Jack Isn't The Only Serial Killer

In America Jack Kevorkian is being promoted on HBO and in the media, especially highlighted by CNN's Larry King Live. What we ask, is Jack being promoted for and why? Jack Kevorkian is a self appointed ambassador for death. Kevorkian, an unemployed pathologist, used his self-execution device to kill a woman with early Alzheimers disease and wrote the book "Prescription Medicide". After his first victim, he proceeded to assist 133 others. 

 

Now we have Dr. Howard Martin, a retired UK physician whose joined the ranks. He believes, he's been treated harshly by medical and legal authorities, after he admitted to deliberately killing patients without their consent. Dr. Howard Martin admitted, "I twice helped people die, not because they wanted to die, but because they had such dreadful suffering."  Suffering based on his observations perhaps, not the patients.

 

The General Medical Council (GMC) found Dr. Martin guilty of medical misconduct, saying that he had knowingly "hastened the deaths" of 18 patients by giving them excessive doses of morphine. The GMC called his conduct despicable and dangerous.

 

Dr. Martin said, he has "no regrets" for any of his actions, and said that there is a "point of public discussion" he would like to raise on legalizing assisted suicide. So is Jack Kevorkian in the United States. Make no mistake about it. The euthanasia movement is a world-wide movement no different from abortion. The two doctors are key players. Remember, all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering. There is a whole lot of verbal engineering being picked up and promoted by the media on the issue of assisted suicide.

 

A sordid past has Dr. Martin, just as Dr. Kevorkian. In 2005, Martin was tried for the murder of three cancer patients, but acquitted. Some family members of Dr. Martin's patients, are asking the police to reopen the cases. 

 

The BBC has revealed, that among the patients who Martin has helped to die, was his own son Paul in 1988. Dr. Martin's ex-wife Sheila said in an interview, that she would have never agreed to her ex-husband "finishing off" her son.  Sheila stated, "Nobody wants to watch anybody suffering, but I would not have agreed to a huge dose of morphine to finish Paul off - I don't agree with that." 

 

Nobody agrees with that. That's the point. Society should not solve it's problems by killing. The bigger problem here is, that these victims were killed without their legal consent. So, whether you agree or disagree with assisted suicide, is no longer the point. Once you legalize killing for any reason, there are no safeguards.  

Grassroots Muzzle Bill on It's way to Senate

The Disclose Act H.R. 5175 passed the House in a tight vote 219 to 206. This Act would force grassroots organizations to release the name of donors and members into a publicly searchable database maintained by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This is a blatant attack on organizations, members and donors, said Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Legislative Director. He continued, "National Right to Life will do everything possible to keep this bill from coming out of the Senate. I think we have to take this bill very seriously. There are already 50 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. But, as you know, the Senate has different rules, and we will certainly do our best to persuade any Senator who will listen, that this bill is unconstitutional, unprincipled and nakedly partisan."

 

If the Senate approves the "Disclose Act" and it should be signed into law by President Barack Obama, the Act would take effect in 30 days, even if the FEC has not yet crafted new guidelines - just in time for mid-term elections in November.

 

Congressman Dan Lundgren expressed outrage, that unlike every other campaign finance passed by the House, the Disclose Act has no provisions for expedited judicial review. Therefore the lack of such provision, makes it clear that the Disclose Act is meant to influence the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections. "We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. Why can't we spend a little time protecting the Constitution of the United States. We're talking about political speech: the essence of the First Amendment."

 

More will follow.

Serial Killer Kevorkian

CNN's Larry King Live interviewed Jack Kevorkian on Friday, June 18th. For those of you who do not know Jack Kevorkian, he is an infamous advocate of assisted suicide. His claim to fame is, that he helped kill 133 people, which has given him the title of Dr. Death.

 

During the interview, Kevorkian admitted that he directly killed Janet Adkins, in June of 1990, contradicting his previous story, that she performed her own "mercy killing" using his lethal machine. Going back some in history, Kevorkian was charged with the murder of Janet Adkins, but a judge threw out the charges on the basis that Janet caused her own death, using Kevorkian's machine. However, the revelation on Larry King refutes the basis of the judge's decision.

 

During the interview, Jack our serial killer, told Larry King our live interviewer, that Jack himself injected Thomas Wouk with lethal drugs. Our interviewer responded, "usually they kill themselves, right? So it was not pure suicide." Pure suicide? That's an oxymoron! There's nothing pure about killing or encouraging others, to kill themselves. However, Jack wanted the last word. "No, I did the first one too (Janet Adkins was the 1st case). After that, we had the method where the patient could trigger the machine and do it themselves."

 

Kevorkian, by profession, was a non-employed pathologist. He had a fetish for death. However, America presently lives in a culture of death, so Jack had a place to roost. Jack is now 82 yrs. old. His killing career has spanned from 1990 through 1999, resulting in 133 victims that we know. There probably are a lot more that we don't know.

 

The serial killer's sordid career finally came to an end, when he video-taped and aired his 1998 killing of Michigan resident Thomas Youk on CBS's 60 Minute program. Do you wonder where Larry King and 60 Minutes are on the question of assisted suicide? Michigan had banned assisted suicide, so the airing on CBS's 60 Minutes, was all the evidence prosecutors needed to convict Kevorkian, in 1999 of second degree murder with a 10 to 25 yr. sentence.

 

Kevorkian however, was released on parole, after serving only 8 yrs. behind bars. His lawyers claimed that the former pathologist had less than a year to live.

 

HBO will air a documentary entitled, "You Don't Know Jack", starring Al Pacino in a program called "Kevorkian", which premiers on June 28th. Why now?

 

Last year at the University of Florida Kevorkian was a guest lecturer. He said, "Law is an infraction of liberty, and the legislative branch was in the hands of the tyrant." This reflect his strong beliefs that everyone has a right to carry out assisted suicide, but also to smoke marijuana and carry cocaine. Bio-ethicist Wesley Smith commented on his blog, that Kevorkian could perhaps be prosecuted for Adkins murder, given the nature of his admission. "Technically, since there is not statute for limitation for murder, he could be prosecuted for Adkins homicide. Instead, he'll keep getting high level interviews, movies made about him starring Al Pacino, and $50,000 speaking fees at state funded universities. We sure do have a twisted love for outlaws in this country.

 

I couldn't say it better. I might add, all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering, and there's a lot of that going on to legalize assisted suicide.    

Another Event Not to Miss!

Disclose Act - HR 5175

A vote could come as early as tomorrow in the House of Representatives on the Disclose Act - HR 5175.  We will respond to this Act later on in this blog.  Our information comes from National Right to Life (NRLC) who strongly opposes this legislation as we do. 

 

If enacted, incorporated groups like Lake County Right to Life (LCRTL) would have severe restrictions on communication with the public about the actions of their federal lawmakers.  Wow!  Why is the National Rifle Association (NRA) making a deal to remain neutral?  According to press reports, the House of Representatives leadership has added a narrow carve out that will exempt the NRA from some of the key restrictions.  As a payback, the NRA will not be involved in the final version of the bill. The NRLC says this is a "pernicious, unprincipled and unconstitutional"  bill.

 

This bill was crafted in response to the Supreme Court decision on Campaign Finance. This bill  would place severe restrictions on the ability of the average citizen to give money to a group who supports a pro-life candidate.  The citizens giving the money would expose themselves and their families to harassment and intimidation by the government.  It would also place severe reporting requirements on the organization that receives the money.  Layer upon layer of record keeping would be required by the federal government.  If passed, this bill adds 90 additional pages to the 800 federal law pages regulating campaigns and contributions, as well as the Federal Election Commission's 1200 pages of regulations.  That alone would be enough the discourage any organization.

 

The Byzantine regulations of this bill would take effect 30 days after passage without any regulations to guide organizations through the legal minefield this bill would create.  The bill would codify a vague and expansive definition of express advocacy under which any expenditure for public communication that takes a position on a candidates character, qualifications or fitness for office may be deemed as an independent expenditure which would require numerous and burdensome reporting requirements.

 

Take the case of a 75 year old woman with health problems who has religious convictions and donates to a pro-life group for ads for a particular candidate.  That's wonderful, but under this bill, she must appear in the ad and have her name and address posted on the internet.  Once posted, I wonder if she will get the government health care that we have already enacted, or will she be deemed too old?  This is "radio frequency jamming," a technique used by socialist countries to prevent the people from hearing any information other than government information.

    [ 

Why are no other groups urging their membership to oppose this bill?  Why is there no public outcry?  Why is the pro-life movement standing alone once again?   This is why pro-life is single issue.  The movement has stood alone in past times.  This is why alliances are important, but the right to life movement needs to remain single issue only and not be lured to devote valuable time and effort to other causes.  

Urgent: Call Congress To Oppose DISCLOSE Act

The U.S. House of Representatives may vote within days on the so-called "DISCLOSE Act," legislation that would place sweeping new restrictions on the ability of incorporated groups, including pro-life organizations, to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers.
 
According to press reports, the House Democratic leadership has agreed to add a narrow "carve out" that will effectively exempt the National Rifle Association (NRA) from some of the key restrictions in the bill, in return for which the NRA has agreed that it "will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."
 
In a June 15 letter to House members, (click here, click here for the PDF), NRLC reiterated its strong opposition to the bill, which it called "pernicious, unprincipled, and unconstitutional legislation."  Regarding the proposed carve out, "With respect to the National Right to Life Committee, this amendment is not only worthless, but adds insult to injury," the letter said, adding that NRLC's congressional scorecard will describe a vote for the bill as a vote for "a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors."
 
For more details on the danger posed by the "DISCLOSE Act," see the article posted below...

    

 
Press reports indicate that the House Democratic leadership now plans to force a House floor vote on the bill as early as Thursday, June 17.  Please act immediately.  Click the image of the telephone above and enter your zip code into the "Call Now" box.  Then telephone the office of the lawmaker who represents you in the House, using the number you will be shown.  Use the suggested talking points to deliver the message that you are strongly opposed to this bill.  (You don't have to use all of the suggestions -- the important thing is to get the main point across.)

Obama and Top Hill Democrats Push New Bill to Restrict NRLC Communications to the Public

WASHINGTON (June 11, 2010)—President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders are pushing hard for quick enactment of a bill that would place extensive new legal restrictions on the ability of corporations–including incorporated nonprofit citizen groups such as NRLC–to communicate with the public about the actions of federal lawmakers.

NRLC is strongly opposed to the bill, viewing it as a blatant political attack on the constitutional rights of the organization and of its members and donors.

The bill, called the "DISCLOSE Act," was crafted in response to the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down on January 21, 2010. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated federal laws and regulations that had prevented an incorporated group called Citizens United from buying TV ads to promote a movie critical of Hillary Clinton while she was running for president. By a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money on ads or other communications that criticize or praise those who hold or seek federal office.

In previous arguments before the Court, the Obama Administration, represented by the office of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, had argued that the government could prohibit a corporation from disseminating even a book if it contained material that opposed a federal candidate.

The White House and top congressional Democrats have sharply criticized the decision. In his January 27 State of the Union address, which was attended by six Supreme Court justices, President Obama denounced the ruling, saying that it would "open the floodgates for special interests–including foreign corporations–to spend without limit in our elections. ... And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Democratic lawmakers then moved rapidly to craft legislation that is intended to make it as difficult as possible for corporations (including nonprofit, issueoriented corporations such as NRLC) to spend money to communicate with the public about the actions of federal officeholders, while leaving considerably more latitude for labor unions–generally allies of the dominant liberal wing of the Democrats–to take advantage of the Court's ruling. They made clear their determination to try to put the new restrictions into effect as quickly as possible, in order to mute outside organizations as much as possible before the November elections.

The legislation, dubbed the "DISCLOSE Act," was introduced in April by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the arm of the Democratic Party chiefly responsible for helping elect Democrats to the House), and by Senator Charles Schumer (DNY), who is a top contender to become the leader of Senate Democrats if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) loses his re-election campaign in November. The respective bill numbers are H.R. 5175 and S. 3295.

Schumer said that the bill would "make [corporations] think twice" before getting involved in election-related speech. "The deterrent effect should not be underestimated," he said. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Ma.), who voted for the bill at a May 20 committee meeting, said, "I hope it chills out all–not one side, all sides. I have no problem whatsoever keeping everybody out. If I could keep all outside entities out, I would."

But Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, commented in an essay in the June 7 edition of National Review: "That Congress would respond to a Supreme Court decision affirming corporations' freedom of speech by restricting that freedom to an even greater extent than it did before the decision is remarkable. The attempt is unlikely to withstand judicial challenge, but, as Senator Schumer made clear early on, he believes the courts won't have time to rule on the constitutionality of the act before the 2010 election is over."

After quick hearings, a House committee approved the 90-page bill on a party-line vote on May 20. House Democratic leaders had hoped to pass the bill through the House the following week, but they were forced to postpone action due to vigorous lobbying against the bill by an array of organizations, including NRLC, the Family Research Council, the NRA, and the Chamber of Commerce.

At NRL News deadline on June 11, House Democratic leaders remained firm in their determination to push the bill through the House before the end of June, in order to allow time for the Senate to also pass the bill before the start of the traditional congressional recess in August. (See "Take Action Now," at the end of this article.) If the House passes the bill, then "this is going to be a priority" for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) as well, Van Hollen told Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

On May 27, NRLC sent House members a strongly worded, fourpage letter opposing the bill, signed by Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, expressing strong objections to the legislation.

"There is very little in this bill, despite the pretenses [that it merely advances "disclosure"], that is actually intended to provide useful or necessary information to the public," the letter said. "The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions."

"Enactment of such a law is not a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption–a corruption of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves," the letter charged.

The letter also noted that those pushing the bill "hope to ram this legislation into law—including a specific provision making it effective 30 days after enactment, without any interpretative regulations from the Federal Elections Commission—to set up legal minefields that they hope will, for at least a year or more, deter disfavored organizations from effectively communicating with the public about the public policy agenda of the current Administration and of the dominant faction of the majority party of the current Congress."

NRLC also advised lawmakers that key roll call votes on the legislation will be included in NRLC's congressional scorecard for the current Congress.

Click here to read the entire NRLC letter of May 27th.

On June 10, Roll Call reported that Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), a cosponsor of the bill, had proposed that it be amended to exempt certain nonprofit corporations (known as "501c4 corporations"), such as NRLC, from some of the bill's provisions, in an attempt to reduce opposition to the measure. But the article also quoted a prominent backer of the bill, Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, as rejecting such an exemption, saying, "It becomes the loophole that eats the whole purpose and intent of the legislation."

Source: NRLC
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Abortionist at Center of Late-Term Abortion Plan Retreats to Harvard

    
     Abortionist Caryn Dutton

Abortionist Caryn Dutton is leaving the University of Wisconsin and Planned Parenthood Wisconsin to take a job at Harvard University, according to documents uncovered by Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund.  Her departure means that Madison Surgery Center is, for the moment, left without an abortionist to help implement their plans to provide late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center.

"Caryn Dutton was central to plans to provide late-term abortions at the Madison Surgery Center," Virginia Zignego of Pro-Life Wisconsin told LifeSiteNews (LSN).  "[The University of Wisconsin] is saying her departure will mean a change in who provides the service - but from what we know, they don't have anybody else ... who is willing to perform late-term abortions."

Dutton also performs abortions at the local Planned Parenthood clinic in Madison.

Madison Surgery Center (MSC), a joint partnership between Meriter Hospital, the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, and the University of Wisconsin Medical Foundation, had voted to allow late-term abortions at a February 2009 meeting.

Documents obtained by Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund by the Freedom of Information Act raised serious concerns that the late-term abortions were meant to provide the school's medical researchers with newly-harvested fetal body parts for experimentation.

After a barrage of pro-life outrage from across the country, the Attorney General of Wisconsin said that the University of Wisconsin would abandon the plan.  But shortly afterwards, University of Wisconsin Health reaffirmed its dedication to providing late-term abortions.

According to some the continued dedication of the University of Wisconsin to abortion is of dubious legality.  Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Kevin Potter wrote on May 25 to State Auditor Janice Mueller, telling her that the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority may be violating state law by paying resident physicians while they are being trained as abortionists at the Madison Planned Parenthood.

Wisconsin law states that with only a few exceptions no state funds shall be used for performing abortions.  The University of Wisconsin received approximately $457 million from the state of Wisconsin in the fiscal year 2009-2010.

Nevertheless, amid the heavy opposition of pro-lifers and some staff, the plans for late-term abortions at MSC have never been implemented.

"Its great that a Planned Parenthood abortionist is no longer on UW staff," Zignego told LSN.  Four other UW doctors, however, remain under contract with Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin to provide abortion services.

Pro-Life Wisconsin and the Alliance Defense Fund also recently uncovered documents showing that UW intentionally obfuscated their own statements regarding where and when they would try to offer abortions.  Beth Fultz, director of corporate communications for UW health, said of one statement: "Here's the vaguer than vague version 2."

"UW no longer upholds its famous dictum, 'The University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which the truth alone can be found,'" said Zignego, who is a UW graduate. "UW instead aims to obfuscate, slice and dice the truth with the blood of the unborn."

Contact: James Tillman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Young woman chooses baby's life over her own

    
     Martha Motley, Jovan with his son,
     and mother Esmeralda Abreu

The story of Benny Abreu, a young woman from the Dominican Republic, has moved Floridians because of her testimony to motherly love. The Florida woman suffered from serious heart problems and preferred to die rather than abort the baby she was carrying.

Abreu, 25, graduated from Florida Central University at the beginning of May and decided to continue with her pregnancy, knowing that her serious heart condition could lead to complications.

According to Florida's La Prensa newspaper, she never considered the possibility of abortion and saw her pregnancy as a blessing.

"The doctor told her she had to abort if she wanted to survive, but she told him no, that she could not kill her baby and that she was going to continue with her pregnancy," said Martha Motley, the baby's grandmother.

On May 17, Abreu gave birth to her son but her condition worsened. She was transferred to Shands Hospital in Gainesville, which specializes in cardiology, where she died on May 30.

"I knew that she had a medical condition with her heart. I even took her to the doctor on several occasions, but it never entered my mind that she was going to die," said Jovan Toliver, the baby's father. "They (the doctors) said the baby should be delivered early and that she might suffer a little, but I never expected this to happen."

Toliver added, "I have lost a part of me, but the only thing that sustains me is knowing that she never would have wanted me to leave her baby alone and for this reason I have to be strong."

"She was very courageous and never doubted having her baby, even though as a result she had to pay the highest price," Motley, who is Toliver's mother, told reporters. "I know that now she is in God's hands and when she looks down she will see that the best part of her is with us and she'll know that we will always take care of him."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Abortion Recovery Group Unveils Billboard Aimed at Interstate Summer Traffic

    
     A new billboard by Silent No More Minnesota

Today Silent No More Minnesota, whose mission is to reach out to those wounded by abortion, unveiled a new billboard, scheduled for launch July 1 for 3 months on I94 in Albertville, MN....

Timing and location were chosen to take advantage of heavy summer Interstate traffic at a site near MN's largest outlet shopping mall, which is in Albertville.

The billboard, which reads, "Abortion Hurts, There is Hope and Healing," will be the 1st of its kind in MN.

SNM MN president Ann Marie Cosgrove stated in a press release that the billboard has multiple purposes: to bring awareness to those hurting from abortion, especially the unchurched, who may not ever hear a message of hope and healing; to educate the public that abortion causes pain, which also gives the abortion vulnerable pause to reconsider; and to soften hearts of those who think poorly of post-abortive mothers.

Ann Marie would love to keep the billboard up an additional 3 months for those who find their summer flings produced more than fond memories and for college students trekking to and from school.

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

National Secular Society finds ultrasound image of unborn child "horrifying"

National Secular Society finds ultrasound image of unborn child "horrifying"

    
     Image from the new advertisig campaign

Last week the new advertisig campaign being launched this year by a coalition of Protestant Churches was reported. The adverts will show an ultrasound image of an unborn baby with a halo around his head, with the accompanying words: "He's on His way. Christmas starts with Christ."

I was asked by Ruth Gledhill, religious correspondent for The Times, to provide a comment. I said: "This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus."

Ruth Gledhill's article also included a comment from Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, who criticised the image. Mr Sanderson said: "At first glance it looks like a poster for a horror film — perhaps The Omen VI: He's Coming to Get You."

Mr Sanderson's comments are particularly puzzling because this is an ultrasound image, much like those shown to the majority of expectant parents. These images are now an ordinary part of our lives and I am reliably informed that they are even sometimes posted on social networking sites such as 'facebook'.

I am inclined to ask Mr Sanderson: what is it about the image of an unborn child that you find so horrifying?

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC Blog
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Personhood Nevada Denied Right to Circulate Petition

Personhood Nevada Denied Right to Circulate Petition

    

Personhood Nevada, through many legal battles, has been denied the right to circulate their prolife petition in the state. The ACLU joined forces with Planned Parenthood, tying the petition up in court and disallowing the many ready and willing Nevada volunteers their right to circulate the petition.

"We have several issues at the heart of this matter," explained Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA. "First, we have judicial activists ruling against the petition, despite the fact that nearly similar language has been approved in other states. Second, we have the anti-personhood media reporting that we failed to get the required signatures -- when in fact, Personhood Nevada was not allowed to get even ONE signature. This is clearly a case of big money versus the rights of the citizens -- but we're preparing to try again, even stronger than before."

The people's voice in Nevada has been silenced by those who profit from abortion the most -- Planned Parenthood, with over one billion dollars in profit in recent years. Planned Parenthood, in conjunction with the ACLU, are fighting against the rights of Nevada citizens to circulate a petition for a constitutional amendment.

The one-sentence proposed state constitutional amendment states, "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."

James T. Russell, District Judge of Carson City, ruled on January 8, 2010 that the one-sentence amendment was a myriad of subjects. Personhood Nevada appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, but a ruling has yet to be handed down.

"We have volunteer petition circulators who have been waiting for months," added Olaf Vancura, President of Personhood Nevada. "Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the liberal courts have stifled our ability to engage in free speech, legally maneuvering until me miss our statutory deadline, and keeping us from exercising our constitutional rights as Americans and Nevadans. We are determined that no matter how long it takes, we will not be silenced. The personhood petition will be approved, and we will protect all human life in the state of Nevada."

Contact: Olaf Vancura and Keith Mason
Source: Personhood Nevada
Publish Date: June 15, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Louisiana Passes Opt-Out Bill Voiding ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate

    
     Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

The Louisiana State House successfully has passed a measure that will make "the Bayou State" the fourth in the nation to opt-out of the abortion mandates of the recently enacted national health care reform.

Democrats and Republicans in the state Senate approved HB 1247,  the Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act, authored by Representative Frank Hoffman (R-West Monroe), by an overwhelming majority of 28 – 3 on Monday.

H.R. 1247 prohibits abortion coverage by health insurers in the state-run health insurance exchange that is scheduled to go into effect in 2014 as part of President Barack Obama's health care reform law. A provision of the national law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, gives states the explicit right to ban health insurance companies receiving public subsidies under the state health exchange, from providing abortion coverage.

The Louisiana measure has just one exception for insurance companies, permitting abortion in cases where mother's life is in danger from "a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury" including "a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." The law does not permit the killing of unborn children conceived in situations of rape and incest.

The Senate made some changes to the House bill, and therefore the state's House of Representatives is expected to hold a vote within the next few days to approve the amended bill.

The bill's original form as passed by the House would have banned all health insurance providers in Louisiana from offering policies and plans that would pay for abortions. However the Senate committee amended the bill to apply to only those health insurers participating in the state exchanges mandated by the federal health care reform.

In a telephone interview, Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director of Louisiana Right to Life Federation, said that while the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, which amended the House bill, did not allow them to ban private health insurers from providing coverage for abortions, he was not aware of any insurers that cover abortions in Louisiana anyway.

"It won't change much right now, but we certainly would have preferred that and the abortion opt out," he said. "But the committee did not allow us to do that."

Clapper said that the Bioethics Defense Fund did the heavy lifting of drafting the opt-out legislation, but the model opt-out legislation from the National Right to Life Committee gave them the idea of also banning abortion coverage by private insurers.

After the Senate's changes have been approved by the House, the bill will be sent to the desk of Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is expected to sign the measure.

In a separate statement, Clapper praised the Louisiana legislature for taking the opt-out bill over "its final major hurdle," saying that state lawmakers representing the will of the people of Louisiana, "have resoundingly sent a message to our nation that abortion is not health care."

"Once HB 1247 has been stamped by the House and signed by the Governor, we will be at least the 4th state to opt out of abortion subsidies since the President signed his national health care reform bill into law three short months ago on March 23rd," said Clapper. "We have helped initiate a growing state-by-state movement declaring that health care reform should not be used to expand abortion."

Lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, and Tennessee have enacted similar opt-out language for their respective states. Missouri legislators have also passed their own opt-out bill, which is awaiting their governor's signature. Opt-out language was passed by lawmakers in Oklahoma and Florida, but then vetoed by their respective governors.

Oklahoma's Gov. Brad Henry delayed his veto of his state's opt-out bill to the point where the legislature had no time to mount another veto override effort and conclude pressing budgetary matters before the end of the legislative session. Gov. Charlie Crist, who scrubbed the pro-life section of his independent campaign for governor, also vetoed opt-out legislation that also would have required women to receive an ultrasound before going in for an abortion.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 14,2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR TUESDAY

Pro-Life Anti-Constitution Rally Bombed in Kenya

    
     Kenya

A June 13th rally organized by pro-life and religious groups in the Kenyan capital Nairobi was bombed twice, killing six people and injuring more than 100. The police have not identified any motive for the attack, and are offering a reward of half a million shillings for information leading to arrests.

"Any person with information regarding the incident is advised and requested to report to the nearest police or administrative office," said Police Commissioner Mathew Iteere, according to Capital News.
Click here for the entire article.


Lawyer Withdraws From Abortion Clinic Threat Case

    
     Dr. Warren Hern

A lawyer for a man who has twice backed out on proposed plea deals over a threat to a Colorado abortion clinic is asking to withdraw from the case. Weeks after Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was slain last year, Donald Hertz of Spokane, Wash., was accused of calling Dr. Warren Hern's clinic in Boulder, Colo., and threatening to kill members of Hern's family. Hertz's lawyer Dustin Deissner says in documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Denver that Hertz has "cognitive limitations," and he doesn't know if Hertz still intends to plead guilty. Deissner says he's not experienced in criminal trial practice if Hertz goes to trial and that Hertz can't afford to pay Deissner as the case drags on.
Click here for the entire article.


Montgomery Abortion Clinic Agrees To Close

    
     Beacon Women's Center

The Beacon Women's Center, one of seven clinics in Alabama permitted to perform abortions, is closing after state health inspectors found violations in procedures and care of patients. Under an agreement with the state health department, the Montgomery clinic gave up its license, ceased performing abortions and is closing operations this week. Rick Harris, who oversees provider standards for the state health department, said Monday the clinic was cited for numerous violations when patient complaints were checked out. In one instance, 17 abortions were performed without sedation because the key to the medicine cabinet was not on site.
Click here for the entire article.


Pro-Life Group Files Suit Aganist City and Birmingham Police

    
     Birmingham Police

The Life Legal Defense Foundation has filed a lawsuit against the City of Birmingham Alabama and several Birmingham police officers for the outrageous civil rights violations perpetrated against nine young people who were unlawfully arrested in February last year. The team of pro-life activists spent more than 14 hours in jail for simply holding signs and handing out literature on a public sidewalk in front of a local high school.
Click here for the entire article.


Expert urges Mexicans to support candidates committed to life

    
     Mexican Pro-Life Vote

The spokeswoman of the Institute for the Formation of Family Values in Mexico, Claudia Simental Flores, called on Mexicans last week to vote for candidates "who see public office as an opportunity for real service to their constituents," including the protection of life from the moment of conception. In an article published in El Grafico, Flores criticized Mexico City official, Leticia Bonifaz, who said there was a lack of "political will" for the legalization of abortion at the national level.
Click here for the entire article.


Billboards promoting abortion by 'Catholic' group in Mexico taken down

    
     City of Queretaro

Officials in the Mexican city of Queretaro decided this week to take down five ads that were placed on billboards around the city as part of a campaign by "Catholics for a Free Choice" (CFC) attempting to assert that abortion is not punishable by excommunication.

Bishop Felipe Arizmendi of San Cristobal de Las Casas warned that CFC has a biased interpretation of canon 1323 of the Code of Canon Law, which "contains a series of mitigating factors that exonerate not the sin but the penalty imposed by ecclesial legislation."
Click here for the entire article. 

Florida Governor Vetoes Pro-Life Bill

 
    
     Florida Gov. Charlie Crist

Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed an ultrasound bill today that would have allowed abortion-minded women in Florida the chance to see an image of their preborn child.  HB 1143 would have also banned taxpayer funding of abortion.  This is the fourth time an ultrasound bill has been defeated.

More than 63,000 people contacted the governor's office in the days leading up to the veto, with 36,104 of them asking him to please sign the measure.

John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, said the move speaks volumes about Crist's duplicity and lack of trustworthiness.

"He has lost all credibility as a public official," he said in a statement.  "With this veto he demonstrates to Floridians that his representations on policy issues mean little to nothing.  Even his often-stated commitment as a populist for 'the people' is apparently meaningless, as the majority of Floridians are pro-life and support the bill as evidenced by the overwhelming show of support."

This week, Crist's website was purged of all mentions of his stand on life issues.  The Republican is running for the U.S. Senate as an independent.

"He has now gone full circle from being 'pro-choice' in his original U.S. Senate bid," said Stemberger, "to being 'pro-life' in his bid for governor and now he has clearly defined himself as pro-abortion once again."

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Terri Schiavo's foundation sued by Michael Schiavo

    
     Banner for the Terri Schindler Foundation

Over 5 years after the very public, tragic and court-ordered execution of Terri Schindler Schiavo, the Schindler family still fights Terri's husband who sought and secured legal permission to murder his disabled wife by dehydration. Michael Schiavo, Terri's former husband, accuses Terri's family of trying to exploit her saga by raising money for the foundation named after her, and the media has been too happy to accommodate his platform and buttress his attacks.

Started while Terri was still alive as Terri's Fight, the foundation assists other disabled members of our society who may be deprived of their legal rights and medical care. The organization is run by Terri's mother, Mary Schindler, her brother, Bobby Schindler, who serves as the spokesman for the organization, and Terri's sister, Suzanne Schindler Vitadamo. The Schindler family began the foundation to defray the legal expenses and the costs of providing Terri the rehabilitative treatment and medical care of which Michael barbarically deprived her to thwart her recovery.

Following Terri's painful involuntary euthanasia death in 2005, the Schindler family changed the name to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, and the organization has only has raised a modest amount of money, less than 6 figures, to support disabled people like her. Through the foundation, www.TerrisFight.org, Terri's family has fielded countless calls from Texans due to the draconian Texas Advance Directives Act (Chapter 166.046 of the Health and Safety Code). The foundation has assisted TX Right to Life in our efforts to protect the disabled from the denial and withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment.

Michael Schiavo claims that a court document gives him rights to the name Terri Schiavo, and he alleges that no one can use her name without his permission. His attorney has written to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, instructing Terri's family to cease and desist using her name. Peculiarly, the man who denied Terri rehabilitative treatment because he wanted the money left for her medical care to himself, is now accusing Terri's family of profiteering with her name.

Ironically, Michael attempted to profit politically from Terri's death, by starting a political action committee, called Terri's PAC, to oppose "Bible-thumping politicians" who fought to protect her life. Eventually, the FEC closed down his PAC after repeated fines for late reports and violation of reporting guidelines.

No member of the Schindler is making any money of Terri's name, and Bobby's annual salary is under $40k. All the honorariums and fees earned as an international spokesman for the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation are paid to the foundation. Suzanne has not been paid any wages for over a year, and Terri's mom will not take any money for the endless hours she spends at the foundation office helping families.

Despite a 2008 exemplary audit by the IRS, the foundation and family still fend off such attacks. The media, and even Fox's "Family Guy," spin the story of the foundation's work, ignoring the facts and the low level of finances at issue in Schiavo's recent "wolf" cry.

At another level, TX Right to Life and the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation remind these irresponsible journalists, Michael Schiavo, and the rest of the world of their limitations and mortality. They may pray that they never have to live "like that," but organizations like ours will defend them from legal execution when other journalists pontificate about their diminished quality of life.

Source: Texas Right to Life via Pro-Life Blogs
Publish Date: June 14, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Woman sues Church of Scientology for forced abortions, human trafficking

    
     Church of Scientology

There have been allegations made against the Church of Scientology for forcing its workers to get abortions.

On June 13 the St. Petersburg Times published findings of a significant investigation it conducted.

claire headley.jpgThe exposé includes information about a federal lawsuit filed in January 2009 by former Scientology member Claire Headley, who alleges church leaders forced her to undergo 2 abortions and also violated human trafficking laws.

Clearwater, FL, is home to one of the church's "2 most important operations, its spiritual headquarters," according to The Times, the other being its "500-acre international management base in the desert 80 miles east of Los Angeles."...

     
     Headley with husband Marc and 1 of 2 sons.

Headley, who left the organization in 2005 with her husband Marc (both pictured above with 1 of their 2 sons), alleges pregnant mothers were forced to endure increased manual labor if holding out against abortion.

Headley's complaint also requests a permanent injunction against the church, "prohibiting Defendants and their agents for ordering and/or coercing abortions with respect to their employees." That would be good.

RealityBasedCommunity.com reports Headley's suit "comes well corroborated" with at least 4 affidavits or statements made since 1986 by other Scientology members making the same accusation. RBC.com concludes:

    Claire's claim would seem to have a decent chance of success at trial, assuming she can prove her allegations to a jury; but if history is an accurate indicator, Scientology will go to significant lengths to make sure it doesn't get that far. Miles to go before we sleep, but the vehicle is promising for a change.

The Times also included a sad video story featuring 2 women aside from Headley accusing the church of forcing them to abort...


Click here for the video.

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

Rep. Smith Vows to Oppose Military Abortions in Defense Bill

      
     Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) has vowed to block an amendment to the FY 2011 Department of Defense Authorization bill that would permit abortions in military medical facilities.  The amendment would destroy a ban on abortion in military facilities that has existed since 1996.

"Our military facilities should be a place of hope and healing, not intentional destruction of innocent human life," said Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04). "This amendment will mean that as many as 260 military medical facilities worldwide will now be in the abortion business."

The outgoing, Blagojevich-appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) introduced the amendment in the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The committee voted 15-12 to include it in the bill on May 27, the same day that they voted to include a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy in the military. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was the sole committee Democrat to vote against the bill.

Unlike the case of DADT, however, the version of the Defense Authorization bill passed last month by the House of Representatives does not contain language like that of the Burris Amendment.  Smith expects that the House will not accept the legislation if it returns from the Senate with the Burris amendment.

"We will stand very firm," said Smith. "I believe there will be an overwhelming vote in the House to keep our military hospitals as nurturing centers, not abortion mills."

In 2006, a similar amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews to allow abortion in overseas military facilities was defeated 237-191.

Some have defended the amendment on the grounds that it both requires women to pay for abortions with their own dollars and does not require doctors to perform them.

"It's only done on a voluntary basis by a doctor," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). "There's no requirement, in other words, that doctors in military hospitals perform the abortions, but it authorizes them [if] they are prepaid, no expense to the government."

NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations argued similarly, stating that the Burris amendment would "simply repeal the dangerous ban on privately funded abortion care and allow U.S servicewomen to use their own private dollars to obtain abortion services at U.S. military facilities."

As Rep. Smith told Fox News, however, such a bill would still amount to the subsidizing of abortion.

"When we hire abortionists, when we provide operation rooms and recovery rooms and nurses, all of whom would participate in the killing of that child and wounding of that mother by the way of abortion, that is facilitation, that is public funding," Smith said.

The 1996 ban, which contains exceptions in case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, had been put in place after President Clinton signed a memorandum permitting abortions at military facilities in 1993.  This memorandum was in turn upsetting a Reagan-era ban on abortions in military facilities.

The Senate is likely to vote on the Defense Authorization bill later this month.

Contact: James Tillman
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 12, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Courageous Mom Refuses to Abort her Twins

    
     Missy Davert's Facebook Photo

This week it was reported that a recent episode of 'Facing Life Head On', the weekly US pro-lifeTV show, has been nominated for a regional Emmy award. The episode, 'Little Miracles', tells the story of Missy Davert, a woman only two feet, eleven inches tall, who successfully gave birth to twins. Missy also has a condition called osteogenesis imperfecta, brittle bone disease.

The episode is very moving. While pregnant Missy knew that as her children grew there was a high possibility that they would put her life at risk by interferring with her heart or lungs. Missy met with several doctors who advised her to abort at least one of her children. This was never an option that she was prepared to consider and she was greatly relieved when she met Dr Daniel Wechter, a specialist in crisis pregnancies, who committed to helping her through her pregancy.

Reflecting on her pregnancy Missy says:

    God gave us both of these beuatiful children. I look at them today and think: which one of them wouldn't have been here if we'd made that decision?

Her reflection evokes the beautiful testimony of Andrea Bocelli, the famous classical singer, whose mother was advised to have an abortion.

Missy and her husband Ken will be forever grateful to the incredible care they received from Dr Wechter during the course of their pregnancy. Dr Wechter is a fantastic example to doctors and other medical professionals, who are coming under increasing pressure to practice their profession according to the prevailing anti-life principles of our time.

Missy and Ken's children, Austin and Michaela, are now eleven years old. They share their mother's similar courageous embrace of life. Michaela and Austin are both honour-roll students and Austin uses his spare time to fly aeroplanes!

Click here to watch this remarkable story.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC Blog
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Creators of "A Baby's First Months: Infinite Possibilities" Win Two Bronze Telly Awards

    
     The Telly Award

Rucinski & Reetz Communication, LLC, creators of "A Baby's First Months: Infinite Possibilities," has been notified by the 31st Annual Telly Awards that the company has been awarded two Bronze Telly Awards. One award is for scriptwriting and the other for video production. "A Baby's First Months: Infinite Possibilities" is one of over 13,000 entries from all 50 states and countries.

Telly was founded in 1978, and honors outstanding TV and video productions. Annual Telly awards showcase the best work of the most respected advertising agencies, production companies, television stations, cable, and corporate video departments in the world.

"A Baby's First Months: Infinite Possibilities" is a spectacularly breathtaking DVD which is available from the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.

While there have been many attempts over the years to convey the beauty of the unborn child's development, Infinite Possibilities immediately jumped to the front of the line.

Pam Rucinski not only wrote the script for the six-minute DVD, she also produced and directed.

"I filled a waste basket with script ideas before it dawned on me that I was trying to say too much," said Rucinski. "The next script took the form of a dance elegantly performed by mother and unborn child. I wanted viewers to lose themselves in the breathtaking moments of their first days of life."

Telly Award winners are in good company. Winners include prestigious names like Discovery, Harpo Studios (Oprah's studio), Warner Bros., The Weather Channel, Disney Destinations, PGA Tours just to name a few.

Rucinski & Reetz Communication has won four other Telly Awards over the years.

A Baby's First Months... Infinite Possibilities from Wisconsin Right to Life on Vimeo.

Click here to view the video.

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

NEWS SHORTS FOR MONDAY

Dozens of Teenage Girls Have Had Three Abortions or More

    
     Screen Capture from the
     Marie Stopes TV ad.

Government data have disclosed that 89 girls aged 17 or under who terminated a pregnancy last year had had at least two abortions previously. The head of Britain's largest abortion provider said many young women were living chaotic lives that meant they could not organise contraception. Christian doctors said the statistics demonstrated the failure of liberal sex education policies. The Department of Health figures for 2009 show that, for the first time, more than a third (34 per cent) of abortions were performed on women who had already ended one or more pregnancies.
Click here for the entire article.


`Baby Killer Drug' Available Through Video Link

Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa are first in the nation to use this program

    
     Telemedicine

Like all of the 16 Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Ames offers abortion drugs to women desiring to end a pregnancy. As one would expect, a nurse begins the process with blood tests, a medical history, an exam and an ultrasound, along with counseling on matters such as what to expect from the procedure and plans for a follow-up. But then comes a twist. Since the clinic's closest licensed physician is in Des Moines, the attending doctor receives the patient's exam results via computer, and instead of meeting face to face, the doctor and the patient (at all times accompanied by the nurse) meet by videoconference over a private network.
Click here for the entire article.


N.J. Assembly Committee To Consider Bill Allowing Adoptees Access To Original Birth Certificates

    
     Joe DeGironimo

This is similar to the legisation that was going through Illinois not too long ago.

Every two years for the past three decades, a relentless group of people has told lawmakers their most personal stories in a plea for the most personal of details: They were adopted and they desperately want to know more about their background. Every time, their emotional efforts have failed to overcome lawmakers' contention that their birth mothers expected privacy. Then the legislation that would have allowed them to obtain their original birth certificates dies. Supporters are hoping their losing streak ends Monday when the Assembly's Human Services Committee convenes to debate and presumably approve the bill.
Click here for the entire article.


Doctors Should Warn of IVF Defect Risk, Says Report

   
    Fertilization treatment

Geneticists urge medical professionals to highlight possibility of malformation for children of couples using fertilisation treatment. Doctors should warn couples attempting to have children through fertilisation treatment that there is a small risk that the child will suffer some sort of malformation, geneticists said today. Scientists in France looked at the records for over 15,000 children born as a result of treatment in 33 fertility centres and found that more than 4% of them had some sort of major congenital malformation.
Click here for the entire article.


99.84% of messages to government oppose Marie Stopes abortion ad

    
     Lord Alton of Liverpool

Yesterday in Parliament Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received since 15 May about barring television advertisements for abortion services.

The response of Lord Shutt of Greetland, deputy chief whip in the House of Lords, was:

    At 26 May, 603 pieces of electronic correspondence have been received from members of the public about television advertisements for post-conception advice services. Five pieces of correspondence on the same subject have been received from MPs, and none has been received from Members of the House of Lords. Of the total received, 607 representations oppose the showing of television advertisements for post-conception advice services, including abortion services.
Click here for the entire article.


Lavish Women Deliver Meet Hijacks MDG 5, Delivers Muted but Aggressive Push for Worldwide Abortion

    
     2010 Women Deliver conference

The 2010 Women Deliver conference in the U.S. capital this week offered a rare glimpse into the heart of the pro-abortion, pro-contraception, and population-control movement in its many facets. The conference drew international UN and political leaders to a 3-day marathon on several topics tied together by one ambitious theme: using Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, the reduction of maternal mortality, to promote contraception and the dismantling of pro-life laws around the world.
Click here for the entire article.

Conference sponsored by UN agencies tramples on citizens' rights.

Every day it seems Americans lose more and more of their rights. Political speech is limited in ways that would be unimaginable to our Founding Fathers. Bills are passed that slash life-saving medical treatment for the elderly and disabled. Unborn babies are denied the basic right to life.

Now several taxpayer-funded groups have done the unthinkable: censoring even information about unborn babies.

    
     NRLC materials being confiscated by "Women Deliver" staff.

At the "Women Deliver" international conference held in Washington D.C. June 7-9, National Right to Life volunteers passed out information in pink bags proclaiming the message "Celebrate Motherhood." The conference was supposedly dedicated to exploring ways to decrease the mortality of mothers delivering their babies. But pro-abortion groups have all but taken over United Nations affiliated organizations, and have no intention of hearing from anyone "Celebrating Motherhood."

The conference hosts stood inside the entrance of the Washington Convention Center, confiscated the bags and threw them into the trash. The Conference attendees were told that the information inside the bags – including beautiful pictures of unborn babies – was "anti-human rights," "anti-life" and "anti-woman."

Sponsors of the conference included the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the U.S. government's USAID program, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Planned Parenthood, all of which receive funding from U.S. taxpayers.

That is taxpayer-funded censorship right in our nation's capital!

Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: June 10, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Pro-Life Emmy Nomination

    
     Facing Life Head-On TV program

It's not every day a pro-life television show is nominated for an Emmy Award, but that's just what happened this week. Our own weekly broadcast, Facing Life Head-On, captured the attention of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences! We're one of four nominees in the Ohio Valley Chapter's "Interview/Discussion Program" category. We find out how the judges voted at a black-tie awards ceremony July 31.

This is great news—not just for us, but for the whole pro-life community. We live in a society where, if abortion is mentioned on TV, it's almost always accompanied with a veil of lies. Four years ago, we set out to change that trend, and we're succeeding!

In a short time, Facing Life Head-On began airing on cable and satellite networks across the US and Canada, reaching more than 100 million homes each week. Viewers often write in to tell us the show changed their way of thinking about the life issues—matters like abortion, adoption, stem cell treatments and end-of-life care. Women are choosing life for their unborn babies. Parents are moving forward with the adoption of special needs children. Young people are getting empowered with the information they need to speak out.

Putting together a show like this takes a big investment, but our hard work is paying off. Though we'd certainly love to win that Emmy, our greater mission is to win the hearts and minds of America. This is proving to be a successful way of doing it!

If you'd like to be a part of the journey, please visit www.facinglife.tv to learn more about the program and help us broadcast more shows that change—and even save—lives. You can also watch the full episodes online.

Contact: Bradley Mattes
Source: Life Issues Institute
Publish Date: June 11, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.

Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws

Top theme of conference: "unsafe abortion" the "most important cause" of maternal mortality

    
  
A Wedesday panel at the 2010 Women Deliver conference provided a fascinating peek into the pro-abortion lobby's logical gymnastics regarding their "harm-reduction" strategy for advancing abortion worldwide. While saying the strategy treats the choice of abortion as "value-neutral" in order to push the provision of better abortion facilities, the panelists went on to admit that the method was little more than a "facade" to push their own "value" of expanded abortion.

A real-world analysis of the harm-reduction strategy was provided by Leonel Priozzo, Director of Strategic Programming for Uruguay's Ministry of Health. Although abortion is illegal in Uruguay, Priozzo boasted that the "harm reduction" mantra had helped public opinion become more favorable toward abortion in his country.

Priozzo briefly claimed that "unsafe abortion was the most important cause" of maternal mortality - the top theme of the Women Deliver conference. However, as confirmed by a crucial Lancet study released in April, pro-life leaders have repeatedly said that illegal abortion has little if anything to do with maternal mortality, which is most heavily dependent on other factors such as average income and trained medical professionals aiding at birth.

Despite the altruistic introduction, the remainder of Priozzo's presentation, and those of the other panelists, focused heavily on using the strategy simply to change the social and political climate in favor of abortion.

Priozzo revealed figures showing that, under his counrty's harm-reduction model, over half (55%) the women coming to the agency eventually choose to kill thier unborn child while only 21% follow up to say they will keep their baby. 13.8% do not follow up.

"The political target of our harm reduction model is important," he noted, "and in this decade, our model advanced to force legal change by means of less resistance."  Priozzo attributed the harm-reduction approach to the Uruguay Congress approving in 2008 a bill legalizing abortion, which was vetoed by president Tabare Vazquez.

    

Dr. Joanne Csete, an associate professor at Columbia University, took the notion in a broader strategic context, defining harm reduction as "the idea that we will focus on the harms of this behavior, in this case the health-related harms, but we will not so much worry about the behavior itself," and "will not judge the behavior" or "worry about whether people abstain eventually from the behavior or not."

Csete said that a good model to follow for applying "harm reduction" to abortion was the UN's strategy for illegal drug use, which has prompted the organization to fund the distribution of clean needles for drug users. In another example, she bashed the 12-step approach to overcoming harmful behavior, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, for moralizing and having "done a very good job of convincing people that God is on their side." Csete claimed that simply controlling the timing and type of alcohol consumption is enough to "stabilize the lives of a lot of people who live with alcohol dependency."

However, because the harm-reduction model could be used to advocate for laws that bar such behavior, said the professor, it is sometimes necessary to make the concept "broader" by focusing on "the harms of criminalization of drug use" which can "cause drug users to spend a lot of time in prison" among other detriments, such as stifling information.

"Certainly we can't really talk in this framework about the excitement of drug use or the pleasure of drug use - those are completely verboten topics," she said, comparing the situation to the taboo surrounding contraception and sex.

To be successful in overturning pro-life laws, she concluded, the harm-reduction strategy must be linked to a "human rights" perspective demanding the decriminalizaiton of abortion, a theme resumed by University of Toronto professor Joanna Erdman.

"The evidence on criminal abortion laws causing harm is so overwheling that it becomes exceedingly difficult not to argue for law reform under a harm reduction model," claimed Erdman. "[A] human rights [approach will] provide us with the necessary moral grounding to say that prohibition is not only irrational as causing harm, it's impermissible. It's unacceptable."

A few commenting audience members following the panelists' presentations shed further light on the tenor of the session: one IPPF representative said that the "right to information" and doctor/patient "confidentiality" - i.e., prohibiting doctors to reveal when an abortion has been committed - are "definitely the most important" places to begin change.

Another revealing moment came when a pro-abortion advocate in the audience referred to an East Timor bill in which abortion would be legal "in cases where [a woman's] physical and mental health were to be affected - which as you all know can be broadly interpreted when need be" - and the panelists nodded in agreement.

In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.

"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: June 9, 2010
Link to this article.
Send this article to a friend.