundated with calls of complaint regarding the policy since the report was issued. Reportedly, many public security officials have surrounded the section of the hospital where these women are being held.

==============================

Mexico City Lawmakers Pass Abortion Bill (Christian Post, 070425)

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion Tuesday, a decision likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America.

The proposal, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city’s leftist mayor. Abortion opponents have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court, a move likely to extend the bitter and emotional debate in this predominantly Catholic nation.

“Decriminalizing abortion is a historic triumph, a triumph of the left,” said city legislator Jorge Diaz Cuervo, a social democrat who voted for the bill. “Today, there is a new atmosphere in this city. It is the atmosphere of freedom.”

Nationally, Mexico allows abortion only in cases of rape, severe birth defects or if the woman’s life is at risk.

The new law will require city hospitals to provide the procedure in the first trimester and opens the way for private abortion clinics. Girls under 18 would have to get their parents’ consent.

The procedure will be almost free for poor or insured city residents, but is unlikely to attract patients from the United States, where later-term abortion is legal in many states. Under the Mexico City law, abortion after 12 weeks would be punished by three to six months in jail.

Mexico City is dominated by the leftist Democratic Revolution Party, at odds with President Felipe Calderon’s conservative National Action Party, which opposed the abortion measure.

“We go to great lengths to protect (sea) turtle eggs,” said city lawmaker Paula Soto, a member of Calderon’s party. “Lucky turtles! It appears they have more people willing to defend them than some unborn children.”

The law alarmed Calderon’s party and prompted authorities to send ranks of riot police to separate chanting throngs of opposing demonstrators outside the city legislature.

“We want this law, because it means the right to choose,” said Alma Romo, who described herself as a feminist. “Unfortunately, there are some people who do not want to grant us that right.”

The only countries in Latin America and the Caribbean with legalized abortion for all women are Cuba and Guyana. Most others allow it only in cases of rape or when the woman’s life is at risk. Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile ban it completely.

The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, the legal arm of the reproductive rights movement globally, applauded the Mexico City law as “historic.”

“This will serve as a model to get abortion accepted not only nationwide, but also in Latin America and the Caribbean, where women who interrupt their pregnancies are still sent to jail,” said activist Elba Garcia, 24, who rode a flatbed truck in an abortion rights caravan through downtown Mexico City on Monday.

Recent newspaper polls showed that a majority of Mexico City residents support legalized abortions, at least in the first weeks of pregnancy.

The proposal has created an emotional confrontation in a country where the majority of people are Roman Catholic.

Calderon has opposed the proposal, and church leaders have led protests that pushed the limits of Mexico’s constitutional ban on political activity by religious groups.

Opponents argue that life begins at conception and say the law would violate the Mexican Constitution’s protection of individual rights. Supporters say the law would save the lives of thousands of women.

The city and its suburbs are home to about one-fifth of the country’s population, and many Mexicans travel to the capital for medical treatment. Opponents fear the local law could attract women across Mexico seeking abortions.

An estimated 200,000 women have illegal abortions each year in Mexico, based on the number who show up at hospitals later seeking treatment for complications, said Martha Micher, director of the Mexico City government’s Women’s Institute.

Botched abortions using herbal remedies, black-market medications and quasi-medical procedures kill about 1,500 women each year and are the third-leading cause of death for pregnant women in the capital, Micher said.

==============================

Poll: Most Pro-Choice Americans Still ‘Conservative’ on Abortion (Christian Post, 070523)

WASHINGTON – The majority of Americans who think that abortion should be legal still held some reservations on specific circumstances where they believe the practice should be illegal.

A new Gallup poll showed that although the majority of Americans consider themselves as pro-choice (49%) – compared to 45% who called themselves pro-life – most agreed that abortion should have restrictions. Only about three out of ten people (26%) believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance.

The dominant opinion that abortion should be legalized with restrictions is nothing new. Gallup observed that the trend of most Americans falling into the middle group has occurred since 1975.

The survey was conducted a month after the Supreme Court upheld a 2003 law banning partial-birth abortion - a procedure that involves partially removing the fetus intact body-first from the mother’s uterus, followed by crushing or cutting the skull of the fetus and then sucking out the baby’s brain.

According to another recent poll, most Americans (72%) support the Supreme Court banning partial-birth or late-term abortion.

Overall, it was noted that Americans were “fairly evenly” split on the abortion issue with slightly more Americans tending to be pro-choice.

The survey will also be useful as the presidential candidates discuss their views on abortion as the election nears. The abortion issue has always played an important role in the race although it may not be the sole deciding factor for many voters.

For Gallup’s annual Values and Belief survey, telephone interviews were conducted May 10-13 with 1,003 national adults aged 18 and older.

==============================

Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia (WorldNetDaily, 070613)

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

“Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80% are women and girls, most of whom are exploited.

“Women are trafficked from North Korea, Burma and Vietnam and sold into sexual slavery or to the highest bidder,” Mosher said.

State-Sanctioned Infanticide?

Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China, puts much of the blame on Beijing’s one-child policy, which took effect in 1979.

The policy encourages late marrying and late childbearing, and it limits the majority of urban couples to having one child and most of those living in rural areas to two. Female infanticide was the result, he said.

“Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China,” Mosher said. “But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls.”

In recent years, female infanticide has taken a back seat to sex-selective abortion or female feticide, due to the advent of amniocentesis and ultrasound technology as well as other prenatal sex selection techniques, many of which are now readily available in clinics and doctors’ offices.

“We feel it’s a serious problem that everybody should be concerned about and aware of,” said Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee. “This is a form of abortion that, from our point of view is especially egregious. Abortion is claimed to help women; obviously in these cases, females are the direct victims, because women in these cultures are not valued.

“In our family we adopted a Chinese baby,” she continued. “There have been thousands and thousands of them adopted since China’s one-child policy created this overabundance of baby girls in orphanages.”

How bad are the imbalances between males and females in Asia?

Generally, the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) is between 103 and 105 males per 100 females, and in rare cases 106 or a bit more than that.

Countries that are known to have or have had higher sex ratio at birth numbers include South Korea, which peaked at 115 in 1994, Singapore where the SRB registered 109 in 1984 and China, which has seen the numbers increase over the past two decades.

Published reports in China show the gender ratio for newborns in 2005 was 118 boys for every 100 girls, and in some southern regions like Guangdong and Hainan, the number has reached 130 boys for every 100 girls.

The 2000 Chinese census put the average sex ratio at 117, with Tibet having the lowest number at 103 and Hainan registering the highest at 136.

Nicholas Eberstadt, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., attributes the large sex-ratio imbalances in places like China to a combination of factors: an enormous and enduring preference for boys reinforced by the low socioeconomic status accorded to women; the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex determination technology for gender-based abortion; and the rapid drop in fertility in different populations, making the outcome of each birth even more important.

“The one-child policy intensifies this problem, but if that policy stops and fertility levels stay at one or two, the problem won’t entirely go away,” Eberstadt said. “When the average number is down to one or two, there is an incentive for parents to meddle with the outcome. In places where fertility levels are high, there are few signs of sex selection.”

In his presentation before the World Youth Alliance in New York City last April, Eberstadt warned that “The Global War Against Baby Girls” is expanding.

“There are gender imbalances in almost every East Asian country, but Japan,” said Eberstadt, who has also noted alarming irregularities in Western Asia in places like Cyprus, Qatar and Pakistan, as well as in some countries on the African continent, including Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

Indian Girls Bear Dowry Burden

In India, where the child sex ratio is calculated as the number of girls per 1,000 boys in the 0-6 years age group, the problem is severe. The 2001 Census shows there are only 927 girls per 1,000 boys, representing a sharp decline from 1961 when that number was 976. In certain parts of the country there are now fewer than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys. [KH: 927=1079 boys per 1000 girls]

“India is a very mixed bag,” Eberstadt said. “In some parts there are no signs of any unnatural imbalances; in other parts the numbers are grotesque.”

For instance, 2001 census reports show that Punjab and Haryana reported fewer than 900 girls per 1,000 boys.

“The problem is more prevalent in the northern and western states, where prosperity, rapid fertility decline and patriarchal (male heads the family) mindsets combine to put girls at risk,” said Ena Singh, the assistant representative at UNFPA.

Like China, there is a strong son preference for various socio-economic reasons, such as the son being responsible for carrying on the family name and support in old age. Furthermore, in some sections of India it is believed that only sons can perform the last rites for parents.

In addition to sharing a strong son preference, both India and China lack a national social-security system. As it is assumed that a daughter will become a part of her husband’s family, parents must rely on their sons to take care of them.

Since the 1970s, India’s government has promoted a two-child family as “ideal.” While no formal laws exist, the general fertility decline in the country has led to smaller families, with couples still preferring to have at least one son. But the government has done more than just suggest this number.

“In India it has been done state by state, village by village,” Mosher said. “There have sterilization campaigns and there is enormous pressure. Villages that won’t comply have been denied fertilizer, access to irrigation water, etc.”

Complicating matters even further in India is the dowry system, where families pay large sums in order to marry off their daughters. Although prohibited in 1961, newspaper reports illustrate the continuing phenomenon. This can be very expensive for families, adding to the perception that girls can be a financial burden.

Abortion is legal in India under certain conditions, but sex-selective abortions or female feticide is a crime.

In 1994, the government enacted the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PC & PNDT), which prohibited those conducting such tests from telling or otherwise communicating to the woman or her family the sex of the fetus. The law was amended in 2003 to prohibit sex selection before or after conception.

“In recent years, prenatal sex selection and female feticide in India has increased,” Singh said. “Though it is against the law for ultrasound technologies to be used to detect the sex of the child, it is still done illegally.”

In 2006 a doctor and his assistant in the northern state of Haryana were sentenced to two years in jail and fined for revealing the sex of a female fetus and agreeing to abort it. It was the first time medical professionals were sentenced to jail time under the (PC & PNDT) Act. Three years earlier, a doctor in Punjab received a fine. Singh estimates that hundreds more cases are being investigated across the country and taken to court.

Experts who have analyzed the National Family Health Survey 2 (NFHS2) estimate that about 300,000 girls go “missing” in India each year. Other studies have put the number between 150,000 and 500,000.

While many people see this as a problem of the poor, analysts say it is more prevalent among those in the wealthier and educated segments of society.

Men in parts of India are also beginning to have difficulties finding brides, causing some to leave the country to do so.

“Hindu girls are being smuggled and purchased from poor countries like Nepal and Bhutan to be brides for Indian men,” said Bernard Dickens, professor emeritus of health law and policy at the University of Toronto Law School.

Combating the Problem

In recent years various Indian state governments and media houses have launched initiatives to address the gender imbalances, including “Save the Girl Child” campaigns.

Last February, the Indian government announced its “cradle scheme,” whereby orphanages would be set up to raise unwanted baby girls. Other incentives include tax rebates on ownership of properties and reserving seats for female candidates in villages, districts and at municipal levels.

Community groups, corporations and individuals have also started various efforts to enhance the status of the girl child. In March 2007, politician Sonia Gandhi, chairwoman of the United Progressive Alliance, spoke out against female feticide and the need for gender equality at the at the International Women’s Day celebrations in New Delhi.

Lara Dutta, UNFPA’s goodwill ambassador, a popular actress and Miss Universe 2000, has also been working extensively with young people to raise awareness about the issue.

China too has enacted laws in an effort to meet its goal of lowering the sex ratio at birth to normal levels by 2010.

In 1994, the Mother and Child Health Law of the Peoples Republic of China outlawed the practice of sex identification of the fetus and sex-selective abortions without medical requirements. This was reaffirmed in the 2002 Population and Family Planning Law.

Officials also started the “Care for Girls” campaign to promote equality for men and women and economic support is being offered to girl-only families in the countryside.

“Raising awareness is important,” said William Ryan, a Asia and Pacific regional information advisor for the United Nations Population Fund. “I think the effort to emphasize equality of the sexes and the value of women in society will help reduce the problem in the long run.”

China Holds On to One Child

However, China has pledged to keep its one-child policy in place until the year 2050, a policy which it admits is “related” to the large sex imbalances in the country.

“The implications are potentially disastrous,” Mosher said. “The answer is economic development, not restricting the number of people.”

This year, the United States sponsored a resolution at the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women that called for eliminating infanticide and gender selection. The resolution was withdrawn due to opposition from several countries, including China and India; however, the issue of prenatal sex selection was included in the final conference document.

Interestingly South Korea was one of the countries to support the resolution. Like China and India, it too has had its own problems with sex imbalances; however, progress is being made.

If the imbalances continue, Adam Jones, executive director of Gendercide Watch, sees another possible outcome.

“Because of the disparity, surviving women have greater market value,” he said. “As a result, it may become more economically viable for families to have girl children, thus reducing rates of female infanticide and sex selection.”

As China and India work toward solving their problems, Eberstadt points out that three large European countries are also showing disturbing signs.

“Greece, Macedonia and Yugoslavia betray some hints of prejudicial death rates for little girls in the post-war period,” he said. While the numbers are very small, he notes they are “nonetheless curious and unusual.

“In the western hemisphere, Venezuela and El Salvador both have unnatural death rates for little girls and now also display unnatural sex ratios at birth,” he continued.

Published reports point to problems among some immigrant groups in Canada as well. And even in the United States, Eberstadt said, some Asian-American populations have begun to “exhibit sex ratios at birth that could be considered biologically impossible.”

“Since the mid-1990s, the issue of female infanticide and sex selection has been highlighted in several conferences and in several U.N. documents,” said Samantha Singson, chief U.N. liaison for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. “Unfortunately the issue isn’t getting as much attention as we feel it deserves.”

==============================

Anti-Abortion Bill to Become Law without Okla. Gov.’s Signature (Christian Post, 070525)

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Gov. Brad Henry said Wednesday night he would allow an anti-abortion bill to become law without his signature, even though he remains opposed to part of it.

The measure, pushed primarily by Republican lawmakers, was passed by the House and Senate after Henry vetoed an earlier bill that was opposed by the Oklahoma State Medical Association and other medical groups.

“This bill addresses several of the issues that led me to veto an earlier measure,” Henry said. “Unlike its predecessor, Senate Bill 139 provides exemptions for cases of rape and incest, and it includes language that allows for a physician to discuss options with his or her patient.”

The main objective of both bills was to bar state funds and resources from being used to perform abortions in the state. Some physicians claimed it would effectively prevent uninsured and underinsured women with troubled pregnancies from receiving medically qualified abortions.

Under the Oklahoma Constitution, a bill approved by the Legislature automatically becomes law after five days if the governor declines to take action on it. Wednesday was the last day for Henry to take action on the abortion bill.

Henry said the latest bill is still flawed and he will hopes the Legislature will amend it next year.

“Specifically, it still fails to provide exemptions for instances in which a lethal birth defect means there is no possibility of a fetus’ survival,” the governor said. “A woman should not be forced to carry a fetus to full term when there is no possibility that the fetus can survive outside the womb.”

Henry urged supporters of the bill to work with the medical community and others to address the lethal birth defect issue in the next legislative session.

Tony Lauinger, anti-abortion activist who worked for passage of the bill, said he was grateful to lawmakers for passing it.

Of the governor’s concerns, he said: “We do not believe it is the role of the state to kill a child who has been diagnosed with a disability or a disease.

Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa, introduced the bill and led the charge for Senate approval.

Lauinger said Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, and Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-Oklahoma City, also played a key role in the bill’s passage.

A measure sponsored by Gumm and Hamilton on a related subject was used as a vehicle to revive the issue after Henry’s veto.

==============================

U.S. Pro-Life Policies Defeated, Abortion Overseas Bolstered (Christian Post, 070623)

WASHINGTON – Anti-abortion and pro-abstinence advocates were dealt a series of blows Thursday following decisions by the House that included allowing federal funding to pro-abortion groups overseas, lifting a ban on providing contraception overseas, and blocking federal funding for abstinence education.

In a 218-205 vote, the House failed to approve a bipartisan amendment to protect the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prohibits federal tax dollars from supporting organizations that perform or promote abortion as family planning.

“The cry of congressional liberals was, ‘Make sure foreign abortion providers get American taxpayers’ money!” said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst of Focus on the Family Action, according to Citizenlink. “Well, today that’s what happened.”

The House review of the foreign aid spending bill also concluded in the reversal of the ban on contraception aid to groups overseas. Although the decision does not directly change the Mexico City policy since no funds are transferred, pro-life advocates argue that giving contraceptives to these groups will free up their resources to provide abortion.

Adding to the string of defeats, the House also struck down an amendment to channel some of the funding from PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) toward abstinence education during their consideration of the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill. The amendment would have set aside 33% spending directive for abstinence-until-marriage programs under the five-year $15 billion plan for AIDS.

“Once again, liberals shirked hard evidence in favor of political correctness,” said Horne. “It’s been proven that abstinence education works as a part of the ABC program (Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms as a last resort) when the infection is in the generalized population. This change in PEPFAR could skyrocket infection rates.”

The bill with the amendments still needs to pass the Senate, after which it awaits the decision of President Bush.

Earlier this week, Bush had stated he will veto any bill that seeks to weaken current federal policies and laws on abortion. The president is expected to veto the bill in its current form.

==============================

Senate OKs Foreign Aid Bill With Family Planning Funds (Foxnews, 070907)

[KH: the anti-life stance of Democrats clearly demonstrated]

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Thursday to lift restrictions on family planning aid to overseas health organizations that perform abortions or promote the procedure as a method of family planning.

The vote came as the Senate passed by a 81-12 vote a $34 billion measure funding foreign aid and U.S. diplomacy. Companion legislation passed the House in June, and the measure now heads to House-Senate negotiations over a final version.

On the family planning vote, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., won a 53-41 tally reversing U.S. policy regarding aid to pro-abortion groups. But Boxer’s move has dim prospects of becoming law. President Bush is a passionate advocate of the current policy and has promised to veto any attempt to undermine it.

Such veto threats also apply to the underlying bill covering foreign aid and the State Department budget. It would ease the restrictions to permit family planning groups cut off from U.S. aid to accept U.S.-donated contraceptives.

Boxer and a familiar adversary, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., dominated the brief but emotional abortion debate.

Boxer complained that overseas family planning groups are blocked from counseling women about abortion or from participating in debates about abortion policy in their own countries if they want to hold onto their U.S. aid.

“The policy literally gags foreign organizations that receive (U.S.) family planning funds,” Boxer said.

Brownback said U.S. taxpayers should not be required to subsidize organizations involved in abortions. He is mounting a long-shot bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination and is focusing his attention of the party’s base of social conservatives.

“It’s a gut-check issue about where you stand on life ... where you stand on whether on not we should be using taxpayer funds for abortion,” Brownback said.

The vote to overturn the so-called Mexico City policy — named after the population conference where President Reagan announced it — was expected. Boxer had prevailed on a 52-46 vote two years ago and her position was strengthened by the results of last fall’s elections that gave Democrats control of the Senate.

But by a 48-45 vote, Brownback narrowly won a bid aimed at continuing Bush administration policy barring U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund because of aid provided to China, whose population-control program relies on coerced abortions. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., had sought to permit U.S. contributions, arguing that the family planning funds could prevent abortions in China.

The overall bill would cut Bush’s chief foreign aid program to help emerging democracies. It also would funnel more money to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world.

==============================

Contending with the ‘Cults of Death’ (Christian Post, 070920)

It is now clear that a “death cult” has taken root within Islam. These fanatical enemies of freedom will as soon rain death and mayhem upon a schoolyard of innocent children (Muslim as well as non-Muslim) as they will attack a military vehicle.

Yet while we denounce these zealots who seek to destroy in the name of religion, we should also acknowledge that a “death cult” has arisen in our own society as well. Many in this group worship at the altar of secularism. They have devalued life, and their handiwork is memorialized in the ignominious Roe v. Wade decision as well as in those state statutes that allow for euthanasia and lethal experimentation on embryonic stem cells.

In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II noted as the twentieth century came to a close that a full-blown “Culture of Death” had established itself within Western civilization.

Clear marks of this “culture of death” are seen in a hideous September 12 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court. It held that a physician has “no legal duty” to inform a pregnant woman consenting to an abortion that what is within her womb is a “complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being.” The case primarily focused on the “theory of lack of informed consent.”

The New Jersey justices affirmed a lower court ruling that a woman who consented to an abortion of her six- to eight-week-old unborn child but claimed she did not understand it was a child she was aborting was not entitled to the disclosure that she was carrying a child, nor was she entitled to damages for emotional distress or wrongful death. This is in spite of the medical fact that a baby’s heart begins to beat 24 days after conception and a baby has measurable brain waves at 42 days gestation.

“On the profound issue of when a life begins, this Court cannot drive public policy in one particular direction by the engine of common law when the opposing sides, which represent so many of our citizens, are arrayed along a deep societal and philosophical divide,” said the court in Rosa Acuna v. Sheldon C. Turkish.

The court had previously interpreted the state’s Wrongful Death Act as not including a “fetus within the definition of a ‘person’ covered by the Act.”

The plaintiff, Rosa Acuna, said when her physician, Sheldon Turkish, told her she was pregnant, she asked “if it was a baby in there.” Acuna claims Turkish responded, “Don’t be stupid. It’s only blood.” Turkish denies making that statement, but speculates he might have told her that a “seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being” but rather “just tissue at this time.”

Some weeks after her abortion, Acuna experienced unexpected complications. She was admitted to a local hospital where she was told she had had an “incomplete abortion” and that “the doctor had left parts of the baby inside” of her. At that point Acuna was horrified to realize her earlier decision to terminate her pregnancy meant not simply the removal of “blood” but the destruction of a real human being.

While expressing sympathy for the “deep pain” the plaintiff was enduring because of the abortion, the justices said informed consent extends only to doctors providing “their pregnant patients seeking an abortion only with material medical information, including gestational state and medical risks involved in the procedure.”

In essence the court held that while a physician has an obligation to inform a patient about the known (agreed-upon) risks from a particular medical procedure or drug regimen, that same doctor has no obligation to tell a person considering abortion that the “thing” that is to be aborted is a preborn human being, in this case a baby with a beating heart and a functioning brain. The court’s reasoning in this assertion is that there is a lack of agreement over the nature of the pregnancy itself within society.

In applauding the ruling the ACLU said the case was an “underhanded attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces and subject women to non-medical moral judgments.”

Why are pro-abortion groups afraid to let an unsuspecting woman know that the “thing” growing within her is a human life? Even with that information, under current law the woman would still have the “right” (wrong though it may be) to have that life flushed out of her system.

Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and other members of this cult of death don’t want women to know this is a human life we are talking about. It is not only a truth revealed in Scripture (Psalm 139; Jeremiah 1:5); it is a fact agreed upon by most in the medical community.

It is a fact that the plaintiff in this case consented in writing to this procedure. (Although it is her contention that she did not fully comprehend its ramifications.) It is difficult to fathom that any woman would not understand that what was growing within her is a child —particularly if this was the woman’s third child (as it was for Acuna).

Nonetheless, we cannot make such assumptions about the population.

That is why the paper cup you are handed at your local coffee shop has a warning imprinted upon it to tell you that the coffee in the cup is hot and may burn you if you pour it on yourself.

And it is why there is a label on hair dryers that warns that you if you want to dry your hair immediately after washing it you should step out of the shower spray before you take hold of the dryer.

This case rises to a much higher level because a human life faced immediate and deadly risk.

The ACLU said the court’s decision is a message that citizens of New Jersey will not “tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech.”

It is easy to perch haughtily on the right to freedom of speech embedded in our Constitution’s First Amendment, but is there not at least a moral obligation for that speech to be truthful and complete?

Should a patient not expect her physician to tell her everything about a pending medical procedure? The law, in fact, requires as much. Yet the law in New Jersey does not recognize the unborn child—the target of the abortion—as a patient (or a victim). So the doctor has no obligation to inform the baby’s legal guardian of the risks of the procedure.

While those who value human life—born and preborn—may be disgusted by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling, we should be more disgusted with a society that contends that an unborn human baby is just a mass of tissue until some subjective, magical time in-utero when the tissue is transformed into a human being.

We had a similar issue earlier in our nation’s history when we regarded the color of a person’s skin as a determinant of their value as a human being. African-Americans had been regarded “as beings of an inferior order” by U.S. Supreme Court justices writing in the Dred Scott decision.

We should be motivated by this decision (as well as many other similar decisions before it) to assist our citizenry in understanding when life begins and that, especially at two months of pregnancy, this baby is not simply a cluster of random cells. The baby not only had a heartbeat when the doctor performed the “incomplete abortion”—the baby had measurable brain waves, the legal definition of human life in most states.

We should also encourage Christian young people to pray about whether God might call them to ministries in medicine and the life sciences, so as to “season” the medical community with Truth.

We should ensure there is an amply funded pregnancy care center in every city and town across our nation and that every center has ultrasound equipment that allows women in crisis pregnancies to marvel at the life that God is growing within them. Women who see a sonogram of their unborn babies are five times less likely to snuff out their babies’ lives.

Finally we should, with all the earnestness and seriousness the Spirit will provide us, be “salt” and “light” in our families, churches, communities, and nation. It is not an option; the Gospel demands it, lives depend on it, and the survival of our civilization hangs in the balance.

The death cults abroad and at home must be confronted.

____________________________________________________________

Dr. Richard Land is president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention’s official entity assigned to address social, moral, and ethical concerns, with particular attention to their impact on American families and their faith.

==============================

Life Matters: I’m pro-life not because I’m certain, but because I’m not. (National Review Online, 071017)

By Jonah Goldberg

I don’t know if life begins at conception. I don’t really know what “life” means. Consciousness? Possessing a soul? Well, if consciousness defines the issue, then life surely does not begin at conception. Not even the most adamant pro-lifer claims otherwise.

As for souls, I believe we have them, but I don’t know how they work. Indeed, ensoulment — the process by which God puts a soul in our bodies — is a controversial topic among religious scholars, people who know a lot more about such things than I do. And I’m not sure any of them are right anyway.

If “life” simply means that fetuses are something more than inanimate objects, I’m with you. But that hardly seals the deal for me on the issue of abortion. After all, the world is filled with organisms that do not deserve any special consideration, let alone a claim on a human being’s life or liberty.

In short, while I have great sympathy for “culture of life” arguments, if you tallied most of the above views on abortion, they’d appear to add up to my being pro-choice. And yet, when I get right down to it, I’m not. Why?

I’ve been trying to find my own answer to that question as the GOP comes to grips with the fact that its presidential front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, is pro-choice. I confess: A fully satisfactory answer eludes me, but I have enough of one to stay pro-life.

Part of my reasoning is politically pragmatic. Right-wing activist Grover Norquist once told NRO’s David Freddoso that anyone who can go to black-tie dinners and face the haranguing of rich donors for his pro-life stance has the backbone to support tax cuts, too.

That’s a crude way of putting it, but I know what he means. Being pro-life is so unfashionable, so uncool, I tend to trust politicians who are willing to hold the line.

This, in turn, is why I have special contempt for anti-abortion politicians who switch sides. Jesse Jackson used to call abortion “genocide.” Dick Gephardt, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and other pro-choicers all once championed the unborn. Did each of them revisit the moral, philosophical, scientific, and theological issues involved and, after careful study, decide that abortion doesn’t kill “babies,” after all, but merely evacuates “uterine contents”? I doubt it.

I could be wrong. But the fact that their conversions echoed the march of the Democratic party and, for the most part, dovetailed with their presidential ambitions suggests to me that they were willing to sanction the taking of what they had once believed to be innocent lives merely for political gain. That is disgusting.

Flip-flopping the other way (as George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and others did) may be no less cynical. To pro-choice voters, it’s surely offensive to watch someone sacrifice the individual liberty of women for political expediency. But, morally, it just doesn’t seem as bad to me.

Every day, the government restricts what you can do with your body, from the drugs you can take to the surgeries you can subject yourself to. In other words, the line of personal autonomy is often blurry and narrow. The line between life and death is supposed to be bright and wide. Once a politician takes a stand that a certain population — be they fetuses, blacks, Jews, the handicapped or anybody else — has the right to life, their motive for changing their minds should be a lot better than fear of losing support from NARAL and the New York Times.

And that gets me to my more philosophical or principled reason for being pro-life: I just don’t know. I confess that I lack passion about debates over RU-486, Plan B, and other measures that terminate a pregnancy in the first few hours or days after conception, because that’s when I’m least sure that a life is at stake. But when it comes to, say, partial-birth abortion, I am adamantly pro-life. I don’t know if a fertilized egg has rights. But I am convinced that a baby minutes, days or weeks before full term is, simply, a baby. And despite what you constantly hear, Roe v. Wade doesn’t recognize that fact.

In death-penalty cases, “reasonable doubt” goes to the accused because unless we’re certain, we must not risk an innocent’s life. This logic goes out the window when it comes to abortion, unless you are 100-percent sure that babies only become human beings after the umbilical cord is cut. I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.

==============================

Throne speech signals Conservatives ready to govern (National Post, 071017)

OTTAWA — So farewell, then, Canada’s “new government” — ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a more seasoned, mature ministry, which will focus on the long-term interests of all Canadians, not just the future electoral prospects of the Conservative Party.

That seemed to be the subtext of the Speech from the Throne, beamed direct to Canadians in prime time by Governor General Michaëlle Jean from the Senate chamber, in which the “new government” moniker was consigned to the shredder.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper signalled last night that a government that has been in constant campaign mode since being elected 20 months ago is now intent on governing, rather than provoking confrontation with the Liberals by using the Throne Speech as a poison-pill laden campaign platform.

The impression being sought is of an assured, established government looking after the long-term interests of the country, not a party that is in a constant state of anxiety about being thrown back into opposition.

The speech was divided into five key themes — sovereignty at home and abroad, the economy, national unity, the environment and tackling crime — just as the last campaign had five key election pledges. But the new five priorities are on a different scale of ambition than the very targeted campaign promises like the GST cut. “This lays out the ground work for what the government will be doing in the long-term over the course of this mandate, and perhaps even into a second mandate,” said one Conservative.

There was little new in the speech — the Governor-General confirmed that MPs will vote on the future of the Afghan mission; that the government will follow through on its commitment to further cut the GST; that the Conservatives will limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction, while at the same time strengthening the federal government’s leadership of the economic union by lowering inter-provincial trade barriers; and that the government will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-70% by 2050.

The most contentious issue may be the omnibus Tackling Violent Crime bill that packages up a number of the justice items left from last session (including, most controversially, the dangerous offenders bill that puts the onus on criminals convicted of three violent offences to prove they should not be designated as dangerous offenders). In addition, the pledge to strengthen the Anti-Terrorism Act is likely to cause the opposition parties to balk. Both will probably be deemed measures of confidence by the Prime

Minister and it is unlikely they will be acceptable to any of the opposition parties when they eventually come to a vote.

The more immediate question though, is whether Liberal leader Stephane Dion can live with the contents and thus avert a fall election. Since there was no commitment by Mr. Harper to deliberately befoul the air and water in a ceaseless quest for profit, logic suggests Mr. Dion should be able to hold his nose and allow the speech to pass.

There is no consistency in the public polls regarding whether the Conservatives would win a majority but all have the Tories well ahead and some suggest that Mr. Harper is preferred to Mr. Dion by a margin of two to one.

Yet, those around him say Mr. Dion is in a “combative” mood and determined not to back down from any perceived provocation from the Prime Minister. “If there is anything in there that smacks of a white glove in the face of the leader, he is very resolute he will pick a fight,” said one advisor, prior to the speech being delivered.

We will find out Wednesday whether Mr. Dion considers his honour has been besmirched when he gives his response in the House of Commons. On balance, it is hard to see what would provoke the Liberal leader into making any rash moves. Yes, the speech stated that Canada will not meet its Kyoto targets but Mr. Dion has already acknowledged this in a letter to Prime Minister over the summer.

The speech also suggested that the government will bring forward “elements” of Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act that was gutted beyond recognition in committee during the last parliament. Mr. Dion made full re-introduction of the bill one of his five key demands but Liberal sources now suggest this is not a deal-breaker, as long as the government lives up to its Throne Speech commitment to make absolute reductions in emissions. “Let’s not get caught up in C-30 as the be-all and end-all,” said one Liberal.

The only other obvious potential poison pill is Afghanistan, where Mr. Dion had called for unequivocal assurances that Canada will notify its allies that it will end its combat role in Kandahar in February 2009. As the Throne Speech made clear, the government will wait for the newly struck Manley Panel, under chair John Manley, to report back on future options before making any further commitments.

All signs point to the Liberals backing away from the bellicose noises they were making in the last few weeks. It would be as well for Mr. Dion if they do because he is currently being assailed daily by new disasters — the latest being the resignation of his Quebec lieutenant and the refusal by two other Quebec MPs to take up that particular challenge. There have even been questions raised about whether Mr. Dion could carry his caucus with him, if he decides to bring down the government. It would be the ultimate indignity for Mr. Dion if he charged into the valley of electoral death, only to turn round and find out he’s on his own.

==============================

Poor Planned Parenthood? (townhall.com, 071024)

By Brent Bozell III

As much as liberals decry major corporations that act as if they’re above the law, there’s always quiet when the subject is Planned Parenthood, America’s No. 1 corporate provider of abortions. During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, reported a tidy profit of $55.8 million — and received a record high in taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

This is one corporation the media hold in the highest regard. They’re not “merchants of death.” That would be the tobacco companies, or gun manufacturers, or hamburger joints. These are the heroic “providers” of “a woman’s right to choose.”

They’re also sleazy in their business practices. In Aurora, Ill., Planned Parenthood decided to build the biggest abortion clinic in the country, but it lied by omission to the city. Throughout the construction process, the McDonald’s of the abortion industry applied for permits by listing the owner as “Gemini Office Development,” not as Planned Parenthood.

ABC News to the rescue! Barbara Pinto filed a report on the Sept. 19 “World News,” suggesting black was white. “Planned Parenthood denies they’ve deceived anyone,” she stated, adding that their spokesman in Chicago said they were “entirely truthful.”

Pinto proceeded to blame Aurora’s officials for being dimwitted: “None of the city officials or elected officials were aware that Planned Parenthood would be the tenant in this building. That, despite the fact plans they approved included a surgical center, bulletproof glass and numerous security cameras.” ABC ended by quoting the clinic’s neighbors wishing the pro-lifers would stop protesting: “I just wish that they’d go home. I’m tired of seeing their signs.”

Down the highway in Kansas, Johnson County District Attorney Phil Kline just filed 107 charges against Planned Parenthood, charging that its clinic in Overland Park performed unlawful late-term abortions. Kansas state law holds that abortion is legal only when a doctor affirms that the baby is not viable to live outside the mother’s womb. If the baby can live, then two doctors must attest the abortion is necessary for the woman’s physical or mental health. That’s why clinic records are an issue.

The 23 felony counts allege that Planned Parenthood submitted false “pregnancy termination reports” to a court on Aug. 21 in response to a subpoena. District Court Judge James S. Vano agreed there was probable cause to think crimes had been committed and set a Nov. 16 court date. Planned Parenthood faces more than $2.5 million in potential fines.

But you’ll not see a story virtually anywhere on this budding scandal because the press studiously avoids scrutiny of its liberal sacred cows — or focuses its guns on that person who would dare to get in their way. They’d lionize a state official attacking crisis-pregnancy centers that try to talk women out of abortions. But investigate the abortion industry, and you’re a national disgrace.

In 2005, Kline was demonized by glossy national magazines like GQ as the man “who will do anything to stop abortion.” In that GQ article, his local Planned Parenthood adversary, Peter Brownlie, was allowed to make the ridiculous claim that “Planned Parenthood, by its efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies, has prevented more abortions than any anti-abortion group that has ever existed. They talk. We do.”

So pro-lifers should applaud Planned Parenthood — for not killing every baby it encounters.

Now comes another ABC News story on its Website, with a fresh liberal tilt. ABC’s Emily Friedman began by suggesting Kline was “either an agenda-driven prosecutor operating outside the law or one of the best friends the anti-abortion rights movement has ever had.”

Not only are pro-lifers not “pro-life,” they’re not even “abortion foes.” They’re now — in a news report, remember — “anti-rights.” Friedman unloaded the critical comments of liberals: not just Planned Parenthood’s Brownlie, but Kansas professor Burdett Loomis (whom even she noted was a strategist for the Democratic governor of Kansas in 2004) and Kim Gandy, the boss of the National Organization for Women, who lionized Dr. George Tiller, the champion of hideous third-trimester abortions, as “one of the very few who has the courage to do this kind of work.”

A Kline spokesman tried to rebut the claims of “critics,” but it was hopeless. The overall tone of the piece was how Kline is not only ruining the “choice” of third-trimester abortions for desperate women, his pro-life agenda is ruining the Republican Party on the plains. ABC’s expert analyst? Loomis, the Democrat, who concluded the article: “I think even within the Republican Party, this is a guy who has probably outlived his welcome.”

Planned Parenthood is a formidable force in national (and state) politics. One major reason is networks like ABC, news outlets that don’t really care whether this corporation plays by the rules, as long as the abortion assembly line keeps running.

==============================

U.S. Abortion Total Hits Lowest Mark Since Year After Roe v. Wade (Christian Post, 071126)

The number of abortions nationwide has dropped to their lowest levels since the year following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision Roe v. Wade, according to the latest annual Abortion Surveillance report by the Center for Disease Control.

In the report on legally induced abortions carried out in the United States in 2004, the health agency counted 839,226 abortions – a 1.1% decrease from the 848,136 abortions reported in 2003.

The documented number is the lowest since 1974, the year following the Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to have an abortion. In that year, the CDC reported the total number of abortions to be 763,476.

There were 238 abortions per 1,000 live births in 2004, a decrease from 241 the year before. The abortion ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984, according to the report, and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline.

The number of abortions per 1,000 women, meanwhile, has remained unchanged, having been around 16 since 2000. The statistic was based on data collected from women aged 15-44 years in age.

The CDC indicates that the number of abortions has been steadily declining from 1996-2000. In 2002, the number of abortions slightly increased by 0.1%, but it declined by 0.7% in 2003 before further declining by 1.1% in 2004.

In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), New York (91,673), and Texas (74,801), said the report. The fewest total of abortions occurred in Wyoming (12), South Dakota (814), and Idaho (963).

While the annual abortion report points out certain trends in abortion levels, the CDC noted that the total numbers of actual abortions were probably higher than those voluntarily reported by central health agencies.

Most figures – including the overall number, ratio, and rate of abortions – are conservative estimates, said the CDC in the report.

One of the reasons is the fact that three states – California, New Hampshire, and West Virginia – did not report data for 2003-2004. Although the health agency has estimated data for non-reporting states in the past, it has not since 1998.

Before 1998, over 23% of abortions were estimated to have been performed in California. The absence of data from California in the 2004 Abortion Surveillance “largely explains the majority of the 28% decrease from the annual number of abortions reported for 1997 and part of the decrease in the total ratio and rate,” stated the report.

CDC estimates that about 12-20% of the abortions performed nationwide are not reflected in their annual figures.

In the latest report, the abortion rate for the United States was higher than rates reported for Canada and Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union.

==============================

Survey: Majority of Americans Still Want to Keep Abortions Legal (Christian Post, 071113)

Most people in the United States still believe abortion should be allowed, a recent poll found.

In a poll by TNS, released by the Washington Post and ABC News, American adults were asked in telephone interviews whether they thought abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases.

Of those who participated, 55% said they think that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 43% disagreed.

While the results show that the number of respondents who support legal abortions in all or most cases has been fairly consistent since February 2007, the percentage of Americans who would want abortion to be legal in all cases dropped from 23 to 19 between July and November.

In contrast, the number of those who believe the termination of a pregnancy should always be illegal has been steadily climbing since February, rising from 14% in July to 16% in November.

But Americans who support making abortion illegal in most cases has been dropping. In Februrary, 31% of respondents said they wanted abortions in most cases to be declared illegal but that figure went down to 27% in the recent poll.

Under the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling, women have a right to choose an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. The ruling also regulated the procedure during the second trimester “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.”

The Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions in April 2007.

There were 1,131 American adults who participated in the survey TNS conducted from Oct. 29 to Nov. 1.

==============================

Bishops ask US voters to examine their consciences on abortion (Times Online, 071115)

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States have waded into the presidential election campaign with a warning to voters that they must heed the Church’s teaching on issues such as abortion or risk their eternal salvation.

According to a statement adopted yesterday at a meeting in Baltimore, voters who back candidates because he or she supports “an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism” amounts to “formal cooperation in grave evil.”

The bishops defined what they called “threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life” as human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, racism, torture and genocide.

The statement – “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” – is an update of similar documents that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has offered to its flock before every presidential race since 1976.

The document does not recommend specific candidates or policies, but makes clear both to voters and potential candidates that their votes affect more than just civic life.

“Political choices faced by citizens have an impact on general peace and prosperity and also may affect the individual’s salvation,” the bishops said. “Similarly, the kinds of laws and policies supported by public officials affect their spiritual well-being.”

While the 30-plus-page document touches widely on Catholic social justice teaching, the bishops said that fighting abortion should be a priority.

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the bishops said. “It must always be opposed.”

Catholics make up one-quarter of the US electorate, but do not vote as a bloc, and often do not follow the bishops’ political guidance. Surveys indicate that most do not choose candidates based on that person’s position on abortion.

In the current election season, none of the leading presidential candidates has been reliably anti-abortion. In fact the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, is a Catholic who supports abortion rights. [KH: another example of media bias: why H Clinton is not mentioned?]

In some cases, Catholics may vote for a candidate with a position contrary to church teaching, but only for “truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences”, according to the statement.

The document did not address whether Catholics who violate this guidance should continue to receive Holy Communion.

Nicholas DiMarzio, the Bishop of Brooklyn, who helped draft the document, said the bishops are simply asking Catholics to “examine their consciences”.

“When you look at eternal salvation, God is the only judge,” said Bishop DiMarzio. “All we have the ability to do is to warn people...It is not a voter guide.”

The document makes clear the broad concerns that keep Catholics from finding a true political home with either the Democrats or Republicans.

The bishops said helping the poor should be a top priority in government, providing health care, taking in refugees and protecting the rights of workers, and the bishops highlight the need for environmental protection.

However, they also opposed same-sex marriage, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, in addition to their staunch anti-abortion position.

The prelates, who oppose the death penalty, declared that torture is “always wrong,” and expressed “serious moral concerns” about “preventive use of military force.”

But in a very brief floor debate before the vote, they heightened their language on terrorism, adding a sentence acknowledging “the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror”.

In recent years, some independent Catholics groups have been distributing their own voter booklets, with theological conservatives emphasising abortion and liberal-leaning groups highlighting church teaching on war, poverty and social justice. The bishops urged Catholics to only use voter resources approved by the church.

==============================

Devolving Standards of Decency (townhall.com, 071119)

By Mike S. Adams

Recently, a young woman came by my office to discuss my opposition to abortion. Two of her friends had already had abortions though she had not. She was motivated to visit me by a discussion in her Women’s Studies class – one that broached the controversial topic of abortion and rape.

The feminist teaching the class was one affiliated with our Women’s Resource Center – an office that seeks to win the abortion debate by ensuring that it never actually takes place. The feminists figure that simply maintaining the status quo will look a lot like winning a “debate” to those unaware of the extent of feminist opposition to the First Amendment. They also seek to win the abortion “debate” by using the most extreme cases to justify abortion for the sake of convenience.

And so it came as no surprise that the feminist “scholar” won some points with these impressionable young women by asking them “How could anyone look a rape victim in the eye and tell her she must have her baby?” This was done without ever having to look a pro-lifer in the eye.

Since many of these feminists are English professors there is a decided preference to engage in soliloquy rather than dialogue. There is also a decided tendency to misclassify (or ms-classify) certain questions as rhetorical simply because they have not been subjected to cross-examination in the minds of feminists.

My answer to the feminist’s question is grounded in the assumption that it was not merely rhetorical. My answer is also firmly grounded in reality.

Laura is a real, living and breathing entity – very much like the U.S. Constitution, one might say. She hails from Texas which is also where her mother put her up for adoption in the 1970s. Having never met her biological mother, she eventually became curious about her background and why her mother decided to put her up for adoption. She began doing her research with the understanding that it might lead her to discover some things that were, to say the least, distressing.

And it did lead to distress. In fact, it could not have been more distressing as Laura eventually learned that her father was a rapist and her mother a rape victim. Although I am tempted to speak of Laura’s kindness, her contributions to society, and so forth, I will exercise my right to chose to abort this story (a First Amendment exercise, actually) in order to reframe the feminist professor’s question:

Would it have been more insensitive and indecent to (a) tell Laura’s mother to have the baby (as someone seems to have done) or to (b) tell Laura she should have been aborted.

And, make no mistake about it; this really is a matter of decency, or lack thereof.

In 1958, the United States Supreme Court stated (in Trop v. Dulles) that the Eight Amendment must “draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this case, the government was prevented from stripping a man of his citizenship as punishment for a crime.

And look where we have since gone in the name of “progress.” Less than twenty years later, the Supreme Court would say that these “evolving standards of decency” prevented Georgia from executing a man for the crime of rape (see Coker v. Georgia, 1977). The man had a sordid past that included murder, though not murder in the first degree.

And somewhere in between these two cases (beginning in 1965) the Court would imagine a new Right to Privacy. It would take less than a decade before the right to contraception would give birth to a right to abortion, which would remain intact long after the right to avoid pregnancy via the act of sodomy would become part of the constitution.

People very seldom take seriously the retort of one politician who was asked whether a woman impregnated by a rapist should be able to terminate the life of the baby. His suggestion that we should execute the rapist and not the baby was pithy but wholly unrealistic in a society that has so progressed and matured in the eyes of the Highest Court.

There may well be many progressive readers of this column who are satisfied with the status quo; namely, with the extension of rights to rapists and rape victims, but not to the products of rape.

Leaving only one of the three persons in the equation (rapist, victim, and baby) without rights could well be seen as a devolving standard of decency that marks the regress of a secular society. This conclusion is perhaps best avoided by assuming that the unborn are not fully human and, as such, cannot be fairly characterized as persons.

But, in order to avoid an eerie feeling of hypocrisy, “progressive” supporters of abortion rights must simultaneously assume that the convicted rapist is a person who has somehow managed to retain his full humanity and personhood in the wake of such an awful transgression.

Somehow I cannot muster the hubris to assert that the humanity of the fetus is surpassed by that of the convicted rapist. I thank God that evolution has not conspired to make me a part of such a mature and progressive society.

==============================

Grim Reaping: Do You Really Know Roe? (townhall.com, 071217)

By Matt Barber

Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term “September 11th” almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who chose to callously sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.

But another date, January 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history — Roe v. Wade.

PICTURE: A four dimensional ultrasound is seen at a pregnancy clinic in Arlington, Texas November 26, 2007. The clinic offers free services to what it deems are “vulnerable women” considering an abortion. Part of a program called “Option Ultrasound,” sponsored by the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, the clinic works on the principle that women who view images of their fetus are less likely to have an abortion.

The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom “right” for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.

Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously “choose” to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.

It’s not at all surprising that what public support there is for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, and blissful ignorance relative to Roe is by design. It’s intentionally fueled through obfuscation and disinformation, fostered by pro-abortion activists and other like-minded leftists. Polls show conclusively that the more people learn about Roe v. Wade, the less likely they are to support it.

And so, in an effort to help educate the public about Roe, members from a coalition of pro-family organizations are asking America the following question: “Do you really know Roe?”

Concerned Women for America (CWA), Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council have designed a Web site with a brief online questionnaire to test your knowledge about Roe v. Wade. It’s a Roe IQ test, and it can be taken in a few short minutes at RoeIQTest.com.

We’ve all heard the Biblical admonition, “A man reaps what he sows.” With Roe, we have reaped a culture of death. The human toll Roe has taken is unfathomable and will only increase until people take the time to learn the truth about this convoluted and lethal ruling.

The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war — the war for our culture — it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battle field, buried — unceremoniously — in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood.

Although we think of 1973 — the year Roe was decided — as relatively modern, there remained, even then, a raging debate over when life begins. To abortion proponents, the pre-born child was merely a “lifeless blob” or a “nonviable mass of tissue” that could be done away with at any time prior to birth without moral or legal implications.

To the pro-life side, human life begins at the moment of conception with all the associated legal and civil rights of personhood attached.

The Roe Court sided with the pro-abortionists.

But since that time, science and technology have proven pro-lifers right and the Roe Court wrong. Addressing that reality, CWA President Wendy Wright noted, “Technology and testimonies have splintered support for abortion, paving the way for more protection for women and unborn children.

“Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not — as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women — a ‘blob of tissue.’ Whereas Roe claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.”

History has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right … life.

As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate is inevitable. It’s just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as it judged Dred Scott. But until that time, innocent children continue to die on a daily basis.

Knowledge is power, and as more people gain knowledge about Roe v. Wade, the less power the multi-billion dollar abortion industry maintains. Make no mistake — they’ll do anything and everything to keep that from happening.

But their ghoulish zeal betrays their true agenda. By any reasonable measure the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is nothing to celebrate. It is a national day of mourning. The post-Roe highway is awash with the blood of countless innocents. And those who have lead these little lambs to the slaughter are responsible.

Even so, this will not stop the mainstream media, radical feminists and other pro-abortion Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left from celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. They’ll break out the streamers and party hats and dance gleefully around the golden calf of euphemistic “choice.”

But power is there for the taking.

Please visit RoeIQTest.com before January, 22 and answer the question, “Do you really know Roe,” for yourself. Then, when you see the left celebrating Roe v. Wade and the culture of death it has spawned, you can rest assured that you refused to stay in the dark. You refused to remain powerless.

After all … isn’t it your choice?

==============================

Story: Another dispatch from Wanda Kohn (World, 071215)

The Pregnancy Care Center in Leesburg, Fla.

One morning a young woman called wanting directions. A few minutes later she showed up. We gave her a pregnancy test and some materials to review. She laid down the pamphlets without looking at them. We showed her a picture of an 8-week-old unborn child and she seemed a little disturbed.

She asked about her appointment. I said I would call the OB to schedule her for an ultrasound. She got tense and replied, “What? I thought you were going to do this today!” “Do what today, the ultrasound?” “No, do the abortion. Look, see? I have the money right here!” She pulled out a wad of cash.

Shocked, I said, “We don’t do abortions here.” She was in tears and very upset. Her three girlfriends who had come with her to support her in her abortion decision were rising from the couch in the waiting area. All of us were confused.

She said she called us from the yellow pages to get directions. I handed her the phone book so she could look for herself at our ad. It was then that she realized what happened. When she got up that morning, she looked in the phone book to call the abortion clinic for directions to the appointment she had made with them a couple of days ago. She called us by mistake.

She called the abortion clinic from our phone, becoming even more distressed as she found out that now she would have to reschedule. Now that she realized it was her mistake and that she couldn’t get the abortion that day, her anger turned to tears. They rescheduled her for that coming Sunday, four days later. As she rushed out the door, I asked her to consider one thing: “You didn’t come here by mistake. God brought you here and He wants you to know He loves your baby just as much as He loves you.” With that she was gone.

Believing God would not send her through our doors by “mistake,” we continued to pray for her. Two months later she came back and said, “I wanted to let you know that I am keeping my baby. I went to the abortion clinic but couldn’t go through with it. Thank you!” We praised God for this miracle—and for God using us? Sidewalk counselors outside the abortion clinic? One of her friends? The Holy Spirit? All of the above?

==============================

China woman in legal first over abortion case (UK Telegraph, 080108)

A Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion despite being nine months pregnant is suing the authorities for their actions.

Jin Yani’s waters had already broken when China’s abortion police came for her. They took her to a nearby abortion centre, injected her unborn baby girl and removed the body two days later.

Mrs Jin’s crime was to have become pregnant by her fiance five months before she married him at the age of 20, the legal minimum.

Pregnancy outside marriage is illegal. But forced abortions are now supposed to be illegal in China.

In a blow against the state’s brutally imposed one-child policy, she and her husband are claiming damages against the authorities, saying that officials acted unlawfully.

China’s higher courts have agreed to hear the plea - the first time this has happened in a case of this kind.

Yang Zhongchen, her husband, tried to prevent the abortion by wining and dining officials in Hebei province. He also agreed to pay a fine of £650, but none of this prevented Changli county family planning officials arriving on Sept 7, 2000.

Mrs Jin said: “I got on my knees and begged them after they took me to the clinic and said I wanted to give birth to my daughter. I had already named her Yang Yin.”

In the clinic, she was injected with a large syringe. Her husband arrived in time to witness the removal of the dead foetus with forceps two days later.

Mrs Jin lost blood, and was hospitalised for 44 days. Her husband was charged for the medicine she needed. He said that his wife is now infertile as a result of the abortion.

Mr Yang has demanded £85,000 to cover medical expenses, psychological distress and Mrs Jin’s inability to conceive.

At first the case got nowhere, but the regional people’s court agreed to hear the couple’s appeal in October. At that point, Mr Yang said that officials made contact offering him a job and free hospital treatment for his wife. But that is not enough, he said.

“They have made no mention of damages,” he said while on a visit to Beijing to meet his lawyer. “We can get a job anywhere.”

But the couple say they can never truly be compensated.

“Our baby will never come back,” Mrs Jin said. “We just hope this kind of thing will never happen again.”

==============================

Who’s the Worst Person in the World? (Townhall.com, 080109)

By Matt Barber

It’s not Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s not even Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler. No, according to Keith Olbermann — that blinkered liberal extremist who plays a newsman on TV — Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), is “the worst person in the world.”

While discussing abstinence education during a recent interview on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Wright accurately pointed out that the most strident devotees of that abysmal failure tagged “comprehensive sex education” are most likely to benefit financially when children and teens become pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases.

During the interview, Wright hit the nail squarely on the head, saying, “In fact, they want to encourage [kids to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions. So, you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.”

And the financial motives are staggering. According to its own annual report, Planned Parenthood — which receives its lion’s share of profit from abortion — performed 264,943 abortions in the 2006 fiscal year, raking in an astronomical $55.8 million in profit … free and clear.

It doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out that Planned Parenthood — one of the foremost cheerleaders of “comprehensive sex ed” — has a vested interest in seeing that young girls become pregnant and have abortions. It’s a classic case of “the fox watching the hen house.” “Comprehensive sex ed” spells money in the bank because it actually encourages kids to have sex. It doesn’t work, and they know it.

Well, Wright’s comments didn’t sit well with the left. Liberal bloggers went nuts, and in a recent episode of MSNBC’s poorly rated “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” the painfully “progressive” talking-head took issue with Wendy for pointing out this clear conflict of interest, crowning her “the worst person in the world.”

Toward the end of his decidedly obtuse monologue, Olbermann — whose joke writer is also apparently on strike — smugly quipped, “And the condoms the sex educators keep trying to make available to the kids, those are for what … water balloons?”

Well, Poindexter, yes, in fact. That’s precisely what kids are using them for. Take the African AIDS epidemic. As CWA reported a few years back, Dr. Margaret Ogola of Kenya testified at two United Nations conferences that, “‘family planners’ have put so many condoms into Kenya that the children use them as balloons and play with them in the streets.”

Tragically, we all know how “comprehensive sex education” has worked-out in Africa.

Unfortunately, it’s no better right here at home. Despite a culture that relentlessly extols the phantom virtues of so-called “safe sex” and practically throws condoms at children by the handful, STD and teen pregnancy rates remain high.

Like a broken record, liberal educators and cultural elites incessantly regurgitate, “always have safe sex,” while the only thing impressionable, hormone charged kids hear is, “have sex!”

Of course, “safe sex” is code for “use a condom,” and everyone knows that condoms are anything but reliable. It’s like telling kids to walk a paper thin latex tightrope. There’s a good chance it’ll snap and there’s no safety net below.

Even radical feminists such as the vice president of the Gainesville, Florida, National Organization for Women (NOW) and a “committee chair” of the University of Florida NOW, publicly admitted during testimony before a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing that condoms failed them personally — sometimes on multiple occasions. If experts like NOW feminists can’t use condoms effectively, how can we expect children to?

Easy answer — We can’t.

Look, we know that abstinence is the only foolproof method guaranteed to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Yet the many successes associated with abstinence education go completely unreported by a biased media, as a handful of rigged studies conducted by “comprehensive sex ed” proponents make headlines.

It’s a clear attempt to undermine the impressive success of abstinence education, while — at the same time — endeavoring to salvage its failed “comprehensive sex ed” counterpart. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be funny. Still, Planned Parenthood is laughing all the way to the bank.

So, congratulations Wendy. It’s obvious from the left’s reaction to your comments that you struck a tender nerve. Anytime you inject truth into the analysis, they go apoplectic.

And if Olbermann is the chief protagonist for liberal thought, I think the conservative movement is going to be just fine. Anytime you’ve got Keith Olbermann’s goat, you know you’re doing something right.

==============================

Group Rejects Claim that America’s Youth are Pro-Choice (Christian Post, 080128)

A team of professional pro-lifers released a video Sunday spotlighting the growing youth presence in the fight against abortion.

“Planned Parenthood insists that America’s youth are primarily pro-choice,” reads a statement in the video, created by Population Research Institute (PRI). “They’re dead wrong.”

The video – the third in a series released by PRI on YouTube – documents last week’s March for Life which draws tens of thousands of abortion opponents to Washington, D.C., every year. As the crowd of peaceful protesters has grown larger over the last three decades since the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, the crowd has also gotten younger over time.

“More and more young people in their teens and in their early twenties are coming out to protest the killing of their unborn brothers and sisters,” says PRI president Steven Mosher in the video. “They’re the future of the pro-life movement in the United States and the future is now.”

Colin Mason, director for Media Production at PRI, says he wants the video to be a witness to members of the pro-choice movement who think that they have America’s youth in their pocket, according to a released statement.

“PRI wanted to show compelling evidence that America’s young pro-lifers are vocal, joyful, and ultimately very numerous,” says Mason.

At this year’s Jan. 22 March for Life, teens wore matching sweat shirts and held banners representing their school or organization, holding “Life” signs as they marched along Constitution Avenue.

“I believe that life begins and conception and that every human has a God-given right to be born,” says one female young adult in the video.

“I can’t see myself being pro-choice. It’s murder,” says a young male.

It is estimated that 50 million lives have been lost since the Supreme Court decision in 1973 to overturn all state laws banning abortion. And today’s generation of youth is taking up the issue in a personal way as they see themselves as survivors of what some call “the largest continuing holocaust in American history.”

“I was born in 1989 and I know that part of my generation is missing and that really saddens me. And I don’t want the future generations to be missing out on people who are aborted,” says one girl in the video.

“If my mom wasn’t pro-life, I wouldn’t be here, so neither would anybody around here,” a young male comments.

The latest PRI video is the third in a series released on YouTube, documenting abuses of human rights around the world and violations of U.S. and international laws. The first video features China’s one-child policy and how pregnant women are arrested and forced to have abortions while the second documents the largely pro-life Latin American countries where a coalition of radical feminists and population controllers are trying to change laws to allow abortion on demand.

The Population Research Institute was founded in 1989 and is comprised of a small, skilled team of professional pro-lifers, “working hard to stop the evil of abortion throughout the world.”

==============================

U.K. Artist Kills Herself After Aborting Twins (Foxnews, 080224)

A British artist, expressing remorse and regret, hanged herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, London’s Sunday Telegraph reported.

“I should never have had an abortion,” Emma Beck wrote in a note she left. “I see now I would have been a good mum.”

The note continued: “I told everyone I didn’t want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is to late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no one else does.”

Beck, 30, was found in her home on Feb. 1 and pronounced dead the following day, her 31st birthday.

She terminated the pregnancy after breaking up with her ex-boyfriend, who “reacted badly” to her pregnancy, the Telegraph reported.

==============================

Planned Parenthood Registers Record Abortions, Profits (Christian Post, 080408)

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading provider of surgical abortions, registered the largest number of abortions on record last year, according to its latest report.

According to figures, the pro-choice organization registered the largest percentage increase in abortions in over a decade. During the 2006-2007 period, 289,570 abortions were performed throughout its 860 locations, an increase of nearly 25,000.

Although separate and independent studies reveal that the number of abortions throughout the country decreased overall last year, Planned Parenthood records show it was little affected by recent declining trends.

Last year, Planned Parenthood serviced record numbers of patients and earned over $1 billion in profits.

“If Planned Parenthood were a publicly traded company, they’d be celebrating,” said Jim Sedlack, vice president of the American Life League, according to Cybercast News Service. “The stockholders would be screaming, ‘Wow, what a good year we had!’”

According to the American Life League, Planned Parenthood now performs one of out every four abortions in the country.

“While most companies have started to feel the squeeze of our sagging economy, business has never been better for Planned Parenthood,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, added.

Even worse, according to pro-life groups, was the increase in tax payer funding that Planned Parenthood received last year, serving to both bolster its abortion rate and help aid its agenda by helping elect pro-choice candidates.

According to Perkins, Planned Parenthood would spend nearly $10 million this year to help elect pro-choice candidates.

Last year, Planned Parenthood received over $300 million in tax payer funding – an increase of nearly 11%.

“We must stop the flow of government money into the hands of this baby-killing business,” Sedlak added, according to lifenews.com.

Founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood operates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, describing itself as “the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.”

==============================

Is Planned Parenthood Above The Law? (townhall.com, 080422)

By Maggie Gallagher

Planned Parenthood likes to think of itself as above all reproach — a champion of women’s rights and also (as its annual report claims) the nation’s “social justice movement.”

But this week, in front of Planned Parenthood offices at 1108 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, a group of black pastors and pro-life activists (joined by two GOP congressmen) will demand a congressional audit of what the group alleges are a pattern of racist practices, funded by taxpayers, at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood’s latest trouble began when a feisty pro-life student magazine called Planned Parenthood offices in seven states, posing as an openly racist donor seeking to make sure his check could be earmarked to abort “a black baby.” The resulting phone conversations are horrifying listening. (Judge for yourself at www.youtube.com./watch?v=zwif0VMW3c4.)

According to the group, Planned Parenthood officers in at least four states agreed not only to accept the racists’ check, but to actually earmark the donation for that purpose. “The less black kids the better,” the caller tells one Planned Parenthood employee. “For whatever reason we’ll accept the money,” was one typical response.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is promising to spend $10 million this election cycle. “These donations come even as Planned Parenthood is defending itself against a range of civil and criminal complaints in several states, and critics charge that the organization is trying to buy influence in Congress,” notes ABC News.

It’s a smart investment for an affluent organization (a budget surplus of $114 million and assets of more than $1 billion) that gets more than one-third of its income, or almost $337 million in 2006, from the taxpayers.

The current racism charge can’t help but revive memories of a similar sting operation that revealed many Planned Parenthood clinic employees were willing to tell a caller posing as a 13-year-old girl with a 22-year-old boyfriend how she could avoid triggering mandatory child sex abuse reporting requirements at the clinic.

In each case, Planned Parenthood’s national leaders have responded poorly, seeking to deflect attention away from the behavior of its own employees to the motivations of those who made the phone calls.

Sure, these are pro-life activists doing these sting operations. But here’s the real question: What is it about Planned Parenthood employees that makes them so easy for pro-life activists to target? Why do Planned Parenthood officers lack the minimal sense of decency to tell a man who wants to make sure there are fewer black kids in the world where he can go with his money? Or even worse: When faced with a child sexually exploited by a pedophile, why didn’t Planned Parenthood employees want to call the police?

I do not believe that Planned Parenthood is explicitly racist (though its founder, Margaret Sanger, certainly was), any more than I believe that Planned Parenthood workers actively want to encourage pedophilia.

But here’s what we’ve learned: Planned Parenthood is an organization staffed by people committed to the proposition that there is never a good reason not to have, support, fund or perform an abortion. In their own minds, their sacred mission to destroy human life puts them above the normal rules and even laws that any minimally decent person (whether pro-choice or pro-life) would recognize.

Help pedophiles and racists? For too many Planned Parenthood employees, it’s apparently all in a day’s work.

That’s a clear product of a corporate culture created by Planned Parenthood, which views the organization as above normal rules and laws.

And the vast right-wing conspiracy cannot possibly do more damage to this organization’s reputation than its own leadership does in dismissing the indefensible.

==============================

Alveda King Calls Abortion ‘Racist’ (Christian Post, 080415)

Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., spoke out powerfully Monday against abortion and in favor of the forces of life, as she called abortion “selfish,” “racist,” and among the worst inhumanities of our times.

“Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error,” King said, according to a released statement.

“The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness,” she added.

King continued, “We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human.”

“We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we’d like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past,” she said.

King, who had two abortions, has spoken frequently at pro-life rallies about the traumatic, lingering effects of abortion on women and its connection to racism.

At a Black History Month rally in Washington, D.C., earlier this year, she noted the huge abortion rates that were destroying African American communities, calling abortion a “racist, genocidal act.”

King also generated media attention when she spoke out in favor of life earlier this month during her uncle’s 40th anniversary commemoration event, likening the fight against abortion to the historic struggle of civil rights.

“The fight against abortion is a new frontier in the civil rights movement,” she told the Daily Journal.

“78% of Planned Parenthood offices are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up 12% of the U.S. population but have 37% of the abortions,” she said.

“My uncle said that the Negro cannot prevail if he’s willing to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and convenience,” she added.

Dr. Alveda King, a Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life, which is the nation’s largest Catholic pro-life organization, is a former two-term member of the Georgia House of Representatives and founder of King for America – “a faith based organization whose purpose is to the enrich the lives of people spiritually, socially, intellectually and economically.”

==============================

Okla. Legislature Overrides Veto to Restrict Abortions (Christian Post, 080418)

In what was only the second time in the past 14 years of the state’s history, the Oklahoma legislature voted overwhelmingly this week to override a veto by a sitting Governor.

In a measure of strong bipartisan support, the Oklahoma Senate and House voted on Thursday 37-11 and 85-15 within moments of each other to uphold what was described by legislators as a series of “comprehensive” limits designed to reduce the number of abortions throughout the state.

Oklahoma State Gov. Brad Henry had vetoed the bill.

According to the new bill, ultrasounds and access for women seeking information on alternatives to abortion will now become routine procedure.

Studies have shown that a majority of women who receive ultrasounds and access to information concerning alternatives to abortion opt out of the procedure.

The new measure will also bar abortions to all minors without parental notification letters, and allow health care practitioners to refuse participation in abortions if they feel it compromises their beliefs.

The use of harmful drugs during abortion procedures and the practice of so called “wrongful-life” lawsuits, in which physicians can be sued for delivering a baby that “would have been better off aborted,” will also be significantly curtailed.

Gov. Henry had opposed the bill, arguing that it did not exempt women who were victims of rape and incest from the new restrictions.

“While I support reasonable restrictions on abortion, this legislation does not provide an essential exemption for victims of rape and incest,” he said, according to the Oklahoma-based Tulsa World.

Oklahomans for Life chairman Tony Lauinger, however, described the recent move by the legislature as a major victory for human life everywhere.

“These votes represent an affirmation for the value of each human life and speaks well of our elected officials’ commitment to the most vulnerable members of our human family: those waiting to be born,” he said, according to the local newspaper.

“We are deeply appreciative of the strong support of the Senate and the House for this important pro-life legislation,” he added.

The bill will become law on Nov. 1.

==============================

Pastors Accuse Planned Parenthood for ‘Genocide’ on Blacks (Foxnews, 080424)

WASHINGTON — The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has perpetuated a “genocide on the black community,” says a group of African-American pastors who claimed Thursday the birth control and abortion provider has had a racist agenda since its beginnings in 1921.

Holding a brief vigil and press conference in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Washington, D.C., the group of pastors and activists said they were incensed by the results of recent “undercover” inquiries into several Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.

“Every day … over 1,500 black babies are murdered inside the black woman’s womb,” said Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND). “This is a race issue.”

The pastors urged Congress to initiate an audit of the organization and have written letters demanding that money for Planned Parenthood be eliminated from federal Title X funding, of which the group got $65 million for fiscal year 2007, according to pro-life Concerned Women of America. In total, Planned Parenthood received $300 million in government contracts and grants in the current fiscal year.

The national office of Planned Parenthood provided FOX News with a lengthy statement on Thursday in which it said its role in the African-American community is widespread because the need is greater.

“The (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) revealed that a shocking number of teenage African-American girls — nearly half — carry a sexually transmitted infection,” reads the statement. “This compares to an overall average rate for all teenage girls of at least one in four.

“The largest increases in the teen birthrate were reported for non-Hispanic black teens, whose overall rate rose 5% in 2006. In addition, African-American women are more likely to die of breast cancer than the general population,” it said.

But an investigation, undertaken by students at the University of California at Los Angeles newspaper, The Advocate, revealed troubling responses from Planned Parenthood staffers when asked by an actor, posing as a “donor,” if he could earmark his contribution for abortions for “black babies” only.

In one example, Autumn Kersey, vice president for marketing at Planned Parenthood of Idaho, is asked whether a donation can be specified “to help a minority group … like the black community, for example.”

“Certainly,” Kersey says in a taped response in which she sounds genuinely encouraged by the offer. “If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure the gift as earmarked for that purpose.”

The caller responds: “Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.”

Kersey responds, “Absolutely.”

The “donor” proceeds to proclaim that “the less black kids out there the better,” followed by, “understandable, understandable,” by Kersey, who laughed as if he were joking.

“Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time that I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out,” she is recorded saying.

Kersey’s and other statements were culled from calls to Planned Parenthood clinics in six states. In each, the staff person answering the call expressed an interest in taking the donations despite the caller’s overtly racist commentary.

That is part of a troubling trend, say critics, who accuse Planned Parenthood of targeting minority neighborhoods. They blame the institution for a disproportionate rate of abortions among black women.

“I think the media, and I think America, and certainly black folks, need to start thinking about race and Planned Parenthood, said Rev. Clenard Childress, who raised the question, not for the first time, about Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who died over 40 years ago at the age of 86.

Sanger, a pioneering advocate for universal access to birth control for women, was also a proponent of “eugenics,” a philosophy that advocates social intervention, like birth control and abortion, for “improving” the hereditary traits of the human race. According to biographies written about Sanger, who was the sixth child of 11 eleven born to a rigid Catholic family in upstate New York, her support for this practice was focused on the “unfit” and the poor — slum dwellers — as they were called at the time, by making contraceptives more available there.

Over the years, comments made by Sanger about reproduction among the poor and minorities have led to her reputation as a racist and a belief that she wanted to “weed” out blacks from society. Planned Parenthood has disputed that caricature and has pointed out her supporters in the black community, including Martin Luther King Jr., and W.E.B DuBois. Nevertheless, Childress and others repeatedly invoked her name as a major force behind a century-long “genocide” on the black community.

According to a report released by the group of Students for Life America on Tuesday, black women are 4.8 times more likely to have an abortion than white women, while the black population in the U.S. is in decline. Black women account for 36% of those having abortions in the U.S. today, according to group, while black children make up 17% of live births.

“Contrary to the public’s belief that Planned Parenthood is helpful and supportive of family planning and the health of the mother and child, recent news and research show that the roots of its foundation have continued to give birth to continual hatred and disdain for minorities that its founder saw as ‘unfit,’” the group says in its report.

In its response, Planned Parenthood emphasized that 97% of its services are focused on providing contraceptives, breast and cervical cancer screenings and sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment — not abortions.

“Those services are more important than ever as this country faces a health care crisis — too many women can’t afford birth control, too many families don’t have adequate health insurance coverage and too many young people are faced with unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections,” the organization said. “As a safety-net provider, it is Planned Parenthood’s mission to provide women, men and teens with affordable access to reproductive health care services and information, regardless of income.”

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood of Idaho apologized in February for the comments made by its staff during the UCLA student investigation.

“A fundraising employee violated the organization’s principles and practices when she appeared to be willing to accept a racially motivated donation,” said the Idaho-based organization told the Idaho Statesman. “We apologize for the manner in which this offensive call was handled. We take full responsibility for the actions of the fundraising staff member who created the impression that racism of any form would be tolerated at Planned Parenthood. We took swift action to ensure that each of our employees understands their responsibility to communicate clearly with donors about the fact that we believe in helping all individuals, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, make informed decisions about their reproductive health care.”

That’s not enough for Lilly Epps, an activist who joined the pastors in denouncing Planned Parenthood on Thursday. She said she was 26 years old when she got an abortion in the clinic used to stage the protest. She said the day has come to get “the truth” out about Planned Parenthood and what it is doing her community.

“I am a mad black woman,” she said. “Words cannot say how angry I am, how ignorant I was. But I thank God I came to the truth.”

==============================

No Thanks: Italy and Abortion (townhall.com, 080425)

By Chuck Colson

In mid-April, Italian voters returned former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to power. Election post-mortems focused on what Berlusconi would do about the economy, crime, and Italy’s illegal immigration problem.

Just about the only thing that was not discussed was an issue that figured prominently in the campaign: abortion.

“Abortion to play a prominent role in Italian elections” was the headline of an Associated Press headline only two months ago. A contemporaneous New York Times story told readers that the abortion issue was at the “center of the Italian electoral campaign.”

And only a week before the Italian elections, the Los Angeles Times proclaimed that the “abortion issue [was] back” in Italy and Spain.

All of these stories described the mounting political and cultural challenges to the 1981 Italian law legalizing abortion. Now, Berlusconi’s spokeswoman on family issues proposes a new abortion law restricting abortion only to the first trimester—and then, only in “really justified cases.”

Then there is the case of Giuliano Ferrara, whom the New York Times says “combines the political theatrics of an Abbie Hoffman with the rhetorical flair of a William F. Buckley.” A former Communist, Ferrara now edits a conservative newspaper called Il Foglio, “the Sheet.”

Ferrara used his paper and talk show to advocate a moratorium on abortion and “to call attention to the value of life.” He then ran for Parliament on the “Abortion? No Thanks” slate.

This is not the first time Ferrara has bucked conventional secular wisdom. His paper has also supported the Catholic Church on matters like bioethics, relativism, and the decline of the Christian faith among Italians—this despite the fact that Ferrara is an atheist.

While Ferrara insists that he is a “nonbeliever,” other Italian politicians, as Britain’s New Statesman put it, “have been eagerly declaring their Christian credentials.” According to the publication, this eagerness is a response to what it calls the “crucial change” in Italian life since 2001: “the collapse of every grand political idea.”

Given this “crucial change” and the response to it, the failure to even mention abortion in the electoral post-mortems stands out. It reminds me of the Spanish government’s response to a pro-family rally last December in Madrid that drew a reported 2 million people. Instead of reconsidering its policies, the government demanded an apology from the Catholic Church.

Not surprising, I suppose, European elites cannot contemplate that secularism, like every other “grand political idea,” has been found wanting—without, at the same time, acknowledging what is for them unthinkable: Europe’s Christian roots.

Yet, what is happening in Italy and Spain, as well as the rest of Europe, suggests that many Europeans are now finding “grand political ideas” a poor substitute for faith. A strong Euro and generous government benefits are small consolations for societies, which the New York Times says are “steeped in death and decline.”

The remedy for that is respecting the value of life, which starts with saying “Secularism? No thanks.” Maybe the Italian elections give hope for Europe after all.

==============================

Abortion of female fetuses a ‘national shame,’ Indian leader says (Paris, International Herald, 080428)

NEW DELHI: The Indian prime minister said Monday that the practice of aborting female fetuses was a “national shame” and called for stricter enforcement of laws designed to prevent doctors from helping parents get rid of unborn daughters.

In his first speech on the subject, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh highlighted an “alarming” decline in the number of girls for every 1,000 boys in India, slipping to 927 in 2001 from 962 in 1981. “This indicates that growing economic prosperity and education levels have not led to a corresponding mitigation in this acute problem,” Singh said.

“No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women,” the prime minister said

Singh made the comments in the opening speech for a national conference dedicated to “saving the girl child” that brought together politicians, doctors and advocacy groups.

Describing female abortion as “inhuman, uncivilized and reprehensible,” Singh said the government had a responsibility to crack down on the large numbers of Indian doctors who illegally revealed the sex of unborn children to parents and then arrange abortions to get rid of unwanted girls.

Over the past three decades, the increasing availability of ultrasound equipment has assisted India’s cultural preference for sons and distorted the sex ratio across the nation. As the equipment has become more affordable, specialist ultrasound clinics have opened even in the most impoverished parts of the country, where other health care facilities remain rudimentary.

Before undergoing an ultrasound test in India, a pregnant woman has to sign a form agreeing not to try to discover the sex of the child. Doctors who reveal that information during an examination can be imprisoned for up to five years, but the law is widely flouted.

Studies have suggested that doctors often give coded hints to parents - by remarking, for example, “Your child will be a fighter,” or by offering pink or blue sweets as the patient leaves.

Because parents are still expected to give large dowries when their daughters wed, girls are widely regarded as financial liabilities who will leave their parents large debts when they marry.

“The patriarchal mindset and preference for male children is compounded by unethical conduct on the part of some medical practitioners,” Singh said, “assisted by unscrupulous parents, who illegally offer sex determination services.”

The British medical journal The Lancet estimated in 2006 that as many as 10 million female fetuses had been aborted in India over the previous 20 years by families trying to secure male heirs.

An analysis of the Indian census conducted by Unicef echoed those findings and noted that the imbalance in the sex ratio had become particularly acute in India’s wealthier regions, where money did little to temper the traditional Indian preference for sons, and where couples were easily able to afford ultrasound tests to establish the sex of the fetus.

Puneet Bedi, a doctor who campaigns against sex selection, said he was disappointed by Singh’s speech. “It is not enough for him to preach to us about the problem,” Bedi said. “The current laws are not enforced. It is the government’s responsibility to take action.”

Sabhu George, a long-term campaigner against female feticide, said that for the prime minister to devote a whole speech to the subject marked an important milestone, but agreed that the speech was “very disappointing.”

“We have a very good law but it is not being implemented,” George said. “He talked about changing mindsets. He should have focused on how the law could be implemented.”

==============================

Former Abortionist Speaks Out (Christian Post, 080430)

Carol Everett, a former abortionist, has dedicated her life to both counseling and helping inner-city women with the challenges of unintended pregnancies and educating the public about the horrors of abortion.

At a luncheon hosted by Lifewatch, an arm of the United Methodist Church, Everett spoke to the public at the Hilton Fort Worth Hotel in Texas about her personal experiences operating an abortion clinic and the need to eradicate a practice that harms millions of women every year.

“I sold abortions. When we opened, we did 45 abortions the first month. The last month [we were open], we did 545 abortions,” she admitted in a statement.

Everett, who has suffered from the personal trauma of three abortions, said she eventually left the abortion industry for good to establish The Heidi Group.

The group, founded in 1995, is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women avoid abortions while preparing for the challenges of unplanned pregnancies.

As part of its programs, The Heidi Group offers free bilingual parenting classes, Bible studies and counseling for future mothers.

Everett named the group Heidi in remembrance of her unborn child she aborted back in 1973.

“We are an injured nation, for many of us are unwilling to admit or deal with our pain,” Everett explained to the audience on the prevalence of abortion.

“I have never changed a mind by debate,” she added, noting that it was necessary for people to better inform themselves on the realities of abortion.

The luncheon, sponsored by Lifewatch, also known as the Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, was held as part of an information session on the topic of abortion and the abortion industry. It was held during the United Methodist Church’s quadrennial General Conference

Since 1973, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion throughout the United States, nearly 50 million babies have been aborted.

==============================

Planned Parenthood Promotes Mother’s Day Abortions, Draws Protests (Christian Post, 080510)

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of surgical abortions, has triggered protests and outcry from pro-life groups recently over a series of emails that were sent out soliciting donations “in honor” of Mother’s Day.

“Dear Friend, Join us! Make a Mother’s Day gift!” the email states.

Janet Morana and Georgette Forney, joint founders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (SNMAC), an organization dedicated to bringing to public the horrors of abortion, said the emails sent by Planned Parenthood were a slap in the face to the millions of men and women who continue to suffer from the personal trauma of past abortions. Moreover, they added, Planned Parenthood’s use of Mother’s Day as a platform to further their abortion agenda was “appalling.”

“The irony of Planned Parenthood asking for Mother’s Day donations in honor of mothers and daughters hardly needs pointing out. Planned Parenthood already took our money when they aborted our children; I guess now they want money for the ones they missed,” Georgette Forney said incredulously in a statement.

“This is an organization that has turned Mother’s Day into a painful reminder of terminated children for millions and millions of women. To ask for money on this day so that it can traumatize even more women is the ultimate in insensitivity,” cried Janet Morana.

The American Life League, although expressing disbelief, said that the recent move by Planned Parenthood was not at all surprising given the sinister nature of the organization.

“Planned Parenthood, the organization that has slaughtered 4,358,499 babies, is trying to raise money in conjunction with the national holiday on which we celebrate our very own mothers,” the group said in a statement.

“PP kills 5,572 innocent human beings every week. This means that every week Planned Parenthood kills twice as many innocent human beings as died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,” the group continued.

“This same organization is asking for donations to celebrate Mother’s Day? Of course! You wouldn’t expect anything less from a baby-killing, pornography-pushing, rapist-protecting, $1-billion-in-assets business,” the group concluded.

According to a report released by Planned Parenthood this year, the organization raked in record profits and recorded the highest number of abortions on record. During the 2006-2007 period, 289,570 abortions were performed throughout its 860 locations, an increase of nearly 25,000 from the previous year.

==============================

U.S. Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Anti-Abortion Displays (Christian Post, 080703)

[KH: finally a prolife ruling from the liberal 9th Circuit.]

SAN FRANCISCO – The first and fourth amendment rights of two pro-life activists were violated when law enforcement officers ordered them to remove their truck from an area near to a school and “unreasonably” detained them for too long, according to a federal appellate court ruling Wednesday.

Although the 7-by-20-foot truck displayed graphic photos of aborted fetuses, the government “cannot silence messages simply because they cause discomfort, fear or even anger,” concluded the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

“[T]he First Amendment does not permit a heckler’s veto,” the panel of three liberal judges added, referring to a concept which states that free speech cannot be limited based on listeners’ reactions to the content.

On March 24, 2003, an employee and a volunteer of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform drove the truck bearing large photographs of aborted fetuses around Dodson Middle School in Rancho Palos Verdes 30 minutes before classes began.

Assistant Principal Art Roberts told the trial court that he saw a number children express anger over the images and that he observed two or three girls crying.

Ten minutes before the start of classes, school officials contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which dispatched two deputies, who stopped and searched the truck and another vehicle, then ordered the activists to leave the area, according to court documents.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform later filed suit, claiming that the pro-life activists’ first amendment rights were violated and that the deputy sheriffs violated their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights by unreasonably detaining them for seventy-five minutes. They also contended that the deputy sheriff’s had searched their vehicle without securing their consent.

In its ruling, the panel said they agreed that the seventy-five minute detention was “unreasonably long and therefore violated their Fourth Amendment rights.”

“[T]he officers at no time had any reason to suspect that the Plaintiffs had committed or were about to commit this crime,” the panel stated further.

They also unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff’s deputies violated the men’s free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school’s neighborhood, although they ruled that the individual deputies and school officials could not be held liable for the 1st Amendment violations because they are entitled to qualified immunity.

The latest ruling overturned an earlier district court judgment which upheld the school’s and deputies’ actions.

A lawyer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform called the ruling “a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement.”

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that there is no double standard for pro-life speech under our Constitution,” attorney Robert Muise of the conservative Thomas More Law Center expressed in a statement.

“In its ruling, the Court upheld the fundamental principle of the First Amendment that government officials cannot prohibit silent, peaceful, non-obstructive, political speech on the public streets, a traditional public forum, because certain listeners or viewers find the speech offensive,” he added.

The suit in California is one of several 1st Amendment battles the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform is fighting around the country in its reproductive choice campaign, in which trucks and planes carry graphic images of aborted fetuses to expose the public to what its members call “the reality of abortion.”

Bio-Ethical Reform says it conducts its campaign at middle schools and high schools because it believes its message will discourage teenage abortions.

“This is a huge win for the First Amendment,” Gregg Cunningham, the center’s executive director, expressed in a released statement after Wednesday’s ruling. “This is an even larger win for middle school and high school students who are being lied to about abortion and who will now learn the truth as our billboard trucks drive past their schools displaying large aborted baby photos.

“There are some realities which can not be adequately communicated with words alone,” he added. “Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion.”

John Allen, a lawyer for the school administrator who called the sheriff’s deputies, said his client hadn’t decided whether to appeal.

==============================

Archbishop of Washington Chides Pelosi; Denver Archbishop Warns Biden to Skip Communion (zfn, 080826)

Irked by pro-choice Democrats who tout their Catholicism, the archbishop of Washington is chiding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for misstating church history and the archbishop of Denver is warning vice presidential hopeful Joe Biden not to take Communion.

The unusual public rebukes come as both Pelosi and Biden are talking up their faith in a bid for swing voters as Democrats stage their national convention in Denver. In an interview Sunday, Pelosi claimed to be an expert on the church’s abortion stance.

“As an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time,” Pelosi told NBC’s Tom Brokaw, who had asked her when life begins. “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know.”

When Brokaw pointed out that the Catholic church “feels very strongly” that life begins at conception, Pelosi said: “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

In an interview with FOX News on Tuesday, Archbishop Donald Wuerl said people need to reflect more before they start talking about church doctrine. He also issued a statement calling Pelosi’s explanation of the church’s abortion stance “incorrect.”

“The current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago,” Wuerl noted. “From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.”

Wuerl cited a passage from the church’s catechism that condemns abortion as “gravely contrary to moral law.”

“Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism states. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

In an afternoon response, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that as mother of five, the speaker appreciates the “sanctity of family.”

“While Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception, many Catholics do not ascribe to that view. The speaker agrees with the Church that we should reduce the number of abortions. She believes that can be done by making family planning more available, as well as by increasing the number of comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs. The speaker has a long, proud record of working with the Catholic Church on many issues, including alleviating poverty and promoting social justice and peace,” said spokesman Brendan Daly.

Biden too has disagreed with the catechism, as evidenced by a 2006 interview he gave to C-SPAN, which asked him about abortion.

“That debate in our church has not morphed, but changed over a thousand years,” Biden said. “It always is viewed by the church as something that is wrong, but there’s been gradations of whether it was wrong. You know, from venial or mortal sin, as we Catholics say, and versions of it.”

But Biden added that since Pope Pius IX’s reign (1846-1878), “it’s been pretty clear that’s been automatic — moment of conception.”

Over the weekend, Biden’s pro-choice views raised the ire of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput.

“I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion, if he supports a false ‘right’ to abortion,” Chaput told The Associated Press.

As for Pelosi, Chaput called her “a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.”

Chaput added that abortion “is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it.”

During that 2004 presidential campaign, Chaput and a dozen other bishops called on Democratic nominee John Kerry to refrain from taking Communion. The church has also objected to former GOP presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani taking Communion.

“I think some of it is regional,” said Pelosi, whose district encompasses San Francisco, in a recent interview with C-SPAN. “It depends on the bishop of a certain region and, fortunately for me, Communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular Communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

On Saturday, when Obama introduced Biden as his running mate, both men made a point of mentioning Biden’s Catholicism. Obama has struggled to win over Catholics, 52% of whom voted for President Bush in 2004.

==============================

Pro-Life Coalition Strategizes to Shut Down Planned Parenthood (Christian Post, 080918)

Leaders from over 20 pro-life groups will meet in Illinois today to brainstorm a massive strategy to shut down an organization that has become the epitome of everything they are against.

The pro-life advocates represent lawyers, students and veterans of the cause who have dedicated their lives to defend the lives of “unborn” or “pre-born” babies, otherwise known to the other camp as merely fetuses.

Meeting in Rosemont for “Planned Parenthood: BAD for America,” representatives will each bring to the table a different strategy emphasis that will contribute toward a draft joint resolution, which is expected to outline a plan to de-fund and shut down Planned Parenthood, according to an announcement this week.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s single largest abortion provider. The organization receives $300 million taxpayer dollars a year for reproductive health services that in many cases include abortion. Many pro-life advocates have criticized the background of Planned Parenthood as being founded by eugenics supporter Margaret Sanger.

Eric Scheidler, communications director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, which is organizing the meeting, said the growth of Planned Parenthood is cause for concern.

“Even as the abortion rate declines nationally, Planned Parenthood’s abortion numbers are on the rise - and now Planned Parenthood has launched a major expansion, aggressively targeting the young and vulnerable of our nation,” stated Scheidler in a statement.

“Today more than ever, the pro-life movement must stand together to oppose Planned Parenthood.”

Scheidler is no stranger to efforts aimed at uprooting local branches of the organization. Last year, he led protests directed at a massive new Planned Parenthood facility that was up for installment in his group’s backyard, Aurora.

On Thursday, Scheidler is taking his campaign against Planned Parenthood to an unprecedented level as he joins in coalition with leading advocates in the pro-life movement, including his father, Joe Scheidler.

The meeting will include addresses by several renowned pro-life advocates.

Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of Thomas More Society/Pro-Life Law Center, will share his group’s experience in handling both state and federal court cases against Planned Parenthood in a session entitled, “Fighting Planned Parenthood in the Courtroom.”

In “Exposing the True Face of Planned Parenthood to the American Public,” Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, will discuss Planned Parenthood’s willingness to accept racially motivated donations through a series of widely viewed YouTube videos.

The pro-life roundtable will also devote time to hear from Jim Sedlak, executive director of STOPP Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading Planned Parenthood watchdog group, as he talks about the abortion provider’s expansion effort in “Planned Parenthood’s Vision for the Future.”

For Scheidler, there is strength in numbers.

“Planned Parenthood is a huge organization, flush with cash,” he said, “but no enemy is too big when we work together.”

==============================

Abortions Do Sometimes Produce Live Births (townhall.com, 080919)

by Mona Charen

Appearing on C-SPAN last weekend I mentioned that Barack Obama had opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator — a position he has attempted to deny or obfuscate ever since. The liberal blogger who appeared on the program with me erupted with indignation. She didn’t deny that Obama had opposed the bill. She denied, hotly, that babies are ever born alive after an attempted abortion. Since I have actually met Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempted abortion, I invited viewers to contact me directly if they wanted evidence. My inbox has been bursting.

The denial goes very deep. Any number of e-mailers expressed their contemptuous certainty that “born alive” infants were an invention of pro-life activists. OK, enter “abortion survivors” into your browser and see what you get. Or, if you prefer a traditional media source, consult the Daily Mail in Britain. The Mail has reported that in just the past year 66 infants had been left to die after abortions in Great Britain.

When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: “Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine. On another occasion, an aborted baby was left to die on the counter of the Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel.” The committee report also quoted Shelly Lowe, a lab technician at Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati. A young woman who had undergone just the first cervix-opening phase of a partial-birth abortion gave birth in the emergency room. The doctor placed the 22-week-old baby in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab. According to the report, when Ms. Lowe “saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. ‘I don’t think I can do that,’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said. ‘This baby is alive.’” Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed “Baby Hope” in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours.

I’ve received a number of letters from viewers. This one caught my eye: “I am a pediatrician. When I was a pediatric resident on a neonatal intensive care rotation, we were routinely called to resuscitate infants. In one instance I was called to pronounce a baby dead who had been born an hour earlier after a failed abortion. We were not called to resuscitate the baby immediately after the delivery as the intent was abortion. I write to attest that babies are sometimes born alive after abortion and then put aside to die.”

The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive — that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a “neutrality clause” was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002.

At the time, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. An almost exact copy of the federal bill was introduced in 2001. Obama opposed it, saying, “I mean it, it would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” Even though the baby would be completely separated from the mother. In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, “ an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman “

Barack Obama is a charming and intelligent man. But there is no other way to interpret his position on BAIPA than this: A woman who chooses an abortion is entitled to a dead child no matter what. That is an abortion extremist.

==============================

Libertarian Group Condemns Sarah Palin for Not Killing Disabled Baby in Abortion (WorldNetDaily, 080917)

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — A writer for a libertarian group has written perhaps the most scathing attack on pro-life vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin since the Alaska governor was announced weeks ago as John McCain’s running mate. Nicholas Provenzo condemns Palin for the birth of her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome.

Provenzo, who writes for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, not only bashes her for allowing Trig to be born, but says she should have made the so-called morally justifiable decision to kill him in an abortion.

The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism bills itself as a group “dedicated to advancing individual rights and economic freedom through Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism.”

“Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome,” Provenzo writes.

“Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny,” he adds.

Provenzo advocates not only a discriminatory, but apparently a pro-eugenics view of the disabled that rivals that of Nazi Germany.

“A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves,” he contends. “Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.”

Provenzo goes on to condemn National Review writer Michael Franc, who sees Down syndrome’s victims as “ambassadors of God” who “offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges.”

In a rebuke that smacks of selfishness at its worse, Provenzo says, “for many” potential parents of disabled babies, “that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden.”

Fortunately for Trig, Palin decided otherwise.

While as many as 80-90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome become victims of abortion, Palin didn’t let her child become a statistic. Palin, who has deeply-felt pro-life views, gave birth to her fifth child in April and the baby was diagnosed with the condition.

“Trig is beautiful and already adored by us,” Palin said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained at the time.

“We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives,” she said.

‘We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed,” the 44 year-old governor added.

Trig was born one month before his due date, and he weighed 6 pounds, 2 ounces.

==============================

Catholics and Abortion (Again!) (townhall.com, 081007)

by Cal Thomas

In recent elections when a high-profile Roman Catholic Democrat seeks high, or higher office, the issue of abortion surfaces. As the pro-choice, non-Catholic Barack Obama makes a play for evangelical voters, conservative Catholics are asking their fellow believers to take seriously the church’s teaching on abortion and not cast their vote for Obama and Catholic Joe Biden.

The split in Democratic ranks is along political as well as theological lines. Liberal Catholics claim that government programs advocated by Democrats more accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus about the poor and the weak. More “observant” Catholics, some of whom support anti-poverty government programs, point out that no program can help someone who is not given the right to live. Liberals want Catholics to look beyond abortion. Would they have been comfortable 50 years ago with appeals for Catholics to look beyond the racism of Southern Democratic senators? Probably not.

A group calling itself Faithful Catholic Citizens” (FCC) has produced two powerful television commercials, which are running in Iowa and soon, it hopes, in heavily Catholic Pennsylvania. Both spots begin with a confrontational question: “Are you truly Catholic” and follow with a sound bite from “Meet the Press” in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi asserts that Catholic teaching on abortion has been inconsistent. “Utterly incredible,” Cardinal Edward Egan is then quoted as saying about Pelosi’s statement, which is followed by one from the late Pope John Paul II, who called abortion “(the) deliberate killing of an innocent human being.” And then comes a reference to Sen. Barack Obama on the abortion issue from Rick Warren’s forum in August at which Obama said that knowing when life begins is “above my pay grade.”

“Don’t be misled,” continue the ads, “Know the church. Know the truth.” (View both ads here.)

Is abortion “intrinsically evil” and “a non-negotiable issue for Catholics,” as FCC President Heidi Stirrup asserts? If one is a Catholic and subscribes to the belief that the interpretation of Scripture and moral truth is the responsibility of the pope and the apostolic bishops, then one would have to say, “yes;” and when faith and politics conflict, a politician should be required to choose one or the other.

Some Catholic politicians have tried to have it both ways. They have even tried to gain favor among their fellow Catholics by noting their strong opposition to capital punishment, which puts them in an oddly inconsistent position. Such Catholic politicians favor preserving the lives of convicted murderers, but choose to do nothing when they have the power to stop, or at least curtail, the killing of the innocent unborn.

While I am not a Catholic, it seems more than inconsistent to take such a position. One chooses one’s denomination, just as one chooses one’s political affiliation. No one forces another to become a Catholic and no one requires one to become a Democrat, or Republican. Judicial nominees have been denied confirmation based on their membership in clubs that excluded blacks and Jews. But now we may be about to elevate two men to our highest offices who would deny civil rights to African American babies (who are aborted disproportionately to other races), one of whom seeks the votes of his fellow Catholics.

Two years ago, Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the church’s “non-negotiable” issues: “Protection of life at all stages, from the moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage; the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”

Obama and Biden oppose at least two of these (they claim to be against same-sex “marriage,” but for “civil unions”). Whether the TV ads change any minds may be problematic. Catholics who are enamored with “change” and the belief that government is the primary instrument of God, rather than the church, in carrying out His will - and who have ignored church teaching on profound moral issues - are unlikely to be swayed by further appeals to become “truly Catholic.” But if only a few see where an Obama-Biden administration would take the country on moral issues, in a close election that might be enough.

==============================

Franklin Graham Speaks Against Abortion at Calif. Megachurch (Christian Post, 081202)

Evangelist Franklin Graham delivered a message Sunday night at Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, Calif., mixing a bit of politics into his call for repentance.

Reading from 2 Samuel 9:1-8, Graham recalled an event in the life of King David, in which the ruler of Israel called for the son of his childhood friend Jonathan with the intent to show God’s kindness.

“You see, David is a picture of God in Heaven.” Graham told attendees at the Sunday night service of evangelist Greg Laurie’s megachurch.

“And we’re Mephibosheth,” he continued, referring to the Jonathan’s crippled son. “We’ve been crippled by sin and we come before the King and the King shows kindness and love and mercy.”

During the message, Graham listed a variety of sins, from lying and stealing to bearing false witness.

Most emphasized, however, was the sin of murder, in particular abortion.

“You say, ‘Well come on, Franklin. This is California. We’re kind of a liberal state, but they’ll still put you in jail for murder around here.’ No, they don’t,” Graham said before pointing to abortion as a form of murder.

“There’s some of you here tonight who are guilty, guilty of murder. And there are some of you men ... you’re guilty because you’ve approved of what your girlfriend has done or what your wife has done or your sister has done,” he said. “You’ve approved it, and you’re guilty too.”

The evangelist then went on to recall the story of a woman from “one of those liberal New York magazines” who conducted a two-day interview with him some time ago.

After growing a bit tired from the interview, Graham had asked the reporter if he could ask her a few questions.

When she told him to go ahead, Graham asked her where she stood before God.

“All of a sudden her eyes filled up with tears,” he recalled. Graham then went on to share the Gospel with her and prayed with her, though they were in a restaurant at the time.

The ministry leader then recalled how the woman turned to him and said she had to confess something to him at that moment.

“You don’t have to confess anything to me. God is forgiving you,” Graham told her.

“No, I have to tell you,” she responded.

“Twenty years ago, I had an abortion and it has haunted me all the days of my life,” she said. “And there hasn’t been a day that hasn’t gone by that I haven’t asked myself what that child would have looked like.

“Can God forgive me for what I have done?” she asked.

“I said, ‘He just did,’” Graham recalled. “Then she buried her face in her hands and just wept.”

Going back to the story of David and Mephibosheth, Graham recalled how the young boy came before the king of Israel and how David vowed to show kindness to him for the sake of his father, Jonathan, who had died years earlier. David also promised to restore to him all the land that belonged to his grandfather, the former king Saul.

“[A]nd you will always eat at my table,” David told Mephibosheth, according to 2 Samuel 9:7.

Using the story as a basis, Graham urged attendees who had not yet received Christ to come before God so that they too may receive the invitation to eat eternally at His table.

“When you come before God in Heaven, you are crippled by sin. But when you come to God and accept His salvation, His gift, Jesus Christ … when you ask Christ by faith to come into your heart, into your life, He (God) doesn’t see you,” Graham said. “He doesn’t see your sins. He sees the blood of His son that covers you.”

During his message, Graham also made a reference to the presidential election just weeks earlier, noting that in the same way the Israelites called on the prophet Samuel to request from God an earthly king to reign over them “because it was cool,” as the evangelist imagined them saying today; some who had voted on Nov. 4 also wanted someone who was “cool.”

“This is what the children of Israel wanted. They’re wanting someone who looks cool. And God gives them somebody who looks cool,” Graham said, labeling the first king of Israel, Saul, as a big, good-looking guy who was “cool.”

In a subtle forewarning, however, Graham noted that Saul started off well but later disobeyed God.

“God saw it and God withdrew his hand from Saul,” Graham recalled. “He appointed another.”

Graham’s message at Harvest came weeks after Californians had voted 61 to 37% for president-elect Barack Obama and 52 to 48% against Proposition 4, which would have amended the state constitution to require physicians to notify the parents or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor.

Many conservatives contend that Obama will be “the most radical pro-abortion president” in U.S. history and that his election dashes hopes within the anti-abortion movement for possible Supreme Court vacancies over the next four years to be filled by judges who might support reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a right to abortion.

Obama’s incoming administration is also expected to reverse President Bush’s executive orders on embryonic stem cell research, which Bush has limited federal spending on. Many within the pro-life community equate such research to abortion as it requires the destruction of embryos.

In an interview with The Associated Press last month, Graham had noted how Obama’s abortion position is “contrary to biblical teaching.”

“I hope God will change his heart,” the evangelist said.

Graham’s father, renowned evangelist Billy Graham, meanwhile, has expressed his desire to meet Obama, though his days as a pastor to presidents have faded. For more than 60 years, the 90-year-old preacher had been a friend to every U.S. president since Harry Truman.

Currently, Franklin Graham serves as president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association as well as the relief organization Samaritan’s Purse. He is expected to attend the latter group’s Operation Christmas Child Send Off for Orange County on Tuesday before departing California for Denver.

==============================

‘Abortion’ Certificates Renew Calls to Defund Planned Parenthood (Christian Post, 071206)

Many pro-life advocates are renewing their call to legislators to remove all state funding to Planned Parenthood clinics after they discovered the organization’s Indiana affiliate was selling holiday gift certificates that could be redeemed for health services, including abortion.

The Planned Parenthood of Indiana, which has 35 clinics across the state, began offering the gift certificates last month. The certificates, sold in increments of $25, can be used toward any of the clinics’ health services, ranging from screenings, birth control to abortion.

Chrystal Struben-Hall with Planned Parenthood of Indiana said the certificates are in response to “economic woes” that cause women to place other priorities before their health.

But pro-life advocates believe that an ailing economy should mean less funds for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which they say are “profiting from death.” The organization received 300 million federal dollars last year.

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, is asking supporters to contact Indiana House Majority Leader Russ Stillwell and ask him to defund Planned Parenthood in Indiana.

“The ailing economy has forced families and governments to tighten their fiscal belts,” said Perkins in an e-mail sent Thursday to supporters, “and the current financial crisis should cause us to ask whether a controversial billion dollar corporation like Planned Parenthood should get state tax funds.”

Several pro-life and Christian organizations have expressed outrage over the gift certificates, saying it is offensive for Planned Parenthood to promote “death” at a time when many are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.

“To give someone a gift card from the nation’s largest abortion business is to give death for Christmas,” Dr. Alveda King, pastoral associate of Priests for Life and niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in a written statement.

She said that Planned Parenthood should call the vouchers “King Herod certificates” after the Roman ruler who slaughtered the Israelite babies in his vain attempt to kill the baby Jesus.

“Congress gave Planned Parenthood $300 million last year and now a chapter of this group is defiling the celebration of our Savior’s birth,” said Dr. King. “As one of America’s taxpayers, I want my money back.”

The organization has described the certificates as an “unusual, yet practical gift” but has maintained that the program was created with uninsured and low-income women in mind.

A recent report by Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, however, found that women obtaining abortions are more likely to be poor or low-income. The latest data on abortion incidents collected by the same research group showed that 11,150 women obtained abortions in Indiana in 2005.

“If Planned Parenthood really cared about the needy, they would offer their services at no cost, like the dozens of pro-life pregnancy resource centers statewide,” suggested Indiana Right to Life president Mike Fitcher to Christian Broadcasting Network News.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are encouraging people to consider a Christmas donation to organizations that promote life instead of death.

Indiana Right to Life is asking residents to donate to a pro-life center instead of purchasing gift certificates.

The Chicago-based Pro-Action Life League is asking for donations to a non-profit service called Option Line (1-800-395-HELP), a 24/7 hotline that connects callers to local resource centers that can help manage a crisis pregnancy or deal with the aftermath of abortion.

“After the national outrage of Planned Parenthood’s ‘death’ certificates that could be used for abortions, we wanted to let people know there are much better places to send their money to assist women who need help dealing with an unplanned pregnancy,” said Eric Scheidler, communications director for the Pro-Life Action League.

According to PLAL, a donation of $42 is enough to keep Option Line open and taking calls for half an hour — helping at least 14 people in need, or as many as 1,000 women if 100 people donate. To encourage donations to the hotline, the group will give away copies of the book What Mary and Joseph Knew About Parenting to the first 100 donors who give $42 or more between now and Dec. 25.

The gift certificate offer is not the first time Planned Parenthood has run into controversy over a holiday promotion. In 2002, the organization sold pro-abortion “Choice on Earth” Christmas cards that put a twist on the traditional “Peace on Earth” Christmas greeting.

The Indiana branch of Planned Parenthood also came under scrutiny this week after the release of a secretly-recorded video that showed a Bloomington clinic employee breaking with the organization’s policies and giving abortion advice to a girl who identified herself as being 13 years old. The “patient,” who was actually 20-year-old Lilia Rose, a history major student at the University of California Los Angeles, claims that the nurse in the video showed her a form that would allow her to get an abortion in Illinois without parental consent. PPIN has suspended the employee pending further investigation of the video.

==============================

Planned Parenthood Staffer in Video Resigns (Foxnews, 0812120)

INDIANAPOLIS — A Planned Parenthood of Indiana counselor has resigned after an undercover video showed her telling a woman posing as a 13-year-old that she didn’t care about the age of the man who impregnated her, the group said Friday.

Two videos shot at the organization’s clinics by an anti-abortion group appear to show workers unconcerned about state law requiring anyone learning of sexual acts between an adult and a child under 14 to report them to police or child welfare authorities. A nursing aide seen in the other video was previously fired.

Planned Parenthood said Friday it has enlisted an outside group to help retrain its workers on the legal requirements for reporting abuse.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s president and CEO, Betty Cockrum, also called on the anti-abortion group Live Action to give it copies of all the undercover video it shot at clinics in Bloomington and Indianapolis that showed a young patient claiming she had been impregnated by an older man.

“It’s right for us to see what our staff said and did,” Cockrum said.

The steps were announced a day after the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office in Indianapolis said it would have a grand jury investigate whether any laws were broken at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Indianapolis.

“We took swift action. Both employees were immediately suspended,” Cockrum said in a telephone interview Friday. “Both are no longer working for us.”

Video released by Live Action on Tuesday shows a counselor at the Indianapolis clinic and 20-year-old UCLA student Lila Rose, who was posing as a 13-year-old and says the man who impregnated her was 31.

“I don’t care how old he is,” the counselor says in the video.

The Indianapolis counselor, who has not been identified, resigned in the middle of the organization’s investigation, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kate Shepherd said.

The nursing aide fired earlier from the Bloomington clinic made a similar claim in the other video. Both videos were shot in June.

Rose said Friday the group was sending both unedited videos from Indiana to authorities, even though they had not yet been contacted. She also has said her group intends to post the unedited video online.

“Self-regulation has not worked for Planned Parenthood as they have routinely evaded the very Indiana laws that protect children from sexual abuse,” Rose said in a prepared statement. She said Indiana authorities should investigate and hold Planned Parenthood accountable for its “criminal activity.”

Cockrum denied the two cases indicated Planned Parenthood has a culture of failing to report sexual activity by underage children, as some opponents have alleged. She said her organization conducts audits to turn up abuse cases that haven’t been reported.

Planned Parenthood reported 123 cases of suspected child abuse to Indiana authorities in 2007, Shepherd said.

“I’m very serious when I say it’s an imperative here. We take this reporting requirement very seriously,” Cockrum said.

Planned Parenthood has enlisted Prevent Child Abuse Indiana to help it retrain staff. Sandy Runkle, programs director for the anti-abuse group, said members met with Planned Parenthood on Thursday.

Runkle said it was too early to say what form the retraining would take and who would provide it.

Planned Parenthood employs a staff of more than 200 at its 35 health clinics across Indiana.

==============================

Black Pastors Support Pro-Life Pastor Facing Two-Year Jail Sentence (Christian Post, 090218)

Several African American pastors are headed to California to attend the sentencing of Walter Hoye, a black pastor in Berkeley who could face up to two years in jail for sharing a pro-life message in front of an abortion clinic.

In January, Hoye was found guilty of two misdemeanor counts of violating an ordinance in Oakland that makes it unlawful to approach within eight feet of patients or staff accompanying women entering abortion clinics without their consent.

Hoye was arrested on May 13, 2008, in front of the Family Planning Specialists clinic in Oakland. He was carrying a sign that read, “Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help,” and asking, “Can I talk to you for a minute about abortion alternatives?”

He is scheduled to receive his sentence on Thursday, Feb. 19, and could face up to years in prison and/or $4,000 in fines.

The black pastors coming to provide moral support to Hoye say he was wrongfully convicted.

“We’re coming here because black pastors and bishops around this country are just learning of Walter’s fate and to silence the Gospel is unacceptable. It violates the freedom of speech of every Christian in this nation,” said Rev. Johnny Hunter, president of Life Education And Resources Network (LEARN), a prominent African American pro-life organization with members in 27 states.

“We see brother Hoye standing for life and we ought to stand with him,” added Dr. Levon Yuille, president of the National Black Pro-Life Congress.

During the trial, clinic director Jackie Barbic testified that Hoye intimidated clinic staff and several women entering the clinic. She also claimed that when she went outside with a measuring tape to show Hoye what eight feet looks like, the pastor physically intimidated her as he walked toward her, compelling her to shout in defense, “Stay away from me! Back down! Back away!”

But a video tape of the encounter, presented at trial by Hoye’s defense the Life Legal Defense Foundation, contradicted Barbic’s testimony. The video showed a clinic escort approaching Rev. Hoye and pointing a tape measure at him and Rev. Hoye not moving an inch.

In the video, Barbic can be seen lecturing him, and then talking to others. Hoye moved away. A few minutes later, the same scene plays out again, with Barbic again pointing the tape measure at Hoye, and him moving down the sidewalk in a different direction. The video was taped by Hoye’s friend from across the street.

While charges of harassment were dropped, the jury rendered the guilty verdict on the two “unlawful approach” charges.

The conviction was called “a miscarriage of justice” by LLDF attorney Allison Aranda, who represented Hoye in the case.

Hoye, who attends Progressive Missionary Baptist Church of Berkeley, is the founder of the Issues4Life Foundation and an outspoken opponent of what he calls the genocide of unborn African Americans.

Recent statistics show that abortion disproportionately affects black women.

Around 37% of pregnancies for black women ended in abortion, compared to 12% for non-Hispanic white women and 19% for Hispanic women in 2004, according to an April 2008 report by the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In 2004, 453,000 black babies were aborted while 418,000 white and 269,000 Hispanic babies were aborted, according to the federal report.

A Sept. 2008 report released by Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, showed that black women were four times more likely than white women to have an abortion.

“This is a deliberate attempt to silence the Church and its prophetic role in protecting the innocent lives in our community and especially Black babies,” said Pastor Stephen Broden of Dallas, Texas.

“Pastor Hoye represents a legacy of resistance by Black preachers to injustices perpetrated on the beloved community.”

Hoye is also involved in a lawsuit that challenges Oakland’s ordinance as a violation of constitutional free speech rights. A hearing will be held in March in federal district court.

In a newsletter in which he tells of his ordeal, Hoye said that while he is not able to demonstrate in front of abortion clinics in Oakland for now, he will continue to work toward the defeat of what he calls Oakland’s “No Christ” zone.

==============================

Pro-Life Campaign Helps Save 297 Babies from Abortion (Christian Post, 090402)

The 40 Days for Life campaign is in its last days and so far, 297 babies have been reported saved from abortion, according to the latest report.

“297 – Praise God!!” organizers wrote in their campaign blog this week.

One woman in Sacramento, Calif., was six months pregnant and planning to abort because her doctor insisted that the baby had multiple deformities.

After speaking and praying with a 40 Days for Life volunteer, the unidentified woman proclaimed that she was keeping her baby and walked away from the abortion clinic.

More than 130 communities in the United States, Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland are hosting 40 Days for Life events through April 5. Events include praying, fasting, holding peaceful vigils outside abortion clinics and raising awareness about the pro-life movement.

“Many people think about abortion in abstract terms,” said Shawn Carney, spring campaign director for 40 Days for Life. “But 40 Days for Life shows that abortion is real, it’s in their neighborhoods, and it has devastating results – not only for the babies, but for mothers, fathers and many others.”

In the latest report by the campaign staff, one employee who works at an abortion clinic said she plans to quit her job.

“An abortion center employee has been talking to the 40 Days for Life prayer volunteers outside of her workplace – and she wants out!” according to the campaign blog. “Her message was simple – she just couldn’t take it any longer. It was time to look for a new job.”

Carol Marie, one of the local 40 Days for Life coordinators, commented, “If you ever wondered if what we’ve been doing has been making a difference, well the Lord has given us an answer, loud and clear.

“Lives are being saved, people are leaving the business and we are costing them the money that motivates the doctors to do what they do. All praise and glory goes to God!”

This year is the fourth 40 Days for Life campaign and is the first time the events are running with a pro-choice president in the White House.

President Barack Obama recently reversed a policy that banned federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and also repealed the Mexico City Policy which prohibited funding for overseas abortion providers.

==============================

Abortion rate falls for the first time in six years (WorldNetToday, 090522)

Figures published yesterday by the Department of Health showed a surprising reduction in the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales - the first such fall since 2003.

In 2008, the number of legal abortions was 195,296 compared with 198,499 in 2007, and procedures carried out on girls under the age of 16 also fell compared to the previous year.

The figures were part of a raft of population statistics released yesterday which provide an intriguing snapshot of modern Britain. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that the fertility rate in England and Wales has reached its highest level for 35 years, while mortality rates have fallen to the lowest level ever recorded.

Health minister Dawn Primarolo said improved access to contraception had played a “vital role” in preventing teenage pregnancy. “Last year we invested £26.8m and have made a further £20.5m available this year to improve women’s access to contraception, and help reduce the number of abortions and teenage pregnancies,” she said.

The data came as a welcome surprise to health charities, which had predicted the abortion rate would pass 200,000. The number had been rising steadily since 2002, when it was 175,932.

More than 1,000 abortions were recorded among under-15s, of which 166 were on girls under the age of 14. Procedures on women who had previously had an abortion numbered 64,715.

The statistics showed the fertility rate in England and Wales reached its highest level since 1973. In 2008, there was 708,708 live births, with women having 1.95 children each on average compared to 1.92 the previous year.

According to fertility experts, a likely cause of the rise is the changing priorities of women, increasing numbers of whom are having children when they are aged 40 and over. Over the last decade, the number of live births to mothers in this age group has almost doubled, rising from 13,555 in 1998 to 26,419 in 2008.

Immigrants, who often favour larger families on cultural or religious grounds, have also contributed to the increased fertility rate. Almost a quarter of all babies born last year belonged to mothers who originated from outside the UK. However, although the rate has risen for the last seven years, the UK still has an ageing population.

Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: “It’s good that the fertility rate is increasing, but it’s still below where we should be. Until we reach 2.1 children per woman, we are not replacing ourselves, and are declining as a population.”

The mortality rate for men and women is the lowest ever recorded, falling to 6,860 deaths per million men and 4,910 per million women.

Circulatory diseases, such as heart disease, remain the biggest killers, contributing to about a third of all deaths. Cancer accounted for just over a quarter of all deaths in 2008.

==============================

Pro-Life Groups Fear Backlash After Tiller Murder (Foxnews, 090531)

NEW YORK — Anti-abortion leaders voiced concern Sunday that the Obama administration and other Democrats may try to capitalize on the murder of Dr. George Tiller to defuse the abortion issue in upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kansas. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren’t known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.

Said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, an anti-abortion activist: “No one should use this tragedy for political gain.”

Tiller, one the few American doctors specializing in late-term abortions, had been the target of repeated protests and harassment for many years, and he was wounded by gunfire from an anti-abortion activist in 1993.

“It is abhorrent that once again, individuals who oppose the right to choose have used violence to try to advance their extreme anti-choice agenda,” said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.

“We condemn this lawless act of violence. The foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone. Whoever is responsible for this reprehensible violence must be brought to justice under the law,” said Americans United for Life President and CEO, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, in a statement.

While many anti-abortion leaders swiftly issued statements condemning the shooting, their expressions of dismay were not echoed by Randall Terry, a veteran anti-abortion activist whose protests have often targeted Tiller.

“George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that,” Terry said. “He was an evil man — his hands were covered with blood.”

Terry said he was now concerned that the Obama administration “will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.”

A month ago, Terry was arrested protesting President Obama’s appearance at the University of Notre Dame commencement. The president’s graduation speech was dominated by abortion issue — and an appeal for the nation to seek common ground instead of vitriol.

Mahoney said he had been conferring with other anti-abortion leaders about how to deal with any backlash to the Tiller killing that might undercut their cause at a time when they are trying to challenge Obama’s support for abortion rights.

“I’d hope they wouldn’t try to broad-brush the entire pro-life movement as some sort of extremist movement because of what happened in Wichita,” Mahoney said. “That’s really important — don’t use this personal loss for a political gain.”

He noted that abortion is likely to be one of the most contentious issues at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, and expressed hope that the Tiller murder would not be raised there.

Abortion rights leaders reacted to the killing with shock and determination

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the murder would “send a chill down the spines of the brave and courageous providers” offering abortion to American women.

“Violence and murder will never end the need for abortion,” said Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. “With great sadness and discouragement we call on the government to reactivate its protection system for our nation’s abortion providers.”

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said Tiller was aware of the dangers he faced, “yet he continued to protect his patients and provide safe and legal abortions to women in often-desperate circumstances.”

She and other activists urged that Monday be observed as a national day of mourning for Tiller, as well as a day of commitment to the cause of abortion rights.

According to the National Abortion Federation, Tiller was the eighth U.S. abortion provider murdered since 1977, and 17 others had been targeted with attempted murder.

==============================

Recent WHO Report Presents Skewed Data to Advance Abortion Agenda (C-FAM, 090702)

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) In its recently released annual report on the state of global health, the World Health Organization (WHO) presents statistics that misleadingly appear to place maternal mortality on par with other global killers like malaria and HIV/ AIDS. This new approach contradicts other WHO reports where maternal mortality does not even make the top ten of global killers, ranking somewhere lower than car accident fatalities.

The confusion first arises in the second table of the new report, which provides data about mortality due to maternal causes, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and injuries. All of these causes of death, except maternal mortality, are among the top ten causes of death globally; yet maternal mortality is shown in the same statistics table, as if it were comparable to the others.

Even more confusing to the casual reader is that the statistics in the table for maternal mortality actually appear to be a greater cause of death than the others. The table shows that maternal mortality has a “mortality rate” of 400 while coronary heart disease, considered the number one killer in the world, has a mortality rate of 301. While the WHO itself says maternal mortality kills 536,000 per year and coronary heart disease kills 7.2 million, this seeming parity is achieved by showing maternal mortality numbers as a function of total live births while the others are shown as a function of total population – a mixing of apples and oranges.

Critics charge that the report is part of the ongoing campaign by United Nations (UN) agencies and the WHO of exaggerating the actual incidence of maternal mortality for the purposes of promoting abortion.

A 2005 WHO Bulletin admitted that relatively very few countries provide reliable and complete data on mortality or cause of death. In fact, of the 46 African countries, which supposedly account for about 50% of maternal deaths, only one country had complete data available. Even so, WHO routinely asserts that about half a million women die every year from “maternal causes” in developing nations, regardless of the fact that the data available from developing nations on this subject is unreliable, with “high uncertainty margins.” The UN Population Division, the official UN statistics office, refuses to use the 500,000 number precisely because it is not verifiable.

The United Nations and its agencies consistently propose abortion and contraception, under the euphemism of “family planning,” as the best way to solve the overstated problem of maternal mortality. The 1999 joint statement issued by the World Bank, UNFPA, UNICEF, and WHO reiterated the importance of reducing maternal mortality through “three key areas for action:” “empowering women to make choices in their reproductive lives,” improvement of “access to and quality of maternal health services,” and “ensured access to voluntary family planning information and services.”

The UN-sponsored “Women Deliver” conference in 2007 also advocated what Dr. Susan Yoshihara has termed the “abortion first” mentality to improving maternal health. This downplays proven methods of reducing maternal mortality associated child bearing, namely increasing access to skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care.

==============================

U.S. Senate Committee Passes Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill (Christian Post, 090716)

The Senate health committee approved legislation Wednesday that would expand insurance coverage to nearly all Americans but also would empower federal officials to mandate coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all health plans, according to critics.

On Wednesday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved a massive bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) on a 13-10 party line vote. A day earlier, the House Democratic leadership unveiled a similar 1,000-page bill, H.R. 3200, which President Obama said “will begin the process of fixing what’s broken about our health care system.”

“And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American,” Obama added.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), however, says the Kennedy bill and the House Democratic leadership bill will result in “the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

“These bills, which President Obama is pushing hard, would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment by abortionists by local health networks, and nullification of many state abortion laws. They would also result in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale,” he reported Wednesday.

Before approving the Kennedy bill, the Senate HELP Committee rejected a series of NRLC-backed amendments offered by pro-life Republican members of the committee. Specifically, the committee’s Democrats – with the exception of Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) – voted down an amendment by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) to prevent health plans from being required to pay for and provide access to abortions, an amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to prevent federal funding of abortions, and an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) to prevent nullification of many state laws regulating abortion.

“The pro-abortion majority even rejected a second Coburn amendment to protect the right of health-care providers to refuse to participate directly in providing abortions,” the NRLC reported.

According to the pro-life organization, both the Kennedy bill and the House bill (H.R. 3200) would empower federal officials to mandate coverage of abortion on demand in virtually all health plans. Both of these bills would also result in massive federal subsidies for abortion on demand, require expansions of abortion providers in many areas of the country, and result in nullification of at least some state abortion regulations.

“The pro-life movement needs to go to Condition Red on these bills, because they pose a mortal threat to the unborn and they are on a fast track to enactment,” commented Johnson.

NRLC is urging pro-lifers to send messages to their two U.S. senators and to their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, to urge them to oppose any federal “health care reform” legislation that does not contain explicit exclusions of abortion.

“In addition, please telephone the offices of your two U.S. senators, give your name and address, and tell the senators’ staff persons that you wish to be recorded as ‘opposed to Senator Kennedy’s health care bill because it would result in mandates for virtually all health plans to cover elective abortion, and would result in federal funding of abortion on demand,’” the group added.

Currently, both the House and the Senate are rushing to meet their self-imposed deadline of getting bills through both chambers before leaving Washington for their annual August recess.

Presuming legislation makes it through both chambers, it would have to be melded together by House and Senate negotiators - a process that plenty of bills never survive - and then passed again in final form by both the House and the Senate. Only then can Obama sign it.

Obama has said he wants a bill on his desk in October and has praised House and Senate versions of a bill to expand health care coverage to millions of Americans.

During a Rose Garden speech on Wednesday, Obama said the progress from Congress makes him hopeful but should not let lawmakers become complacent.

The president also said health care overhaul will be done this year, brushing off doubts and congressional delays.

“Don’t bet against us. We are going to make this happen,” he said.

Obama’s top domestic priority is revamping the nation’s health care system.

==============================

Anti-Abortion Activist 'Targeted' in Killing (Foxnews, 090911)

OWOSSO, Mich. — A man carrying grudges against several people in town set off on a shooting spree Friday morning, authorities said, killing an abortion protester outside a school because he didn't like that the activist carried a sign with graphic images of a fetus in front of students.

Before he was done, the gunman drove to a gravel pit and shot and killed the owner, apparently for different reasons, police said. Authorities believe they stopped a third killing by catching up with him before he could pull the trigger.

"The defendant had ill will toward these three individuals — not for the same reason necessarily, but had a grudge," said Shiawassee County Prosecutor Randy Colbry.

It started around 7:20 a.m. across the street at the high school, where James Pouillon stood with a sign that pictured a chubby-cheeked baby with the word "LIFE" on one side and an image of an aborted fetus with the word "ABORTION" on the other. Pouillon was a well-known activist in the town of 15,000, who often had one-man demonstrations outside area schools and city hall.

Harlan James Drake, 33, drove by the school Friday and gunned Pouillon down in front of horrified students and parents, Colbry said.

It was Pouillon's presence outside the high school that seemed to drive Drake to kill, said assistant prosecutor Sara Edwards.

That "seemed to bother him .... the fact that he was outside the high school with his signs in front of children going to school," Edwards said.

Prosecutors said they didn't know if Drake knew Pouillon personally or if only by reputation as a local protester.

Students said they regularly saw Pouillon outside their high school and that he often greeted them, but didn't shout slogans or try to start up a conversation with them.

"I can see someone spitting on him or punching him, but shooting him is pretty stupid," said 16-year-old Curtis Wisterman.

Witnesses at the school gave police the vehicle's license plate number and authorities traced it to Drake's home in Owosso, officials said.

After Drake left the school, he drove seven miles to the Fuoss Gravel Co. where he gunned down Mike Fuoss in his office, authorities said. The two men knew each other, but officials didn't say how.

Drake returned home where police arrested him in Pouillon's shooting. Drake then told police he was involved in the shooting at the gravel pit, said Shiawassee County Sheriff George Braidwood.

Drake was charged Friday with first-degree murder in the deaths of Pouillon and 61-year-old Fuoss. It was not immediately clear whether he had an attorney. He was arraigned and ordered held without bond. The third man Drake intended to kill lived in Owosso, authorities said.

Pouillon's death was the latest high-profile shooting of a person involved in the abortion debate. On May 31, abortion provider George Tiller was shot to death in his Kansas church.

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said he wept when he received word that Pouillon, his friend and colleague, had been killed.

"He was just a kind, gentle man who loved life and endeavored to save other people's lives," Newman said.

==============================

Woman 'addicted to abortion' releases memoir (National Post, 091002)

Fifty one rejection letters -- that is the number Irene Vilar received before she finally found someone to publish a tale so extreme it would surely be fiction if it wasn't her personal story: A woman who says she had 15 abortions and describes it as an addiction.

The book, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict -- a graphic and disturbing tale of one woman's abortions and her personal quest to understand her actions -- is bound to provoke a fury when it is released next week.

It is no surprise that publishers backed away. Ms. Vilar says the dozens of rejection letters "map the psychic realm" of the United States, where abortion remains such a volatile topic that a Kansas doctor who provided the service was shot and killed during a Sunday church service in May.

Now 40 years old and raising two daughters, aged three and five, Ms. Vilar has changed public records to protect her family's privacy and refused to go on a book tour.

She is prepared for her book to be misunderstood. She takes full responsibility for her actions, is adamantly pro-choice and does not intend for her book to become part of the divisive anti-abortion debate. Indeed, she describes herself as "an extreme pathological case."

"I'm solely responsible for my actions and that's what this book is about, a search for understanding and self-accountability," she said in an interview from her home in Colorado. "I refuse to see myself as a victim."

She describes her abortions as an abuse of a lawful procedure: "That was a disservice to the women that have fought so courageously for securing those rights for me. And it was a disservice to my reproductive body and to the promise to procreation and to motherhood and the seriousness of that."

Certainly Ms. Vilar's experience is very atypical and does not represent the large story of repeat abortion, said Dr. Bill Fisher a psychologist who has studied repeat abortions in Canada. Rather, he said, it tells readers something about " a very idiosyncratic outlier."

"From a psychological perspective, people become addicted to many different things," said Dr. Fisher, a professor in the departments of psychology and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Western Ontario. "There are people who are quote-unquote addicted to washing their hands ... compulsive and intrusive behaviours are not uncommon."

Written and rewritten over eight years, the book attempts to place Ms. Vilar's behaviour in a social and political context, taking into account her relationships with men, but also her own family history and the history of reproduction in her native Puerto Rico.

Her grandmother is Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican independence activist. She served 25 years in prison after leading an attack on the Capitol in 1954.

When the author was eight years old, her mother jumped out of a moving car and died. Ms. Vilar's mother struggled with depression and a Valium addiction, and had a hysterectomy in her thirties but was not given hormonal treatment. Her father eventually remarried twice; he was addicted to both alcohol and gambling. Two of her three brothers were addicted to heroin.

It took Ms. Vilar years to understand the pattern of pregnancy and termination that began when she was a teenager in New York state, separated from her family by thousands of miles, and falling in love with a 50-year-old professor who later became her husband.

The professor, Ms. Vilar says, did not want children; she battled her maternal desire so she would not lose him.

Abortion became her addiction. In an attempt to retain some control in her relationship, she would skip one birth control pill, then a few, then abandon the month's pack. Her days took on a "balancing act quality" as she waited for menstruation.

The cycle of pregnancy and abortion repeated itself over and over, 15 times in 15 years, during which time Ms. Vilar evolved from student, to wife, to a published author. Several times, she tried to kill herself.

In the days following her final abortion in 2002, as she tended to a brother addicted to heroin, she began to see her own behaviour as addiction.

"There is something that technically is not an addiction, and yet there are many elements that my drama, my private drama, shares with addictions," Ms. Vilar said.

The head of Other Press, the New York publishing house that eventually decided to take on Ms. Vilar's story, also frames the story as being about a particular pathology rather than the abortion debate.

"I never saw this story as having much to do with abortion, except that it happened to be the target of her pathology or her neurosis," said Judith Gurewich, the publisher, who is also a practicing psychoanalyst. "Her behaviour is very, very similar to anorexia or bulimia. It's some kind of an addiction where she wants to impose her own rule on her own body. The fact that, of course, this involves a more complicated target makes it rather different."

At a time when the truth of memoirs is almost automatically questioned -- especially when dealing with such volatile and personal subject matter -- Ms. Gurewich said there were great efforts to ensure the story's veracity. Ms. Vilar produced her own medical records from abortion clinics; the book's content was also thoroughly fact-checked and vetted by lawyers, the publisher said.

"Every fact has been confirmed by outside sources," Ms. Gurewich said.

Twelve of the abortions were performed while Ms. Vilar was with first husband; he knew about some, but not others. All but one were performed in New York state, sometimes by the same doctors and sometimes at new clinics, where Ms. Vilar was not recognized.

The scope of Ms. Vilar's abortion story is shocking, but repeat abortions are common enough that there are a few studies probing the reasons behind them.

Dr. Fisher published a study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2005 looking at the characteristics of women who have repeat abortions in Canada. The survey results of more than 1,100 women who had repeat procedures showed the women were considerably more likely than women having their first abortion to have experienced physical abuse, or sexual abuse or coercion.

"These were women who did not want to be pregnant and were trying not to be pregnant. But if they became pregnant, they seemed to perhaps live a life where they didn't want to bring children into the world," Dr. Fisher said.

Ms. Vilar's own life has changed radically since her last abortion seven years ago. After seeing a therapist, she began speaking and writing about her multiple abortions. She met her second husband and moved west with him. She became pregnant with their first child.

Motherhood, Ms. Vilar says, gave her the perspective and courage she needed to write the final draft. She hopes that when her girls are old enough to hear her story, they will understand.

"Motherhood has completely made me feel accountable. It hasn't made me less pro-choice," she said. "It's just that now I understand and feel the weight of the privilege that we have in exercising our right to choose."

==============================

49 Million To Five (Ann Coulter, 090603)

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.

Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence — with minor edits — of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”?

For years, we’ve had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting “Allahu akbar” as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting “Abortion kills a beating heart!” as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.

Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.

According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion — which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.

So in a country that is more than 50% pro-life — and 80% opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller — only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5% Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.

But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as “domestic terrorists.” At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they’d like to send to Guantanamo.

Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother’s womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists — not a squeamish bunch — in the entire country would perform them.

Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother’s life or to prevent “irreversible physical damage” to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned “substantial and irreversible conditions,” which, in Tiller’s view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being “temporarily depressed” on account of their pregnancies.

In return for blood money from Tiller’s profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.

In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton’s White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals’ protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller’s abortion mill.

Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to “substantial and irreversible conditions” justifying his late-term abortions.

Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller’s blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.

But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.

Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America — coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.

The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?

I wouldn’t kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn’t want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, then don’t shoot one.

==============================

Hundreds Pay Last Respects to George Tiller (Christian Post, 090607)

More than 850 people gathered Saturday to pay their last respects to late-term abortion provider George Tiller, who was gunned down last Sunday in the foyer of his own church.

Tiller’s funeral at College Hill United Method Church in Wichita, Kan., also drew out protestors from the infamous Westboro Baptist Church, a virulent cult that has terrorized funerals across the nation.

Local police and federal marshals, however, were on site to provide security, keeping protestors about 500 feet away from the church. A dozen counter-demonstrators were also present to drown out the singing of the Westboro clan.

Though Tiller for years had been chastised for providing abortions for women more than seven months pregnant, his murder last week was widely condemned.

Pro-lifers, especially, came out swiftly and strongly in their condemnation of the killing though they had long opposed the third-trimester abortions that Tiller had performed at his clinic in Wichita.

“Clearly the killing of abortion providers is unbiblical, unchristian and un-American. Such callous disregard for human beings brutalizes everyone,” commented Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

“The struggle here is not between ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ – it is between civilization and barbarism,” he added. “The murder of Dr. Tiller is an act of domestic terrorism and should be condemned by every civilized person in our nation.”

Though Tiller’s clinic was target of regular protests because it was among the few in the nation that performed late-term abortions, most were peaceful. Only twice did protests turn violent, including a bombing in 1986 and non-fatal shooting in 1993.

Sunday’s fatal attack took place as Tiller was worshipping at Reformation Lutheran Church.

Tiller’s killer, Scott Roeder, was a 51-year-old abortion opponent whose ex-wife described him as “very religious” but in an Old Testament “eye-for-an-eye way.”

Aside from being anti-abortion, Roeder was also reportedly anti-government.

On Tuesday, Roeder was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Sunday’s shooting death.

If convicted of murder, Roeder would face a mandatory life sentence and would not be eligible for parole for at least 25 years.

READERS’ COMMENTS

Where are the 100’s to mourn and weep over the 60,000 pre-borns whose lives this man snuffed out? How profound our sinful blindness is. What part ot the following don’t we understand?

“Embryos possess the epigenetic primordia for internally directed growth and maturation as distinct, self-integrating, human organisms. Each embryo is therefore already — and not merely potentially — a living member of the human species.

The being that is now you or me is the same being that was once an adolescent, and before that a toddler, and before that an infant, and before that a fetus, and before that an embryo. To have destroyed the being that is you or me at any of these stages would have been to destroy you or me.”

ANOTHER

I am astounded that this murderer of 60,000 babies has found solace with supposed people of God. His killer will face the judgment of our law, but Tiller the Killer must face God’s wrath and justice - I would not want to be in his shoes. As for those on this site who bemoan the killing of GT, I doubt you know how many lives George wrecked in addition to murdering their children. I know one personally and she rejoices that many children will be spared the horrible death meted out by someone sworn to save lives not destroy them.

I wonder too about Tiller’s family and church congregation. How spiritually debauched they must be to have known his reputation and fruit and yet profited by it. It makes the skin crawl to think that people professing the name of Christ would sit next to or speak with someone with so much blood on his hands.

Where was the justice, the chance to live for the little ones he destroyed? I don’t presume to know the heart as God does, but I must believe that George Tiller is now burning in the hottest part of hell for his hatred of his fellowman. May he never RIP.

==============================

Prayer Campaign Helps Save 534 Babies from Abortion (Christian Post, 091102)

After 40 days of prayer outside abortion clinics throughout the country, 534 babies have so far been reportedly saved from abortion and eight employees have left the industry.

“Together we have witnessed God accomplishing amazing miracles through His faithful people, and I really believe that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of abortion in our land,” said David Bereit, national director of the annual 40 Days for Life campaign.

This year, 40 Days for Life events were held in 212 cities across the states as well as in Canada and Denmark. Participants held peaceful prayer vigils and held signs reading “Pray to End Abortion” and “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. –God.”

The campaign reached a milestone last week, saving a total of 2,000 babies as a result of efforts over the last five years.

Two thousand children would be enough to fill at least 80 classrooms and make up 180 teams of little soccer players, Bereit noted.

“And just as importantly, this could represent 180 teams of soccer moms – women who will enjoy watching their children run and jump and shout – blessing they would have never known if they had fallen for the lies that are so often disguised by the rhetoric of ‘choice,’” he added.

In Toms River, N.J., one mother stopped in front of a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil and informed the volunteers that her pregnant 16-year-old daughter was impressed by the pro-lifers’ efforts – including their standing in the rain and cold – and decided to keep her baby.

A prayer volunteer in Reno, Nev., noticed that business was down significantly at the abortion center participants have been praying at. For two years, the clinic was open five days a week. Now, the doors opens only three days a week and the abortion doctor work fewer hours, the volunteer reported.

A Planned Parenthood in Kalispell, Mont., where a prayer vigil was held last spring will close its doors permanently next month due to low patient numbers.

“Your efforts are working,” Bereit told participants at the conclusion of the campaign as he encouraged them not to stop their efforts. “Day 40 is not the end. It’s only the beginning!”

The 40 Days for Life campaign is derived from biblical history, where 40 day periods led to transformed individuals, communities and the world. The first 40 Days for Life campaign was conducted in Bryan/College Station, Texas, in the fall of 2004. This year’s fall campaign began on Sept. 23.

==============================

Man Accused of Shooting Kansas Abortion Doctor Confesses to Killing (Foxnews, 091109)

WICHITA, Kan. — Defiant and unapologetic, a man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider confessed to the murder Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.

Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Missouri, spoke to the AP in a telephone call from jail, saying he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller.

“Because of the fact preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger this was the action I chose. ... I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them,” Roeder said.

“Defending innocent life — that is what prompted me. I mean, it is pretty simple,” he said.

Roeder is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Tiller’s death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor’s Wichita church. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Tiller family attorney Lee Thompson and groups that support abortion rights decried Roeder as a terrorist who used violence to achieve his political agenda.

“It is precisely this unrepentant domestic terrorism — and those who fund it — that must be stopped or else we will see more clinic violence and people will be killed,” the president of the National Organization for Women, Terry O’Neill, said in a statement.

Click here for photos.

Thompson has said allowing Roeder to use a so-called necessity defense would “invite chaos and be tantamount to anarchy.” Courts have prevented others accused of killing abortion providers from using the same argument.

“It is my view legally that it is an absurdity and simply reflects he is doing nothing more than trying to get publicity,” Thompson said Monday.

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said Roeder’s statements do not reflect the sentiments of most people who oppose abortion.

“The pro-life standard has always been to protect the dignity of human life, all human life, from the moment of conception until natural death,” Newman said.

In his more than 30-minute interview with the AP, Roeder did not apologize for the slaying.

“No, I don’t have any regrets because I have been told so far at least four women have changed their minds, that I know of, and have chosen to have the baby,” Roeder said. “So even if one changed her mind it would be worth it. No, I don’t have any regrets.”

Asked if he would do it over again, Roeder replied: “We all have a sense of duty and obligation to protect innocent life. If anybody is in a situation where they can, I think it is their obligation.”

Tiller, 67, had been the target of relentless protests for most of the 36 years that he performed abortions at his Wichita clinic, where he practiced as one of the few providers of late-term abortions in the U.S. He was shot in both arms in 1993 and his clinic was bombed in 1986.

Roeder’s confession came on the same day several strident abortion opponents released their “Defensive Action Statement 3rd Edition” that proclaims any force that can be used to defend the life of a “born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.” The statement’s 21 signers demand Roeder’s jurors be allowed to consider the “question of when life begins” in deciding whether lethal force was justified.

Among the signers are Eric Rudolph, James Kopp and Shelley Shannon — all serving prison time for targeting abortion providers.

One signer, New Jersey anti-abortion activist Joe Provone, said Kopp, Rudolph and Roeder are “worthy of admiration, gratitude and respect.”

“Not everyone possesses their courage or ability as we are all endowed by our God with different gifts and talents,” Provone wrote in an e-mail to AP. “Please rest assured I will continue to protest the killing of the unborn in the way I deem appropriate given my own self-appraisal.”

==============================

Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill (Christian Post, 091118)

Recent polls reveal that the majority of Americans oppose federal funding for health care plans that pay for abortions.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, released Wednesday, found that 61% of the public is against the use of federal money for abortions for women who can not afford the procedure. Also, 51% say women who get abortions should pay the full costs out of their own pocket, even if they have private health insurance and no federal funds are involved.

On Tuesday, a CBS News poll showed 56% of Americans think federal subsidies for health care plans should not be allowed to pay for abortions.

Both polls were conducted over the weekend with more than 1,000 adult Americans.

The debate on health care reform heated up recently when the House of Representatives passed a version of the bill early this month that included tight restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion coverage. The Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits any coverage of abortion in the public option (government-run plan) and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion.

The amendment sparked outrage among abortion advocates who have been pressuring lawmakers to drop the proposal from the House health care bill.

The Center for Reproductive Rights recently launched ad campaigns stating, “Don’t let Congress ban abortion coverage millions of women already have.” Noting some “facts,” the New-York based abortion rights group says one in three women will have an abortion within her lifetime and that abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures.

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, is collecting signatures for a petition that states, in part, “Women must be able to purchase private or public health insurance that offers comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care.”

On the other side of the debate, pro-life groups and evangelicals are urging lawmakers to retain the Stupak-Pitts language.

Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association, cautioned, “You always get more of what you subsidize. The chances are high that the number of abortions will jump by a third if the Democrats force taxpayers to fund them.”

Also, on Tuesday one of America’s oldest continuous associations of evangelical clergy, the Evangelical Church Alliance, passed a resolution urging members of the U.S. Congress to “give heed to the opinions of the majority of American citizens that abortion should not be funded by tax dollars either directly or indirectly.”

“[W]e ... urge the United States Congress, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to do nothing by their acts to violate the Sanctity of Human Life as given by the Creator, acknowledged as one of the First inalienable rights by the Founders and secured by the United States Constitution.”

The Senate may begin debate on its version of the health care bill as early as this week.

==============================

Pro-Lifers Mark 37th Roe v Wade Anniversary with Gains, Growth (Christian Post, 100122)

It’s been 37 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the constitutional right to have an abortion for any reason up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’” defining viability as the potential “to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.”

And though the anniversary has typically been marked by anti-abortionists – many of which believe that life begins at conception – as a time to mourn for the tens of millions of lives that have been lost, this year’s observance is taking on a notably different tone.

The Pew Research Center revealed last year that support for abortion is slipping among most demographic and political groups.

In 2007 and 2008, pro-choice Americans clearly outnumbered pro-lifers 54% to 40%. But surveys conducted by Pew last year showed that views of abortion are about evenly divided, with 47% expressing support for legalized abortion and 44% expressing opposition.

Gallup, similarly noted a significant decline in abortion support, reporting last year that, for the first time in over a decade, more Americans told the polling group that they are pro-life than pro-choice.

Just over half (51%) of Americans stand for the sanctity of human life while 42% consider themselves pro-choice, according to Gallup’s May 2009 survey. When Gallup first began asking the abortion question in 1995, only 33% called themselves pro-life.

“The pro-life movement has made significant strides exposing and closing abortion clinics and shifting public opinion toward the pro-life position,” reported Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, whose organization last month revealed that just 713 abortion clinics are open today compared to the 2,200 in 1991.

“This has resulted in lower abortion rates,” he added.

Meanwhile, Care Net President Melinda Delahoyde has reported that the pro-life pregnancy center movement is flourishing and contributing to the growing culture of life across the nation.

“The compassionate outreach of pregnancy centers is infectious and our movement is growing,” said the pro-life leader, whose national, faith-based organization supports a network of 1,180 pregnancy centers across North America.

However, Delahoyde said because of the movement’s effectiveness, abortion advocacy groups are mounting an increasing number of attacks in state and local governments across the country.

“[T]hese numerous attacks on pregnancy centers call for a new level of support and partnership to defend their critical work,” she expressed Friday.

Care Net is encouraging pro-lifers to contact a local pregnancy center and ask what they can do to help advocate their work. The organization is also encouraging them to track the work of groups like NARAL and Feminist Majority Foundation in their state and learn about their legislative attacks on pregnancy centers in Virginia, Washington, Maryland, and other states.

“Contact your representatives in these states to defend pregnancy centers,” the organization urged.

“Pray that the good work of pregnancy centers, the beauty of all human life, and the importance of compassionate outreach to women facing unplanned pregnancies would be communicated clearly throughout our nation,” it added.

Nationwide, pro-lifers will be joining marches and events Friday and over the weekend to continue turning the tide and rallying on behalf of the pre-born.

Since 1973, more than 50 million abortions have been performed in America.

==============================

Anticipation Surrounds ‘To Save A Life’ Film Opening (Christian Post, 100122)

Churches and youth ministries have bought out thousands of movie theater seats for the big screen debut of “To Save A Life” on Friday.

Way before its release, the independent film has already drawn a large fan base and sparked a grassroots movement of reaching out to hurting teens and saving lives.

“I’ve received emails from students that walked out of the theatre and threw their razor blades away because they are not going to cut themselves anymore,” screenwriter and youth pastor Jim Britts told The Christian Post.

“I’ve heard stories of students struggling with suicidal thoughts see the film and decide to now be a part of the solution and reach out to their hurting and lonely classmates. I’ve heard several stories about students starting lunch time groups on their campuses with the goal of inviting people who normally eat by themselves.”

The film tackles a host of issues from suicide, cutting and peer pressure to pregnancy and abortion – issues that are real-life challenges teens today face, Britts says. Each character in the film and many of the scenes are based off of students Britts has had in his youth group at Newsong Church in Oceanside, Calif., and their experiences.

More than a movie, “To Save A Life” was produced with the intent of opening the public’s eyes to the reality of struggling teens and motivating students to reach out to their fellow peers.

To Save A Life - Let This Change You

The message is resonating with teens throughout the country.

“We’ve screened the film to thousands of church leaders, school administrators and teens across the country and the response has been through the roof,” said Britts.

“Before even seeing the film, people are getting that this is so much more than just an entertaining movie and wanting to be a part of this movement of reaching out to the hurting and lonely,” he highlighted. “We hope this film empowers its viewers to save lots of lives.”

“To Save A Life” has more than 67,000 fans on its Facebook page, with over 2,000 fans being added every day.

Over 200 groups, called “Lifeline Squads,” have pledged to pre-sell a minimum of 1,000 tickets for opening weekend and 2,500 youth groups have planned to take their students and friends to watch the film.

Some are buying out complete showtimes to distribute the tickets to teens for a free viewing and teachers are offering extra credit to students who see the film.

Following the opening weekend, outreaches to hurting teens are being planned in several cities.

Explaining the significant of the movie title, Britt said, “We want to empower teens to save the physical and spiritual lives of their classmates at school.”

“To Save A Life” features a cast and crew with Hollywood experience, including actors Randy Wayne, Deja Kreutzberg, and Robert Bailey Jr., and director Brian Baugh. The film opens in 430 theaters Friday.

==============================

Tebow Super Bowl Ad Leads Viewers to ‘God Story’ (Christian Post, 100208)

The so-called controversial Tebow Super Bowl ad was not what people expected. There was no overt anti-abortion message, but only the demonstration of a loving and humorous mother-son relationship.

In the ad, Pam Tebow against a plain white background holds a baby photo of her now 22-year-old son, Tim, and calls him her “miracle baby.”

“He almost didn’t make it into this world,” Pam says. “I can remember so many times that I almost lost him.”

She then goes on to say her son is all grown up but she still worries about his health.

“[W]ith all our family’s been through, we have to be tough,” Pam says, when suddenly Tim tackles her.

“Timmy!” she scolds, popping back up as if nothing happened. “I’m trying to tell our story here!”

Tim pops up, joins his mother, apologizes and puts his arms around her.

The two disappear from the screen but their voices can still be heard.

“You still worry about me, Mom?” Tim asks.

“Well, yeah,” Pam says. “You’re not nearly as tough as I am.”

The 30-second commercial served just as a brief introduction to the “miracle baby” story.

Focus on the Family released its full interview with Pam and her husband, Bob Tebow, who tell the story of how Tim came into the world.

Pam and Bob, who heads the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association, both describe it as a “God story.”

The Tebows already had four children. But in 1986 as Bob was preaching in the Philippines he weeped over the loss of millions of babies in America who were aborted and never given a chance. He then prayed, “God, if you want another preacher in this world, you give me Timmy.”

“I’ll raise him to be a preacher,” he vowed.

The next day he shared with his family his prayer and then Pam, Bob and their four children together started to pray for “Timmy” by name to be conceived. Pam later became pregnant.

It was a high-risk pregnancy for Pam who was 37 years old at the time and living in an area without good medical care.

“We went to see a doctor in the town we lived in and she said it wasn’t a baby at all,” Pam recalled. “[She said] he was a mass of fetal tissue and that I needed to abort him immediately if I was going to save my life.

“She said he was a tumor.”

But the couple said they did not have to think about their decision because years ago they already decided to “trust the Lord with the children He gave us.”

“If God called me to give up my life, then He would take care of my family,” Pam said. “And so we just trusted Him and I didn’t have any more medical care at that time or any time until we moved to Manila, the capital of the Philippines, at the very end of my pregnancy.”

On an almost daily basis, Pam thought that she would lose Tim. During Tim’s birth, his father said he saw a “clump of blood” come out where the placenta did not properly attach.

“We have reminded him (Tim) countless times that God has a special plan for him,” Pam said during the interview with FOTF President Jim Daly. “He spared him in the womb and spared him since; spared him laying on the field there at the University of Kentucky. And He spared him for a reason.”

“Of course we tell that to our other children as well,” she added.

“I think that has marked Timmy’s life,” she noted. “He is very aware of his beginning and how God had spared him in the womb.”

Bob said that he prepared his youngest son all his life to be a preacher as He had promised God.

“I prayed for a preacher and God gave me a quarterback,” Bob joked.

But his wife gently corrected him, “He is preaching. And that is his goal. He takes accountability for all those kids that look up to him.”

Tim Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, is known for painting Bible references on his black under-eye markings. He is also an outspoken evangelical and serves with his father’s ministry overseas every summer.

When asked how he raised his five children so well, Bob responded, “We are just ordinary people that trust God.”

The missionary couple said they raised their kids to look at Scripture and taught them to aim higher than just graduating from college, getting a job and getting married. They raised their kids to aim to “live a significant life” and instilled in them eternal values, character and work ethics.

All five Tebow children began taking mission trips when they were 15 years old. The children learned about third world countries which gave them a “heart for people in other countries.”

“I think they also learned the power of the Gospel, that it is real and that it transforms lives right in front of their eyes,” Pam said. “You don’t see it as much in America compared to a country that is very responsive. That is a big part of their lives.”

The 30-second ad with Pam and Tim Tebow aired Sunday night during the Super Bowl which drew about 100 million viewers.

The exact content of the ad was not revealed until it was aired, but some pro-choice groups claimed it would attack abortion and tried to convince CBS to pull the ad. After Sunday’s airing, the Tebow ad has been perceived as lighthearted and not controversial.

==============================

Campaign: 298 Babies Spared from Abortion (Christian Post, 100315)

Nearly a month into another seasonal pro-life campaign, 298 babies have been spared from abortion.

The 40 Days for Life campaign recorded hundreds of lives saved since it kicked off its prayer and fasting initiative on Feb. 17.

“Part of our community outreach this campaign is focusing on getting the word out about the disproportionate amount of abortions performed on minority women,” said Jeanie, one of the leaders of the 40 Days for Life effort in Syracuse, N.Y., according to the campaign blog.

Jeanie spoke to a couple of women who were walking toward a Planned Parenthood clinic and explained to them that “abortion is the leading cause of death for African-Americans.”

“They were obviously surprised by this information and readily decided to seek the help offered at the crisis pregnancy center next door,” she recalled.

One of the women said “thank you” and had a big smile across her face.

People in 167 cities throughout the country and in Canada, Australia and Northern Ireland, have been standing in front of abortion clinics holding signs and hoping to offer women hope.

Participants have been serving as sidewalk counselors for women and have witnessed many changing their minds and walking out of clinics.

In other success report, an abortionist in Columbia, Mo., resigned and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Great Falls, Mont., decreased its operation hours.

“This is a big change as they used to be open all day Monday through Friday and every other Saturday,” said Mary Ann of Great Falls on the campaign blog. “Never before have we even seen the response that we are being blessed with during this campaign. Our numbers of prayer vigil participants has increased tremendously, as well as the number of different churches that are participating.”

Last fall, the 40 Days for Life campaign resulted in the saving of 607 lives, the closing of two abortion clinics, and the departure of nine clinic workers. The campaign takes a peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families.

==============================

Nebraska Gov. Signs Landmark Abortion Bills (Christian Post, 100414)

Nebraska’s governor signed two landmark bills Tuesday that put unprecedented restrictions on abortions performed in the state.

The laws are the first of their kind in the United States and the most restrictive in terms of defining the circumstances when an abortion is legal.

Republican Gov. Dave Heineman signed both bills on Tuesday – the same day the state legislature approved LB 1103, the bill that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the belief that the fetus can feel pain. The other piece of legislation, LB 594, was approved Monday by a 44-5 vote and requires women who seek an abortion in Nebraska to first be screened for mental health and other problems that might develop after the procedure.

“LB 594 and LB 1103 represent important legislation for Nebraska and I want to thank both senators for their thoughtful approach to this issue,” Heineman said during the bills’ signing.

“Women are suffering from avoidable physical and psychological complications that may have been prevented or minimized had they received adequate preabortion screening and counseling,” added Sen. Cap Dierks, who introduced LB 594. “Women deserve better. LB 594 will ensure that women receive the appropriate standard of care.”

While pro-life groups hailed the bills as life-saving, abortion rights groups have challenged the constitutionality of the new laws, particularly over the exclusion of a mental health exception.

They also contest the reasoning behind the 20-weeks restriction, claiming that the reaction of fetuses during an abortion procedure is not out of pain but are the result of a spinal cord reflex. The current standard in abortion restrictions is based on whether the fetus can survive outside the womb. A fetus is generally considered viable around 22 to 24 weeks.

“There is certainly no solid scientific evidence establishing that a fetus can perceive pain at these earlier stages, so any court decisions to uphold such broader laws could only do so by disregarding the importance of good scientific evidence,” said Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor at The City University of New York, to The Associated Press.

Pro-lifers, however, insist that there is scientific evidence that the 20 week-old unborn child has the ability to feel pain.

They point to pioneers in the field of fetal pain, such as Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who testified six years ago in a partial abortion case that the fetus at 20 weeks would feel “severe and excruciating pain” from the procedure.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly affirmed that states have a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting unborn human life at different stages in the pregnancy,” added Speaker of the Legislature, Sen. Mike Food of Norfolk, who sponsored LB 1103. “And considering the scientific evidence that the 20 week-old unborn child has the ability to feel pain, state regulation of these late term abortions is both appropriate and necessary.”

According to reports, both sides of the debate on the constitutionality of the fetal pain law are prepared to take their disagreement to the court.

The new abortion laws are set to go into effect on Oct. 15.

==============================

Chipping away at abortion (National Post, 100430)

Charles Lewis, National Post

In the past month two American states have made radical moves to challenge the legality of abortion. For Canadians, the American debates must seem so foreign, since no one here dares even to speak about the subject except in hushed tones.

Then this week, the Prime Minister made it clear that abortion would not be offered as part of an aid package to women and children in developing countries.

Some said it was hypocritical given that abortion is not only legal here, but paid for through our medical system. Others have said what we do here is one thing but exporting it is something else.

If nothing else, this past week’s events may raise debate over whether Canada should consider looking at what is done within our own borders. We are the only country in the Western world with no law governing abortion.

Every other country has some form of restriction determined by law. If the debate does gain steam, the issue will not be whether to make it illegal but what limits should be put on abortion.

There is not a chance that abortion will be made illegal in this country. In the United States abortion has been legal since 1973, when the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that abortion was a matter of privacy.

However, many states have enacted various kinds of restrictions. Some include mandatory counseling, the offering of ultrasounds so the woman can see what she is about to terminate, and parental-consent forms for teens.

A few states, including South Dakota, tried to ban abortion outright, but that was eventually reversed. In the past month two states passed much more radical restrictions.

In Nebraska, considered one of the most conservative states, a law was passed changing the upper limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks, based on some scientific evidence that suggested a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

The scientific community is actually quite divided on the issue of fetal pain. Many say it is more likely that pain is felt at 29 weeks.

In Oklahoma a new law now makes it compulsory that women seeking an abortion must first submit to an ultrasound and be forced to either see the image or listen to a description of the image before an abortion can take place.

Doctors who perform abortions on women who refused to look or listen can face felony charges and lose their licence.

There is a very strong likelihood that the Oklahoma law will fail because it violates the right to privacy and the Nebraska law will be struck down because it falls below the standard in Roe of 24 weeks.

In Canada, many reasonable people say it is time we had some restrictions here, particularly for late-term abortions. It is a subject that drives the most strident of pro-choice advocates wild because it raises uncomfortable questions about the humanity of what is in a woman’s womb.

In Canada, a fetus is not legally a person until it draws its first breath outside the womb. But how many people can say a 28-week-old fetus is not really human?

So what would we do here? My guess, if we did anything at all, would be to ban late-term abortions. But in fact, it would accomplish almost nothing.

In the United States it is estimated that more than 90% of abortions happen early in the pregnancy. The numbers are probably similar here.

When rare late-term abortions do occur it is usually because of a threat to the life of the mother. And it is likely that any ban would have to have caveats about the mother’s health.

I do not see Canadian legislators saying a woman would have to deliver her child even if it meant she faced death herself as a result.

I also do not see it ever becoming illegal. Who is going to throw women in jail for having an abortion?

There is a reason why a number of groups in the United States and Canada say it is time to drop the legal battle and move to practical methods of supporting pregnant women who feel a baby will hinder their futures.

In the United States, Democrats for Life is calling for a bill that would give young pregnant women housing, tuition and daycare so they can have their babies and still move ahead with their education.

==============================

Abortion: The debate politicians are afraid to reopen (National Post, 100501)

Kevin Libin, National Post

It was, above all, the one issue the Conservative government had been scrupulously trying to avoid: abortion. It has, instead, turned into one of the louder political controversies on a Parliament Hill full of them.

Opposition MPs denounced as “extreme” International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda’s announcement that the government would promote its plan to get the G8 behind maternal- and child-health initiatives in the developing world, but would not include abortion funding. It was imposing an “ideological pro-life agenda” on the world, Liberal critic Glen Pearson said. The Tories were, according to a Montreal columnist, “reigniting the abortion debate,” as if that were, by definition, a bad thing. [KH: observe the choice of words; who does not have an ideology?]

In reality, for 20 years, there has been no meaningful debate over abortion law in this country, and this tempest over the Tories’ decision not to add new funding for foreign abortions seems unlikely to change that. Canada is the only democratic country on Earth with nothing to say, legislatively, about abortion, and all major federal parties have vowed to leave it that way.

In a country with no rules, and a political class evidently terrified of even considering any, the status quo silence seems bound to persist, even if a large number of voters preferred it didn’t. If Canadians, at least publicly, are incapable of even tolerating an edifying discussion about something like Mr. Harper’s maternal health initiative, so loosely connected to Canadian abortion rights, without falling into predictably paralyzing positions and rhetoric, there seems little hope of us ever seriously confronting it at all.

Abortion debates elsewhere aren’t always considered bad. However arduous the exercise, other democracies have somehow braved the struggle of reviewing their balance between the rights of women against the ethics of abortion. The Spanish government last fall unveiled amendments to its abortion laws; this month the Mexican government announced new rules governing how doctors discuss abortion; and at any given time you’ll find several American states experimenting with legislative fiddles to Roe v. Wade.

Every European country, even those considered most secular and progressive, puts some limits on the timing and justifications allowable for abortions. But for 20 years, since the Mulroney government tried and failed to restrict abortions to only cases where a mother’s health was at risk, federal and provincial governments have done their best to steer clear of it.

But Ottawa’s wishing away difficult questions about reproductive rights can only get more difficult, says Margaret Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

“It’s an extraordinarily important debate,” she says. The abortion issue merely belongs to the first wave of what will be many morally fraught crossroads between reproduction and medical technology. In coming years, we’ll see parents able to design their children’s genes or lesbians able to reproduce with artificial sperm. We already have parents selectively aborting by sex. All tread heavily on the same difficult turf as abortion: the rights of the mother against those of the state’s interests.

“But the politicians don’t want to hear about these controversial issues and they don’t want to stand up for their values, even their own personal values, and I think that’s enormously dangerous,” Ms. Somerville says. “All of these questions, we’re going to have to decide what we want to do about them and ducking for cover is not a very reassuring way for politicians to go.”

These are not issues that are easily legislated. Prior controls on abortion, passed by the Trudeau government - requiring they be performed in hospitals, only if approved by a hospital committee - were found by the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler case to violate the Charter for being too intrusive. But the ruling held that there was room for limits that could pass the Charter test - requiring a “higher degree of danger to health in the latter months of pregnancy, as opposed to the early months” - if a Parliament wanted to try. Since 1990, no Parliament has.

Going by the public debate, compromises would not seem to lend themselves well to this issue. Just ask Rod Bruinooge, the Winnipeg Conservative MP and chair of Parliament’s bipartisan pro-life caucus, who recently tabled a private members bill related to abortion that doesn’t seem quite crazy. It would make it a crime for someone “coercing” a woman to have an abortion against her will - by threatening ostracism, violence or withholding support. The bill seems destined to fail. Mr. Bruinooge says no party, including his own, will back it; pro-choice groups have said the ban still counts as restricting access to abortion.

On the other side, for those who consider abortion immoral, no boundaries are absolute enough.

“If I ever found myself on the Hill advocating for a reduction in abortion time limits from 24 weeks to 22 or whatever, that I can’t stomach, [and] that’s where the debate is at in so many places in this world,” says Andrea Mrozek. It’s why she founded Ottawa-based ProWomanProLife, an advocacy group that seeks to end abortion without relying on laws that are, she believes, always problematic.

But polling of average Canadians reveals beliefs far subtler and that might even lend themselves to popular support for certain limits. A 2008 Angus Reid poll found that a majority, albeit a slim one of 51%, weren’t comfortable with the current state of affairs in Canada where we allow abortion for any reason at all, under any circumstances. A majority (53%) thought guardians should be informed when a minor requests an abortion.

While Canadian views tend, over time, to follow their leaders on difficult social questions, gradually, though very slowly, warming to progressivist legal moves, like eliminating the death penalty, or legalizing same sex marriage, we haven’t shifted toward Ottawa’s laissez-faire abortion approach, says Michael Adams, founder of Environics Research Group and author of the 1997 book Sex in the Snow, documenting social evolutions in Canada. “In the case of abortion, opinion has not moved very much at all,” he says. “Many would like to believe that the abortion issue is settled in this country and that we have a pro-choice consensus, but this is not so. Canadians are still divided and those on the extremes are deeply involved emotionally in the issue, although happily in a non-violent Canadian way.”

Perhaps a more instructive poll, however, was Angus Reid’s last year, which found 92% of Canadians unaware that the country had no laws at all regulating the roughly 90,000 abortions that occur annually. With only paralysis and ignorance to go by, it’s impossible to know how certain policies might resonate were our governments to consider them.

In Germany, and the majority of American states, for instance, policies require that women receive counseling before an abortion; Turkey, and 34 U.S. states require some parental involvement for minors having an abortion, unless the mother was raped or her health is at risk; and virtually every western European country and 38 American states put restrictions on late-term abortions except under extenuating circumstances. The German government only pays for abortions in cases of financial need, while several U.S. states are right now determining whether they’ll extend newly passed universal health coverage to abortions.

At the very least, Ms. Somerville says, having any legislation, even one that does little to actually limit abortion access or popularity, sets a cultural tone about how a nation feels about something. Currently, she thinks Canada’s message is that abortions are an inconsequential matter.

That may not change for some time, predicts Faron Ellis, the Lethbridge College political scientist who authored a book on the rise of Canada’s Reform Party. For one thing, the Western spirit of today’s conservative movement, and its social conservative rump, has allowed other parties to successfully whip up, for partisan gain, phantom fears the right would curtail women rights (the Reform party and Canadian Alliance, like the Tories, never supported abortion laws). That makes it too dangerous for the Conservatives to discuss abortion and, for the Liberals, too compromising for their credibility - at least until the hidden agenda shtick is long gone. But more to the point, he says, there is simply no pressing reason for any government to try tackling this thorniest of issues.

“When governments tend to seize on issues, especially those with huge potential political consequences, there typically is some pressing situation or need in society that they can say they are addressing and that’s why they’re going down this road,” he says. It might be new medical evidence about fetuses, or the sudden appearance of more morally troubling reproductive breakthroughs like those Ms. Somerville mentioned. Or it could even just mean growing and vocal unease over the status quo. But as long as voters seem either unprepared to, or uneasy with discussing abortion ourselves, it shouldn’t surprise us when our politicians choose, wisely, to focus their attention elsewhere.

==============================

Evangelicals: Let’s Talk about Sex to Reduce Abortions (Christian Post, 100521)

The nation’s largest evangelical body on Thursday launched a new abortion reduction initiative in which discussion about sex is a major focus.

Sexual activity outside of marriage is occurring at a significant level among young evangelicals, said the National Association of Evangelicals. And young unmarried evangelicals are among those who are having abortions.

“There are a significant number of abortions taking place within the evangelical community but we don’t really talk about that,” said Galen Carey, director of government affairs at the NAE, to The Christian Post. “So we want to stimulate a conversation.”

“We believe there is a close connection to a respect to sex and a respect for life,” he added.

The NAE, which represents 40 denominations and 30 million U.S. evangelicals, released a “Theology of Sex” booklet earlier this week that it hopes will inspire discussion about sex within the church. The 24-page booklet lists four reasons for sex: “one-flesh union” to consummate marriage, procreation, expression of love to one’s spouse, and enjoyment and pleasure.

“[W]hen people have sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse, they have engaged in a life-uniting act without life-uniting intent,” the booklet states. “This act violates not only the partner but also God’s intention for sex.”

The booklet also highlights that God intended human life to come from “the most intimate, loving union possible: the one-flesh relationship of husband and wife.”

“As we discern what is happening in our churches and our communities we realized that just being against legalized abortion is not an adequate response,” Carey said. “In fact we need to address the real issue that real people face, especially with marriage being delayed.”

Carey noted that young, unmarried evangelicals in their 20’s are confronted with sexual ethics and need to be supported if they face a decision about abortion.

The discussion about God’s purpose for sex is the first part of the NAE’s new abortion reduction initiative. The second part is to stimulate conversations between evangelicals and other segments of society on how they can work together to reduce abortion.

Surveys have indicated that the majority of Americans would like to see fewer abortions in the country. A Pew Research Center survey last year revealed that two-thirds of Americans, up from 59% in July 2005, said it would be good to reduce the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

Additionally, a poll conducted last year by the Gallup, Inc. for the NAE found that nearly nine in 10 evangelicals believe abortion is a serious problem in the country. The poll also found that evangelicals think that it should be an important priority in the country to work together to reduce the number of abortions.

In response to the poll’s results, the NAE board of directors adopted a resolution, reaffirming that the group “actively, ardently and unwavering opposes abortion on demand.” It also noted that longtime opponents of the NAE’s abortion position have expressed interest in working together to reduce abortion in the United States.

“Without compromising our core convictions, we seek honest conversation about ways to achieve this goal,” the resolution reads. “These conversations should build on our shared concerns for human dignity, protecting children and promoting healthy families and communities.”

Carey said the NAE has not started reaching out to groups yet, but it is considering reaching out to disability rights organizations.

“Upwards of 90% of pregnancies where there is a pre-natal diagnosis of fetal abnormality result in abortion,” noted Carey, who has a son with Down syndrome.

He explained that although Down syndrome organizations want abortion to remain legal, they also want parents to be given accurate information so fewer babies would be aborted.

The NAE Generation Forum, which oversees the group’s effort to engage evangelical Christians in reducing abortions, will host events across the country to stimulate dialogue about how local churches can effectively decrease the number of abortions in their congregations and communities. The first NAE forum on respecting sex and reducing abortion was held at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill., on Thursday.

==============================

Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Fraud Suit Against Planned Parenthood (Christian Post, 100705)

A Christian legal group that stepped into a multi-million dollar fraud case against Planned Parenthood affiliates in California is hailing the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reinstate the dismissed lawsuit.

“While this case is by no means over, winning this appeal means we can now get down to the heart of this case: the alleged fraud,” commented Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

According to P. Victor Gonzalez, the former PP employee that the ACLJ is representing in the case, PP affiliates in California had marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling-at taxpayer expense.

Under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), government contractors are forbidden from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds, as Gonzalez had done.

Attorneys from the law firm representing PP defendants, however, were able to convince a federal district court to dismiss Gonzalez’s suit on technical jurisdictional grounds, arguing that he was not an “original source” as he learned of the overbilling when he heard about a government audit, among other reasons.

But ACLJ attorneys insist that Gonzalez is a paradigm whistleblower and an “original source” under the FCA.

They say Gonzalez was “personally and intimately” aware of the defendants’ illegal overbilling.

“As part of an inner circle of high-ranking officers at PP affiliates, Gonzalez from the get-go observed – indeed participated in – the intra-PP response to the DHS audit,” wrote ACLJ attorneys in their 69-page opening appeal brief, filed nearly a year ago in the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court.

They also say Gonzalez was personally responsible for the review of PPLA’s records and the preparation of “cost impact information” regarding the extent and magnitude of the overbilling. Gonzalez also reportedly supervised the preparation of a detailed spreadsheet on the overbilling and drafted recommendations for a remedial course of action.

“The question on appeal was whether the former Planned Parenthood employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act,” said Sekulow in his remarks Friday. “We contended that the answer is yes, and now a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has unanimously agreed with us.”

With the appeals court having reversed the lower court’s judgment, the federal claim is now remanded for further proceedings.

As the appeals court does not consider the merits of the fraud allegations, a district court will consider whether the state action should be treated differently.

==============================

Black Christians Debate Abortion as Civil Rights Issue (Christian Post, 100827)

The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is pushing back against fellow African-American Christians who have accused her of hijacking the civil rights movement for her own political agenda – namely to protect the unborn.

“It is absolutely ludicrous that abortion supporters would accuse a blood relative of Dr. King of hijacking the King legacy,” Dr. Alveda King said in a statement Thursday. “My dad and my uncle gave their lives to ensure that the day would come when blacks would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. If they were here, I know they would stand with me in this fight for the lives of those most vulnerable among us.”

Her comments were in response to statements made by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice at a press conference Thursday. The coalition denounced the “religious right” for “disparaging clinics that provide abortion, birth control and reproductive health services.”

“It insults the intelligence and values of African Americans and is offensive to women who make conscientious moral decisions about pregnancy,” said the Rev. Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, president and CEO of the coalition.

The coalition also blasted the upcoming Restoring Honor Rally, led by Fox News’ Glenn Beck, and Alveda King’s “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” event as insulting and contrary to the famed civil rights leader’s ideals of justice, freedom and respect for the dignity of all people. The rally is being held Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial to mark the 47th anniversary of the historic “I Have a Dream” speech.

“The ‘Religious Right’ and the Tea Party can hold a rally on the anniversary of a time that is sacred in our nation’s march to equality but there is no question that they are not – and never have been – concerned about the African-American community or about the racism, poverty and injustice that Dr. King was dedicated to eradicating,” said Veazey.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, black women are more likely to have an abortion, at rates three to five times the rate of white women. The high abortion rate, however, has been linked to poverty and women of color tend to come from lower-income households.

While pro-life groups argue that the abortion industry is targeting African-American communities, Veazey said the higher abortion rates among black women are directly related to their higher rates of unintended pregnancy and to broader health disparities.

“Persistent reproductive health and health care disparities perpetuate a cycle of poverty and are serious problems for the African-American community. Providing comprehensive sexuality education for youth and expanding family planning and reproductive health care services are proven ways to improve health and life prospects,” he said.

“Closing clinics and scaring women and men can only hurt the African-American community.”

Meanwhile, Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, believes abortion – especially in the black community – is the greatest civil rights battle of his time.

She questioned the religious convictions of clergy fighting for reproductive rights.

“It’s interesting to me to hear so called religious people call us the religious right – but that’s okay because they are obviously the complete opposite... they are the religious wrong!” Gardner commented. “Which begs the question: what God, if any, do they serve?”

“As for me, I serve the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac – the great I AM – Father of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and all things created. Those of us who serve the one true God acknowledge we are all made in his image. We bow to God’s Word when He says: ‘Blessed is the fruit of the womb.’ If God says children are a reward, a gift and our heritage, then we must uphold that all children are greatly valuable and desirable to God. So, I ask again, what God do they serve?”

On Saturday, Alveda King will urge Americans to stand with her at the Lincoln Memorial to boycott the abortion industry.

==============================

Questions Arise in Ohio Gunpoint Abortion Case (Foxnews, 101022)

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A case is unfolding in Ohio that sounds like a hypothetical dreamed up by a law school professor.

The facts of the case: A man is accused of trying to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion. The question: Can he be charged with attempted murder of her unborn child?

In what may be a precedent-setting case, prosecutors have leveled such a charge against Dominic Holt-Reid under a 1996 Ohio fetal homicide law that says a person can be found guilty of murder for causing the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

Police say Holt-Reid, 27, pulled a gun Oct. 6 on his three-months-pregnant girlfriend, Yolanda Burgess, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic. Burgess, 26, did not go through with the procedure; she managed to slip a note to a clinic employee, who called police.

Ohio’s law and ones similar to it in dozens of other states have been routinely used to win convictions in auto accidents in which a pregnant woman died, and instances in which a mother-to-be was attacked physically.

But legal experts said they are hard-pressed to find a case similar to Holt-Reid’s, and they are split over whether the prosecution is likely to succeed.

“It would be highly unlikely that anyone could reasonably think there would be a completed act here, as he would have had to convince someone at the clinic to then complete the abortion,” said Lisa Smith, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

But Michael Benza, a criminal law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said that on the face of it, the facts are against Holt-Reid. “The law for attempt is taking overt steps toward the completion of a crime,” Benza said. “He certainly took steps toward the charge of unlawful termination of pregnancy.”

“It’s creative, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily far-fetched,” said Richard Kling, clinical law professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Franklin County prosecutor Ron O’Brien, who brought the case, said he is confident the evidence backs up the charge.

“He at gunpoint abducted her, at gunpoint got in the car with her, at gunpoint forced her to drive the car to the abortion clinic, at gunpoint threatened her, ‘Go in there and carry it out,”‘ O’Brien said.

Holt-Reid, a full-time college student and father of six, including a 5-year-old with Burgess, pleaded not guilty and was jailed on $350,000 bail. Court records did not list an attorney for him Thursday.

At least 38 states have fetal homicide laws increasing penalties for crimes against pregnant women, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The question of whether homicide charges can be brought in connection with the death of a fetus is well-settled across the country.

==============================

Abortion and the church (World Magazine, 110121)

Written by Marcia Segelstein

Abby Johnson’s new book unPlanned is the powerful story of the woman who made headlines a little over a year ago when she abruptly resigned her post as director of a Planned Parenthood center in Texas and joined a pro-life organization headquartered down the street.

Johnson ran a business that performed abortions, and had had two of her own. But when she assisted in one, she watched the ultrasound monitor in horror as a 13-week-old unborn child kicked and squirmed as though trying to get away from the cannula. After the abortionist lightheartedly directed one of his assistants to turn on the suction with the words, “Beam me up, Scotty,” the last thing Johnson remembers seeing was the “perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube.”

In that moment, Johnson saw abortion for what it is: the taking of human life. Within days, she quit her job and joined the pro-life forces who had been praying long and hard for her outside the fence of the Planned Parenthood location. She would soon learn that they had never given up on her. They had treated her with kindness, prayerfully hoping for her change of heart.

Which brings me to the question of how churches should deal with someone who is “pro-choice.”

Johnson and her husband (a stalwart pro-lifer) were denied membership at a church they had long attended because of her job at Planned Parenthood. They were told they could continue to worship there, but that was it. The Johnsons left and eventually began to attend an Episcopal church that was openly pro-abortion. After her very public change of heart about abortion, that church rejected her, too, albeit more subtly with disapproving looks and unpleasant emails.

Here’s Johnson’s take on the churches’ response to her:

“When the first church bluntly and somewhat awkwardly told me I could not become a member, the church lost any opportunity to influence my outlook. I wish they had offered to dialogue with me about why they were so committed to their pro-life position and why they found my work at the clinic such an obstacle to my becoming a member. Or at the very least, I wish they would have expressed care for me apart from my pro-choice position. Now some members in the second church were making me feel as if I wasn’t even welcome in the building. . . . In both instances, I felt rejected. That’s why I appreciate the fence-prayers’ approach and encourage churches and other organizations to consider their example.”

Sinners fill every seat in every pew in every church. How to lovingly respond to those who disagree about what’s sinful and what’s not is a difficult question.

==============================

March for Life Takes on Abortion with Renewed Energy (Christian Post, 110125)

WASHINGTON – The massive March for Life crowd by the U.S. Capitol on Monday demanded, with renewed strength and energy, that Congress pass legislation ending federal funding of abortion.

The crowd – which included Catholic parish members, grade school students, and church members – showed up near the nation’s Capitol building energized and excited to walk despite Washington D.C.’s frigid temperature.

“Thank you for braving the cold one more time and saying to the heart of our national government, ‘We will fight on for life. We will fight on for the unborn and the brokenhearted,’” declared U.S. Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) on stage at the 38th annual pro-life march.

Messages from a long list of speakers delayed the march by almost an hour, but once the send-off message concluded, eager pro-life advocates took to the streets before the official banner was in place at the front of the march.

During the walk to the Capitol building, marchers chanted slogans such as, “Hey, Obama, your mama chose life” and waved signs proclaiming the value of life and the stark reality of abortion.

One sign read, “Planned Parenthood steals souls.”

The crowd was awash with colorful hats, scarves, and yellow life balloons. Singing marchers with guitars helped fill the march with songs.

Lisa Faulkner of Anglicans for Life estimated that somewhere between 50 and 70 people from her group attended the march.

“We just try to show that there are people in America that are pro-life, and we try to bring more and more people every year that we come,” she said.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser told The Christian Post that the March for Life crowd is an outgrowth of pro-life supporters who voted during the November election.

Their momentum, she said, led to the election of 17 pro-life women in the U.S. House of Representative and one pro-life woman in the Senate. The goal now, she stated, is to transfer that energy into reform that will save lives.

“Right now is [the] moment, a moment in time that we have not seen since 1973 where we have the momentum, we have the power and all the ability to save children’s lives by stopping the funding of children’s deaths,” she shared.

Speakers on stage hammered away at the evils of abortion, urging participants to do whatever it takes to stop tax dollars from funding the practice.

“The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America,” proclaimed Pence.

“We must not retreat now; we must move forward; we must stand our grounds. There is no ground whatsoever for retreat or a truce. We must hold our elected officials’ feet to the fire,” urged another speaker.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America led the crowd in the chant, “Defund Planned Parenthood.”

The messages left marchers fired up and ready for action. “We got a lot of work to do,” said Dale Klobusnik of Lutherans for Life.

Nellie Gray, founder of March for Life, remarked: “After 38 years, we have a youthful march.”

==============================

Chilling Almost Beyond Belief (Christian Post, 110201)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Americans generally know that abortions happen, but the reality of abortion is kept out of sight and, for most, largely out of mind. To acknowledge that abortions do occur does not require any actual knowledge of the numbers of abortions performed and the scale of the catastrophe. News reports that emerged in recent days will make that evasion harder to justify.

The New York Times reported on January 6, 2011 that the abortion rate in New York City is about 40% of all pregnancies. That means that no less than four out of every ten pregnancies in that city are terminated by abortion. That statistic is horrific, leading a group of New York religious leaders to describe the abortion rate as “chilling.”

Of even greater magnitude is the abortion rate among African-Americans in New York City - a rate of almost 60%. This means, of course, that far more black babies are aborted than are born. How is it that black church leaders are so silent on this murderous assault on unborn African-American babies?

The Guttmacher Institute recently reported that the national abortion rate is 22%. Two out of every ten pregnancies in America end in abortion.

The enormity of the abortion rate in America underlines the fact that abortion is anything but rare. Over 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2008, the last year with full numbers reported.

This means that abortion is taking place in your neighborhood and in mine. The abortion rate in New York City staggers the moral imagination, but the abortion rate nationwide is itself “chilling.”

We are a murderous people, and the blood of the innocent cries out for justice.

Thus says the Lord: “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more.” Jeremiah 31:15

==============================

Undercover ‘Sex Work’ Videos Fuel Congressional Campaign Against Planned Parenthood (Foxnews, 110203)

Undercover videos similar to the ones that brought down ACORN are causing big problems for Planned Parenthood, fueling an effort in Congress to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Two sting videos have so far been released allegedly showing local Planned Parenthood managers giving advice to a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to obtain services for underage sex workers.

The first video, shot at a clinic in Perth Amboy, N.J., was released Tuesday. The anti-abortion group Live Action released a second video Thursday showing a similar scene at a clinic in Richmond, Va.

The manager in the first video, identified as Amy Woodruff, was fired by Planned Parenthood after the video was released.

Phyllis Kinsler, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey, said the organization has a “zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior” and that the employee was immediately suspended Tuesday before being fired.

“We were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape released this morning, which depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable,” she said in a written statement Tuesday. “We are fully committed to delivering high-quality reproductive health care to the women of our communities, complying with all laws, and upholding the highest ethical standards.”

But Live Action is calling for an investigation in both cases. It’s not clear how many videos the group will release, but it claims it has enough footage to demonstrate a “pattern” of illicit activity.

“We wanted to demonstrate how severe this problem was,” Live Action President Lila Rose told FoxNews.com. “People are really starting to pay attention. ... This is institutional.”

Rose has released undercover footage involving Planned Parenthood before, but these are the first to deal with the issue of sex trafficking.

The video released Tuesday quickly gave momentum to Rep. Mike Pence’s, R-Ind., effort to strip federal funding for abortion providers. With Planned Parenthood the biggest recipient of those funds, Pence said Americans should be “shocked” that the organization “has been recorded aiding and abetting underage sex trafficking.”

“The recent release of an undercover video exposing duplicity and potential criminality by an employee of Planned Parenthood is an outrage,” Pence said. “The time to deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood is now.”

He urged Congress to immediately bring his bill, which would end family planning grants for abortion providers, to the floor for consideration. Pence reintroduced that bill last month. According to a Government Accountability Office study last summer, Planned Parenthood tapped into $657 million in federal dollars between 2002 and 2009.

Rose said she thinks the videos will move the bill along, saying it’s “atrocious” that taxpayer dollars are going toward the organization.

The Susan B. Anthony List also announced that it was banding together with other anti-abortion groups to kick off a campaign to build congressional support for Pence’s proposal in light of the footage. And Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a co-sponsor on that bill, linked to the first Planned Parenthood video on her Facebook page, vowing to introduce her own bill “that would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving any future federal money directly or indirectly.”

The undercover videos bear similarities to those that united lawmakers in opposition to low-income advocacy group ACORN. The New Jersey Planned Parenthood video showed a couple walking into the Perth Amboy clinic for help with their “sex work.”

The man in the video can be heard explaining to the Planned Parenthood employee that his “girls” — some of whom he describes as being 14 or 15 years old and illegal immigrants — need to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. He also inquires about abortion services.

After initially telling the couple that Planned Parenthood is “obligated” to report certain information about minors, the employee says she “doesn’t want to get anyone in trouble.” She pulls out a piece of paper and refers them to what is apparently another clinic for abortion services.

“You never got this from me,” she says. “If they’re 14 and under, just send them right there if they need an abortion. ... Their protocols aren’t as strict as ours.”

The employee said her clinic wants “as little information as possible” and later tells the couple to come talk to her if there are any problems. She urges any underage girls to lie about their age.

“Worse ever comes to worst, you guys come see me,” she says. “I’ll jump in ... with nobody looking. ... That’s why you come and ask for me only.”

New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow has since launched a preliminary review into the tape. Spokesman Paul Loriquet told FoxNews.com that Dow referred the evidence to her criminal justice division — the state will afterward determine whether a full investigation is warranted.

But Planned Parenthood, after the second tape was released Thursday, accused Live Action of “coordinating its activities” in order to push Pence’s bill. The organization stood by the employee in the Virginia video, saying the worker notified her supervisor and that the report was then relayed to other staff members.

The organization claims it was already aware of a possible attempt to smear it. Though Planned Parenthood sacked the manager in the New Jersey tape, the organization apparently got ahead of the impending release last week, issuing a statement saying that it had alerted federal authorities to a “potential multistate sex trafficking ring” last month. The organization said it had notified Attorney General Eric Holder of that possibility after learning that people claiming to be in the sex-trafficking business had sought advice at nearly a dozen clinics across six states in the course of a week.

Planned Parenthood said it had suspected the visitors might be part of a “hoax” by anti-abortion activists looking to discredit the group. The group specifically named Live Action as the organization potentially behind the sting.

“When Planned Parenthood learns of an operation that exploits young women, we vigilantly work with law enforcement authorities to uncover and stop this abhorrent activity,” spokesman Stuart Schear said in a written statement. “Planned Parenthood’s top priority is the health and safety of our patients and the health and well-being of women and teens across the country, and we have been in contact with federal and local authorities to identify the persons involved in these visits.”

Schear went on to say that while sex trafficking must be stopped, “dirty tricks” must be “condemned.”

“Falsely claiming sex trafficking to health professionals to advance a political agenda is an astoundingly cynical form of political activity,” Schear said.

Planned Parenthood released another statement Tuesday reiterating that its workers had “immediately” notified their superiors after being visited by people claiming to be involved in sex trafficking. The group said Live Action’s goal is to “take down” Planned Parenthood.

Rose dismissed Planned Parenthood’s explanation.

“They clearly didn’t think it was a hoax if they fired their manager,” she said. “They’re talking out of both sides of their mouths.”

==============================

Moral Collapse at Ms. Magazine – Sex-Selection Abortion as a ‘Problem’ (Christian Post, 110204)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

For almost forty years, Ms. magazine has been the most famous voice of the feminist movement in print. Co-founded by Gloria Steinem in 1972, the magazine is stalwartly feminist, retaining the language and spirit of the feminism of the 1970s. In other words, Ms. is the voice of feminist ideological orthodoxy. And the demand for unrestricted abortion rights is at the center of that ideology.

That’s what makes the Winter 2011 edition of the magazine so interesting – and so disturbing. The issue features an article by Madeline Wheeler entitled “Saving the Girl Child,” which offers a report on “India’s epidemic of female infanticide and sex-selection abortion.”

The appearance of that article does come as something of a surprise. After all, Ms., and the feminist movement it represents, insist that a woman must have the right to abort a pregnancy for any reason or for no reason. This claim, they have long insisted, is central to the very idea of reproductive freedom. So, what about sex-selection abortions – when it is female babies who are most commonly aborted? [KH: finally see the contradiction of abortion vs. feminism]

On this issue, Ms. seems to have found cause for feminist concern. Wheeler explains that Indian women “are under severe pressure to bear sons.” She continues: “In fact, female infanticide and sex-selection abortion over the last two decades has led to a dearth of baby girls and an unnatural gender ratio.” This dearth of baby girls is described as a “problem.”

The article also reveals that even though sex-selection abortions are illegal in India, they remain common. The arrival of sophisticated prenatal imaging technologies, such as the ultrasound, have allowed the identification of fetal gender, leading to the targeting of baby girls in societies like India and China, which are marked by a clear “son preference.”

So far, so good. If anything, the article fails to indicate the full scale of the tragedy – but it also fails to describe “the problem” as tragic in any sense. In reality, the targeting of female babies by abortion and infanticide has meant over 100 million missing girls in India and China, as documented by The Economist earlier this year.

Madeline Wheeler does describe the “problem” of sex-selection abortions targeting girls, and then she writes: “Even worse, families unable to afford ultrasound procedures often resort to infanticide.” She cited the report of filmmaker Nyna Pais-Caputi, who was told by the director of an orphanage that the facility was located on the shore of a lake in order “to encourage families to give their infant daughters up for adoption rather than drown them in the lake.”

The article points with hope to a campaign led by the government. “Save the Girl Child” is an effort to “save girls.” How? By addressing the morality of abortion? Of course not. Instead, the campaign will include fashion shows, special birthday cards for girls, doctors who will argue against sex-selection abortions, and “government schemes offering cash incentives to families to raise girls.”

Wheeler ends her article by quoting filmmaker Nyna Pais-Caputi: “Women need to be seen as valuable, positive role models. People need to feel the magnitude of the problem.”

On that statement, we can all agree. But the obvious question is this – has Ms. magazine felt anything even close to “the magnitude of the problem”?

Their feminist ideology does not even allow them to acknowledge that sex-selection abortions are perfectly legal in the United States, and that feminists have insisted that any woman has a right to an abortion at any time for any reason or for no stated reason at all. The pro-abortion ideology is so extreme that any opposition to the targeting of girls by sex-selection abortion is undermined by the movement’s enthusiasm for unfettered abortion rights.

The moral bankruptcy of their situation is revealed by the tepid language employed in the article and the lack of moral outrage. But how can Ms. muster any genuine outrage about sex-selection abortions in India when it has demanded unfettered abortion access in our own country? It cannot, and it does not. This monumental tragedy is described only as “the problem.”

The moral collapse of their position is seen in the fact that this murderous rampage against female babies cannot be described in the language moral sanity demands. The only morally sane response to this tragedy is outrage against the killing of all babies – followed by the affirmation of the sanctity and dignity of every human life.

We can only pray that embarrassment over this article might force some readers of Ms. magazine to rethink the entire question, for, as tepidly expressed in the closing words of the article, “People need to feel the magnitude of the problem.”

==============================

Anti-Abortion Group Hires Planned Parenthood Whistleblower (Foxnews, 110216)

An anti-abortion group on a high-profile campaign against Planned Parenthood has just hired a prominent whistleblower who used to work for the abortion provider, claiming she brings insider knowledge of the group’s “abuses.”

Live Action announced Wednesday that it had hired Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director in Texas, as its chief research strategist. Johnson made national headlines in 2009 when she quit her job after having a “change of heart” upon watching an abortion being performed on ultrasound.

In her new capacity, Johnson immediately got on board with Live Action’s sting operation targeting Planned Parenthood. Live Action has, since the beginning of the month, released more than a half-dozen videos in which undercover actors posing as a pimp and prostitute solicited advice from Planned Parenthood employees on how to obtain services for underage sex workers.

Johnson said in a statement that the incidents in the Live Action videos are “not a rare occurrence.”

“I can tell you from experience that Planned Parenthood often turns a blind eye to sexual abuse and trafficking,” she said. “But ignorance is no defense, especially when it has turned their clinics into a safe haven for those who sexually exploit women and girls.”

Johnson said she was “eager” to help Live Action “expose” the group.

Live Action President Lila Rose told FoxNews.com that Johnson would help her organization with investigative projects, including the most recent one.

“We’re very excited to have her great insight and her expertise and her insider knowledge,” Rose said. “Her testimony corroborates the findings that we are documenting.”

Planned Parenthood has decried Live Action for its tactics. The organization claims the Live Action footage is doctored and employees who encountered the actors reported it — further, the group claimed it had already notified local and federal law enforcement before Live Action started releasing the videos.

The group, which fired a New Jersey employee who was shown appearing to give advice to the actors in the first video, claims it has a zero-tolerance policy for any behavior that violates its ethics standards.

Asked about Johnson’s decision to join Live Action, Planned Parenthood did not have a comment.

The latest development comes as Republicans on Capitol Hill try to leverage the controversy to push a proposal to cut off family-planning funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

“If folks want to be in the abortion-providing business, they ought not to be the recipients of federal taxpayer dollars, and that’s sadly the case today,” Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the author of that proposal, told Fox News on Wednesday.

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards earlier in the week called the proposed legislation “the most politically driven assault on women’s health in American history.”

One-hundred members of Congress signed a letter of support for Planned Parenthood last week. The letter, addressed to House Speaker John Boehner, said they are concerned the proposal would “undercut women’s access to health care.”

After leaving her job in 2009, Johnson told FoxNews.com at the time that she decided to quit after she saw a fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of a patient’s uterus. She also claimed she became disillusioned after her bosses pressured her to increase profits by performing more abortions.

At the time, Planned Parenthood said its focus was on “prevention” and that 90% of the services the group offers are preventive in nature.

==============================

GOP-Controlled House Votes to End Funding for Planned Parenthood (Christian Post, 110220)

The Republican majority House of Representatives passed a federal spending bill Saturday that included stripping the nation’s largest abortion provider of government money.

House members passed the amendment itself to the spending bill on Friday mostly along party lines. By a margin of 240 to 185, congressmen voted to end funding to Planned Parenthood. Ten Democrats crossed party lines to support the measure, however, and seven Republicans crossed party lines to oppose it.

The vote is a big first step for pro-life congressmen and advocates aiming to stop federal funds from going to abortion providers nationwide.

On the eve of the vote, supporters and opponents of the legislation worked past midnight to offer their testimonies.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), at nearly midnight on Thursday, voiced her opposition to the amendment while recounting her emotional experience receiving an abortion. She argued that although she had “lost a baby” that she wanted to the procedure, abortion is legal in the United States and Planned Parenthood had the right to promote such an option. Speier shared that nearly 20 years ago she had a miscarriage at 17 weeks and doctors told her the baby would not survive. Speier, her husband and doctor had decided to end the pregnancy.

“There is a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and it was played out in this room tonight,” she insisted.

Order Online: Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who drafted the amendment, drummed up support for the anti-abortion funding measure by clarifying the purpose of the bill.

“Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood cannot continue to be the largest abortion provider in America, but why do millions of pro-life taxpayers have to pay for it?” he asked.

Pence also insisted the bill is not about abolishing existing family planning services such as Planned Parenthood.

“Some consider the Pence Amendment a ‘war on Planned Parenthood,’ but this is not about Planned Parenthood’s right to be in the abortion business. Sadly, abortion on demand is legal in America. This debate is about who pays for it,” he stated.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed in its financial statements that it raised $363 million in revenues. Of that sum, Pence explained only $53 million came from the federal government. That is less than 15% of the $363 million.

With such a large budget, conservatives insist that PPFA does not need money from the government to supplement its operations. In fact, conservatives refer to New Jersey as a prime example of how PPFA clinics can survive without the aid.

Earlier this month, New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a state bill that would give local PPFA branches state dollars to provide family planning services such as cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection tests, and birth control. Since the veto, Planned Parenthood has made public plans to double the amount of clinics in the state.

Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at Family Research Council, said PPFA’s actions showed that government cuts did not hurt its revenue. McClusky added that the federal government needed to follow Christie’s lead.

Pence clarified that it was not his goal to eliminate PPFA’s Title X program. Instead, he said, his goal is to respect pro-life taxpayers who resent their money being given to an organization that performs abortions in the same building where it also offers family counseling.

According to its financial report, PPFA performed 324,008 abortions last year.

“I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong,” Pence argued. “I also believe it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion – like Planned Parenthood of America.”

The passed amendment is the first step to eliminating any and all funds to PPFA. Now the newly approved House spending bill, which includes the amendment, will move on to the Senate.

If passed in the U.S House and Senate, the measure would eliminate about $330 million through the end of September for preventative-health services, including federal funding for contraception and cancer screenings, at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.

Republicans also have another bill in committee that would prevent any abortion-provider from receiving Title X money. There is no time table on when this bill will meet a committee vote.

==============================

Poll: Abortion Support Falling among Young Adults (Christian Post, 110313)

Over the last 20 years, support for legal abortion has continued to drop among young adults, a new Gallup poll shows.

In 2009, only 24% of Americans aged 18 to 29 said abortion should be legal under any circumstances, a drop from 28% in the year 2000 and 36% in 1990.

Even compared to 30- to 64-year-olds, the young cohort is now less likely to support abortion, the Gallup survey on Friday revealed.

Young adults (23%) are also most likely to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances compared to their older counterparts, including those aged 65 and older (21%) – who have been the most conservative in abortion views.

Gallup notes, “This is a sharp change from the late 1970s, when seniors were substantially more likely than younger age groups to want abortion to be illegal.”

In 1975, only 18% of young adults said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances while 32% of seniors said the same.

Currently, 51% of 18- to 29-year-olds say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Overall, Gallup found that Americans of all age groups were more supportive of legal abortion under any circumstances in the early 1990s but have subsequently shed some of that support since the late 1990s. Further decline has been seen since then.

The widespread pro-life views among today’s youth and young adults have been documented by a number of organizations. Population Research Institute in 2008 found that the hundreds of thousands of people who walk in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., are getting younger every year. PRI refuted Planned Parenthood’s claim that America’s youth are primarily pro-choice.

A newly released documentary, titled “Thine Eyes: A Witness to the March or Life,” also shows that contrary to media portrayals of marchers being angry and old, the majority of March for Life participants are under 25 years of age and not violent.

The Gallup report is based on annual averages of Gallup’s abortion surveys, from 1975 through 2009. All individual surveys are based on interviews with a random sample of approximately 1,000 national adults, aged 18 and older.

==============================

West Coast Pro-life March Draws 40,000 in San Francisco (Christian Post, 110123)

The Walk for Life West Coast event on Saturday exceeded organizers’ expectations by drawing a crowd of 40,000 people, a record-breaking figure.

Tens of thousands of pro-life activists filled Justin Herman Plaza in downtown San Francisco to participate in the 2.5-mile walk along the waterfront during the 7th annual Walk for Life West Coast. The Walk was held on the 38th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion.

“We are here to break the bondage of the culture of death,” said Walk for Life co-chair Dolores Meehan to the crowd.

The walk route started at Justin Herman Plaza in downtown San Francisco and concluded at Marina Green in sight of the Golden Gate Bridge. The line of walkers stretched over a mile long. During the Preborn Jesus Holy Hour around noon, walkers prayed for the aborted babies.

Groups such as Silent No More, Priests for Life, Lutherans for Life, and Anglicans for Life joined in the walk to remember the unborn, share their testimonies, and pray for an end to abortion.

Participants heard from Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Texas who left her job after watching an ultrasound-guided abortion. Johnson, now a pro-life activist, said she no longer honors choice when it comes to abortion.

“You are the new generation of the pro-life movement and I can tell you Planned Parenthood is shaking in their boots,” said Johnson.

Men and women who aborted their babies also shared their stories.

“We must end this slaughter,” proclaimed the Rev. Brian Walker.

Walker and his wife Denise aborted their child four months before their wedding. He said he was immature back then. Now the Walkers, both African-American, tell people that abortion is a disservice to the black community.

“We’ve lost close to 40% of our population to abortion,” stressed Denise.

Across the country, President Barack Obama, a self-proclaimed advocate for choice, also acknowledged the anniversary of the controversial legal ruling in a statement.

“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle, that government should not intrude on private family matters,” he declared.

He tried to balance his statement by saying that he is committed to preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women and mothers, encouraging healthy relationships, and promoting adoption.

But opponents of abortion say the practice is a false answer to the social issues of teen pregnancy, child neglect, and sexual abuse.

“For the past thirty-two years, abortion has been sold as a solution to societal problems women face. During that time, abortion advocates have pitted women against their children – forcing us into a no-win situation,” said Sally Winn, vice president of Feminists for Life of America, in a statement.

She continued, “Abortion is not a solution but a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better.”

The Walk for Life West Coast was founded in 2005 by a group of San Francisco Bay Area residents. According to the website, the walk’s mission is to change the perceptions of a society that thinks abortion is the answer.

Last year, the Walk for Life West Coast drew more than 35,000 people.

The California pro-life walk comes two days ahead of the much larger March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Monday. Organizers of the D.C. event are expecting the crowd to exceed last year’s count of 300,000 participants.

==============================

Pro-Life Activist Calls Planned Parenthood’s Attempts to Retrain a Sham (Christian Post, 110208)

Responding to video footage showing clinic managers counseling a pimp, the nation’s largest abortion provider announced that it will retrain its staff.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced on Tuesday plans to train employees, starting in April, on reporting risks to minors’ welfare and tighten disciplinary action against those who fail to follow the policies. The training will be geared to “anyone who has direct patient contact.”

PPFA says their efforts to train all of its clinicians is part of their commitment to women’s health and to protect the young women. Planned Parenthood shared in a statement that it has “a firm commitment to reporting any potential harm to a minor.”

However, Lila Rose insisted in a statement sent to The Christian Post, “This announcement by Planned Parenthood is nothing more than window dressing to try and patch over a major crisis engulfing all levels of Planned Parenthood – from the front line staffer to the hierarchy of the organization.”

Live Action, Rose’s youth-led movement “dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion,” as its website states, recently released undercover video that shows health services providers aiding and abetting the sexual exploitation of minors.

In the videos, two individuals posing as a prostitute and a pimp ask clinic employees questions about documentation, making appointments, and age and guardianship requirements for services for teen prostitutes.

Order Online: Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey Across the Life Line

The first video released in January showed New Jersey Manager Amy Woodruff giving the pair advice on how to fill out the forms so as to hide the fact they are sex workers.

“We want to make it as legit as possible,” Woodruff said at one point.

The clinic fired Woodruff after the video went public.

Another video, released last week, depicts a Virginia employee advising the actors to utilize the state’s judicial bypass process to gain abortion access for underage sex workers.

Planned Parenthood initially responded with the charge that the videos were edited to show criminal actions and depicted isolated incidents.

However, the California-based group then released raw footage of the New Jersey video as well as three more recordings from New York.

A statement from Planned Parenthood of New York City reads, “Unlike other publicized tapes, the hoax patients in New York were not able to get beyond the reception desk for private consultation.”

Had they received a private consultation, the group argued, the Live Action actors would have been met by a trained social worker.

However, Rose pointed out the inconsistency of Planned Parenthood’s reaction.

“Planned Parenthood’s story keeps changing,” she asserted. “First they attacked Live Action – while admitting guilt and firing their New Jersey manager. Then they defended their Virginia staff saying they acted ‘professionally’ and claiming that they ‘offer excellent training to our staff.’ They even went so far as to say ‘there is no training that could prevent this from happening’ on national television.”

Rose said Planned Parenthood is struggling to explain the videos because it has an “institutional” pattern of cover-ups and hidden truths.

“Live Action’s investigation has uncovered a serious, institutional crisis in which Planned Parenthood is willing to aid and abet sex trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women,” she charged.

Rose is now working with pro-life groups to lobby against federal funding for the organization’s family planning health services. Rose appeared in a webcast with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser last week to urge support for three legislations proposed by the U.S. House Republicans to eliminate funding to abortion providers.

“We shouldn’t have the leading abortion provider in America or any organization that also provides abortions be in the business of operating and doing the important work of Title 10 clinics,” stated Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the author of the Title X bill and a guest on the Wednesday broadcast.

FRC is also pushing for investigations on the states where the videos were taped.

According to the Christian Broadcasting Network’s reports, the New Jersey attorney general’s office is looking into the claims. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli also told CBN he found the Richmond video “very disturbing.”

==============================

Poll Reveals Major Shift Toward Pro-Life Sentiment (Christian Post, 090515)

For the first time in over a decade, more Americans say they are pro-life than pro-choice, a new Gallup poll revealed.

Just over half (51%) of Americans stand for the sanctity of human life while 42% consider themselves pro-choice, according to the May 2009 survey released Friday.

This marks the first time a majority of U.S. adults identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking the abortion question in 1995 when only 33% called themselves pro-life.

Since then the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46% in 2001 and 2002.

The Gallup Poll found the dramatic shift occurred just in the past year. In 2008, 44% said they were pro-life while 50% were pro-choice.

In terms of when abortions should be legal, Americans are about as likely to say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as they are to say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%).

Fifty-three percent say it should be legal only under certain circumstances. But more Americans are likely to say abortion should be legal only in “a few” circumstances (37%) than under “most” circumstances (15%).

The Gallup Poll confirmed Americans’ recent shift toward the pro-life position with two other surveys. The Gallup Values and Beliefs survey showed that 50% consider themselves pro-life while 43% identify as pro-choice. Moreover, a recent Pew Research Center survey also found that the percentage of Americans who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases dropped from 54% to 46% while the percentage of those who say the procedure should be legal in only a few or no cases jumped from 41 to 44%.

Increase in pro-life sentiment is seen across Christian religious affiliations. Fifty-nine percent of Protestants and “other Christians” identify as pro-life, a rise from 51% in 2008. Pro-lifers among Catholics rose from 45 to 52%. Even within the “other/none” group, there was a rise in pro-lifers from 27 to 31%.

The rise in pro-lifers was also largely seen among conservatives, moderates and Republicans, they survey found.

Among conservatives, pro-lifers rose from 66 to 71%. Pro-lifers also increased from 38 to 45% among moderates. Among Republicans and those who lean Republican, the poll found a rise in pro-lifers from 60 to 70% over the past year and a drop (36 to 26%) in those who call themselves pro-choice.

Liberals and Democrats, meanwhile, showed essentially no shift in their views with 19% and 33% identifying as pro-life, respectively.

The survey results were released as President Barack Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy, ending a ban on funding international groups that perform or promote abortions; lifted a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; brought on board Kathleen Sebelius who is tied to late-term abortionist George Tiller to his Cabinet; and expressed support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion. He has also moved toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures.

“It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be ‘pro-choice’ slightly to the left, politically,” the Gallup Poll stated in its report.

Results of the survey are based on interviews with 1,015 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10.

==============================

Obama Praises Planned Parenthood; Questions Pro-Life Videos (Christian Post, 110221)

In a recent NBC Channel 12 interview, President Barack Obama praised Planned Parenthood’s work and suggested that pro-life videos implicating the abortion provider of cover ups were “manufactured.”

Obama expressed pro-choice sentiments during a Richmond, Va. television interview. The interviewer asked the president to comment on videos made by youth-led group Live Action, and Republicans’ efforts to defund Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Obama responded by pointing to other issues that he contended deserved more attention. He also questioned the authenticity of the Live Action videos.

“I think some of these issues get manufactured and they get a lot of attention on the blogosphere,” Obama responded. “I think that Planned Parenthood, in the past, has done good work.”

He suggested national problems such as jobs and the economy be addressed instead of focusing on abortion.

The president’s comments were taped last week when House Republicans were working to pass an amendment to the spending proposal that would completely defund PPFA.

During the Thursday testimony session, GOP representatives persuaded House members to vote for the amendment by referencing the videos.

Amendment author Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) rehashed the abortion provider’s past indiscretions.

“The headlines and years of investigations speak for themselves. In 2002, Parenthood was found civilly liable in Arizona for failure to report statutory rape. In 2008 it violated reporting laws in Indiana and California. In 2009 it instructed a girl in Tennessee to lie about her age so she could get an abortion without her parents’ knowledge,” he stated.

Pence also described the undercover Live Action videos that show branch employees in various states, including Virginia, give advice to a self-proclaimed pimp and prostitute.

Pence concluded, “As the father of two teenage daughters, there are not words strong enough to portray my contempt of this pattern of apparent fraud and abuse by Planned Parenthood.”

PPFA President Cecile Richards has denounced the videos saying they were edited to damage the group’s reputation. PPFA officials also said staff simply answered the actors’ questions and reported the encounters afterwards.

Some pro-lifers have also questioned Live Action’s methods. In the Catholic legal theory blog, Mirror of Justice, the writer of a Feb. 15 post questions whether the apprehensible actions of Planned Parenthood justify having actors lie to expose the truth.

The writer concludes, “A culture of life can only be built on a foundation of truth. Lying may produce short term victories, but it will, in the end, frustrate our long term objective.”

Still, House representatives approved the amendment to cut all federal funding to the nation’s largest abortion provider on Friday. On Saturday, Congress members passed the spending bill that includes the amendment to defund PPFA.

Pro-life groups heralded the vote as a victory for the preborn. The National Black Pro-life Union praised Pence in a statement released today.

“I want to thank you for your efforts to defund Planned Parenthood,” stated Day Gardner, NBPLU president. “This great news is especially important to members of the black community as we celebrate Black History Month.”

Sidewalk counseling group 40 Days for Life celebrated the newly passed bill Friday with, “You Did It,” emails to supporters. The group partnered with Live Action founder Lila Rose to lobby Congress.

After the Friday vote, PPFA released a letter entitled, “How Could You?”

“Your vote was not only against those who seek care at Planned Parenthood health centers, but against every one of us who has ever sought care there, and against every one of us who knows that when we are healthy, when we are in charge of our lives, we thrive,” the letter read.

Obama’s past comments have revealed him to be pro-choice.

In a January speech marking the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade, he said, “the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

In the recent NBC interview, Obama asked politicians not be “distracted” by the abortion issue.

The approved House spending bill with the anti-Planned Parenthood amendment inside is headed to the Senate. The bill will likely meet resistance in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

House Republicans also have another bill in committee to stop all abortion providers from receiving federal funds through the Title X program. There is no word when it will be voted on.

==============================

Opinion: Abortion statistics show reality of a land without restrictions (National Post, 110307)

Anastasia Bowles

Abortion is a topic few Canadians want to discuss, and abortion statistics rarely come up around the water cooler. So when an Ontario group, Project for an Ontario Women’s Health Evidence-Based Report (POWER), released a study last week on Ontario abortion rates for 2007, nobody seemed to notice. But they should have.

No matter what your position on abortion, the study reveals unsettling facts about abortions in Ontario, and by extension, in Canada. For example, we learn that for every 100 babies born in Ontario, 37 are aborted.

The ratio for teens aged 15-19 is even more shocking. For every 100 babies born to Ontario teens, 152 are aborted.

The study noted that teens “were by far the most likely of any age group to have an abortion rather than a live birth.” And since it excluded abortions for girls under 15, the teen abortion rate is even higher.

It also revealed disturbing data about repeat abortions in Ontario hospitals. As many as 52% of women had one or more previous abortions. Even more disturbing, almost one fifth of teens aged 15-19 said they had already had at least one abortion. The study even cautioned that the percentage of repeat abortions was likely higher due to under-reporting.

And that’s just for hospitals. Abortion clinics were excluded from the repeat calculations even though they perform more than half the province’s abortions. And teens don’t need parental consent for clinic abortions (though they may at some hospitals), so more teens may go to clinics.

Even fairly liberal parents might squirm to think that their child, aged 14 or younger, could walk into a clinic to have an abortion — more than once — and they would never know.

Most Canadians are unaware that teens don’t need parental consent to have an abortion. They don’t even have to inform their parents. In fact, most Canadians — 80% according to a 2010 Angus Reid poll — don’t even know we have no legal restrictions on abortion.

For the record, abortion is fully legal in Canada at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason, and for any Canadian citizen, and taxpayers pay for almost all of them.

LifeCanada, a national organization educating on the value of human life, has commissioned Environics to poll Canadians annually from 2002-2009. Each year, a large majority, anywhere from 60% to 66%, supported some legal restrictions on abortion.

So even though most Canadians don’t know the facts or statistics on abortion, they don’t support the current legal vacuum in Canada. Imagine if they actually knew something about the subject.

Why don’t they?

In the past, Statistics Canada collected abortion data through the Therapeutic Abortion Survey (TAS), but when the abortion law was struck down in 1988, some provinces interpreted the decision to mean they no longer had to report abortion data to Statistics Canada. Since that time, abortion statistics have become increasingly scarce.

In recent years, Statistics Canada deemed abortion data “unreliable” because too few clinics and hospitals reported. They even noted the absence of abortion data was “definitely a concern.”

In British Columbia, a law even prohibits citizens from accessing any statistics about abortions performed there. This in democratic Canada.

More recently, the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) took over responsibility for abortion statistics. Their report for 2007 and 2008, released last December, is riddled with categories labelled “unknown” because so few hospitals and clinics submit complete data.

By comparison, the new POWER study uses OHIP billing records and several different databases, making it more reliable than other recent data. This may account for a large discrepancy between the study’s and CIHI’s figures. The study does not give absolute numbers for abortions but it does provide the abortion to live birth ratio. Since Statistics Canada reports the number of Ontario live births as 138,000, this would suggest the number of Ontario abortions in 2007 may actually be around 51,000, much higher than CIHI’s figure of about 32,000.

However, the study is not without biases. It classifies some second trimester abortions as “early abortions” though it is doubtful most Canadians would agree.

Nonetheless, any data about abortion in Canada is valuable and welcome. One can’t help but wonder why all the secrecy if there is nothing to hide? For a cause that has always been championed as a woman’s right, it is ironic that information about something exclusively relevant to women’s health is ignored, or worse, suppressed. Shame.

==============================

Counterpoint: Ontario abortion statistics show less dire situation than reported (110310)

We are responding to the opinion article on the POWER Study report on Reproductive and Gynaecological Health that appeared on Holy Post on March 7 by Anastasia Bowles of LifeCanada.

Unfortunately, Ms. Bowles has incorrectly reported on findings from our study and we believe Holy Post readers need to know the correct information.

The statement that “almost one fifth of teens aged 15-19 said they had already had at least one abortion” is incorrect. In fact, well under 1% of Ontario’s young women in that age group report having had a previous abortion. The figure of 18% Ms. Bowles reported is the fraction of these young women who had an abortion in hospital in 2007 and reported having a previous abortion, representing 0.4% of all women in this age group.

Similarly, the statement that “as many as 52% of women had one or more previous abortions” is incorrect: 52% of those women aged 25-29 years who had an abortion in a hospital reported having at least one previous abortion, which translates into approximately 1.3% of all women in the 25-29 year age group.

Ms. Bowles makes the point that “some second trimester abortions [were classified] as ‘early abortions’ though it is doubtful most Canadians would agree.” It is important to understand that the data on out-of-hospital procedures only distinguish between those performed before and those performed after 16 weeks gestational age – no other information on gestational age is available. Hence the 16 week cut point was not based on a decision we made; it was based only on what was available.

We were pleased to see Ms. Bowles make the point for improved data collection. Health services researchers have long advocated for better data about all health care services. The provision of effective and efficient evidence-based health care can only thrive in an environment rich in data. To their credit, both Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and the Canadian Institute for Health Information have made tremendous progress in improving both the amount and quality of information, although anyone who has read the POWER Study Report will know that there is still a long way to go.

==============================

Senate Votes Against Defunding Planned Parenthood amid Outcry (Christian Post, 110414)

The U.S. Senate voted down a measure that would defund Planned Parenthood.

The 42-58 vote on Thursday came just after the U.S. House approved for the second time the legislation that would amend the fiscal year 2011 budget to strip federal Title X funding from Planned Parenthood. The vote took place as part of the budget agreement reached last week between the Democrats and Republicans.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards has called proponents of the bill “extremists” who are attacking “critical health services with a new vote against Planned Parenthood this week.”

PPFA asserts that it provides 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, annually. It also boasts having 1 million cervical cancer screenings and 830,000 breast exams each year.

Those statistics have drawn advocates and supporters to its side.

Last week, Senate Majority Harry Reid went so far as to say supporters of the Planned Parenthood cuts were against women getting the services they need.

This week, actress Scarlett Johansson and other celebrities such as Gabrielle Union and Gwyneth Paltrow are supporting PPFA with television ads. Johansson said of the House’s efforts, “The House passed a bill to eliminate our country’s family planning program and to stop Planned Parenthood health centers from receiving any federal money to provide life-saving preventative care.”

Penny Nance, the CEO of Concerned Women for America, makes it clear that pro-life advocates are not against women.

“If you look at who is leading the charge on this, it’s women,” said Nance.

Women such as Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfeiser, 40 Days for Life advocate and Unplanned author Abby Johnson and Live Action leader Lila Rose have all been vocal against federal funding for Planned Parenthood in the days leading up to the vote.

“We are doing it to protect women,” Nance maintained.

While local PPFA asserts that its clinics offer low income women with health services, Nance noted that 4,500 non-abortion clinics nationwide offer those same services and more.

She called the argument that cutting Title X funds to PPFA will cut women’s services “a smokescreen.”

“The Planned Parenthood brand is one that is truly used to promote abortion,” proclaimed Nance. She quoted PPFA documents which stating that 98% of pregnant women who receive services at a Planned Parenthood clinic, receive abortions.

David Bereit, National Campaign Director of 40 Days for Life, also isn’t convinced that Planned Parenthood is mainly about health care services.

“[PPFA]’s not about providing health care,” he said. “It’s about abortion.”

Additionally, Nance pointed out that the Title X funds it receives from the federal government for health services are “co-mingled” with the budget for its abortion services operations.

Nance quoted Johnson, a past employee for a Texas Planned Parenthood clinic, in saying that PPFA’s goal is for all of its clinics to perform abortions by 2013. In clinics where health and abortion services are combined, Nance said it is likely that they are using Title X funds to pay the overhead costs for both operations.

“They are indirectly using [federal funds] to pay for abortion,” said Nance.

The Christian Post contacted PPFA for comment, but did not receive an immediate response.

Bereit stressed that PPFA does not need federal funds to operate its clinics. He cited PPFA financial disclosure forms that show it had a surplus of 63.4 million in its budget after FY 2008-2009. The documents show that PPFA has had a surplus for the last five years. He added that if PPFA wants to make up lost federal revenue, it should turn to PPFA’s celebrity supporters.

“They certainly have people with deep pockets that can make up for their expenditures,” said Bereit.

==============================

Jon Kyl famously misspeaks, but so does Planned Parenthood (World Magazine, 110507)

WASHINGTON—When Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, speaking on the Senate floor April 7, claimed that abortions account for “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does,” the backlash was swift and predictable.

Planned Parenthood, fighting to keep open a federal funding stream that last year gave the organization more than $360 million in taxpayer money, claimed abortion makes up only 3% of its total services.

After a Kyl spokesman tried to douse the firestorm by saying the Arizona senator’s remarks were “not intended to be a factual statement,” left-leaning critics, including comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, erupted in a chorus of derision.

A Twitter account satirized Kyl by posting items about the retiring senator that were “not intended to be a factual statement.” Kyl’s own Senate colleagues began mockingly using the phrase in their own Senate floor speeches.

The reality is that Kyl misspoke—but Kyl’s misstatement seems to be more about what he left unsaid than what he proclaimed. A look at Planned Parenthood’s own numbers reveals that abortion makes up more than 90% of the services the group provides to pregnant women.

Earlier this year Planned Parenthood announced that in 2009 it had performed 332,278 abortions. That’s more than a quarter of all abortions performed nationwide and a 14.7% increase over the abortions it performed in 2006.

Planned Parenthood also provided prenatal services to 7,021 women and referred adoption services to just 977. Adding the three pregnancy-related services together, Planned Parenthood provided abortions to 97.6% of its 340,276 pregnant clients in 2009.

How does the organization get its 3% claim? One of the organization’s former clinic directors, Abby Johnson, recently wrote in The Hill that the claim is a gimmick. The group, she claims, skews its abortion numbers by “unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows anywhere from five to 20 visits per appointment.”

The secret that the organization doesn’t want you to know: The number of abortions it provides is going up while the number of prenatal services and adoption referrals are going down. For every adoption referral in 2009, Planned Parenthood performed slightly more than 340 abortions.

Meanwhile, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, which Kyl and his fellow Republicans were trying to end, survived the negotiations over the 2011 budget. But pro-lifers succeeded in banning Medicaid funding for abortions in Washington, D.C., and the reaction was telling.

On the eve of the mid-April spending deal, a local nonprofit, D.C. Abortion Fund, sent out a fundraising appeal for 28 women who had abortions scheduled for the next day on the taxpayers’ dime. “We never want to turn a single woman away—and now these 28 women need us,” the fundraising alert read. “Your contribution will go DIRECTLY to help pay for abortions that D.C. Medicaid will no longer cover.”

The popular local blog DCist also broadcast the appeal, and the drive netted $25,000, enough for the 28 abortions. Or, as DCist put it afterward, the donations “enabled all 28 women to make their appointments.” Congressional Democrats had lifted the ban on D.C. funds for abortion in 2009, funds the district began spending last August. The city has paid for 117 abortions since last August, totaling about $62,000, according to The Washington Post. One of the three organizations the city contracts with for abortions hadn’t submitted its bills yet.

==============================

Hope in the Abortion Fight (townhall.com, 110506)

Kathryn Lopez

In New York City, 41% of babies are aborted.

It’s even worse than that, actually.

As the Chiaroscuro Foundation, a group that supports abortion alternatives, has pointed out: “Sixty percent of African-American pregnancies in New York City were aborted in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. In a 10-year period beginning in 2000, more than 900,000 pregnancies in the city ended in abortion — nearly one-eighth of the entire city population of just over 8 million.”

Abortion, of course, is a hot-button word, bringing up all kinds of emotions in all kinds of people.

Even though it’s legal, it’s generally not considered a social good. Which is why groups that advocate for its ease of access — and expansion — typically go to great lengths to avoid the actual use of the word.

And, even though we may frequently avoid it at the dinner table and in political speech, there are some areas of consensus. For instance, even enlightened, progressive New Yorkers are shocked by the 41-percent statistic. Earlier this year, McLaughlin and Associates found that 64% of the city’s residents think that number is shockingly high — even 57% of self-identified pro-choice women agree.

So what’s a desperate pregnant woman to do? If you live in New York, call the archbishop’s office. Timothy Dolan has renewed a promise made by that great defender of human life, the late John Cardinal O’Connor: if you are pregnant and you need help, the Catholic Church will help you.

The Church has faced its well-publicized setbacks, but deep in the heart of its ongoing renewal is the commitment to the most innocent among us. It was a priority of the recently beatified Pope John Paul II, whose superior communication skills, fearlessness and love made it the premier human-rights issue of our day.

The awful numbers in New York present both a crisis and an opportunity. In part, to insist, as John Paul II was wont to, on a little truth.

Congress is getting in on the act. Shortly after Easter recess, the House passed a measure that would bar any taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that provided abortions. With that passage, the pro-life majority in the House codified the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion, and has been a favorite talking point of abortion advocates who oppose further government action. But the long-standing amendment is actually a narrow funding restriction, which does not apply to all federal funding. If the House bill were to pass the Senate, the president would be presented with a bill that would, for once, cover all federal funding, permanently. The House’s vote wasn’t a dramatic attack on women’s rights as claimed by the left, but a protection for American taxpayers who don’t want to be financially contributing to abortion.

And yet it was “appalling,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee insists. EMILY’s List, which supports pro-choice candidates for office, warns that it is a precursor to the looming “dark ages,” and that it is but “only one heinous facet of (the right’s) war on women.” Actually, it’s mainstream.

An-under-the-radar book, “Beyond a House Divided: The Moral Consensus Ignored by Washington, Wall Street, and the Media” by Carl Anderson, made the point that at a time when eight in 10 Americans actually want to significantly restrict the legality of abortion, the doom-laden rhetoric about a simple piece of legislation is pure nonsense. It is now long commonplace to insist you’re personally opposed even when you advocate for it. Even Democrats appreciate that, at least in a lot of their rhetoric. Maybe the debate over abortion funding can united instead of a divide.

So many of us — especially those whose lives have been changed by abortion — want people to know they can support life, and that, besides ending a life, abortion will hurt the mother, the father, and so many around them. And there are groups out there in the trenches, spreading the word and doing the work. People like the folks at Good Counsel maternity homes in New York dedicate their lives to making sure women have options.

In 1996, during the partial-birth-abortion debate, the late congressman Henry Hyde warned of “the coldness of self-brutalization that chills our sensibilities, deadens our conscience and allows us to think of this unspeakable act as an act of compassion.” Outraged New Yorkers and a simple funding bill in the House are signs we’re not dead yet.

==============================

Indiana First State to Cut Funding to Abortion Providers (Christian Post, 110511)

Indiana is the first state in the nation to bar federal tax dollars, in the form of Medicaid payments, from going to clinics that provide abortions.

Governor Mitch Daniels on Tuesday signed into law House Bill 1210, passed in the state House and Senate in April. The bill prohibits federal money given to the state for family planning services to be distributed to abortion providers, the largest of which is Planned Parenthood. It also bans abortions for women over 20 weeks pregnant.

“This law is a tremendous victory for the pro-life movement and for taxpayers who will no longer be forced to pad the profit line of Indiana Planned Parenthood abortion clinics,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, in a statement.

But the new law was quickly challenged by Planned Parenthood, which requested Tuesday that the law be temporarily blocked so it can prove HB1210 is unconstitutional and breaks federal law. A federal judge is expected to rule Wednesday afternoon on Planned Parenthood’s request.

According to Indiana Planned Parenthood, the hold is necessary because without federal money its clinics would be forced to turn patients away. Medicaid payments and federal grants make up 20% of Indiana Planned Parenthood’s annual budget, the group’s president, Betty Cockrum, told The Los Angeles Times.

American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana attorney Ken Falk also argues that federal law already prohibits the use of tax dollars to fund abortions so Planned Parenthood does not use federal money on abortion. Falk also contends that it is illegal for the state of Indiana to decide that Planned Parenthood cannot receive Medicaid funds when the federal government authorized the women’s health entity as a credible recipient of such money.

But Indiana’s Solicitor General, Thomas Fisher, argued on Tuesday that no hold on the law is needed because Planned Parenthood can continue to care for patients and submit Medicaid bills even one year later if the law is overturned, according to The Desert Sun.

Also, supporters of blocking tax dollars from being given to Planned Parenthood argue that even if federal funds are not directly used to pay for abortions, they are used to support non-abortion related activities that free funds for abortion services.

“If we’re buying the roof over their head or their paper clips, we’re still subsidizing abortion,” said Rep. Matt Ubelhor (R-Ind. 62nd District), who sponsored the bill, according to The Associated Press.

Gov. Daniels highlighted earlier before signing the bill the strong bipartisan support for the legislation in both legislative chambers. Last month, he also confirmed that women can receive “all non-abortion services, whether family planning or basic women’s health” in every one of the state’s 92 counties.

The move by Daniels, who is considering running for president, in signing the controversial abortion bill is interpreted by some political pundits as playing to the social conservative voting base. Daniels, a fiscal conservative, had drawn ire from social conservatives last June when he suggested that the group should compromise on social issues and focus on economic issues.

Although he gained the praise of social conservatives, Daniels risks losing $4 million in federal money for family planning services by barring abortion providing clinics from receiving such funds.

Other states are expected to follow Indiana’s decision to ban federal funds from abortion providers. An attempt in Congress to ban federal funds to Planned Parenthood failed last month in the Senate. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was the driving force behind the Congressional effort to establish such a federal law. Last week, however, the House passed “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which would codify and make permanent the Hyde Amendment – which bars the use of federal funds for abortions – across the federal government.

==============================

Pro-Life Group Hopes Kansas Will Become First Abortion-Free State (Christian Post, 110623)

Pro-life group Operation Rescue is hoping that licenses for the three remaining abortion clinics in Kansas will not be renewed.

The clinics will be told by July 1 whether they are to be granted licenses under a new law requiring them to meet minimum safety standards.

The standards include having an emergency door that can accommodate a gurney, maintaining proper emergency equipment, and having a licensed nurse in the clinic when abortions are being carried out.

The last requirement reflects concern over the absence in many clinics of properly trained and qualified staff.

“We have doubts that any of the abortion clinics can meet the safety requirements of the new law,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

“If they cannot comply, all three abortion clinics would be forced to cease abortion operations, making Kansas the first abortion-free state in the nation.”

Inspections on the three clinics by the state health department began this week. One of the clinics being inspected is Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood, which is currently facing 107 criminal charges related to illegal late-term abortions.

If the clinics fail to comply to the new safety standards, they will not be able to perform abortions legally.

Newman stressed it was an issue of public safety.

“If clinics cannot comply with these minimum safety standards, they are simply too dangerous to continue to operate,” he said. “It is shocking that anyone would even question whether or not women deserve to be protected from shoddy and unsafe abortion practices.

“We certainly believe there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ abortion clinic. Abortionists have the attitude that they are above the law and will likely not keep it, therefore the best way to protect women is to close abortion clinics.”

==============================

Indiana’s Sweeping Pro-life Provisions Take Effect (Christian Post, 110701)

ndiana Right to Life is hailing today as the date on which sweeping pro-life policies passed by the Indiana legislature will go into full effect, saying these provisions are the most significant improvements to Indiana’s abortion law in nearly four decades.

“These are monumental advances in state policy that place Indiana on the leading edge of national efforts to curb abortion,” said Indiana Right to Life president and CEO Mike Fichter.

One of the new provisions will require abortionists to inform women that human physical life begins at fertilization.

“This is a huge win,” Cathie Humbarger, communications director for Indiana Right to Life, told The Christian Post. “We have fought hard for several years for women to be informed that human physical life begins at fertilization – a term that we coined to distinguish it from mental life, spiritual life, etc. It is a biological fact that women need to know as they consider having an abortion.”

Other provisions going into effect today include the requirement of abortionists to inform women that abortion may increase the risk of infertility, infection, or hemorrhaging and that Indiana’s safe haven law allows for mothers who decide to carry their children to term but are unable to care for their children to leave them with providers such as local police, without criminal repercussions.

Also, all abortions performed on girls under the age of 14 must be reported to child protective services within three days of the abortion in order to facilitate prompt investigation into child sexual abuse. And doctors who do abortions in Indiana must have local hospital admitting privileges, provide medical licensing numbers and provide emergency contact information to women having abortions.

Two provisions have been put on hold by a federal judge, including the removal of all state-directed funds for abortion clinics and a requirement that women be informed about an unborn child’s ability to feel pain. Indiana Right to Life is confident both of these provisions will be upheld by the courts and will eventually go into effect.

Humbarger says even though abortionists are not required to inform women about an unborn child’s ability to feel pain, protections were passed into law that will protect pain-capable children, beginning at 20-weeks gestational.

“Medical evidence is replete with information supporting the fact that a baby in the womb can feel pain at 20 weeks and many studies show sooner,” Humbarger said. “The new law prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks establishes the state’s responsibility to protect those persons.”

“This is also significant because a late term abortion provider has announced publicly that he is opening an abortion facility in Indiana,” she added. “This provision will eliminate that possibility.”

Indiana will opt-out of abortion coverage in any state health exchange required under the new federal health law passed by Congress in 2010. Humbarger said Indiana Right to Life won’t be surprised if there is a legal challenge regarding the state choosing to opt-out.

“However, we are confident that the will of the citizens of Indiana will prevail if challenged,” she said. “This legislation was drafted to include research and the opinions of the best legal minds in the country to make certain it would withstand a court challenge.”

Indiana Right to Life plans to monitor abortionists across the state to make certain they are in compliance with the new laws.

==============================

More reasons to defund (World Magazine, 110708)

ABORTION | A new report from Americans United for Life reveals the truth about Planned Parenthood | Marvin Olasky

A new report increases the likelihood that Planned Parenthood will lose its taxpayer funding not only in Indiana but also in Texas, Kansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

Researchers from Americans United for Life (AUL), the legal arm of the pro-life movement, published Thursday the results of their scrutiny of two decades of Planned Parenthood records, law enforcement reports, and other miscellaneous records. The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood details misuse of federal healthcare and family-planning funds, failures to report criminal child sexual abuse and comply with parental involvement laws, and dangerous misuse of the abortion drug RU-48.

The report, available online, also reported Planned Parenthood’s willingness to provide women with inaccurate and misleading information and to refer them to substandard clinics. AUL noted that some Planned Parenthood staffers use feminist rhetoric but have shown a willingness to work with pimps and sex traffickers to exploit women.

Despite such misfeasance, Planned Parenthood still receives more than $363 million in taxpayer funding each year. Abortion-providing organizations have preserved their subsidies from government not because of political popularity—polls show more than 70% of taxpayers not wanting their taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion—but through lobbying and strategic political contributions. According to the Federal Election Committee, pro-abortion groups since 2000 have spent more than $205 million dollars in campaign contributions or independent expenditures on behalf of candidates for federal office.

Those donations will buy the support of some politicians, and ideology will do the same for others, but increasing pro-life sentiment plus budget stringency will likely defund Planned Parenthood in some states.

==============================

Personhood movement surges in Alabama (World Magazine, 110617)

A bill in the Alabama legislature would have gained personhood status for unborn children, in effect banning all chemical and surgical abortions. The measure easily cleared the Senate 23-7, but last-minute changes to the legislation caused it to die when the state House ended its session on June 9.

Nonetheless, the bill’s near-passage indicates momentum in the “personhood movement,” according to the pro-life organization Personhood USA. The group points out that having unborn children legally recognized as persons is vital to ending abortions. They cite former-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Roe v. Wade majority opinion, stating that the case for abortion collapses if there are ever laws establishing “personhood” for the unborn. As he wrote, “The fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically.”

Alabama state Sen. Phil Williams introduced the bill, which initially read, “The term ‘persons,’ as used in the Code of Alabama 1975, shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization or the functional equivalent thereof.” At the last minute, the Senate modified the bill’s language, stating that “persons” include “any human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation into the womb.”

While some preferred the amended bill, Personhood USA’s Jennifer Mason applauded the original. “Embryology textbooks show that life begins at fertilization, not implantation,” she said.

Abortion proponents express concern that this language outlaws forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization. But Personhood USA spokesman Cal Zastrow clarified that personhood laws do not bar contraceptives. “Our goal,” he said, “is to outlaw all abortifacients.”

The “personhood” surge has caused division within pro-life ranks. In recent years, for example, pro-life activists have worked to reduce abortions through state restrictions. But the personhood movement takes a more ambitious road, attempting to secure the very rights inherent to a person and it arguing specifically for rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

No state has passed personhood legislation, but in this year alone, representatives have sponsored personhood bills in North Dakota, Iowa, Georgia, Montana, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama. Mississippi will consider an amendment in November.

“We must create enabling legislation to criminalize surgical and chemical abortion—every drug, every surgery designed to murder,” Zastrow said.

==============================

The Culture of Death Grows Desperate: War Declared on Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Christian Post[. 110804)

By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s declaration of war upon the unborn in its infamous 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, caught most conservative Christians unprepared and unaware. This shock to the nation’s conscience required Christians and other pro-life activists to develop arguments, strategies, and organizations in order to confront the Culture of Death and the legalized killing of the unborn.

The Roe v. Wade decision was quickly repackaged by pro-abortion forces into a “pro-choice” argument that was intended to avoid the scandal of being pro-abortion. Nevertheless, the pro-choice mantra never really worked as a public relations strategy for pro-abortion forces for one simple reason: The only “choice” the pro-abortion forces would accept or respect is the choice to abort.

If that sounds extreme, just consider recent developments in cities like Baltimore, New York, and San Francisco. First in Baltimore, and then in New York City, municipal governments passed laws intended to shut down or curtail the work of crisis pregnancy centers in their cities. The crisis pregnancy centers have been among the most important platforms for saving unborn human lives and reasserting human dignity. This is especially true in more recent years, as many of these centers have begun using sophisticated ultrasound imaging technologies in order to show pregnant women the unborn babies within them.

These centers are staffed by brave workers and an army of volunteers who are committed to counsel women against killing their unborn babies. The ultrasound images have been massively important in this counseling process. Once the woman sees the unborn life within her, the chances of that baby surviving to live birth are tremendously enhanced.

As one abortion rights activist famously declared, “The fetus beat us.” When the fetus is seen for what is really is, the mother has a much harder time deciding to abort it. Crisis pregnancy centers generally offer a variety of services, ranging from counseling and adoption services to medical care and support for new mothers. All this is too much for the abortion industry, which rightly sees crisis pregnancy centers as their increasingly powerful opposition.

In Baltimore, government officials severely tried to curtail the ability of crisis pregnancy centers to do their work, only to have their law set aside by a federal judge. In recent days, the same thing has happened in New York City, where Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Christine C. Quinn, Speaker of the City Council, pushed through a law that would have required crisis pregnancy centers to state upfront whether they offered abortion services and so-called “emergency” contraceptives, and whether they has a licensed medical provider at the location.

As David W. Chen reported in The New York Times, “The City Council had enacted the law in March, framing it as a matter of consumer protection and truth in advertising, not long after Naral Pro-Choice New York released a report saying it has found crisis pregnancy centers using deceptive tactics and false claims to dissuade women from having abortions.”

Note that the law was tied to this report by Naral Pro-Choice New York, a local affiliate of the nation’s leading abortion rights group. Consider also the fact that 40% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion (and fully 60% of all pregnancies to African American women). Those horrendous and chilling percentages are evidently not enough for the abortion industry and its ideological supporters. They want to shut down crisis pregnancy centers or render them ineffective.

As in Baltimore, a federal judge has blocked the New York City law, at least for now. The city is expected to appeal.

Now, city officials in San Francisco have launched their own effort to shutter crisis pregnancy centers, claiming that staff at the centers impose “anti-abortion propaganda and mistruths on suspecting women.”

Note the reference to anti-abortion arguments as “propaganda,” as if there could only be one side to the issue. Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney who is running for mayor, called the crisis pregnancy centers “right wing” and “politically motivated.” There was no acknowledgment of the fact that pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood are “left wing” and “politically motivated.” Furthermore, given the millions of dollars of income made by Planned Parenthood and other major components of the abortion industry, the phrase “financially motivated” should be added as well. Where are the calls for honesty from Planned Parenthood?

The way this issue is framed by many in the major national media was made clear in an August 2, 2011 report in The New York Times. Reporter Jesse McKinley began his article with this remarkable sentence:

“Seeking to stem what they call misleading advertising, San Francisco officials on Tuesday began a two-pronged attack on ‘crisis pregnancy centers,’ which are billed as places for pregnant women to get advice, but often use counseling to discourage abortions.”

Look carefully at that sentence. The conjunction “but” is intended to contrast the phrases linked together. Thus, McKinley writes that the crisis pregnancy centers “are billed as places for pregnant women to get advice,” but they “often use counseling to discourage abortion.” In other words, he insinuates that if crisis pregnancy centers “use counseling to discourage abortions,” they are not “places for women to get advice.” Evidently, the only acceptable “advice” is counseling that encourages a woman to abort the baby within her.

This is the logic of the Culture of Death laid bare for all to see. Crisis pregnancy centers deserve the support of all who cherish the sanctity of life, the defense of the unborn, and the right of free speech. As defenders of life, crisis pregnancy centers should be committed to nothing less than comprehensive truth-telling. It is the Culture of Death, and not the Culture of Life, that fears the truth.

==============================

San Francisco Law Would ‘Censor’ Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Christian Post, 110809)

A pro-life advocate in San Francisco charged local officials with “censorship” in their attempt to pass disclosure laws that would stifle local crisis pregnancy centers.

The Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance would explicitly prohibit “limited-services” pregnancy centers in San Francisco from making false or misleading statements to the public about the services they offer.

Ryan Scott Bomberger, co-founder and chief creative officer of the Radiance Foundation, says California is the “abortion capital” of the United States and he finds it “crazy” that city lawmakers would go after crisis pregnancy centers with a new ordinance that prohibits them from targeting women seeking abortions.

“California is not hurting for ... abortions,” Bomberger told The Christian Post. “They’re leading the nation with over 214,000 abortions in the last reporting year.”

Yet Bomberger says the legislation’s supporters, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and San Francisco’s District 10 Supervisor Malia Cohen, are trying to prohibit crisis pregnancy centers from using the word “abortion,” in what are known as internet tags or key words, to reach out to women considering the procedure.

Pregnancy centers are the only impediment to abortion providers “making more money,” said Bomberger. “They fear women knowing the whole picture.”

The Radiance Foundation is an educational organization that reaches out to minorities to help them affirm life over abortion. As the organization’s creative officer, Bomberger says he has worked with many crisis pregnancy centers.

He said of the advertising, “Right now you can use tags of any term you want – especially if you want to get your competitor’s traffic. Of course you’re going to use terms that reaches the same demographic. Every business does that.”

“To use the term ‘abortion’ as a metatag is completely understandable because [crisis pregnancy centers] offer alternatives to abortion,” Bomberger explained. “So, of course, if someone is abortion-minded, you want to reach that demographic.”

Bomberger insists that the centers do not lie about their stance on abortion. “They don’t mislead anyone. You go to their sites, you read any of their literature [and] it’s very clear where they stand on the issue of abortion,” he described.

First Resort, a pregnancy center located in San Francisco, Oakland and Redwood City, advertises their services on the Web as a counseling and medical care facility.

CEO Shari Plunkett disputed allegations of misleading women in an August 2 statement.

“First Resort rejects in the strongest possible terms any representation that our advertising misleads women,” she stated. “We treat women with dignity and respect their right to choose.”

Herrera and Cohen claim in their news release that pregnancy centers do little more than “push an anti-abortion agenda on those seeking constitutionally-protected medical services.”

However, in its list of services, the licensed facility offers pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and early prenatal care in addition to its pre- and post-abortion counseling.

Plunkett said that Supervisor Cohen has not met with her to discuss the facility’s practices.

Herrera’s office refers to a report funded by pro-abortion group NARAL Pro-Choice America in its news packet about the San Francisco ordinance.

NARAL admits in its report that the investigation – and basis for all of the damning evidence against California crisis pregnancy centers – was gathered by NARAL-recruited volunteers.

Additionally, several liberal pro-choice foundations, including Choice USA, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, supported the report.

Based on the report and letters he says he has received about the centers, Herrera, a Democrat and mayoral candidate, called the crisis pregnancy centers “right-wing, politically motivated centers” at a press conference last week.

Bomberger commented, “It’s funny to hear ... him labeling them right-wing and politically-motivated. There’s nothing but political motivation behind them (Herrera and Cohen) trying to shut down these centers.”

San Francisco is the latest U.S. city to attempt to impose advertising regulations on local crisis pregnancy centers.

Cities and counties in Maryland and New York have all tried to force centers to place disclosures in its advertising. So far, these attempts have been successfully thwarted.

Judges in Baltimore and New York City both struck down similar laws. In Montgomery County, Md., a judge halted enforcement of their disclosure law until a lawsuit against the ordinance has concluded.

==============================

Arizona Abortion Ruling Overturned; Pro-Lifers Celebrate(Christian Post, 110812)

Arizona pro-life supporters achieved a victory on Thursday when an appeals court threw out an injunction that blocked key aspects of a 2009 Arizona abortion law from taking effect.

The ruling allows the Arizona’s Abortion Consent Act to go into effect, which requires women to have an in-person meeting with a doctor 24 hours before getting an abortion. This meeting, a part of the informed-consent laws, is supposed to ensure that the women are informed of the procedure, possible side effects, and implications of the surgery before they give their consent for it.

“Everyone deserves full and accurate information before undergoing any medical procedure,” said Center for Arizona Policy Legal Counsel Deborah Sheasby, in a statement. “These types of protections have been repeatedly upheld and are overwhelmingly supported by the public.”

Other provisions include mandating minors to present a notarized statement from parents before getting an abortion as well as allowing health professionals to refuse to perform abortions if they had moral or religious objections.

The provisions have been blocked for two years now by a lower court judge after Planned Parenthood Arizona challenged it.

In 2009, Superior Court Judge Donald Daughton issued a preliminary injunction to block four of the provisions of the law because he felt they were unconstitutional and could cause harm to women seeking abortions.

“These are common sense regulations that will help protect Arizona families, and I’m thrilled the Court has allowed the law to take effect as intended,” Governor Jan Brewer (R) of Arizona said in a written statement regarding the ruling.

Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is based on the concern that it violates a woman’s constitutional right to equal protection and privacy and puts unnecessary restrictions on abortion. It is uncertain if Planned Parenthood will choose to appeal the recent ruling.

Bryan Howard, the Arizona Planned Parenthood group’s president and chief executive, told Reuters he was disappointed in the ruling.

“The bottom line is that the new restrictions imposed by the law are going to put women in harm’s way.”

However, many abortion opponents are thrilled by the decision.

“I was very pleased with the decision. It’s a good step, though long overdue, in the right direction to protect human life,” Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, told the Christian Post.

“The Planned Parenthood statement saying that these provisions will not protect women is an extreme example of their pro-death view. Planned Parenthood has never been concerned with the well-being of women. If they were, why wouldn’t they support informed consent laws?”

Planned Parenthood is the state’s largest abortion provider, averaging about 9,000 procedures annually, according to Reuters.

==============================

Poll: Bipartisan Support for Informed, Parental Consent Abortion Laws (Christian Post, 110727)

There is strong bipartisan support for pro-life laws, as seen by several states that recently passed such legislation, a poll shows.

Eighty four percent of Democratic respondents and 95% of Republican respondents favor abortion laws requiring doctors to tell patients about the possible risks before performing an abortion procedure, a Gallup poll found. Eighty-six percent of Independents also favor informed consent.

There is also majority support across all political lines for laws requiring parental consent for minors, a 24-hour waiting period before procedures, and partial birth abortions across political lines.

Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, lauded the poll as a victory for pro-life lobbyists. However, she urged more to be done to unveil the business practices of abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

“I think it is great news that people across the board are agreeing that women have the right to informed consent and that parents should be involved in these kinds of decisions,” said Monahan.

Overall, 87% of respondents say they favor informed consent, and more than seven in ten Americans (71%) favor requiring parental consent for minors and establishing a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (64%) favor making the specific procedure known as “partial birth abortion” illegal.

Marilyn Musgrave, the project director of Susan B. Anthony List’s Votes Have Consequences campaign, says Americans overwhelmingly support pro-life laws because they make sense.

“Things like parental consent and what I call ‘a woman’s right to know,’ which is an informed consent before an abortion, are just so common sense,” she said. “People know that parents need to be informed when their minor daughter is making a decision that is as serious as whether or not to get an abortion, and they know that anybody having a surgical procedure needs all the information.”

In 2011 alone, states have enacted a record 162 new laws or changes to existing laws that affect reproductive health, according to a July report from the Guttmacher Institute.

A record 80 abortion restrictions were enacted this year – more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions in 2005 and more than triple the 23 restrictions enacted last year. And five states passed laws outlawing abortion after a 20-week gestation.

A University of Alabama report published in March shows that abortion restrictions passed in 47 states have decreased the number of local abortions from 1,054,719 to 820,151 in just a 15-year span.

“It’s just incredible to know that these decisions that are being made and these bills that are being passed and being written into law will decrease the amount of abortions, thereby saving babies and also helping mothers,” said Monahan.

Eight state legislatures have also passed laws banning the sale of policies in the insurance exchanges that offer coverage for abortion; four of those laws – in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah – would extend the ban to all private insurance coverage offered in the state.

And five states moved to restrict family planning funding to specific providers, most notably Planned Parenthood.

The poll shows that these kinds of measures, unlike the consent laws, are not as popular.

Just under half of Americans (46%) said they favored laws allowing pharmacists and health providers to opt out of providing medicine or surgical procedures that result in abortion.

Only 40% of respondents favor laws prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services – such as Planned Parenthood – from receiving any federal funds.

Musgrave said the numbers are so low because pro-life groups are just starting to “chip away” at the pro-woman mask that Planned Parenthood has worn all these years.

“[It has] been 25 years at least that Planned Parenthood has been presenting a very positive image ... of providing women’s health care.”

However, Monahan said women are not being told the whole truth.

Planned Parenthood reported receiving $363 million in tax payer dollars in 2009.

Yet some Planned Parenthood clinics don’t offer its patients pamphlets on abortion alternatives such as adoption, reports Musgrave. In fact, Musgrave divulged that former clinic workers often report that women are not adequately counseled before they have an abortion.

As for their health care services, Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms despite advertising their brand with the color pink, she said.

“They’re not about promoting alternatives; they’re not about helping women,” Musgrave asserted.

Monahan and Musgrave both noted that there are many clinics throughout the country that provide real health care to low-income families without providing abortions.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels presented a list of 800 non-abortion facilities located in his state alone after becoming the first state to redirect federal funds away from abortion providers.

“There was not one county without a provider, but to hear the Planned Parenthood allies tell the story, it was like people were dying because the (Planned Parenthood) shutdowns,” recalled Monahan.

As for the 57% of poll respondents who oppose laws federally defunding abortion providers, she said, “I think there’s more education that needs to be done on our side.”

==============================

Who Is Funding Planned Parenthood? (Christian Post, 110826)

With the intense budget debt in Congress, Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire from the political right who seek to federally defund the program. A closer look at the program’s budget reveals just how much taxpayer money is used in supporting the controversial abortion provider while uncovering other sources that are financially underwriting the group.

According to its own fact sheet, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009. That same year, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the average cost for a first trimester surgical abortion at 10 weeks was $451. Chemical abortions averaged around $483. Surgical abortions at 20 weeks cost $1,500 or more.

But are the women receiving these abortions the ones paying for them? Not exactly.

The Hyde Amendment, passed in the 1970s, makes it illegal for the federal government to pay for abortions – except in the cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.

This is not to say that Planned Parenthood does not receive money from the federal government. In 2009 the organization reported receiving $363.2 million in federal grants and contracts. Title X federal funding and Medicaid reimbursements regularly go to PP to cover its expenses for condoms, birth control pills and sex education programs. Some of the money is used for salaries, facilities, equipment, etc., that keep the organization running.

Critics argue that this money frees up non-federal money so that it can be used by Planned Parenthood to perform more abortions.

Furthermore, many state constitutions have picked up the bill where the federal funding leaves off. Hyde only affects federal funding and states may use their own funds to cover abortion.

“Most states have gone through the legislation process to mandate state funding for abortions,” Chuck Donovan, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Christian Post. “A lot of states now have this mandate in their constitution.”

The Guttmacher Institute indicates that 17 states and the District of Columbia pay for “all or most medically necessary abortions.” However, abortions outside the realm of rape, incest, or life endangerment are also included.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S., receives the majority of these state funds.

Guttmacher, according to Dr. Randall O’Bannon who is the National Right to Life Committee’s director of education & research, says that 92% of abortion patients on the Medicaid program in states that covered abortion made use of the state funding.

During the budget fiasco in February, the House passed a resolution that would have kept the federal government funded for the fiscal year of 2011. However, it included an amendment sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would have expressively prohibited any funding for Planned Parenthood.

The House approved this on a 240-185 vote. Ten House Democrats voted alongside Republicans in the final tally. However, the Senate never passed the bill.

Planned Parenthood is now on a campaign to make sure there will be no defunding amendment attached to any future budgets.

“The idea that abortions cannot by funded by abortion advocates alone but must go through taxpayer dollars is ludicrously wrong,” said Donovan.

Some billionaires are financially supporting this idea. According to Chicago Business (CB), billionaire philanthropists Helen and Sam Zell hosted a recent dinner party that included an East Coast Republican congressman. Their conversation included a fierce debate on abortion and birth control.

Ms. Zell told the CB that she stated during the conversation that “government shouldn’t be in the bedroom – or in the womb. It’s just not relevant.”

Which is perhaps why she sees it as her personal duty to help fund Planned Parenthood – a program she believes in – instead of relying on the government to fund it.

According to the CB, Ms. Zell, 69, has pledged $600,000 over three years to improve its facility on the Near North Side in Chicago. She’s also given hundreds of thousands more to the Chicago arm of the American Civil Liberties Union, which defends abortion rights.

“I want to get the most bang for my buck,” she told the CB.

Ms. Zell is not alone. With the advent of the Tea Party’s ambitions to defund PP, many more wealthy individuals are stepping up and dolling out cash in order to see that this doesn’t happen.

“These legislative attacks have energized women,” said Carole Brite, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood in Chicago, to CB. She points out that the chapter has seen a notable increase in gifts lately, with checks from $5 to $5,000.

The Christian Post attempted to contact Planned Parenthood but the phone calls were not returned prior to publication.

List of State Funding for Abortion, provided by National Abortion Federation:

Funding under Hyde Amendment Only:

Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances:

Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).

All or Most Health Circumstances:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment:

South Dakota (life endangerment only).

==============================

Barbara Kay: In the abortion debate, motives matter (National Post, 110831)

There are only two polemically unassailable positions on abortion:

· never, because it is always murder; and

· whenever, because an unborn baby is part of the mother’s body, hers to dispense with as she wants.

The vast majority of Canadians’ views may not stand up to perfect logic and consistency. Nevertheless, they fall somewhere in between. Most of us condone abortion: In the first trimester; where there is risk to the mother; in cases of incest and rape; and for known, serious birth defects.

My libertarian colleague Chris Selley is a pro-choice absolutist, as I would define the term. He therefore concludes that any dilution of Canada’s freedom-of-choice model will likely be “fruitless” (good pun, even if unintended).

But nowadays, as Mr. Selley himself concedes, even many hardliners of the it’s-my-body camp find themselves staggering under the increasingly weighty burden of their ideology. Shifting technological and cultural plates beneath society’s crust are dislodging bio-ethical boulders. They are crashing down upon the moral high road feminists have occupied for decades.

Thanks to early-pregnancy sex-revealing technology, over the last decade in Asia, an estimated 163 million female unborn babies have been selectively aborted. The ratio of boys to girls in India is now 112/100. In fact, abortion for any reason has become banalized amongst elites: Some Indian women abort over such trivial matters as an unwanted zodiacal sign.

In China, the ratio is verging on 150/100 in some areas. In South Korea, amongst second births, the ratio is 113/100 (the parents will “tolerate” a female for their first child, but are less forgiving the second time around). Amongst fourth-borns, it is a shocking 209/100. Laws against gendercide have proved unenforceable in these and other female-devaluing countries. These practices continue in the Western diaspora: Gendercide is an open secret in Canada’s South Asian community.

Globally, the male-female ratio stands at 107/100. Such imbalance has grave consequences. In her book, Unnatural Selection, Mara Hvistendahl notes: “Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live. Often, they are unstable. Sometimes, they are violent.”

We cannot turn our backs on the gendercide problem, because we will all be affected by it sooner or later. But neither should we retreat from an examination of other moral considerations.

Most Canadians believe that no Canadian doctor would consent to abort a viable fetus (after 22 weeks of gestation) for reasons that do not involve the health of the mother or the fetus. Yet at least 400 post-viability abortions take place annually in Canada, and many are done strictly for discretionary motivations. Of Quebec’s 29,000 annual abortions (about one in three Quebec women will have an abortion in her lifetime), some are performed, privately, after 30 weeks. In 2003-4, Ontario paid almost $400,000 for 56 “out of country” late-term abortions.

Most abortions are not what any reasonable person would call “necessary.” Nearly foolproof birth control is available to every Canadian girl from puberty onward. Few unmarried girls or women today endure crippling social stigma for pregnancy, the original impetus for legalizing abortion. Excellent prenatal care is fully funded. No woman is forced to keep an unwanted child if she would prefer to go the route of adoption. Moreover, abortion, with well-documented medical risks (few women are informed of) has never been animal-tested, the legal sine qua non for most other medical technologies and procedures.

And yet, absurdly, a women’s “right” to terminate any number of pregnancies at any stage for any reason at public expense and without regard to societal consequences, fathers’ wishes or rights, and doctors’ consciences, has become the litmus test for allegedly enlightened thinking in our culture.

Let’s get real on democratic “rights.” Freedom of speech is a right. Freedom of association is a right. Such rights are timeless and universal. They were not invented out of whole philosophical cloth 40 years ago. They can be exercised without extorting money and technical assistance from people who don’t approve of what you say or whom you associate with.

Pregnancy is not a medical infirmity. It is a natural state. Abortion is not a medical “treatment”; it is a service. Women seeking abortions of healthy fetuses out of convenience or sexism — that is, women who are not seeking relief from authentic psychological or physical suffering — are not “patients.” They are clients.

Clients have wishes; they do not have inalienable rights. When the wishes of clients run counter to society’s health, or other people’s natural rights — and by “people” I include unborn babies who were viable before their skulls were surgically crushed — then regulation of the practice is not only admissible, it is desirable, and nobody should have to fear censure from powerful special interest groups for saying so.

==============================

Update: Liechtenstein abortion vote (World Magazine, 110920)

On Sunday, voters rejected the plan to legalize abortion by a margin of 514 votes out of 11,510 ballots cast. The official count put no-votes at 52.3%, ahead of 47.7% who favored the plan to decriminalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy or if the child is severely disabled.

Opponents in the Catholic majority country warned that the proposal went too far and could lead to late-term abortions of disabled children. Their concerns were echoed by Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein, the country’s de facto ruler, who said in a speech last month that he would use his veto power to block decriminalization.

The move prompted backers of the change, as well as democracy campaigners, to accuse the prince of interfering in the democratic process and of discouraging people from voting.

The outcome of the vote means a counterproposal backed by Liechtenstein’s two main political parties is likely to come before the country’s parliament and people soon.

Under the alternative proposal, which Alois has yet to comment on, abortion will continue to be a criminal offense in Liechtenstein. But having an abortion abroad would not be punished anymore.

==============================

Ultrasounds Blamed for Asia’s Female Shortage (Fox News, 111006)

Reproductive technology that allows parents to know the gender of their fetus has led to a shortage of 117 million women in Asia, particularly in China and India, the Agence France-Presse reported Thursday.

The trend is expected to have lasting impact on these countries for at least the next 50 years, according to experts at a UN and Vietnam conference in Hanoi.

“This skewed population sex ratio reflects a preference for sons, in combination with increasing access to new sex-selection technology,” the UN Population Fund wrote in a conference paper.

Increasing access to ultrasounds and other reproductive technology has contributed to the rise of “selective abortions,” said French demographer Christophe Guilmoto, in which parents abort fetuses based on their sex.

In Asian countries such as China, where boys are favored and couples are only allowed to have one child, this means that parents typically choose to abort girls in order to give birth to boys.

In most countries, the sex ratio at birth ranges from 104 to 106 male births for every 100 females, but over the past 25 years, the imbalance has gradually increased, the UN said.

UN data from the past few years show that China now has 118.1 male babies for 100 females, India 110.6, Azerbaijan 117.6 and Vietnam 111.2.

In addition, female infants in these countries tend to have a much higher death rate than their male counterparts.

“Postnatal discrimination - expressed through excess deaths among female infants and young girls - has not entirely disappeared from several countries and reflects the relative neglect of female children,” Guilmoto said.

According to the UN, the preference for sons in Asian countries reflect socio-economic influences and antiquated traditions in which sons alone inherit property, care for aging parents and so forth, while daughters require dowries and leave their families once married.

Even if the sex ratio at birth returned to normal within the next decade, Chinese and Indian men would still face a “marriage squeeze” for several decades afterward, the researchers said.

“Not only would these men have to marry significantly older, but this growing marriage imbalance would also lead to a rapid rise in male bachelorhood. . . an important change in countries where almost everyone used to get married,” Guilmoto said.

Though some countries, such as Vietnam, prohibit fetal sex determination, these bans are often difficult to reinforce. Other Asian countries like Korea, which have returned to near-normal sex ratios are “unique,” the researchers said.

“Dealing with the future demographic consequences of past and present sex imbalances at birth and their societal impact may soon become the next challenge to respective governments,” Guilmoto said.

==============================

Nurses Say Hospital Gave Them Choice: Assist Abortions or Lose Job (Foxnews, 111031)

Lorna Jose Mendoza has been given a choice. She can either assist in an abortion this week at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, or she could refuse and risk losing her job.

Mendoza is one of a dozen nurses who filed suit today against the hospital – accusing them of violating federal and state law by forcing them to assist in abortions against their religious and moral objections.

“The hospital told the nurses they have no regard for their religious beliefs,” said Matthew Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund. “They were going to be assigned these abortions or they would be terminated.”

Bowman said the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, on behalf of the nurses who “possess strongly held religious and moral beliefs that she may not participate in the process of an abortion that causes the death of a preborn child.”

A spokesman for the hospital told Fox News they were not aware of the lawsuit and would not be able to provide comment.

Bowman told Fox News that the hospital had been performing abortions for decades without forcing nurses to violate their religious beliefs. But that changed a few weeks ago.

“The hospital passed a policy and put one of the nurses who did abortions in a supervisory position and started forcing nurses to assist in abortions out of the blue,” Bowman said. “It’s in complete violation of federal and state law – that says you can’t force people to assist abortions.”

Bowman said hospital officials agreed to meet with the nurses to discuss the matter, but when the nurses arrived with an attorney the meeting was abruptly cancelled.

“The hospital told the nurses they have no regard for their religious beliefs,” he said. “They were going to be assigned to these abortions or they would be terminated.”

Bowman said the hospital has displayed “an extreme level of arrogance” and is calling on the court to pull the plug of $60 million in federal funding until the hospital agrees to stop forcing nurses to assist in abortions.

==============================