KS Judge Orders Grand Jury to Convene in Tiller Late-Term Abortion-Maternal Death Case

Real Womens' Voices Speak Up Against Abortion on Pro-Life Lobbying Day

South Dakota Abortion Advocates Halfway to Banning the Ban 

Long-Term HRT 'Ups Cancer Risk'

Bush Tells Graduates "Don't Become Slaves of Technology"

Roe Attorney: Use Abortion to "Eliminate"  Certain Groups...

 KS JUDGE ORDERS GRAND JURY TO CONVENE IN TILLER LATE-TERM ABORTION DEATH CASE. The announcement comes after county residents filed more than 7,000 petitions calling for an investigation. The Kansas Board of Healing Arts (KBHA), which regulates doctors and abortion practitioners, refused to bring forth any charges against Tiller in the January 2005 death of 19 year-old Christin Gilbert of Texas. After Gilbert suffered from complications from the abortion, Tiller's staff contacted 911 but asked that an ambulance not turn on its lights or sirens to not raise suspicion. The autopsy report indicated Gilbert died from complications from the abortion. Proceedings in the case could last as long as three months and Tiller's attorney says the grand jury investigation is a waste of taxpayer funds. Tiller  is a large campaign contributor to pro-abortion candidates, including Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who intervened in the investigation. The KBHA is appointed by the governor. Troy Newman [head of Operation Rescue who has been helping collect signatures]: "It is time for an impartial investigation of Tiller by those who are not politically, professionally, or socially associated with him." Though her parents took her for the abortion, another member of Gilbert's family said she would not have wanted the abortion. Gilbert had Down Syndrome. Tiller sent Gilbert to a local hotel after the abortion "even though her condition was worsening" following the botched abortion. [http://www.lifenews.com/state1634.html, Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3May06, Wichita]

REAL WOMEN'S VOICES SPEAK UP AGAINST ABORTION ON PRO-LIFE LOBBYING DAY. Saying that they represent the real voices of women on issues like abortion and stem cell research, a couple hundred women representing walked the halls of Congress 26Apr to lobby lawmakers and learn tips on successful lobbying form leading pro-life organizations. They told members of Congress that groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't represent their views. "We were impressed to see a diverse group of enthusiastic pro-life women travel to Capitol Hill from 23 states" said Karen Cross [political dir, National Right to Life], including CA, WY, ME, FL, NY, AL, and GA." The "female citizen-lobbyists represent the millions of real women" who want Congress to vote on upholding parental notification on abortion and a ban on human cloning," Cross added. Wendy Wright [pres, Concerned Women for America] agreed and said the participants told lawmakers they want "common-sense legislation on abortion." "We hear senators claim they want to ‘reduce the number of abortions,'" Wright said. She indicated pro-life women presented "the opportunity for them to prove it, telling senators to pass laws restricting abortionists from taking advantage of young women." Before dispersing to lobby members of Congress, the women heard presentations from leading pro-life officials, including pro-life Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas and pro-life Rep. Melissa Hart, also of Pennsylvania. Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council was one of many women representing pro-life groups that went to Capitol Hill to make their voices heard. "This is the civil rights issue of our day, and women's voices are leading the way toward change," she said. "As we look ahead to the 2006 Congressional elections, we are here to tell Congress that real women want a real response to pro-life issues." This is the second year that the pro-life groups have co-sponsored the event. Other leading groups that put the women's lobbying day together include the Susan B. Anthony List, Democrats for Life of America and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign.[http://www.lifenews.com/nat2228.html, Ertelt, LifeNews.com, 28Apr06, DC]

SOUTH DAKOTA ABORTION ADVOCATES HALFWAY TO BANNING THE BAN on 11/06 Ballot. Planned Parenthood, which runs the only abortion business in the state, decided to try to defeat the SD abortion ban at the polls first before taking it to court. Pro-abortion activists have been fanning out across the state to obtain the 17,000 petition signatures they need to put the ban before voters and they have more than 10,000 signatures so far. They must turn in enough signatures to the Secretary of State's office by June 19 to qualify their initiative to repeal the abortion ban. The law is slated to go into effect on July 1 and if Planned Parenthood and its supporters fail to get enough signatures, they will likely file a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the law while a case proceeds. [9May06, LifeNews.com]

BUSH TELLS GRADUATES, “DON’T BECOME SLAVES TO TECHNOLOGY” He warns against Speaking at a commencement ceremony at Oklahoma State University, US President George W. Bush warned graduates against the “manipulations of life that violate human dignity” and of the perils of a technology uncontrolled by moral and humanistic values. “Science offers the prospect of eventual cures for terrible diseases — and temptations to manipulate life and violate human dignity,” Bush said.  "With the Internet, you can communicate instantly with someone halfway across the world — and isolate yourself from your family and your neighbors."
The president told graduates to keep in mind that while technological advances will “transform lives… they will present you with profound dilemmas.”  He advised the graduates, “Harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. My advice is that science serves the cause of humanity and not the other way around.” President’s remarks: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060506-2.html [8May06, LifeSiteNews.com, Hilary White]

WASHINGTON PHARMACY BOARD TO REVAMP CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. Despite protests from abortion advocates that it is too strong already, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy is going to spend another month to revamp a pharmacists' conscience clause it drafted. The new version may be stronger and provide more protections for pharmacists who don't want to distribute drugs that violate their religious or moral beliefs. The state board had already drafted a proposal that would allow pharmacists to opt out of dispensing a certain drug as long as another pharmacist is on hand to fill it and provided the pharmacist has told his employer he will want to opt out. But on Tuesday, the board met for another public meeting to gather input in Kent and was supposed to review the draft and approve it. Instead, the members voted to create another draft that gives pharmacists more rights. The board is expected to choose between the two proposals at a June 1 meeting. [5May06, LifeNews.com]

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS TOSSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE. In Smelt v. Orange County, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge brought by same-sex marriage advocates. Liberty Counsel defended the case on behalf of Campaign for California Families, which was granted defendant-intervenor status. The case began when Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer filed a federal lawsuit against the Orange County Clerk seeking a same-sex marriage license and claiming that the California Marriage Laws and Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") violate their rights of Equal Protection, Due Process, Privacy and Freedom of Speech provisions under the United States Constitution. The Court abstained from ruling on the state law claims because the state law challenge is currently pending in the California state courts. The Court noted that marriage has always been of paramount importance to the state and the state has always regulated the institution. The Court therefore said it must give deference to the state. The Court then ruled that the same-sex plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the federal DOMA. The Court ruled that no state has determined that they are married. "Were they to change their residence to Massachusetts, their situation might change," the Court said. Since they have not been recognized as being married, they lacked standing to challenge the federal DOMA. Liberty Counsel President and General Counsel Mathew D. Staver stated, "The federal courts should defer to state courts and the state courts should defer to state legislatures. The people, not the courts, should determine marriage policy. Recent statistics have shown that in those jurisdictions that have adopted same-sex marriage, very few same-sex couples are rushing to the altar. Same-sex advocates want same-sex marriage not to get married but to radically redefine marriage and upset the culture. Same-sex marriage would drastically alter our society and hurt children. We must move forward with the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment to ensure that every state in the union protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman." [LifeSiteNews.com, 8May06]

PREGNANT SCHOOLGIRL, 12, who is about to become Britain's youngest mum is pleading with social work bosses to let her keep her baby. The girl, who was aged just 11 when she became pregnant, fears the infant may be taken into care when it is born. The West Lothian youngster is due to give birth in a few weeks, breaking the record set by Jenny Teague, of Dorset, who had a baby aged 12 years and nine months in 1997. But she told the Scottish Sun that social workers had warned her she may not be allowed to keep her baby. The paper has reported that they told her the house she shares with her mother and five brothers and sisters may be too small, and needed decorating. Now she is hoping to get the chance to look after her child. She told the newspaper: "I just need the chance to prove myself - I know I can be a good mum. "I'm willing to do whatever it takes to keep my baby, I don't know how I'd cope if I lost it." And she added: "I feel like I'm being picked on because of my age but I love kids and I think being a mum will come naturally. If they take my baby away from me and my family I'll end up really depressed." The news that the youngster is to become the UK's youngest mum led to calls for better sex education [by some]. [13 May 2006, http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA51761521147508083A00?source=PA%20Feed]
 

ROE ATTORNEY: USE ABORTION TO 'ELIMINATE POOR': In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country. A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.
Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.
The missive turned up in an exhibit put together by the watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, which has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on the abortion drug RU-486, notes James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population."
He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country." Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.
"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican." Weddington explained he was "not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion."
He points to President Clinton and his soon-to-be first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "perfect example."
"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do." "Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible." Weddington then argued that with 30 million abortions up to that point since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, America is a much better place. "Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario," he said. "We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left...The biblical exhortation to 'be fruitful and multiply' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies," he argued. "We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies."
In his postscript, Weddington said: "I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book, "A Question of Choice" (Grosset/Putnam, 1992) I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret."
The Weddingtons divorced in 1974.
Their client in the 1973 case, Norma McCorvey, recently attempted to challenge the ruling that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, arguing changes in law and new scientific research make the prior decision "no longer just." Commenting on a 2004 court ruling dismissing the challenge, Sarah Weddington said those who filed it "got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved." After announcement of McCorvey's challenge, Weddington received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe decision. [13May06, WorldNetDaily.com, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50191

JUDGE SAYS ANTI-PROSTITUTION PLEDGE FOR FEDERAL FUNDS VIOLATES FREE SPEECH. A U.S. District judge has ruled that it is a violation of free speech rights for USAID/US gov't to require organizations that fight AIDS to sign a pledge opposing prostitution in order to receive federal funds. This means that American funds may go to those that aid sex trafficking.
Ruling from New York, Judge Victor Marrero issued a preliminary injunction that will prevent USAID from demanding the pledges. The case is expected to be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The ruling does not strike down the original statute that places restrictions on who can receive federal funds to fight AIDS but instead applies only to the USAID's application of that statute.
In May 2003, Congress passed the United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (Global AIDS Act) and in December 2003, it passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The Global AIDS Act bars the use of federal funds to "promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking." TVPRA also requires that recipient organizations of anti-trafficking funds state that they do "not promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution."
Initially, the restrictions only applied to foreign nongovernmental organizations. However, in June 2005, USAID released its most recent policy directive on the "Anti-Prostitution Loyalty Oath" requiring all foreign and U.S.-based NGOs to have anti-prostitution and anti-sex trafficking policies before they are eligible to receive U.S. global AIDS funding.
The Alliance for Open Society International (OSI) and Pathfinder International brought the suit against USAID. OSI, which is funded by billionaire liberal activist George Soros, asserted that the policy is unconstitutional as it requires private organizations to adopt the government's position.
In his ruling Marrero said the U.S. Supreme Court "has repeatedly found that speech, or an agreement not to speak, cannot be compelled or coerced as a condition of participation in a government program." He said USAID's pledge requirement "impermissibly discriminates based on viewpoint and compels speech . . . it also violates the First Amendment. . . . Given these circumstances, the court finds that plaintiffs have made the necessary showing of irreparable harm."
Rebekah Diller, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, believes the judge's ruling will have widespread implications. "I think it will have broad impact. It's clear from the decision that government cannot under the First Amendment force organizations to make ideological pledges in order to be eligible to participate in government programs. And it's also clear that the government can't restrict the privately funded speech of organizations with which it partners in government programs," she said. But she may have oversold the result. Some legal analysts note that the scope of the ruling is narrow, leaves the Congressional legislation intact and applies only to the two plaintiffs. Also, since the decision comes from a lower court it may be overturned soon. [C-Fam (212) 754-5948   www.c-fam.org  Friday Fax Volume 9, Number 21 By Mark Adams, 12 May06] 

LONG-TERM HRT 'UPS CANCER RISK'.  Long-term use of oestrogen-only hormone replacement therapy (HRT) does increase the risk of breast cancer, a major study suggests. The US study comes just weeks after research appeared to rule out any connection in the short to medium term. Oestrogen-only HRT is usually reserved for women who have had hysterectomies, as it increases womb cancer risk.  The latest study, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, examined data on nearly 29,000 women.
Research has suggested that HRT using a combination of the hormones oestrogen and progestogen may increase the risk of breast cancer. And some studies have also suggested a similar risk is associated with the oestrogen-only form.
However, a study of more than 10,000 women by Stamford University published last month found no evidence of any increased risk in women who used the therapy for up to seven years.
The latest study, by Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, followed a group of female nurses who took part in a long-term study which began in 1976.
Throughout the study period, 934 women developed invasive breast cancers. Of these 226 had never used hormones, and 708 had used oestrogen therapy.
The longer a woman used oestrogen, the higher her risk of breast cancer appeared to be.
Those who had been taking oestrogen for fewer than 10 years did not appear to have a higher risk than those who had never taken hormones.
But those who had been taking the hormone for more than 20 years had a significantly increased risk.
Henry Scowcroft, of the charity Cancer Research UK, said it was likely that that oestrogen-only HRT slightly increased a woman's chances of breast cancer when used over a long period.
He said a major study by the charity published in 2003 estimated that over 10 years, oestrogen-only HRT would lead to five additional breast cancers for every 1,000 women taking the treatment.
This compared with an estimated extra 19 breast cancers per 1,000 women taking combined HRT.
But he added: "HRT still remains an effective short-term treatment for relief of menopausal symptoms."
Emma Taggart, of the charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: "Women should be aware that not all the causes of breast cancer are known and it's likely to be a combination of several factors which interact to increase risk.
"Whether to start or continue taking HRT needs to be an informed choice made with the help of a GP and should be reviewed every year."
Liz Carroll, of the charity Breast Cancer Care, agreed that women should discuss treatment options with their doctor. But she added: "All women should be breast aware, by knowing how their breasts normally look and feel and reporting any changes immediately. "The risk of breast cancer increases with age whether you take HRT or not." [Archives of Internal Medicine; 8May06, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4983940.stm]