FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES" IN THE LEFT MENU...

Commentary: Christmas Caroling in LA Abortion Centers

Commentary: The Beginning of The End of Abortion

Abortion Advocates Try to Disprove Study on Abortion-Mental Health Problems

  Ethics Investigation Launched Into Iowa Attorney General's Conduct In Telemed Abortion Scandal

Pro-Life Groups Oppose Plans to Bring Abortion Back To Wichita

The Dark Side of Biotech: Expert Details Grisly Fate of Fetal Body Parts

Video Clip of Last Surviving Founding Member of NARAL

Judge Grants MA Abortionist Early Release - Parole Board Said Osathanondh Shows No Remorse for Killing Client

Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License Permanently

Groundbreaking Program Saves Babies When Moms Reconsider in Mid-Abortion Procedure / What Happens in Vegas Is NOT Staying in Vegas: Late-Term Abortion Reversal Process Now Available in Chicago Area / UPDATE: Saving Babies After an Abortion Starts

Abortion, Conscience Clauses, And the Practice of Medicine

Commentary: Persons NOT Property: An African-American Pastor Discusses Abortion

The Case AGAINST the U.N. Women’s Treaty

WHO Study Finds 30% Drop in Deaths From "Unsafe", i.e. Illegal, Abortions

  United States Sees 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973

Survey: 300 “Doctors” Do Late Abortions, 140 When Baby Feels Pain

Just as Tobacco Industry Denied Scientific Evidence for Decades, So Now the Abortion/Pharmaceutical Industries Deny Mounting Breast Cancer Link

Abortion Linked to Preterm Birth, But Why Aren't Women Being Told?

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Sees Billboard Focusing on Blacks & Abortion

Commentary: Thankful For … a Late-Term Abortionist

Iowan City Council Unanimously Votes to Stop Carhart Late-Term Abortion Plans

Carhart to Begin Late-Term Abortions in Maryland on 6 Dec 2010

Commentary: #ihadanabortion and I hate myself

Burial Held for Babies Recovered in Maryland Abortion Business Raid

17 Aborted Babies Buried 20 November in Michigan; 1000 Attend

Survey Shows 31 Abortion Centers Closed Over Last 12 Months

Planned Parenthood Files Suit Against Alaska Parental Notification Law

ella

Abortion Backers Put Women at Risk: Promote RU 486 Drug Without Ultrasound

Women’s Leader: ella Drug Maker Covers Up Abortion Mechanism of Action

Planned Parenthood Played Role in New ella Abortion Drug

COERCION
A Tidal Wave of Published Data: More Than 30 Studies in Last Five Years Show Negative Impact of Abortion on Women

Disclosure and Coercion: Concealing Relevant Information is "An Act of Coercion"

Two More Abortion Facilities Close, Including Site of Alleged Forced Abortion

TERMINOLOGY
Commentary: Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The Social Motivations Behind New Definitions

LEGISLATION
Commentary: Republicans: Make De-Funding Abortion Industry Your Top Goal

“It’s Time to Take Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Off the Table, Once and For All”: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, HR 5939

Mike Pence Presses for De-Funding Whole Abortion Industry, Including Planned Parenthood -- Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, H.R. 614

Bill Would Stop $1 Bill Abortion Groups Get, But Pro-Life Congress Needed

NJ Congressman Hails Prospect of 'Most Pro-Life House Ever'

Michigan Bills Seek Dignified Burial for Abortion Victims

CONSCIENCE
NEW! Have U.S. Conscience Clause Protections Been Eviscerated?

Commentary: Bringing Light to the Darkness -- Christmas Caroling at Los Angeles Death Centers
 
"Any pro-life activist knows that even on a Saturday it's worth getting up at the crack of dawn to save a life..."
by Kaylah Macdonald
 
Any pro-life activist knows that even on a Saturday it's worth getting up at the crack of dawn to save a life On December 11, 2010, a few dozen people joined together and did just that.

This was my third year Christmas caroling with Survivors, and just as in previous years, we arrived in Los Angeles at our first [abortion site] of the day. From there we went to several more, not far from one another, and sang our Christmas songs with love and admiration for any woman we might run into.  

At one [abortion location] placed in a low income area - a perfect target for any abortionist - we were given the opportunity to converse with several women in the waiting room. 

Here, we got a definite save (a woman decided to give life to her child), a couple more conversations, and a confirmation from [an abortion] worker that she no longer wanted to work there.  At another center, an abortionist from the back room came into the hallway where we were singing.  With frustration written all over his face he quite violently demanded we leave, as we stood there just watching him until he turned plum in the face. 

And finally, last and least, Her Medical.  This is a [business] that has a waiting area consistently full of women awaiting the result of their decisions.

The abortionist is known for the "ability" to perform an abortion every five minutes, sometimes getting 50 to 60 women pushed through each day abortions are done.  However, this time there was only one woman who we could see in the [building].  I'm not sure if this was a shock to everyone, but it was to me, or more so, a relief.  Ultimately, this day was pretty chill as far as abortions go.  Maybe we came down on a day that wasn't so busy...

My opinion is that things are changing.  Hearts are changing. 

People are becoming more aware of what abortion truly is and how it affects everything and everyone around us.

How does this happen?  This starts not only with knowing about it, but doing something about abortion in a way to create a ripple effect and make a hole in the system. 

We're not the only ones in our generation getting out there and putting ourselves on the line for the babies. Hold onto faith and this will come to an end. 
[18 Dec 2010, Survivors, Kayla A.   

 

Commentray: The Beginning of The End of Abortion
[DISCLAIMER: This article is posted for its comments about abortion, and does not necessarily agree with the comments regarding political parties or regional philosophies.]

The deluge of teeth-gnashing, hair-pulling grief-tormented hysteria washing over every liberal media outlet in the Milky Way Galaxy has reached a high-water mark with space-patrol talk about secession – as in the Kerry-voting "blue" states actually seceding from the United States. Here's Geraldine Ferraro fomenting on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Nov. 6:

You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all of this talent in this country? It's on both sides, the Northeast corridor.

We can shake our heads in laughable wonder at this and gloat about BDDs – Brain Dead Democrats. But their maniacally empty threat is a gift, as it creates a marvelous "teachable moment" whereby the LibDems can learn a lesson about their moral values.

Recall that it was Democrats who seceded the last time from America, in 1861. They were in full righteous fury defending the morality of slavery. Throughout the Confederate States, slavery was known as "the peculiar institution," with the moral right to own human beings as personal property unquestioned and believed in with fanatical zeal. Just like abortion in the blue states today.

Shocked that "moral values" was the issue that defeated them and re-elected President Bush, the LibDems are bleating on every airwave they can ride that they have moral values, too. Yes, they certainly do – it's just that some of those values are immoral, but not all. Confederate Southerners held many decent values – but on slavery they were morally wrong. No relativistic morals here, no "that's just your opinion" situational ethics, no wiggles, hesitations or qualifiers. Slavery is immoral, period – even the LibDems agree.

Thus the teachable moment – for abortion is morally no different than slavery, the claim that one human being may own another as personal property to be disposed of if the owner so chooses.

Thus we need to refer to abortion as "the peculiar institution," and Roe v. Wade as disgracefully unconstitutional as Dred Scott. Watch for this to happen. Watch for abortion advocates to be increasingly on the defensive as they are made to understand the moral equivalence between abortion and slavery.

This is a struggle that is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. It will not, however, lead to any sort of secession or civil war. It requires no violence, just relentless repetition of this moral equivalence, as it finally begins to dawn on liberals that history will come to view advocacy of abortion as morally repugnant as advocacy of slavery.

Conservatives are on the verge of seizing the high ground of history on abortion. Arlen Specter -- Arrogant Arlen -- is groveling before them. Clarence Thomas will be the next chief justice. More and more politicians will see it safe to jump on the abortion=slavery bandwagon. Soon, the blood seeping from a wounded Roe v. Wade will be in the water, the feeding frenzy will be on and the constitutionally non-existent "right to privacy" chewed to shreds. The day is not that far off when school kids will be asking their history teacher puzzled questions as to how there was a time in America when people passionately defended the morality of a mother killing her own baby.

The dark chapter of America's peculiar institution of abortion is coming to an end.

[November 13, 2004, http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=27529, Jack Wheeler, WorldNetDaily.com]
Editor's note: Jack Wheeler's unique intelligence site To the Point features concise, accurate analysis of geopolitical happening around the globe. This column and others like it are available on his site to members only. Jack Wheeler is a geopolitical expert and adventurer who has been described as the "originator or the Reagan Doctrine" and the "Indiana Jones of the Right." He holds a doctorate in Philosophy.




Abortion Advocates Try to Disprove Study on Abortion-Mental Health Problems

Two pro-abortion research are trying to disprove a study showing women who have abortions are more likely to  suffer from a variety of mental health problems than women who carry to term.

Published by Professor Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the study showing women having abortions were at greater risk for anxiety as well as mood and substance abuse disorders.

Julia Steinberg of the University of California, San Francisco, and Lawrence Finer of the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group that is a former affiliate of the Planned Parenthood abortion business, have set out to disprove Coleman’s findings.

They published their analysis in the journal Social Science & Medicine saying they failed to find the same links even taking similar factors into account.

“We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues,” Steinberg said. “Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research — for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents’ entire lifetimes. This suggests that the results were substantially inflated.”

“Antiabortion activists have relied on questionable science in their efforts to push inclusion of the concept of ‘post-abortion syndrome’ in both clinical practice and law,” Finer added, according to a Washington Post report. “Our inability to replicate the findings of the Coleman study makes it clear that research claiming to find relationships between abortion and poor mental health indicators should be subjected to close scrutiny.”

LifeNews.com spoke with Coleman, who said the pro-abortion researchers used a different set of criteria to evaluate the abortion-mental health problem link.

“Despite their many claims to have conducted a ‘re-analysis’ of our study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, Steinberg and Finer have conducted a very different set of analyses,” Coleman said.

“The critical distinction is in how the psychological disorders were defined,” she explained. “Our analyses reflected 12-month prevalence and their analyses reflected only the 30 day prevalence. Our results are quite similar to those reported by pro-choice researcher David Fergusson in 2006 and many others. There are additional differences between the two sets of analyses, most notably related to the choice of potential confounding variables and the methods used to control them in the analyses.”

Coleman notes the 30 published studies from the last five years coming from researchers and scientists worldwide.

“Are all these studies flawed too? The real story here is the lengths that biased researchers, professional organizations, and the media will go to hide and distort highly credible scientific data,” she said.

Coleman wants to know if Steinberg and Finer plan to “replicate” the 2010 study by Mota and colleagues published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry where the authors used the NCS Replication data and their results were quite consistent with Coleman’s.

“I find it hard to imagine that Steinberg and Finer believe a journal as reputable as the JPR — edited by Alan Schatzberg, M.D., president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association — would publish an article indicating that abortion poses psychological risks to women independent of other stressors without scrutinizing the methodology carefully,” she added.

For Dr. Coleman, the criticizing of the research she and others have done on the topic of abortion and its mental health consequences is a political one where abortion advocates critique the studies because they don’t like the results.

“These two authors have strong pro-choice ties. The first author is a recent recipient of the generous Charlotte Ellertson Social Science Fellowship and the second author is a long-time employee of the Guttmacher Institute. The conscientious reader will question their objectivity,” she concludes.

“These authors wrongly assumed we conducted our analyses in a particular manner and then made unprofessional, disparaging remarks, hoping I suppose to continue to hide the reality from women,” she says.

“We owe the millions of women who have had abortions in the past and will undergo them in the future a fair representation of the scientific research. After the highly biased American Psychological Association report was published two years ago, I conducted a meta-analysis or quantitative synthesis of the strongest studies. The results based on nearly a million respondents unequivocally indicate that abortion increases the risk of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide,” she adds.
[ Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 12/13/10 http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/13/nat-6927/



Ethics Investigation Launched Into Iowa Attorney General's Conduct In Telemed Abortion Scandal
Operation Rescue has received confirmation that a formal ethics investigation has been launched by the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board into conduct by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller concerning the request for a criminal investigation of telemed webcam abortions conducted by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

"It is clear to us that Tim Miller placed the interests of his friends and political allies at Planned Parenthood above the laws of the State of Iowa and the health and safety of women," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who filed the ethics complaint against Miller.

Miller will now be required to provide an answer to the Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board for the allegations against him.

Troy Newman filed the complaint on November 29, 2010, alleging three causes of action:

1. Conflict of interest, due to Miller's close professional and personal associations with PPH staff members.
2. Hindering or impeding efforts to obtain independent criminal investigations
3. Corruption, for putting his political associates and personal friends ahead of his vow to enforce the laws of the State of Iowa.

Operation Rescue conducted an investigation earlier this year of the so-called telemed abortions and discovered information that gave Newman reason to believe that PPH's telemed abortion pill scheme not only violates standards of care, but also violates the law.

Operation Rescue filed a formal complaint with the Iowa Board of Medicine in April, 2010, asking for an investigation. That investigation is on-going.

Since clinics in several Iowa counties were involved, a complaint demanding a criminal investigation of PPH's remote-controlled abortion pill scheme was filed on June 24, 2010, with the Iowa Attorney General's office, which has jurisdiction in all Iowa counties. Almost immediately, Attorney General Tom Miller began making excuses for why he could not proceed with an investigation, telling reporters that the county attorneys had jurisdiction.

Realizing that Miller would not act, Operation Rescue sent complaints to county attorneys in ten Iowa Counties known to have telemed abortion facilities. Responses were received indicating that Miller had previously alerted the county attorneys and indicated to them that investigations should be left to the Iowa Board of Medicine. This virtually shut down any hope of gaining an investigation that Miller's office could not control.

"It is unethical for the laws of Iowa to be disregarded due to political cronyism, especially when it places the health and safety of citizens in jeopardy, as is the case with Planned Parenthood's telemed abortion pill scheme," said Newman. "It was my duty to file this complaint, and pray that it will halt the subversion of justice by politics and corruption."
Read the ethics complaint narrative for additional information
Read the letters from the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board
[December 14, 2010, Des Moines, Iowa, www.operationrescue.org]

Pro-Life Groups Oppose Plans to Bring Abortion Back To Wichita

Pro-life supporters gathered December 18 to peacefully protest Mila Means intention to abort babies in this abortion-weary community.

Operation Rescue has learned that a Kansas physician plans to open an abortion [business] soon in Wichita, Kansas.

Abortionist Mila Means has reportedly purchased abortion equipment from the now-closed Women's Health Care Services formerly operated by George Tiller, and plans to open on Saturdays for abortions at her private office near East Harry and Webb Road in Wichita. She has been seen at the Aid For Women [abortion business] in Kansas City, Kansas, where she is reportedly in training. Means is a family practice physician who is not certified as an ob/gyn.

"We are saddened by the news that someone would want to bring abortion back to Wichita," said Newman. "The city has been abortion-free for a year and a half. It is clear that abortion is unwanted and unneeded in this abortion-weary community."

Means has a troubled past that includes disciplinary action taken against her medical license for the misuse of psychiatry in her family practice, having improper personal relationships with patients, and for something more serious that the Kansas Board of Healing Arts has redacted from her public record.

However, the Board did indicate in Means' disciplinary documents that it had the authority to discipline her under a Kansas law for unprofessional conduct including the "commission of any act of sexual abuse, misconduct, or exploitation related to the licensee's professional practice."

Redactions prevented the disclosure of details of the alleged sexual abuse, misconduct, or exploitation, and omitted some of the disciplinary action taken against her.

"Information like this is often withheld because it would destroy the person's reputation if it were made public. Whatever Means did to merit such discipline should be cause for concern to anyone who may seek services from her," said Newman.

The pro-life community will respond with a prayerful protest from 10:00-11:00 AM outside Means office located at 9916 E. Harry in Wichita, Kansas. Statements will be made to the press at 10:00 AM.

"We are urging everyone who can on such short notice to turn out to pray and send a resounding message that we will exhaust every legal means available to prevent even one more child from dying from abortion here," said Newman.
[December 15, 2010, David Gittrich, Wichita, KS, Kansans For Life email]

The Dark Side of Biotech: Expert Details Grisly Fate of Fetal Body Parts

Every day in America, countless packages are carefully transferred for use by government, university, pharmaceutical and other biotechnology laboratories. Some of these end up advancing development of products such as cosmetics and food additives; others are used directly as a form of therapy.

The material in those packages are human body parts - eyes, ears, limbs, brain, skin - now an indispensable commodity for many U.S. researchers and scientists, and a lucrative export of America’s abortion clinics.

To see an example of an order form for fetal body parts, click here.

Dr. Theresa Deisher, a molecular and cellular physiologist and an internationally-recognized expert in regenerative medicine, explored the routine “commoditizing” of unborn human beings in modern biotechnology in a speech in Washington, DC on Friday. Deisher is Managing Member and Research and Development Director at AVM Biotechnology, and has several years’ experience as a commercial scientist at top pharmaceutical companies. Her work has led to dozens of patented medical breakthroughs.

Historically, when man wants to exploit other men, “what we first have to do is alter our way of thinking about them, and then of course we actually have to dehumanize them, and we usually do that by denying them a soul: so therefore they’re not actually human like the rest of us,” Deisher told an audience at the “50 Years of the Pill” conference hosted by Human Life International of America.

This, she explained, is precisely the scenario with the smallest human lives in medical research today - and not just embryos, but unborn children of all trimesters - whose body parts grow more valuable as they mature.

She noted that an article in the Puget Sound Business Journal discovered that the University of Washington filled out more than 4,400 requests for fresh fetal body parts from fetal tissue for the purpose of biomedical research in 2009, the first time hard numbers of such transactions were uncovered.

“It has to be approved by an institutional review board, so they think they’re applying ethics to this because they reviewed the use of this,” said Deisher. “What do you think that relationship might have to do with doctors encouraging abortions?” She estimates that as many as 1.87 million such transactions - requesting individual body parts such as eyes and liver - could happen each year in America.

The scientist also noted that plenty of scientific literature, available on the Internet, discusses the optimal age for a child’s death in order to obtain useful body parts: one such professional noted that the best heart tissue is obtained from a child of 22 weeks’ gestation.

In addition to research, Deisher said the bodies of unborn children are being used “as not only biomedical research tools, but as actual medical therapies.” “Fetuses 12, 14, 16, 18 weeks gestation are ground up and their cells are implanted in people who have had strokes or Parkinson’s disease,” she said.

Another ethical battlefield involves the use of cell lines derived from aborted children. Contrary to popular belief, today’s fetal stem cell lines derive from not one, but several abortions - many of them in the second trimester - and will have to be replaced with fresh victims as they are only useful for about 30 to 35 years, said the scientist.

Fetal cell line vaccines such as measles-mumps-rubella, chicken pox, and hepatitis A are not only morally problematic, said Deisher, but their use has a dramatic correlation with an epidemic on the rise: autism.

When examining the points at which autism diagnosis mysteriously spiked in the U.S., said Deisher, “the only thing that is associated with these change points is the introduction of a fetal cell vaccine.” She said the correlation even holds true for the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Wales, Denmark, Japan, and southeastern Asian countries: “in every country we have looked at, they have different change points, every one is associated with an aborted fetal event.” No other variable, she said, has correlated so closely to the pattern of autism diagnosis.

Deisher blamed such commercialization, in part, on the growing tendency to see children as “a choice rather than a blessing,” due to technology controlling fertility such as the hormonal birth control pill.

“From that point, it was pretty easy for us to begin looking at children as a material thing, a new car or a mansion, a commodity,” she said.
[Kathleen Gilbert, Dec 09, 2010, WASHINGTON, D.C., December 8, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-dark-side-of-biotech-expert-details-grisly-fate-of-fetal-body-parts?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=dea3bf1859-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_10_2010&utm_medium=email

Related:
Study: Rise in Autism and introduction of Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines Correlate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jun/10060312
Body Parts Scandals Becoming Common in US and Abroad
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1960/31/6031705
Trafficking in Body Parts a Natural Extension of De-Humanizing Abortion Culture
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1940/80/4080302

Video Clip of Last Surviving Founding Member of NARAL -- National Abortion Rights Action League
Compelling Testimony of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xfEoqGeliA&NR=1

Judge Grants MA Abortionist Early Release - Parole Board Said Osathanondh Shows No Remorse for Killing Client

A county judge in Massachusetts has freed notorious abortionist Rapin Osathanondh from the rest of his prison sentence – over the objections of the parole board – for killing a 22-year-old woman in a botched abortion, reports Operation Rescue.

The pro-life watchdog says that the mother of the deceased, Laura Hope Smith, who died on the operating table at Rapin’s Hyannis clinic in 2007, told them Wednesday that the judge granted Osathanondh’s motion for early release after he had served barely half of his sixth-month prison sentence.

“Once again the man who killed my daughter receives mercy while our daughter and family receive none,” said Eileen Smith, Laura’s mother. She said that the judge had granted Osathanondh a “revise and revoke” motion, which means the abortionist will serve the rest of his sentence at his million dollar residence in Cape Cod.

The same judge had sentenced Osathanondh to six months in jail, followed by nine months home confinement with an electronic monitoring bracelet, and three years probation.

While Osathanondh was eligible for parole after three months, the parole board rejected his application because he showed no remorse. According to Smith, the board had called Osathanondh the most “arrogant and callous person to ever ask for parole in their experience serving on the parole board.”

“[T]he Judge disregarded the parole board’s comments and decision and granted him freedom to go home,” said Smith. “Where is my daughter’s freedom to go home, Judge?”

Prosecutors charged Osathanondh with manslaughter in July 2008 in the cause of Laura Smith. While under general anesthesia, Smith went into cardiac arrest and died, while Osathanondh was aborting her unborn child.

The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine investigated and issued charges against him in February 2008 over the incident. He resigned his medical license the same day.

The board determined that Osathanondh failed to monitor Smith’s heart or “adhere to basic cardiac life support protocol,” and failed to call 911 immediately after her heart stopped. The board also stated that the abortionist neglected to keep oxygen available or a functioning blood pressure monitor in the room, and later lied to cover up his gross medical negligence.

“Today’s decision to release Laura’s killer was just plain wrong. We are very upset that Osathanondh was allowed to be released from jail early against the recommendation of the parole board,” said OR President Troy Newman in response to the news.

“A three month incarceration for depriving a woman of her life trivializes her humanity and diminishes the human dignity of all women. As long as abortionist quacks who maim and butcher unsuspecting women and kill their innocent babies are slapped on the wrist and sent home, we can only expect their arrogant, “above the law” attitudes to persist and the body count of dead abortion patients to rise,” he added.

Both of Laura Hope Smith’s parents are professed pro-life Christians active with the Calvary Chapel of Sandwich around Cape Cod. They adopted Laura as an orphan from Honduras. Eileen Smith told Operation Rescue in 2007 that she never realized her daughter was 13 weeks pregnant or considering an abortion until both her daughter and her grandchild were dead. One of Laura’s friends had taken the girl to Osanthanondh’s facility without her mother’s knowledge.

Laura Smith was an active member of the church and graduated from Upper Cape Tech with a degree in cosmetology. Over 600 people attended Laura’s funeral. At the funeral one young woman reportedly changed her mind about abortion after hearing the Smiths’ testimony about their daughter’s tragic death.
[Dec 08, 2010, Peter Smith, BOSTON, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-gives-early-release-to-notorious-abortionist-no-remorse-for-killing-c?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7cf5fdde7e-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_08_2010&utm_medium=email

Abortion Practitioner Loses Medical License Permanently
Abortion practitioner George Shepard of Delaware, who assisted with abortions at the Maryland business of abortion practitioner Steven Chase Brigham, has permanently lost his medical licence.

Shepard’s license and that of abortion practitioner Nicola Riley were suspended by the Maryland Board of Physicians on an emergency basis  after complaints were filed against them for a severely botched late-term abortion that required emergency surgery to save the woman’s life.

The information brought to the medical board’s attention showed how Brigham, who is not licensed in Maryland, was operating an illegal late-term abortion scheme where he would start abortions late as 36 weeks at his Voorhees, New Jersey abortion center, where he is not licensed to do late-term abortions. Then, he would have the women drive themselves to his abortion clinic in Elkton, Maryland.

Brigham led a car caravan of women from his the abortion center to his Maryland one after one of the patients was critically injured during the abortion at his Pennsylvania abortion business.

Brigham put the semiconscious, bleeding woman in the back of a rental car and drove her to a nearby hospital instead of calling for an ambulance and drawing attention to problems at his abortion center, American Women’s Services.

The Maryland Board of Physicians and Elkton police compiled documents unveiling the problems and later conducted a raid of his Maryland abortion facility. Authorities who raided Brigham’s abortion center discovered the remains of 35 late-term aborted babies in jars.

Shepard, who is 88 and from Lewes, Delaware, saw his licensed suspended in August and recently had it permanently revoked. He ordered medications for the abortion facility and participated in the abortions — working at the facility two days a week.

The Baltimore Sun newspaper indicates the medical board said Thursday that Shepard was guilty of unprofessional conduct and practiced medicine with an unauthorized person.

The order suspending Shepherd’s license indicated Brigham “has been observed performing surgical procedures on approximately 50 occasions.”

Riley, who perforated the woman’s uterus in the botched abortion, has also had her license suspended. She has decided to fight the suspension and has submitted additional testimony and documents.

According to documents OR obtained, a letter dated October 28, 2010 from the Maryland Board of Physicians addressed to Riley and her counsel stated, “The Board concluded that the arguments and documents submitted, and the responses to the Board’s questions did not significantly change the Board’s findings or conclusions regarding the danger to the public which would be opposed by Dr. Riley practicing medicine at this time.”

Operation Rescue has called for criminal charges for all involved in Brigham’s illegal late-term abortion scheme, including Riley.

The pro-life group indicates Riley is still licensed to practice medicine in Utah, where she continues to do abortions.

She had requested licensure in Virginia, but OR informed Virginia health officials of Riley’s background. They issued a letter to OR confirming that Virginia law prohibits the health department from issuing licenses to physicians who licenses are suspended or revoked in other states.
On September 1, Operation Rescue sent letters asking that the Maryland Attorney General’s office as well as state and county prosecutors file criminal charges against Brigham and that he be held accountable.

“There is a largely unspoken crisis in this country brought on by abortionists who insist that they are above the law,” Operation Rescue spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger told LifeNews.com.

“We can no longer turn a blind eye to these abortion abuses and pretend that things like this can’t happen in a nation where abortion is legally permissible. Brigham is just one example in an industry where this kind of behavior is the norm and not the exception,” Sullenger added. “We have yet to find an abortionist who does not violate the law.”

Sullenger said the abortion industry has failed to call Brigham out for putting women’s lives and health at risk.

“Shame on the women’s organizations that know this kind of abuse is occurring, yet continue to cover up for abortionists,” she said. “If groups like NARAL and the NAF really cared about women, they would work night and day to close these abortion chop shops and offer real solutions to pregnant women that does not include submitting them to abortionist quacks.”

The order to stop Brigham from doing abortions in Maryland says indicates that Brigham has been practicing illegally in Maryland since January, 2010.

“The health of Maryland patients is being endangered by the Respondent’s unlicensed practice of medicine in this State,” the order read.

Pennsylvania, in July, the Pennsylvania Department of Health ordered Brigham to shut down four of his abortion centers for reportedly employing medical staff who were not properly licensed with the state — and potentially putting women’s health at risk.

Brigham was forced to give up his license to practice medicine in Pennsylvania some years ago because of botched abortions. Brigham has also lost his license in other states. He had medical licenses revoked in New York and Florida, and received disciplinary action in California and New Jersey. He served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud.

He was also taken to task for employing Harvey Walter Brookman, who did abortions at a State College abortion facility known as State College Medical Services and at the Erie abortion center known as American Women’s Services under Brigham’s employ.

Brookman, was only permitted to treat himself and his family because he holds what is called an “active-retired” medical license in Pennsylvania.

Brookman has also had trouble maintaining a valid medical license in other states.

His New York license was revoked in December of 1996. His New Jersey license was temporarily suspended in December of 1994. In February of 1996, Brookman “voluntarily surrendered his New Jersey license to practice medicine and surgery with a prejudice to his right to apply for reinstatement.”

The Pennsylvania state health department took its latest action on July 7, according to the newspaper, when Deputy Secretary of Health Robert Torres permanently banned Brigham and any corporation he owns or runs from doing abortions in the state.

That could allow for a significant reduction of abortions in Pennsylvania as American Women’s Services does about 3,600 abortions annually at its centers in Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, and State College.
[3 Dec 2010, Ertelt | Annapolis, MD | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/03/state-5713/




Groundbreaking Program Saves Babies When Moms Reconsider in Mid-Abortion Procedure

Claire Stout was saved after quick-thinking pro-life advocates convinced her mother to reverse an abortion that had already begun.
 A Chicago pro-life group says it can now help some abortion-bound mothers who have a last-minute change of heart - even after mother and baby appear to have slipped past the point of no return.

The Pro-Life Action League has announced a new alliance with Resurrection Medical Center and The Women’s Center in establishing a protocol for assisting women who change their minds after initiating a second trimester abortion procedure. This partnership is the first of its kind in Chicago and, they say, can be a model for Catholic hospitals around the country.

“Recently, our sidewalk counselors have seen several women who have changed their minds about abortion, and who wish to continue their pregnancies even once the late-term abortion procedure has started,” said Ann Scheidler, vice president and director of sidewalk counselor training for the Pro-Life Action League.

“This new process enables us to provide the most comprehensive medical care and emotional support for the pregnant woman who is facing this stressful situation.”

A dramatic and much-publicized example of one woman who successfully had an abortion reversed occurred in Las Vegas in February this year. The young mother, Jamie Stout, had already started the abortion - a three-day process at 20 weeks - with the abortionist having inserted laminaria sticks into her cervix for dilation and induced labor.

However, a pro-life ultrasound operator managed to convince Stout’s father and Jamie that it was still not too late to reverse the abortion and keep the baby. The abortionist had not yet given the baby a lethal injection, although they only had less than six hours to remove the laminaria from Jamie – and find a doctor who would do it.

Ultimately they were successful in finding two physicians confident to direct the emergency room doctor on how to remove the laminaria. And none too soon: nearly five hours had passed before the ER doctor finally was able to remove them.

Jamie later gave birth to a healthy baby girl - Claire.

The new protocol in Chicago for dealing with situations like these was developed by representatives from the League, Resurrection and The Women’s Center, a crisis pregnancy center on the northwest side of Chicago.

In preparation for setting new guidelines, the Pro-Life Action League arranged for Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist and practicing gynecologist from Las Cruces, N.M., to advise the hospital’s physicians and staff on the procedures involved in a later-term abortion and the reversal of the process.

When approached by a woman who has changed her mind mid-abortion, the newly established protocol allows a counselor to immediately alert Resurrection hospital’s emergency room to the woman’s imminent arrival.

After the obstetrics department provides the needed procedures, The Women’s Center will continue to follow up with the pregnant woman throughout her pregnancy and the delivery of her baby, meeting any emotional and material needs as they arise.

Sister Donna Marie, chief executive officer of Resurrection Medical Center, expressed gratitude that the hospital is able to provide help for the pro-life cause. “I am so pleased the Resurrection Medical Center is able to be a small part of the beautiful work that you are all doing for the unborn,” Sr. Marie told the Pro-Life Action League.

“Never before have we had such a streamlined process to save the life of a child after the abortion procedure has been initiated,” said Scheidler.

Related: Baby Claire Hits the Jackpot! Dramatic Intervention Reverses Late-Term Abortion http://www.lifeissues.org/breakingnews/2010/Baby_Claire.pdf

[Nov 30, 2010, Kathleen Gilbert,  Chicago, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/groundbreaking-program-saves-babies-when-moms-reconsider-mid-abortion?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc0fc17ebe-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_30_2010&utm_medium=email

What Happens in Vegas Is NOT Staying in Vegas
Young mothers routinely exit abortion mills with intense regret. Many wish they could stop the tragedy that began moments before. Believing all hope is lost, they carry on with a deadly medical procedure of late-term abortion that often takes days to complete. These women need to know it’s not, in fact, “too late”.

Jamie Stout is glad someone told her. Twenty weeks into her pregnancy, Jamie entered an abortion mill in Las Vegas and began the three-day process of ending baby Claire’s life. Thanks to quick intervention on the part of a pregnancy resource center, a friend met Jamie as she returned to her car. It’s not too late to save the baby, she urged. But the young mother responded that nothing could be done. The abortionist had already begun dilating her cervix so the soon-to-be dead child could pass through.

It took some convincing, but Jamie ultimately agreed to rush to the local emergency room. Racing against the clock, her new pro-life friends searched for a doctor who would agree to reverse the procedure. “I don’t think it’s ever been done in Vegas before,” First Choice Pregnancy Services Executive Director Pam Caylor said. “I don’t think they knew it could be done — and most pro-life people don’t know it could be done. But I knew it could be.” She was right. A healthy baby Claire was born this February to a very relieved mother.

I expect we’ll soon be hearing more stories like this. In fact, just this week, the Pro-Life Action League and a Chicago pregnancy resource center announced a groundbreaking partnership with a local medical office to do exactly what happened in Vegas on a routine basis. The new, streamlined process allows sidewalk counselors to give fresh hope to women who mistakenly think they’re already past the point of no return.

We’re pleased to see that what happened in Vegas isn’t staying in Vegas. As efforts like these spread across the nation, please continue praying that mothers in these crucial moments will choose life.
[3 Dec 2010, Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute]

UPDATE: Saving Babies After an Abortion Starts
The Pro-Life Action League is excited to announce a new alliance with Resurrection Medical Center and the Women’s Center in establishing a protocol for assisting women who change their minds after initiating a second trimester abortion procedure. This groundbreaking partnership is the first of its kind in Chicago and can be a model for hospitals around the country.

In preparation for setting new guidelines, the Pro-Life Action League arranged for Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist and practicing gynecologist from Las Cruces, New Mexico, to advise the hospital’s physicians and staff on the procedures involved in a later-term abortion and the reversal of the process. [PharmFacts E-News Update, 6 Dec 2010]

Abortion, Conscience Clauses, And the Practice of Medicine

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have again ruled physicians must perform an abortion or refer to someone who will when asked by a women or else the physician will lose his certificate as a specialist.

The State of Victoria, Australia has legislated all physicians in that state must do the same or lose their license to practice.  To some this may seem to be reinforcing one of the most noble traditions of the much honored practice of medicine i.e. you must never say no to a person who is seriously ill.

This tradition spurred a deep sense of duty which impelled the tired country doctor to hitch his going lame horse to the buggy without much covering and face a blizzard to assist a women with a breach delivery many miles away, when he was summoned by a distraught husband in the middle of the night.  This is what kept us young residents working into the dawn; responding to crises of patients on wards for which we had responsibility.

But there are 3 essential differences:

a) women choosing to have an abortion are not patients because: pregnancy is not an illness, their choice is not an indication for treatment, their distress is not a disease.
b) The doctors who do abortions are not practicing good medicine.
c) The abortionist’s motives are essentially wrong.

The practice of good medicine entails performing only those procedures, which are:

i) Indicated.  There must be something wrong; some recognized disease to warrant doing this treatment.

ii) Beneficial. There must be scientifically established benefits in the long run of the patient’s life.

iii) Free of harm.  There are very few procedures that don’t have some detriment. Most are temporary and borne well by patients who foresee the benefit.

iv) The last resort.  Every form of less invasive, more reversible treatments must be seriously tried and have failed first.

v) In good conscience.  The performing physician must first analyze data collected on his/her patients in follow-up at 1 mo, 6mo, 1yr and 5yrs to be convinced in his/her mind that the patients’ truly benefit from this procedure in his/her hands.

vi) Recommendation given.  After a thorough examination the physician must make a clear recommendation for treatment to which the patient may or may not agree.  If he/she disagrees and will not accept any other form of good medicine their physician recommends, the patient has voluntarily withdrawn from the care of this physician.  Their implied or stated contractual relationship has ended.  The physician can no longer be held responsible for that person’s health except as a citizen.

vii) Ethics.  It is unethical for physicians not to announce and display their ethics.  Since patients cannot assume their physician affirms the Hippocratic Oath, they need to know well in advance, what is their physician’s basic intent on major contentious issues.

viii) Consent.  Having indicated the patient’s  willingness to receive treatment that was recommended, the physician makes doubly sure of their consent to treatment by very carefully outlining the recommended procedure, indicating the benefits, hazards and alternatives then providing plenty of time for the patient to ask questions.

ix) Consideration.  Since these are matters of wellness and wholeness in the long term, the patient must be given the opportunity of days to make up their mind without interference.

x) Second opinion. If the patient is ambivalent, the attending physician should be the first to suggest a second opinion and give a list of competent colleagues, especially those who have a valid different point of view.

The current practice of abortion, meets none of these criteria.  It is bad medicine or more accurately is not medicine.  No physician can be forced to practice bad medicine.  Among their colleagues, in their associations, in court, good physicians need only say. “Nothing will make me practice bad medicine, so help me God.” Science will support them.

Having collected data from an adequate sample of exabortionists, I can report from their responses on a confidential questionnaire, that their motives primarily are: money, power, notoriety, reenacting unresolved problems from their past.  They have given up their practice of abortion because: a) they have changed, usually a life changing spiritual experience, b) they can no longer deny the humanity of the preborn child, c) they know they are practicing bad medicine and could not defend themselves in court when a charge of malpractice is brought against them.

As to choice. Of course patients have and should have a choice in accepting or refusing their physician’s recommendation.  But not in directing what their treatment should be. For example, consider mechanic Joe.

In removing a clutch, Joe wrenches his left arm.  It hurts like heck but he doesn’t have time to have it seen by his physician because of a backlog of important customers.  He tries various pain killers and home remedy but the pain persists for days and nights.  So in the middle of a busy day, he shouts to his foreman.  “I’ve had enough of this, I’m going to get old doc to cut the ... thing off.  It hurts like ... and just gets in the way”.

After a cursory examination, Doctor Smith says.  “Joe, I think you have a small fracture that can be fixed.”

Joe. “Nah Doc. I’m fed up with this stupid arm. Just cut it off.”

Dr. Smith. “But Joe, I can fix it.”

Joe, “Look Doc. I don’t have time and besides it’s my body.  I know my rights.  If I choose, you must cut or refer to someone who will”

Dr. Smith apologetically, “Okay Joe, I can’t do this. It’s against my conscience but here is the address of someone who will do a clean job.”

The practice of abortion by choice is that ludicrous.

As to forced labor.  When the state or the medical association insist a physician must work in a certain way, on pain of losing their source of livelihood, it is tantamount to slavery.  I thought that was abolished.

“God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.”  William Wilberforce. 

His great, great, grandson, Rev. Gerard Wilberforce states, “Abortion is THE injustice issue of today”.

LifeNews.com Note: Philip Ney graduated as a physician from the University of British Columbia, trained as a Child and Family Psychiatrist at McGill University and the University of London (England), and as a Developmental Psychologist at the University of Illinois.
[2 Dec 2010, by Philip Ney, MD | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/02/opi-1025/]

*****
http://www.bloodmoneyfilm.com

*****

Commentary: Persons NOT Property: An African-American Pastor Discusses Abortion
by Walter B. Hoye

By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the Southern United States of America and it existed in many different forms. African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, inside homes, out in the fields, and in industry and transportation.

By 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, Historian James L. Huston emphasizes the role of slavery as an economic institution. Huston, a leading advocate of secession, placed the value of southern held slaves at $2.8 billion. At about $3 billion in 1860 currency, the economic value of slaves in the U.S. was more than the combined value of all the factories, railroads and banks in the country, or about $12 trillion in U.S. dollars today.

Much of the North’s economic prosperity derived from what Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, called “the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil.” President Lincoln was asking Americans to consider the obligations created by slavery. The first of those obligations is to acknowledge the full truth.

The Full Truth

The full truth is African American Slaves were considered property, and they were property because they were black. Their status as property was enforced by violence and by public policy. Slaves throughout the South had to live under a set of laws called the Slave Codes. The codes varied slightly from state to state, but the basic idea was the same: the slaves were considered property, not people, and were treated as such. The killing of a slave was almost never regarded as murder, and the rape of slave women was treated as a form of trespassing. So intolerable were the conditions under which African Americans slaves suffered from day to day that some went as far as committing suicide or mutilating themselves to ruin their property value.

As an African America, I have asked myself these questions:

1. How could this be justified?
2. Was it not obvious that African Americans were persons, living, breathing human beings?
3. Where was the outrage from the American public?

The Language of Oppression Past

Haig Bosmajian, UW professor of speech communication says: “While names, words, and language can be, and are, used to inspire us, to motivate us to humane acts, to liberate us, they can also be used to dehumanize human beings and to ‘justify’ their suppression and even their extermination.”

In order to justify the inhumane treatment of African American slaves and soothe the conscience of the Americans, dehumanizing terminology, or the “language of oppression,” was established and propagated by way of both “academic” and “legal” opinion at the very highest levels of our educational and legal communities.

From 1815 to 1830, the American Colonization Society: “Free black in our country are … a contagion.”

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “A negro of the African race was regarded … as an article of property … a subordinate and inferior class of being.”

In 1858, the Virginia Supreme Court decision declared: “In the eyes of the law … the slave is not a person.”

In 1867, Buckner Payne, Publisher: “The Negro is not a human being.”

In 1900, Professor Charles Carroll: “The negro is … one of the lower animals.”

In 1903 Dr. William English: “The negro race is … a heritage of organic and psychic debris.”

In 1909, Dr. E. T. Brady: “They [Negroes] are parasites.”

The Language of Oppression Present

Today, even while modern medical science clearly and overwhelmingly supports the humanity and personhood of the pre-born child, the same financial motives and oppressive language strategies that were used to oppress African American slaves are being used, right now, to justify killing pre-born children.

For example, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided: “The Fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.” Again, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn.”

In 1979 Professor Joseph Flectcher: “Pregnancy when not wanted is a disease … in fact, a venereal disease.” In 1980 Dr. Mariti Kekomaki: “An aborted baby is just garbage … just refuse.”

In 1984, Professor Rosalind Pollack Petchesky: “The Fetus is a parasite.” Again, in 1984, Rabbi Wolfe: “A fetus is not a human being.”

In 1985, Dr. Hart Peterson on fetal movement: “Like … a primitive animal that’s poked with a stick.”

In 1986, Attorney Lori Andrews: “People’s body parts [embryos] are their personal property.”

Last year, in the Sunday, July 12th, 2009, edition of the New York Times Magazine, the power of the language of oppression to corrupt our conscience was revealed in the words of sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said in an interview that she was surprised at a 1980 court ruling that prevented the restoration of Medicaid funding for abortions, because, in her opinion, when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Entirely Indefensible

History teaches us, time and time again, that the use of oppressive language to demonize and dehumanize certain segments of the human race is incontestably evil.

In Germany, the persistent portrayal of the Jews as “vermin,” “bacilli,” “parasites,” and “disease” contributed to Adolf Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

In the antebellum South, the deliberate and systematic labeling of African Americans as “chattel,” “property,” “beasts,” “feebleminded,” and “useless eaters,” eased the conscience of many and paved the way for the subjugation and suppression of African Americans.

From the East coast to the West coast the defining of the American Indian as “non-persons,” “savages,” and “Satan’s partisans” led to the extermination of a significant portion of the American Indian population.

Yet, today, it appears we have not learned our lesson.

Just as the Jewish holocaust in Germany, the African American slavery in the antebellum south, and the death of countless American Indians were despicable events in our human history that were accompanied by the use of dehumanizing language, so today is the deliberate dismemberment and destruction of the bodies of those most vulnerable among us, among the human race, that is to say the pre-born child, entirely indefensible.

Persons Are Not Property

Human beings are persons and persons are not property. As a civil society we must move beyond the loathsome language of oppression of powerful elite and recognize the inherent, inalienable and self-evident humanity of all human beings. Regardless of the means by which we were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability, all human beings need to be and deserve to be protected by love and by law.

The Unarmed Truth

When Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: “I believe that ‘unarmed truth’ and ‘unconditional love’ will have the final word in reality. This is why ‘right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil’ triumphant.”

Today, the “unarmed truth” is that the pre-born child is a person not property.

I believe personhood is God-given and not government-granted. It is not offered to the elite and denied to the “least of these.”

I believe personhood, addresses the most important RIGHT of all … the RIGHT to LIVE, without which all other rights are meaningless.

I believe personhood is RIGHT.

The “unconditional love” for the pre-born child in my heart, is rooted in the love Christ has for all. While the current conditions may have “temporarily defeated” the personhood of the pre-born child, I believe the “righteousness of personhood” is stronger than the “evil of pre-natal murder” and will ultimately prove triumphant.

I believe personhood is the final word in reality of the pro-life movement.

[Walter B. Hoye II, is both Founder and President of the Issues4life Foundation, which works directly with African-American Pastors and Priests nationwide. He became well-known to LifeSiteNews readers after he was arrested and jailed last year for peacefully counseling and picketing at a California abortion facility.
December 2, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/persons-not-property-an-african-american-pastor-tackles-abortion?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=0416c38ad3-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines12_01_2010&utm_medium=email

The Case AGAINST the U.N. Women’s Treaty
On Thursday, November 18, at 2:00 p.m., the Senate will hold hearings on the U.N.’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which commits nations that sign it to abolishing discrimination against women and to ensuring their “full development and advancement” in all areas of public and private life.

Adopted in 1979, CEDAW has been ratified by nearly every nation except the United States. There is growing momentum for the U.S. to finally sign: Pres. Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, women’s groups such as the National Organization for Women, and broad-based organizations such as AARP, the AFL-CIO, the American Bar Association, and even the Audubon Society all support ratification.

But a close look at the content of the treaty shows that the Senate has been wise to resist ratification for 31 years. Though CEDAW contains many worthy declarations, its key provisions are 1970s egalitarian feminism preserved in diplomatic amber. Releasing those aged provisions into 21st-century America would be strange at best, and would risk seriously compromising the privacy, well-being, and basic freedoms of Americans.

Proponents of CEDAW have disseminated influential but factually challenged information sheets that claim to dispel “myths” about CEDAW. What follows is an effort to correct the myths in those documents.

MYTH: CEDAW does not call for state regulation of family life.

FACT: The treaty is an eccentric document that espouses a style of feminism that flourished in the 1970s, when the treaty was first drafted, but has since gone out of fashion. For instance, it defines discrimination against women as “any distinction” based on sex. It urges governments to take measures to eliminate all sex roles and all behaviors that evince sex stereotypes.

Under CEDAW, even private behavior — such as how couples divide household and child-care chores — is subject to government oversight and modification. The U.N. monitoring committee routinely censures countries like Denmark, Norway, and Iceland for failing to prevent women from taking primary care of children, a practice it deems “discriminatory.”

If the U.S. ratifies CEDAW, there will be a three-ring circus each time we come up for review. American laws, customs, and private behavior will be evaluated by 23 U.N. gender ministers to see if they comply with a feminist philosophy that is 30 years out of date.

MYTH: American law is already fully in line with CEDAW.

FACT: American law is based on the ideal of equal opportunity; CEDAW demands equal outcomes. Furthermore, the treaty mandates programs and policies that American voters, legislators, and courts have explicitly rejected time and again: gender quotas, reverse-discrimination programs, mandatory paid maternity leave, government-funded daycare, and equal pay for comparable work.

MYTH: CEDAW has no enforcement authority.

FACT: While it is true that the rulings and recommendations of the U.N. monitoring committee would not be legally enforceable in U.S. courts, this does not mean that they would have no effect on policy developments within the United States. The official nature of the committee, and the legal authority conferred upon it by the international community, ensures that its judgments would become a powerfully persuasive force in American politics.

The U.S. should not commit itself to international agreements it is not prepared to keep. Just as proponents of CEDAW claim that it is shameful that the U.S. has not yet ratified CEDAW, they will argue, once it is ratified, that it is shameful that the U.S. is not abiding by its terms and by the rulings and pronouncements of the U.N. monitoring committee. Many judges and legislators will agree and rule accordingly.

Thus, although judges could not directly enforce the provisions of CEDAW absent the passage of additional domestic legislation, CEDAW would serve as an impetus and a justification for judges to make radical new rulings in cases touching on gender issues.

MYTH: CEDAW would have little or no effect on American laws and customs. It is a foreign policy initiative — in Sen. Barbara Boxer’s words, “a diplomatic tool for human rights.”

FACT: Groups such as NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Women’s Law Center view a ratified CEDAW as a legal mandate to implement their agenda in the United States. For them, the treaty is a license to sue, re-educate, and re-socialize their fellow citizens — opportunities that have eluded them under the U.S. Constitution. NOW president Terry O’Neill stated her position clearly in a March 2010 letter to President Obama urging immediate ratification of CEDAW: “U.S. women have endured denials of their basic human rights long enough — please don’t make us wait any longer.”

MYTH: The treaty poses no threats to American laws or customs since, before signing it, the U.S. can attach a list of stipulations, known as RUDs (“reservations, understandings and declarations”), that will uphold U.S. sovereignty and protect American rights and freedoms.

FACT: The legitimacy and role of “reservations” in international human-rights treaties is one of the most contested areas of international law. Legal experts disagree about the power of RUDs to insulate a country from provisions of a treaty it has committed itself to honor. CEDAW itself states, “A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.”

 It is not even clear that pro-CEDAW groups like Amnesty International or the American Bar Association, whose officials tout the protective power of RUDs in their CEDAW “fact sheets,” truly believe they are effective. When NOW met with several human-rights groups in 2009 to plan the pro-CEDAW campaign, it expressed concern that RUDs would make it difficult to enforce treaty provisions in the United States. But as NOW (somewhat indiscreetly) reported on its website in August 2009, “Representatives from groups who have advocated for ratification over the years, suggest that RUDs have little meaning and could potentially be removed from the treaty at some point.”

No one can contest that Americans are committed to helping women in the developing world. No other nation gives more to foreign aid or has more philanthropies and religious groups dedicated to women’s causes.

Voters across the political divide welcome innovative programs to help women struggling with repressive governments and with barbaric traditions such as child marriage, dowry burnings, genital cutting, and honor killings.

But no U.S. senator can in good conscience vote in favor of ratifying CEDAW as a foreign-policy tool. The treaty is aimed at the United States, and risks for American freedoms are too high. 
[November 16, 2010, Christina Hoff Sommers, National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253400/case-against-un-womens-treaty-christina-hoff-sommers ]

 WHO Study Finds 30% Drop in Deaths From "Unsafe", aka Illegal, Abortions

A new study by researchers from the World Health Organization finds more evidence countering the argument that abortions should be legalized in other nations because illegal ones are unsafe.

WHO researchers Iqbal Shah and Elisabeth Ahman issued a report in the current issue of Reproductive Health Matters noting the number of women dying from unsafe abortion has decreased by approximately one-third.

They found a drop from 67,000 deaths in 2003 to 47,000 in 2008 — a decrease that shows unsafe abortions and abortion deaths at a lower number than estimated by abortion advocates.

The Shah-Ahman study also rebutted pro-abortion activists who say the number of unsafe abortions is on the rise and that should be a reason to legalize it.

“The latest estimates from the World Health Organization put the figure at 21.6 million unsafe abortions worldwide in 2008, up from 19.7 million in 2003,” they note, but they point out it is “a rise due almost entirely to the increasing number of women of reproductive age globally.”

Samantha Singson [CFAM] wrote on the pro-life organization’s blog that the study is yet another reason against legalizing abortions.

“For years, abortion advocates have used the “unsafe abortion” argument to pressure countries to legalize abortion, arguing that legal abortion would reduce the number of deaths,” she writes. “Critics are quick to point out that “legal” doesn’t necessarily equate with “safe.””

This new study follows up on a United Nations report in September [http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/30/int-1657/] substantially lowering the total number of women who supposedly die from illegal abortions.

“This is specious,” Duke University’s Dr. Monique Chireau said of some of the inflated numbers of illegal abortion deaths put forward by abortion backers. “There were no data collected on deaths from abortion. We can’t even get good data on maternal deaths.”

The report says that only 63 of 173 countries studied had complete records on a cause of death. Twenty-four had no records at all.

Complete data is available for countries where abortion is illegal and maternal deaths low, such as Chile, Ireland, Malta, and Poland. Pro-life analysts say the research links tighter abortion laws with better maternal health. The new UN report, meanwhile, shows maternal deaths are higher than previously estimated in India, where abortion is legal and widespread.

In February, another study [http://www.lifenews.com/2010/02/12/int-1464/] undercut claims that legalizing abortion reduces maternal mortality, a second reason given for allowing abortion in nations in South America and Africa. [3 Dec 2010, Ertelt | New York, NY | LifeNews.com,  http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/03/int-1706/ ]

United States Sees 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973
Americans saw a political milestone this month as more pro-life lawmakers were elected to the House of Representatives than ever before, but the nation also quietly reached a less joyful mark.
In January, the National Right to Life Committee provided a new analysis of the total number of abortions done in the 37 years since the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court handed down its controversial ruling — allowing virtually unlimited abortions at any time throughout pregnancy — in January 1973. The NRLC analysis found that 52 million unborn children had been killed in abortions as of January.

The analysis also found that the best estimate for the current number of annual abortions in the United States — involving both the surgical abortion procedure as well as the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 — is 1.2 million.

As a result, the United States likely passed the 53 million abortion mark on November 1 — the day before Americans went to the polls to vote in a pro-life House majority...

NRLC Fact Sheet on Abortion Numbers  -- http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf
[26 Nov 2010, LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/26/nat-6891/]

Survey: 300 “Doctors” Do Late Abortions, 140 When Baby Feels Pain

With controversial late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart getting national attention over plans to expand his abortion business, a little-known 2008 study is gaining new attention.

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization previously affiliated with Planned Parenthood, released a study in 2008 titled “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.”

The study found there were at least 1,787 abortion “doctors” in the United States but it revealed stark numbers when it comes to those who do abortions later in pregnancy.

Of the 1,787, the study found that “[t]wenty percent of providers offered abortions after 20 weeks [LMP], and only 8% at 24 weeks [LMP].”

Though the numbers seem small, that translates to at least 300 “doctors” who who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP like LeRoy Carhart and, of those, 140 willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks LMP.

Mary Balch, an attorney who handle state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, says the numbers are important because mainstream media outlets have attempted to make it appear there are very few practitioners willing to do late or late-term abortions.

“In an interview with Colorado abortionist Warren Hern published online November 5, 2010, Time Magazine perpetuated the prevalent myth that there are few, if any abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy,” she told LifeNews.com. “The Washington Post’s Rob Stein also furthered the myth in a November 10 piece saying that Carhart is ‘is one of the few in the country to perform abortions late in pregnancy.”

“The truth is, abortions in the fifth month of pregnancy and later are widely available,” she added.

But National Right to Life may have found a way to put these abortion practitioners out of business — by using a new type of state law that drove Carhart to seek opportunities to do late abortions elsewhere.

Carhart’s decision to move operations resulted from Nebraska’s enactment of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act earlier this year.  The law took effect October 15 and it protects unborn children in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy or later by prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks following conception.

“Nebraska’s groundbreaking law protecting pain-capable unborn children is an example for other states in the nation,” Balch says. “LeRoy Carhart’s hopscotching around the nation to find areas that allow abortion for any reason, at any time, underscores the need for other states to pass similar legislation to put Carhart and the hundreds of other abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy out of business.”

“That more than 140 abortion providers are willing to kill unborn children who are capable of feeling the excruciating pain of abortion is a tragedy – a tragedy that we can easily stop in the state legislatures,” Balch told LifeNews.com.

The legislation is sorely needed because there are more late abortions and late-term abortions taking place in the United States than most people probably realize.

A May 2010 briefing by the Guttmacher Institute reveals .5% of the estimated more than 1.2 million elective abortions performed annually in the United States are on unborn children at 21 weeks LMP (19 weeks postfertilization) or older.

This translates to roughly 18,000 abortions annually – a substantial number of which probably occur at 22 weeks LMP or later, which is past the point that the best evidence indicates that the unborn child is fully capable of feeling pain (a point that may well occur earlier).

Balch says those findings are generally corroborated by the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance Report for 2006, released in November 2009.

In the 43 reporting areas for 2006 which reported gestational age to the CDC for its report, at least 1.3% of abortions were performed at 21 weeks or later and several states either submitted no data or did not accurately report the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

Not only does the legislation have the effect of prohibiting late abortions, Balch says it has a tremendous educational value by showing the public how abortions cause great pain for unborn children.

“Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain,” the NRLC attorney notes. “In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks postfertilization, fulfills that function.”

Scientific studies dating back to 1987 confirm the existence of fetal pain at 20 weeks postfertilization (22 weeks LMP). [ http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/scientific-studies/]

The ability to target late and late-term abortions via this state legislation is so important that NRLC is planning a state legislative forum for pro-life leaders and state legislators on December 7.

“With pro-life electoral gains on November 2, the spring legislative sessions gives us a tremendous opportunity to enact a variety of protective pro-life laws in many states and put an end to abortions after the unborn child is capable of feeling pain,” Balch concludes. “Our number one priority at the state level is protecting mothers and their unborn children from the abortion industry and we have pro-life legislative majorities across the country to help make that happen.”
[25 Nov 2010, Ertelt, Washington, DC, LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/25/nat-6880/






Just as Tobacco Industry Denied Scientific Evidence for Decades, So Now the Abortion/Pharmaceutical Industries Deny Mounting Breast Cancer Link

Readers of our newsletter know that use of oral contraceptives (the birth control pill) has been implicated as a risk factor for breast cancer by: 1) the World Health Organization; 2) a 2006 meta-analysis in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings; and 3) a 2009 study in the journal, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, which linked the pill with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer [1-4]

Our readers are also aware that National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton was a co-author in that 2009 study and that she and her colleagues had included in their study both abortion and the pill as "known and suspected risk factors" for the disease. [4] They concluded in unambiguous terms that abortion and [so-called] oral "contraceptives" were associated with the disease and that their results "were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women." Approximately four dozen epidemiological studies, biological evidence and animal research implicate abortion as a risk factor for the disease. [4-15] [PFLI emphasis]

Planned Parenthood, nevertheless, remains steadfast in its denial of these cancer risks.

It is behaving in much the same way that the anti-science tobacco industry did during the last half of the 20th century.

The Dayton Daily News reported yesterday that a panel of three physicians told an audience at a conference on November 13, 2010 in Oakwood, Ohio that the pill puts women at risk for breast cancer. Lou Grieco, a reporter for that newspaper, quoted Becki Brenner, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio. She called the breast cancer risks of the pill and induced abortion "scientifically baseless."

Brenner's denial of the scientific facts in the face of staggering evidence to the contrary reminds us of Monty Python's Dead Parrot skit. Actor John Cleese made repeated, frustrated efforts to persuade an indifferent pet shop owner that a parrot he had purchased was undeniably deceased until, finally, an exasperated Cleese declared,

"Look, matey.... This parrot has passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its Maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff, bereft of life. It rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to a perch, it would be pushing up daisies.... It's joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot!"

The pill and induced abortion are clearly risk factors for breast cancer, but the risk of massive medical malpractice lawsuits may be motivating Planned Parenthood and others in the medical establishment to adopt an anti-science position of denying the evidence. Even worse, Planned Parenthood is damaging the health of thousands of women.

To read the story in the Dayton Daily News, click on the link below in our Abortion-Breast Cancer News Headlines.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES

"Doctors link contraceptives, breast cancer / Planned Parenthood chief says the claim is a 'distortion of science'"
By Lou Grieco
Dayton Daily News
November 15, 2010
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/doctors-link-contraceptives-breast-cancer-1002948.html

References:

1. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

2. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005.

3. Kahlenborn C, Modugno F. Potter D, Severs W. Oral contraceptive use as a risk factor for premenopausal breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2006;81(10):1290-1302. Available at: <http://www.polycarp.org>.

4. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

5. Brind J, Chinchilli V, Severs W, Summy-Long J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996;50:481-496.

6. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.

7. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf>.

8. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78.  Available at: <http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf>.

9. Naieni KH, Ardalan A, Mahmoodi M, Motevalian A, Yahyapoor Y, et al. Risk factors of breast cancer in North of Iran: A case-control in Mazandaran Province. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007;8;395-398. Available at: http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No3/395-398%20c_Naieni%204.pdf

10. Ozmen V, Ozcinar B, Karanlik H, Cabioglu N, Tukenmez M, et al.  Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study. World J of Surg Oncol 2009;7:37. Available at: http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37.

11. Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China. Medical Oncology, e-publication online September 2009. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19771534.

12. Dolle J, Daling J, White E, Brinton L, Doody D, et al. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(4)1157-1166. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Abortion_Breast_Cancer_Epid_Bio_Prev_2009.pdf

13. De Silva M, Senarath U, Gunatilake M, Lokuhetty D. Prolonged breastfeeding reduces risk of breast cancer in Sri Lankan women: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol 2010;34(3):267-73. Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20338838

14. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

15. Russo J, Tay TK, Russo IH. Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1982;2:5-73.
#####

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer -- http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/
 
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute -- http://www.bcpinstitute.org/
 
Polycarp Research Institute -- http://www.polycarp.org/
 
This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here -- http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/101116.htm
Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer < >
[Dayton Daily News: "Doctors link contraceptives, breast cancer" November 16, 2010]

Abortion Linked to Preterm Birth, But Why Aren't Women Being Told?

November is Prematurity Awareness Month, dedicated by activists to highlighting the risks of and impact created by preterm birth.

According to the March of Dimes, more than half a million babies are born prematurely in the United States alone each year. Yet most people -- including women at risk of abortion and their loved ones -- are unaware that abortion has been linked to an increased risk of preterm birth among subsequently born babies.

[ED. Why doesn't the March of Dimes inform women of this obvious link?]

In a paper published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in 2009, a Canadian research team examined data from 37 studies and found that having a prior abortion increased the risk of subsequent preterm birth by 35 percent, while having more than one prior abortion increased the risk by 93 percent.1

(Preterm birth is defined as a birth that takes place before 37 weeks gestation.)

In other words, children whose mothers had a previous abortion were more likely to be born prematurely, putting them at greater risk for problems such as low-birth weight (which has been linked to physical and developmental problems), epilepsy, autism, mental retardation2 and cerebral palsy.

A research team looking at data from 2002 estimated that prior abortions led to 1,096 cases of cerebral palsy among babies born prematurely that year.3

There are risks to the mother with preterm birth as well, as other studies have found that women who give birth at less than 32 weeks double their lifetime risk of breast cancer.4

Evidence linking abortion and preterm birth continues to pile up, researchers and advocates say. Another paper published in 2009 found that found that having a previous abortion raised a woman's relative odds of having a subsequent birth at less than 32 weeks by 64 percent.5

Further, as far back as 2006 the Institute of Medicine included "prior first trimester abortion" on a list of risk factors associated with premature birth.6 
 
However, as Brent Rooney, Director of Research for the Reduce Preterm Birth Coalition, has pointed out, abortions continue to be performed despite the strong evidence of risks—and in the absence of any evidence showing the procedure to be harmless.

"In the 'Court of Medicine' a 'defendant' new surgery or new drug is presumed guilty of serious adverse side effects until by strong evidence it is demonstrated to be innocent,"  Rooney noted. Yet 50 years after the development of the suction abortion procedure, he said, there has never been a "'study of studies' or systematic review" that has proven that abortion does not cause premature birth. Instead, the evidence seems to be pointing in the opposite direction.

And even as the evidence linking abortion and preterm birth continues to pile up, women and their  loved ones are not being told of the risks. The result is that women and girls will end up undergoing abortions without having the information needed to make a decision--which is a form of coercion. And it puts the mothers, their unborn children and any future children they may have at risk.
~~~
Learn more: Access the world's most extensive online library of studies on the physical and psychological effects of abortion at www.AbortionRisks.org
LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.  
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/25/opi-1020/

Citations

1. P.S. Shah and J. Zao, "Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis," BJOG 116(11): 1425-1442 (2009).

2. Barbara Kay, "The abortion issue we're ignoring," National Post, June 10, 2009.

3. B.C. Calhoun, E. Shadigan and B. Rooney, "Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Brith and Informed Consent," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 52(10): 929-937 (2007).

4. M. Melbye et. al., "Preterm Delivery and risk of breast cancer," British Journal of Cancer, 80(3-4): 609-613 (1999); and K.E. Innes and T.E. Byers, "First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women," International Journal of Cancer, 112(2): 306-311 (2004).

5. H.M. Swingle et. al., " Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 54:95-108 (2009).

6. R.E. Behrman et. al., Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention (Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2007).
[Nov. 23, 2010, www.theunchoice.com, Springfield, IL, http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/pretermbirth.htm]
[25 Nov 2010, Amy Sobie, Springfield, IL, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/25/opi-1020/]




Milwaukee, Wisconsin Sees Billboard Focusing on Blacks, Abortion

A pro-life group in Wisconsin and an organization run by a black pro-life advocate have teamed up for the latest in what has become a national campaign to focus on how abortion targets black children.

The Radiance Foundation, along with Pro-Life Wisconsin, is launching the TooManyAborted.com campaign in Wisconsin featuring 13 billboards going up in Milwaukee with two different messages.

On the heels of massive national and international media coverage of the “Endangered Species” campaign, featuring billboards throughout Atlanta, Georgia and the rest of the state, the new billboards present residents of Wisconsin’s largest city with the message “Black Children Are In Danger” and “Black & Beautiful.”

The sponsors hope to reveal ”the loss of hope and possibility that abortion brings,” Radiance director Ryan Bomberger told LifeNews.com this morning.

With huge racial disparities in the numbers of abortions, Wisconsin exceeds the national trends with its African-American population comprising 24% of the state’s abortions, a figure that is four times the percentage of blacks residing in the state, he notes.

“This campaign is our response to Planned Parenthood — whose 75 years of existence in Wisconsin continues to embrace the racist and eugenic idea that certain human life can be destroyed. And they do it for profit,” he said. “Wisconsin is the birthplace of the Republican Party, founded solely to abolish the inhumanity and destruction of slavery. We hope that something will stir Wisconsinites to see, regardless of political party, that liberation and justice are part of their historical DNA.”

Bomberger says Planned Parenthood’s latest Annual Report shows the abortion business aborted 324,008 unborn children in 2008 yet only made 2,405 adoption referrals — 135 abortions for every 1 adoption referral.

“Planned Parenthood profits, immensely, from deliberate deception—that ‘unplanned’ means ‘unwanted and unloved’ and therefore should be destroyed.  This campaign coincides with a holiday season in which most Americans celebrate the ultimate unplanned pregnancy, a courageous teenage mother, and a compassionate father who chose adoption instead of abandonment,” Bomberger explained.

“And that child is loved and adored to this day. We are a resourceful society who can, and do, offer so much better than the destruction of abortion as a solution,” he added.

Virginia Zignego, communications director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, also weighed in on the new billboards.

“Wisconsin is the eighth lowest state nationally in the number of abortions, but the racial disparity in its numbers far exceeds the national trends,” she said.

The TooManyAborted.com initiative is endorsed and championed by many national African-American civil rights leaders including Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr.
[29 Nov 2010, Ertelt | Milwaukee, WI | LifeNews.com. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/29/state-5704/




Thankful For … a Late-Term Abortionist

Well, I never thought I'd be saying thanks to Nebraska abortionist LeRoy Carhart for attempting to expand his late-term abortion cartel, but that's exactly what I'm here to do.

Iowa's incoming pro-life Republican speaker of the House, Kraig Paulsen, noted on Iowa Public Television Nov. 20 that while abortion was not much of a topic on the campaign trail, Carhart's Nov. 9 announcement that he was planning to open up shop in Council Bluffs "really elevated the whole discussion."

Or, as the Des Moines Register put it, Carhart "pushed the issue, Paulsen said."

Paulsen noted that consequently there were "several" legislative options under discussion.

One he mentioned was a law that would force abortionists to offer abortion-minded mothers the option of viewing an ultrasound of their babies.

Another was tightening a loophole in state law that currently allows late-term abortions for "health" of the mother, which basically amounts to abortion on demand, given the U.S. Supreme Court's broad definition of "health."

Another possibility would be enacting an abortion ban similar to Nebraska's, which is what drove Carhart over the border to begin with. Nebraska's Pain Capable Child Protection Act blocks abortionists from killing babies older than 20 weeks because they feel pain by that age.

Iowa Republican Gov.-elect Terry Branstad is pro-life, having defeated pro-abortion Democrat incumbent Chet Culver Nov. 2. He has promised to sign pro-life legislation.

Paulsen confirmed that the state House is overwhelmingly pro-life.

So the only branch of Iowa state government still controlled by pro-abort Democrats is the Senate, although just barely at 26-24.

Therefore, Iowans for Life is urging constituents to call Democrat Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal at 515-281-3901, prodding him to pass legislation in his chamber to stop Carhart. Ironically, Carhart's new location would be in his district.

I expect Gronstal and Iowa Democrats are none too happy with Carhart for bringing them this public-relations nightmare.

I also expect abortion advocates are irritated with Carhart for triggering this call for more abortion restrictions. Currently NARAL gives Iowa a C+ on abortion, which is high by its standards. Pro-lifers would love for NARAL to bestow Iowa a flaming red F in the none too distant future.

Both Democrats and the abortion industry learned from the decade-long battle over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that notoriety of second- and third-trimester abortions drives the public our way. Americans find the thought of killing older babies repugnant. Another irony: Carhart steered the PBA conversation, too.

There is also the issue of abortion-industry turf, which doesn't get much publicity. But Planned Parenthood of the Heartland must certainly be livid with Carhart for impinging on its territory.

PPH already operates one clinic in Council Bluffs and two more in nearby Omaha, with a brand new PPH clinic scheduled to open in Omaha next month to replace one of the others. These are all less than 20 miles from Carhart's current dump in Bellevue, Neb.     

While PPH's Omaha clinics don't commit abortions, the Council Bluffs mill commits medical RU-486 abortions. And all three, plus an additional two more PPH clinics in the vicinity, refer to PPH's Lincoln, Neb., mill only 50 miles away for surgical abortions.

So the area was already saturated by the blood of abortion even before Carhart's planned expansion into Council Bluffs.

Speaking of RU-486, PPH and the industry are also undoubtedly unhappy with Carhart on that issue as well. When Carhart galvanized Iowan pro-life activists and legislators to block his late-term abortion expansion plans, he apparently also greased the skids to pass a law banning telemed RU-486 abortions.

PPH secretly began committing these abortions via computer screen over two years ago. Paulsen said on Iowa Public Television his people were considering doing something about them as well.

Then there is Indiana, where Carhart has also promised to open a late-term mill. His announcement gave Indiana Right to Life the opening to call on legislators to pass a Nebraska-modeled fetal pain law.

And since Republicans cemented control of all three branches of government in Indiana Nov. 2, there is reason to believe such a bill will pass.

And Indiana pro-lifers, like pro-lifers in Iowa – and the rest of us – have none other than LeRoy Carhart to thank for opening the door.

[Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. In 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse; November 24, 2010, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=231805]



City Council Unanimously Votes to Stop Carhart Late-Term Abortion Plans

The Council Bluffs City Council in Iowa unanimously voted last night to shut down any plans late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart may have had to set up shop in the town.

Pro-life supporters packed the meeting last night to voice opposition to the announced plans of Carhart, who has said he wants to open up a late-term abortion mill there.

The abortionist has been forced to seek other locations for his late-term abortion business after Nebraska passed a fetal pain bill that banned abortions after 20 weeks, when the pre-born baby is believed to feel pain. Carhart is also interested in taking over an existing abortion facility in Indiana, where he has worked part-time for years, and Maryland.

Iowa Right to Life and other groups mobilized over 300 people to turn out to the meeting after rumors began to circulate that Carhart may have been interested in purchasing a city-owned lot for his proposed new Council Bluffs clinic.

The City Council, however, voted to sell the property only with the condition that it not be used for an abortion clinic.

While Carhart continues to raise money for the Council Bluffs facility, which he says is tentatively scheduled to open in January, Mayor Tom Hanafan told the crowd at last evening’s meeting that no one has approached the city for the needed permits for an abortion clinic.

During the meeting, Councilman Mike Shultz stated that the council had over the years tried to make the community a “positive place to work and live,” adding, “I think the council is unified on this. We’ll try to do what we can to prevent this type of activity,” according to the Associated Press.

“Carhart is desperate to relocate his late-term abortion business, because that is the only way he can make money,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “Carhart is a notoriously poor businessman who seems to be in constant financial distress. He doesn’t have the money to open in Council Bluffs right now, and this strong show of community opposition will make it even harder for him to move there, if he ever were to get the money.”

Last year, Carhart vowed to open a late-term abortion clinic within 25 miles of Wichita, Kansas, but failed to do so when Operation Rescue successfully blocked his efforts there.
[Council Bluffs, Iowa, November 23, 2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/city-council-unanimously-votes-to-stop-carhart-late-term-abortion-plans?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6583e21db3-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_23_2010&utm_medium=email

Carhart to Begin Late-Term Abortions in Maryland on 6 Dec 2010

Rather than opening a new clinic in Maryland, as he had previously announced he would, notorious late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart is instead joining up with an existing abortion business in Germantown, Maryland, reports the pro-life watchdog group Operation Rescue.

Carhart has been forced to move his late-term abortion business, thanks to a new Nebraska law that forbids abortions after 20 weeks gestation, the point at which the unborn child is able to feel pain.

He has announced plans to open facilities in three states, including Iowa, Maryland, and Indiana. The abortionist faces stiff opposition, however. Recently the city council in Council Bluffs, Iowa, unanimously voted to stop any plans to turn a city-owned lot into an abortion facility.

In reference to Carhart’s pending move to Maryland, Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, “This is not an expansion of abortion, but a relocation of Carhart’s failing late-term abortion business in a desperate attempt to avoid financial ruin.”

Carhart’s move, which Operation Rescue labeled as “opportunistic,” allows him to capture a portion of the abortion market vacated by the notorious abortionist Steven Chase Brigham, whose abortion clinics recently closed after it was discovered that he was operating a secret illegal late-term abortion racket in Maryland.

Like Brigham, Carhart has no hospital privileges in any state, including Maryland, where he intends to commit the risky late second and third trimester abortions. The facility he will be using is Germantown Reproductive Health Services, located at 13233 Executive Park Terrace.

GRHS is an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation, a group of abortion mills that has what Operation Rescue described as an “abysmal record” of filthy clinics and dangerous abortionists. Convicted rapist Brian Finkel, who is currently serving 34 years in an Arizona prison for raping dozens of his abortion patients, was an NAF member.

“Being an NAF affiliate only increases our belief that conditions at the Germantown clinic are such that the lives and health of women seeking Carhart’s late-term abortion services would be placed at even greater risk than is usual for late-term abortions which are typically prone to complication,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Carhart plans to begin late-term abortions at GRHS on December 6, 2010. Operation Rescue said it is working with Maryland and Washington, D.C. pro-life groups to employ peaceful, legal means to halt Carhart’s plans to do late-term abortions in Germantown.
[30 Nov 2010, John Jalsevac, GERMANTOWN, MD, November 29, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/carhart-to-begin-late-term-abortions-in-maryland-on-dec-6?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc0fc17ebe-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_30_2010&utm_medium=email





#ihadanabortion and I hate myself

Note: Kelly Clinger, a performer and former backup singer for the pop star Britney Spears, had two abortions when she was in her early twenties. She tells her abortion stories in more depth here. This article, written this week, tells of her continuing struggles to come to terms with the aftermath of those abortions.

This week has been a complete hell.

Someone asked if I had heard about the doctor in Orlando who has been in a lot of trouble, and when I searched for news about it, I realized it was James Pendergraft, the doctor who did my abortions.  He has now had his medical license suspended for the fourth time, this time for performing late term abortions past the time when they are legal.

When I saw a picture of the clinic, I crumbled.  When I saw a picture of the doctor, I began weeping and I couldn’t stop.

Every sight, every sound, every feeling came back.  I can still remember the poster on the ceiling.  It was the last thing I saw before I fell asleep from the anesthesia, and the first thing I saw when I woke up.

The article was full of stories about women like me … ones who have suffered for months, even years, because of incomplete abortions.

There was a woman who was awake and saw her baby being pulled from her as his body fell apart in the doctor’s hands.  They had her frantic 911 call as she decided she wanted the baby to live after seeing that it actually is a baby, but no one at the clinic would help.  By the time the ambulance arrived, the baby was dead.

It’s an uncomfortable subject … because if I call it a baby, if I admit that it was a boy or a girl who had 10 fingers and 10 toes and a life that was already mapped out by God, then I am calling myself a killer.  If I talk about it, blog about it, pray about it, then that makes it real.

But just when I think I’ve pushed the memories far enough behind that they won’t catch up with me, there they are again.

The self-hatred is paralyzing.  It lurks closely and tells me that I don’t deserve happiness.  The guilt is suffocating.  It has affected every relationship I have.  I can’t trust or attempt intimacy.

I would take a bullet for my out-of-the-womb children.  Why didn’t I protect the ones inside?

I have given up hope that the past could have been different.  I cannot change what I did.  Every bible study, counseling session, and prayer seems to just be a band-aid over a wound that will never heal.

So, I will be a voice for my children who only know heaven.  I will be a voice for the millions of women who live in regret, guilt, self-hatred and fear of being “found out”.  I will be painfully honest about every feeling I have, and I will stand up for life even when it’s unpopular and politically incorrect.  So, please spare me your pro-life/pro-choice arguments.  I know what I saw.  I know how I feel.  I will never be the same.  I will never get over it.

And if I don’t take this pain and make it my purpose, I think it might kill me.

Kelly Clinger blogs here -- http://kellyclinger.wordpress.com/ 
[22 Nov 2010, Kelly Clinger, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ihadanabortion-and-i-hate-myself?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6583e21db3-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_23_2010&utm_medium=email ; blog, 18 Nov 2010]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Burial Held for Babies Recovered in Maryland Abortion Business Raid

Burial missed an opportunity to provide a teaching moment to the public about the horrific nature of abortion and the value of human life.

Pretty much everything about their short lives was secret. On Monday morning, November 15, 2010, the remains of 34 aborted babies were secretly buried in an Elkton cemetery three months after police discovered them in a storage freezer during a raid on the secret abortion clinic where their lives secretly ended.

Blogger Jill Stanek broke the story of the burial yesterday after speaking with the only reporter to witness the service.

The bodies were the result of late-term abortions illegally started by the notorious abortionist Steven Brigham at his Voorhees, New Jersey abortion mill, and completed at his under-the-radar Elkton, Maryland, clinic.

Brigham is not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland and has since had his New Jersey medical license suspended. Two other abortionists involved in Brigham's illegal late-term abortion scheme have also been suspended in Maryland.

According to Stanek, her source at Elkton's newspaper, the Cecil Whig, says that of the 35 babies recovered, 34 were buried on Monday. One child's remains were claimed by a Canadian couple.

Most interesting is news that eleven death certificates were issued for eleven of the pre-born babies. Does this mean that eleven murder counts could be pending?

Operation Rescue spoke with a representative of the State's Attorney's office in Elkton, who indicated that the case was still an open investigation under the purview of the Elkton Police Department, who conducted the initial raid and recovered the aborted baby remains. Operation Rescue continues to monitor the case.

In the meantime, while it is commendable for the Immaculate Conception Church to arrange for a decent burial for the tiny victims of abortion, it is more than sad that the service was held in secrecy.

"It is important for the world to know that the lives of 35 innocent babies have been brutally and illegally taken from us," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "The burial service would have allowed the pro-life community the opportunity to restore human dignity to these children in death that was denied them in life.

"This kind of secrecy only works to benefit the abortion industry, who seeks to hide the grisly truth about abortion abuses such as the ones to which these babies fell victim. These abuses have become commonplace across the nation. It was a lost opportunity to provide a teaching moment to the public about the dangers of abortionists who act as if they are above the law as well as the horrific nature of abortion, and the value of human life."

It is time for the secrecy to stop. It is our prayer that justice in this case will be aggressively and publicly pursued by the authorities.

We must shine the light on the horrific nature of abortion and help the American people face the grisly nature of an abortion industry that is fraught with abuses. This is the kind of public discussion that is needed if America is to ever face the truth about abortion and end it once and for all.

[Watch Video of Burial (filmed by the Cecil Whig) --
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/secret-burial-held-for-babies-recovered-in-abortion-clinic-raid/
November 19, 2010; PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update, Elkton, Maryland, 19 Nov 10]



17 Aborted Babies Buried 20 November in Michigan
These aborted babies were retrieved from the trash on February 26, 2010. They were killed in January of this year at the Woman's Choice abortion business in Lansing and dumped into a trash container that services the office park where the abortion facility is located.

The 17 bags that contained the babies' remains were marked with the mothers full names and the date of their abortion.

Citizens for a Pro-Life Society participated in several subsequent trash dumpster searches-- both atthe Woman's Choice site in Lansing, and at its sister abortion business in Saginaw. 

Extensive medical waste and several patient records were discovered.   A history of this case as well as a full photo gallery is available at  www.prolifesociety.com 
[18 Nov 2010, email, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society News]




Survey Shows 31 Abortion Centers Closed Over Last 12 Months

While the pro-life movement longs for the day unborn children can be protected under the law from abortions, a new survey of the number of abortion centers nationwide shows it is possible to make a difference now.

Despite the Supreme Court having allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason via the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, the pro-life community has been successful in getting abortion centers to close.

Noticing a recent rash of closure and wanting to know concrete figures, pro-life nurse and blogger Jill Stanek asked Operation Rescue for some hard data.

“It has seemed to me an awful lot of abortion mills have been closing lately,” Stanek said. “So Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue was kind enough to compile a list for us. OR keeps the most accurate and up-to-date record of active and closed abortion mills I’m aware of.”

The pro-life group provided figures showing 31 abortion businesses closed in the last 12 months while 9 new abortion facilities opened — for a net drop of 22 abortion facilities.

Stanek provided new numbers from the pro-life organization of the total number of abortion centers across the country.

“As of now a total of 689 surgical abortion clinics remain in the US, from a high of almost 2,200 in 1991,” she indicated. “This number does not include abortion mills that solely commit medical abortions, i.e., distribute the abortion pill, RU-486.”

Since 1991, including the 31 Stanek noted, more than two-thirds of abortion centers have closed that were operating nearly 20 years ago.

Earlier this month, Planned Parenthood of Lawrence quietly closed its abortion facility located near the University of Kansas. With the closing, Kansas is now down to three abortion centers left in the state.

The abortion center in Youngstown, Ohio closed after 34 years of doing abortions. The Mahoning Women’s Center in Youngstown announced that its last day of doing abortions was in January.

The abortion center run by Arkansas abortion practitioner William Harris closed in July and he passed away in September.

The Michigan abortion business where embattled abortion practitioner Alberto Hodari forced a teenager to have an abortion against her will has closed as well.

And, in one of the bigger victories for the pro-life movement, the abortion center in Maryland where a young woman was killed in a botched abortion has closed for good.
[Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com Report 1Dec2010, #5033 | 11/30/10 http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/30/nat-6895/ ]





Planned Parenthood Files Suit Against Alaska Parental Notification Law

Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGW) is filing suit against a law approved by Alaska voters in August that would require parents to be notified of their minor daughter’s abortion.

The abortion giant, along with two pro-abortion medical doctors, is arguing that the law violates abortion-bound girls’ right to equal protection, because girls who choose to keep their babies are not required to tell their parents. The plaintiffs also claim the law, set to take effect December 14 of this year, violates abortionists’ due process rights.

Clover Simon, vice president of PPGW, said: “We really believe under the Alaska Constitution that minors really do have the same protection of privacy as an adult woman. And that this law, the way that it’s been written, has so many burdens on minors that it means they can’t adequately exercise that right.”

Alaska’s Department of Law is reviewing the complaint.

Supporters of parental restrictions on abortion have fought a long battle in the state. Legislation requiring parental consent for abortions was voted into law in 1997, but was stalled in the courts until state Supreme Court judges struck it down as interfering with a teenage girl’s “fundamental right to choose” to abort her child.

However, the head of the court at the time, Chief Justice Dana Fabe, indicated that a law requiring only parental notification would be constitutional. Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Council told the Daily News he was expecting the pro-abortion Fabe, who remains an associate justice on the court, to keep her word.

After a parental notification bill stalled in the state Senate’s health committee in 2009, supporters turned to Alaska voters. Planned Parenthood had teamed up with the ACLU to fight the proposed law, known as Measure 2, on the August primary ballot, before voters upheld it 55 to 45 percent.

“It seems like every time that Planned Parenthood fails in the court of public opinion or in the Legislature they are going to go to the courts and see if they can push it through that way,” Minnery told the Daily News this week. “But we’re pretty confident.”

At least 35 states require either parental notification or consent in a minor’s decision to abort her child.

In several states, such as Illinois, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have stalled such legislation in the courts for as long as several years. [Kathleen Gilbert, Nov 26, 2010, ANCHORAGE, Alaska, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/planned-parenthood-files-suit-against-alaska-parental-notification-law?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c60447b690-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines11_26_2010&utm_medium=email ]

 ella

Abortion Backers Put Women at Risk: Promote RU 486 Drug Without Ultrasound

A new study published by abortion advocates could put women’s health at risk by suggesting they do not receive an ultrasound prior to using the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug.

The mifepristone drug has already been documented to have claimed the lives of at least 13 women around the world and the European manufacturer suggests more may have died as well.

Another 1,100 women in the United States have, as of 2006 FDA figures, been injured by the abortion pill — facing everything from hospitalizations to blood transfusions to emergency surgery.

Now, Hillary Bracken of Gynuity Health Projects in New York City has published a new study suggesting an ultrasound for women before an abortion using the drug may be unneeded.

There are no official guidelines for when an ultrasound is indicated, but ultrasounds are typically performed to ensure there’s not an ectopic pregnancy and to determine fetal age so the abortion drug is used within the window when it is considered most “safe” — at around seven to nine weeks of pregnancy.

Bracken, according to a Reuters report, tested to determine whether a woman’s estimate of her last menstrual period and a physical exam were enough to determine whether the abortion drug is appropriate instead of a surgical abortion.

The study, published in the obstetrics journal BJOG, covered 4,484 women seeking the abortion pill at 10 different abortion centers, including 8 run by Planned Parenthood — where many of the women using the abortion drug in California died after receiving improper instructions on its usage.

The study asked women to estimate their last menstrual period and then featured an ultrasound to determine the age of the baby. It found 1.6 percent of women would have been given the abortion drug after nine weeks of pregnancy had estimates been relied on instead of an ultrasound examination.

All of the women in that group were within 11 weeks of their last period, meaning the drug could still work but also that the percentage chance it would fail — and perhaps leave parts of the unborn child inside the mother’s uterus requiring a surgical abortion — would increase.

“Any reduction in efficacy would be gradual,” Bracken told Reuters in an attempt to dismiss the concerns.

Ultimately, she said women should “feel safe” about using the abortion drug without an ultrasound examination.

But Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America, told LifeNews.com Winikoff is a “radical abortion promoter” whose goal is to expand the use of the abortion drug to rural areas and other countries.

“Her primary goal is making abortion easy to get, despite how dangerous her methods may be to women’s health, and consistently advocates for dropping safety precautions,” she said.

Wright said ultrasound is a key component of women using the abortion drug and depriving them of the examination puts their health at risk.

“Bypassing this important procedure merely to cut costs is like avoiding a safety test on a space rocket. It may save money up front, but can cost people their lives,” she said. “Gynuity is showing, once again, the callousness of the abortion industry. Pro-lifers need to recognize this on-going threat and press for more protections for women and babies.”

The study involved a question during the physical examination designed to determine if an ectopic pregnancy is present. Some 32 women were flagged as potentially having one and 11 had either an ectopic or molar pregnancy.

Yet Bracken admitted to Reuters that the study was not an attempt to determine if non-ultrasound screening can determine an ectopic pregnancy — meaning women whose lives would be threatened by the usage of the abortion drug in such a situation may be missed if abortion centers no longer use ultrasounds. With two percent of pregnancies in the United States ectopic, that should present women significant worry.

Wright explained that “RU-486 does not end an ectopic pregnancy and an undetected ectopic pregnancy can kill both the mother and the baby.”

Gene Rudd, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist, has previously expressed concern that the FDA didn’t require an ultrasound exam with the use of the abortion drug.

“The symptoms that may indicate serious and life-threatening problems after taking this drug are difficult even for some physicians to recognize, much less for a patient to have to figure out at home,” Rudd explained.

“The FDA belatedly emphasizes that ‘health care providers should be vigilant for patients with undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies as this condition may be missed by physical examination and ultrasound,’” Dr. Rudd explained.

“The truth is that ultrasound does actually help diagnose ectopic pregnancies in many cases, yet the agency decided to drop its initial requirements for ultrasound after politicians knocked on their door,” Rudd added.
[9 Dec 2010, Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/09/nat-6920/

Women’s Leader: ella Drug Maker Covers Up Abortion Mechanism of Action
The leader of a pro-life women’s group is not happy that Watson Pharmaceuticals announced yesterday it is making the new ella abortion drug available nationwide.

As LifeNews.com reported, the company plans to not only stock the drug in pharmacies across the country, but will push sales of the supposedly improved emergency contraceptive pill via the Internet.

While the company maintains the drug works only as a contraceptive agent, it has been proven to destroy the lives of unborn children because it acts five days after intercourse — which is plenty of time for conception to occur and bring into existence a new, unique human being.

Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright told LifeNews.com she is not happy with Watson Pharmaceuticals for making the prescription drug easy to obtain and for deceiving women in its promotional materials.

“The information for doctors admits that ella caused abortions in animal trials, yet the website and information for patients does not warn women of this,” she said.

Wright says Watson and the FDA are doing women a disservice by not making them aware of all of the possible complications and medical problems associated with the drug.

“Questions were raised that the drug may cause birth defects, yet the FDA allowed the drug company to avoid testing for birth defects. This is a deliberate effort to deceive women who would not otherwise take a drug that could harm their baby,” she said.

Wright is also concerned that selling the ella pills through the Internet will cause significant problems.

“Providing the drug through a website means that anyone can buy it any number of times. Watson Pharmaceuticals has made it easy for girls of all ages, or a predatory man who is sexually abusing a girl or who wants to force an abortion on an unwilling woman, to obtain this drug,” she said. “This puts women at risk from men who can slip the drug into their food or drink.”

Wright also said women will not have proper medical followup if they purchase ella online.

“Without a doctor’s oversight, girls won’t be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. When a woman experiences complications, the prescribing ‘doctor’ will be as anonymous as a drug dealer in a back alley,” she said. “Clearly, this will create more health hazards for women.”
Ella has been available in Europe as an emergency contraceptive since October 2009, where it is marketed by its developer,  HRA Pharma, as ellaOne.

But the FDA, when it approved the drug, made its decision based on data from two phase III clinical trials the French drug maker HRA Pharma sponsored.

The studies showed 1.51 percent of women using ella (or ellaOne in Europe) became pregnant when using the drug 72 hours after intercourse while 2.81 percent became pregnant when using the Plan B drug.

However, Wright said the ella abortion drug maker could not answer other questions.
“The drug sponsor couldn’t provide information on whether Ella can cause birth defects, or what happens to women who are pregnant who take it. And yet the committee strongly recommended not giving a woman a pregnancy test,” she told LifeNews.com after the hearing.

“In Europe, Ella is contra-indicated (not to be used) in pregnancies. But the FDA committee voted to not to test women to detect if they’re pregnant. They are telling doctors to be willfully blind when giving the drug,” Wright continued.

Americans United for Life and the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists told the FDA a study in England confirms the pro-life perspective that ulipristal acts as an abortion drug.

Anna Glasier, of NHS Lothian in Edinburgh, led a study of more than 5,500 women in the UK published online in The Lancet medical journal. It found fewer pregnancies among those women given the ellaOne drug within five days of intercourse.

For women who took the drug between 3-5 days after having sex, only women taking the traditional morning after pill became pregnant. That is because all of the women using ulipristal during that time period either didn’t conceive in the first place or actually experienced abortions.
[2 Dec 2010, Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/02/nat-6905/]




Planned Parenthood Played Role in New ella Abortion Drug
Planned Parenthood dominates the abortion market — doing more than 25 percent of all abortions annually in the United States. So it’s no surprise the abortion business is taking credit for developing the new ella abortion drug.

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, submitted a press release in response to the news that the maker of ella abortion drug, Watson Pharmaceuticals, has announced it is now available nationwide.

Planned Parenthood applauded the launch of the drug and contributed to the misinformation Watson, the FDA and other abortion advocates are putting forward by calling it an emergency contraceptive pill. It works within five days of intercourse, making it a clear abortifacient pill because conception will have already occurred in many cases developing a new, unique human being.

“Preventing unintended pregnancies is one of Planned Parenthood’s top priorities,” Richards said, claiming the “launch of ella in the U.S. gives American women one more option for backup birth control.”

But Richards tried to draw attention to Planned Parenthood’s participation in bringing ella to market.

“Planned Parenthood Federation of America played an integral role in the development of ella. Per FDA protocol, clinical trials were conducted, and ella was proven to maintain its high effectiveness over five days. Several Planned Parenthood affiliates participated in these clinical trials,” the press release said.

The release noted that Paul Fine, medical director of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast “was lead author on a key study on the safety and effectiveness of ella in the February 2010 journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That study was based on the experience of 1,241 women who were patients at Planned Parenthood health centers.”

Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs, for PPFA, who has been frequently criticized before, appeared with Fine before the FDA committee that held a hearing on the drug before the agency approved it.

“Planned Parenthood has played a key role in the development of ella,” Richards bragged.

But what Planned Parenthood will not likely be doing is informing women that the drug can cause very early abortions because it destroys the life of an unborn child after conception and before implantation.

Concerned Women for America president Wendy Wright told LifeNews.com she is not happy with Watson Pharmaceuticals for making the prescription drug easy to obtain and for deceiving women in its promotional materials.

“The information for doctors admits that ella caused abortions in animal trials, yet the website and information for patients does not warn women of this,” she said.

Wright says Watson and the FDA are doing women a disservice by not making them aware of all of the possible complications and medical problems associated with the drug.

“Questions were raised that the drug may cause birth defects, yet the FDA allowed the drug company to avoid testing for birth defects. This is a deliberate effort to deceive women who would not otherwise take a drug that could harm their baby,” she said.

Charmaine Yoest, the president of Americans United for Life, has said the ella drug is chemically related to the abortion drug RU 486 that has killed and injured women and she says women will not likely be informed of potential problems.

“The FDA and abortion proponents are representing Ulipristal as if it were Plan B – however, in many respects, it’s simply the next generation of RU-486,” she says. “The American people need to know that Ulipristal works in the same way as RU-486 to kill an embryo before or after implantation. Ulipristal also has potential to be a dangerous drug that will place women’s lives in danger.”

AUL told the FDA that the abortion drug RU-486 is the parent compound of Ulipristal and it subjects women to drastic health risks, including risks of bacterial infection and hemorrhage.

To date, at least 13 women have died after using RU-486, and possibly dozens, according to the European maker of the mifepristone abortion drug. In addition, more than 1,100 women have experienced medical problems associated with the abortion drug, according to the FDA’s own 2006 figures.

Ulipristal may be subject to similar risks, and unsupervised, over-the-counter access would likely put countless women’s lives in danger, AUL said in its testimony.

Studies on women showed the drug can abort an existing pregnancy after implantation.

Anna Glasier, of NHS Lothian in Edinburgh, led a study of more than 5,500 women in the UK published online in The Lancet medical journal. It found fewer pregnancies among those women given the ellaOne drug within five days of intercourse. And for women who took the drug between 3-5 days after having sex, only women taking the traditional morning after pill became pregnant, with the women taking ella not conceiving or likely having abortions.

Dr. Donna Harrison, the president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees with the assessment of ellaOne (Ulipristal) as an abortion drug.

“I think it’s important that the pro-life community recognize exactly what Ulipristal is, and how it works, so they are not fooled,” she told LifeNews.com in January.
[3 Dec 2010, Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/03/nat-6906/

COERCION
A Tidal Wave of Published Data: More Than 30 Studies in Last Five Years Show Negative Impact of Abortion on Women
by Priscilla Coleman, Ph.D.

On Sunday, November 7th, the Washington Post published an opinion piece by Dr. Brenda Major, titled The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health. I would like to offer another perspective on dishonesty permeating the scientific study and dissemination of information pertaining to abortion and mental health.

Dr. Major is absolutely correct: an informed choice regarding abortion must be based on accurate information. For abortion providers to offer an unbiased and valid synopsis of the scientific literature on increased risks of abortion, the information must include depression, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well as suicide ideation and behaviors.

Over 30 studies have been published in just the last five years and they add to a body of literature comprised of hundreds of studies published in major medicine and psychology journals throughout the world.

The list is provided below and the conscientious reader is encouraged to check the studies out. No lies ... just scientifically-derived information that individual academics, several major professional organizations, and abortion providers have done their best to hide and distort in recent years.

Like Dr. Major, I too am a tenured, full professor at a well-respected U.S. university, and I too have published peer-reviewed scientific articles in reputable journals.

In fact, my publication record far exceeds that of Dr. Major on the topic of abortion and mental health.

I am not alone in my opinion, which has been voiced by prominent researchers in Great Britain, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S., and elsewhere.

As a group of researchers who in 2008 published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles indicating abortion is associated with negative psychological outcomes, six colleagues and I sent a petition letter to the American Psychological Association (APA) criticizing their methods and conclusions as described in their Task Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health.

The opinion piece by Brenda Major following on the heels of the highly-biased APA report is just the latest effort to divert attention from a tidal wave of sound published data on the emotional consequences of abortion.

The evidence is accumulating, despite socio-political agendas to keep the truth from the academic journals and ultimately from women to insure that the big business of abortion continues unimpeded.

The literature now echoes the voices of millions of women for whom abortion was not a liberating, health promoting "choice."

A conservative estimate from the best available data is 20 to 30 percent of women who undergo an abortion will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences.

Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity.

The human fallout to such a choice by the APA and like-minded colleagues is misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will undergo an abortion today without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often life-altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent, which is routinely extended for all other elective surgeries in the U.S.

In publishing Major's opinion without soliciting other voices on the topic, the Washington Post has perpetuated a serious injustice.

List of Studies

 1. Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationship between induced abortion, attitudes toward sexuality, and sexual problems. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 390-406.

 2. Brockington, I.F. (2005). Post-abortion psychosis, Archives of Women's Mental Health 8: 53-54.

 3. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2006). Predictors of anxiety and depression following pregnancy termination: A longitudinal five-year follow-up study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 85: 317-23.

 4. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). Reasons for induced abortion and their relation to women's emotional distress: A prospective, two-year follow-up study. General Hospital Psychiatry 27:36-43.

 5. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). The course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. BMC Medicine 3(18).

 6. Coleman, P. K. (2005). Induced Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 1, 21-34.

7. Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 35, 903-911.

 8. Coleman, P. K. (2009). The Psychological Pain of Perinatal Loss and Subsequent Parenting Risks: Could Induced Abortion be more Problematic than Other Forms of Loss? Current Women's Health Reviews 5, 88-99.

9. Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C. T., & Rue, V.M. (2010). Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Journal of Pregnancy vol. 2010, Article ID 130519.

10. Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C.T., Shuping, M., & Rue, V. (2009), Induced Abortion and Anxiety, Mood, and Substance Abuse Disorders: Isolating the Effects of Abortion in the National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 770- 776.

 11. Coleman, P. K., Maxey, C. D., Rue, V. M., & Coyle, C. T. (2005). Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low-income mothers. Acta Paediatrica, 94 (10),--76-1483.
 
12. Coleman, P. K., & Maxey, D. C., Spence, M. Nixon, C. (2009). The choice to abort among mothers living under ecologically deprived conditions:  Predictors and consequences. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 7, 405-422.
 
13. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10 (2), 255-268.

14. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271.
 
15. Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M. & Coyle, C.T. (2009). Induced abortion and intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey. Public Health, 123, 331-338.DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.01.005.
 
16. Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Coyle, C.T. & Maxey, C.D. (2007). Induced abortion and child-directed aggression among mothers of maltreated children. Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, 6 (2), ISSN: 1528-8374.

17. Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., & Spence, M. (2007). Intrapersonal processes and post-abortion   relationship difficulties:  A review and consolidation of relevant literature. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 4 (2).

18. Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Spence, M. & Coyle, C.T. (2008). Abortion and the sexual lives of men and women: Is casual sexual behavior more appealing and more common after abortion? International Journal of Health and Clinical Psychology, 8 (1), 77-91.

19. Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142.

20. Coyle, C.T., Coleman, P.K. & Rue, V.M. (2010). Inadequate preabortion counseling and decision conflict as predictors of subsequent relationship difficulties and psychological stress in men and women. Traumatology, 16 (1), 16-30. DOI:10.1177/1534765609347550.
 
21. Dingle, K., et al. (2008). Pregnancy loss and psychiatric disorders in young women: An Australian birth cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 455-460.

22. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Boden, J.M. (2009). Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 420-426.
 
23. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2006). Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 16-24.

24. Gissler, M., et al. (2005). Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 459-463.

25. Hemmerling, F., Siedentoff, F., & Kentenich, H. (2005). Emotional impact and acceptability of medical abortion with mifepristone: A German experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 23-31.

26. Mota, N.P. et al (2010). Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviors in a nationally representative sample. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 239-246.

27. Pedersen, W. (2008). Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36, No. 4, 424-428.
 
28. Pedersen, W. (2007). Childbirth, abortion and subsequent substance use in young women: a population-based longitudinal study. Addiction, 102 (12), 1971-78.

29. Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Relative treatment for sleep disorders following abortion and child delivery: A prospective record-based study. Sleep, 29 (1), 105-106.

30. Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J. (2007). The Relationship between Abortion and Depression: New Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Medical Science Monitor. 13(10): 430-436.
 
31. Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation. BMC Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9.
~~~
Dr. Coleman is an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University.  A major concentration of her research has been the psychological outcomes among women who have experienced abortion.

Learn more: For more information on the APA Task Force on abortion and mental health, visit www.abortionrisks.org
Related Articles:
Telling Women "Post-Abortion Trauma Is A Myth" Is A Form of Coercion
http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/disclosureandcoerciongsw2.htm



Disclosure and Coercion: Concealing Relevant Information is "An Act of Coercion"
by Melinda Tankard Reist

In this excerpt from her book Giving Sorrow Words: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion, journalist and women's rights advocate Melinda Tankard Reist argues that failing to inform women about the risks and trauma of abortion is a form of coercion:

Concealing information relevant to a woman's decision-making and future health should be recognized as an act of coercion.

Deceptive information presented as fact — for example, that post-abortion trauma is a "myth" — also acts coercively on a client.

If a woman has an abortion without having been apprised of the facts about potential harm and suffering, she has not chosen freely: the decision-making process has been rendered defective. The normal requirements for informed consent prior to undergoing a medical procedure should not be suspended when that procedure is a termination of pregnancy.

Informed consent means that, prior to the decision to have an abortion, the patient must be fully advised of all physical and psychological risks associated with abortion, even if the doctor considers those risks minimal.

In 1992, the High Court of Australia in Rogers v. Whitaker stated expressly that every patient must be provided with complete information, including the most remote risk, flowing from or which may flow from the proposed medical procedure. In that case, a specialist was held to be negligent for not advising a woman of a one in 14,000 risk of incurring blindness from an eye operation. She was the one in 14,000.

The ruling effectively means that a decision to undergo a medical procedure is void unless it is made on the basis of relevant information. But in the field of abortion provision, there seems to be an attitude that women need to be "protected" from such information, that they might be confused by material other than that which presents abortion as quick, easy and virtually risk-free.

The U.K. Commission of Inquiry Into The Physical and Psycho-Social Effects of Abortion on Women heard from a Dr. Alan Rogers, Consultant Gynecologist at Marie Stopes Park View Clinic, who said that he was confident he could "tell" when a woman was ready for an abortion. The Commission's report stated: "We were unable to establish how much information is actually given to women at Dr. Rogers' clinic [sic] prior to abortion."

A doctor who said he could just "tell" when a woman was "ready" for any other medical procedure, without having first provided her with information about that procedure and its possible risks, would be reminded that the days of "doctor-knows-best" are over.

Other medical practitioners, in Australia and overseas, have noted with concern the dearth of information about risks provided to women considering abortion. Some have called for mandatory reporting of abortion complications.

It is not enough to tell a woman she might "feel sad for a few days" and that such feelings are "hormonal and will pass," which was the reductionist message on abortion after-effects given to most of this book's contributors. She needs to know she might experience what the women in this book experienced—a long-lasting mental and emotional backlash, and, in some cases, significant physical ramifications—even if the clinic staff don't think these possibilities worth mentioning.

Women who leave their beds at night to breastfeed a "crying" (aborted) baby, or who buy teddy bears they pretend are their babies, or who cut themselves with razors, or whose bodies cannot sustain future pregnancies, are suffering what may be described as a form of socially and medically sanctioned repression.

The repression began in the [abortion center] or hospital when they were denied information about possible outcomes of abortion, and continued when they were denied a forum through which to address the toll abortion has taken on their lives.

The filtering of information to suit a particular agenda must stop.

As one woman wrote to the [business] where her abortion was carried out: "Your biased, one-eyed approach did not serve me well. And now I must live with it, not you."

An informed woman should not be seen as a threat. Women should be made aware of their legal rights to pursue damages for physical/psychological harm suffered of which they were not forewarned.

In an article arguing the need for informed choice, including information about "fetuses, complications, even long-term grief," pro-choice Canadian writer Lindalee Tracey, who has had an abortion, states: "We shouldn't flinch from what it is we don't want to know. No matter how politically inconvenient."
~~~
Excerpted from the book Giving Sorrow Words: Women's Stories of Grief After Abortion, by Melinda Tankard Reist. Copyright 2007 Melinda Tankard Reist. Reprinted with permission.
[ http://www.theunchoice.com/articles/disclosureandcoerciongsw2.htm ]





Two More Abortion Facilities Close, Including Site of Alleged Forced Abortion
Two notorious abortion facilities have closed or are scheduled to close, continuing a national trend of closures...

In Yakima, Washington, the Cedar Women’s Clinic, which was the first abortion clinic to open in that city 31 years ago, closed Monday due to a dramatic decrease in the demand for abortions. According to statistics kept by the state, the abortion rate for women ages 15 to 44 dropped from 18 per 1,000 in 2008 to 16.7 per 1,000 in 2009. One abortion facility remains in Yakima.

In Michigan, Womancare of Downriver in Southgate, owned by abortionist Alberto Hodari, is currently in the process of being sold to a physician whose practice does not include abortions. Once the deal is complete, the abortion center will close.

The Southgate facility made it into the news last year after Caitlin Bruce, a former client of Hodari, filed a lawsuit against him and an assistant whom she claims forced her to have an abortion in April 2008.  The lawsuit claimed Hodari "had his assistant ... restrain Caitlin Bruce and cover her mouth" and began the abortion procedure "despite Caitlin Bruce's objecting and screaming, 'Stop, stop, I don't want this,' and despite her desire not to undergo the procedure."

Another woman, Jennifer McCoy, came forward last year with allegations that Hodari forced an abortion on her at the Southgate site when she was 16-years old. McCoy praised the closure of the facility: “That clinic [sic] will never do another abortion again,” she said.

Hodari's practice has also been implicated in the deaths of at least four women from abortion-related complications.  In June 2009, the Disciplinary Subcommittee of Michigan's Board of Medicine fined Hodari $10,000 for negligence in connection with the botched abortion death of Regina Johnson.

Operation Rescue said that the Southgate facility was one of at least two abortion mills that Hodari was trying to sell. In all, Hodari operates six abortion mills in Eastern Michigan.

The Washington and Michigan closures are part of an increasing trend that has been taking place in America over the past twenty years. According to Operation Rescue, over two-thirds of America’s abortion clinics have closed since 1991, when there were over 2,100 [businesses] nationwide.

“When we released our ‘Project Daniel 5:25’ listing of all remaining surgical abortion clinics [sic] in the United States last December, there were 713. Today, counting the Southgate mill, which will soon close, there are only 694,” said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. “That’s great news for women and their pre-born babies.”

Twenty abortion [businesses] have closed in the past 11 months at a rate of nearly two per month.

Sullenger pointed out that more [sites] would close if they ceased to receive taxpayer dollars.

“Government funding continues to artificially prop up a failing abortion industry. Without tax-funding, more of these clinics [SIC] would fold,” said Sullenger. “Until we can encode legal protections for the pre-born, we must work to expose and defund the abortion industry. Closing clinics [SIC] is a proven way to reduce abortions and save lives.”
[WASHINGTON, D.C., November 18, 2010, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111803.html]





TERMINOLOGY
Commentary: Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The Social Motivations Behind New Definitions

The FDA’s recent controversial approval of “ulipristal acetate—an emergency contraceptive effective for up to 5 days” after exposure—made headline news in the September issue of Ob.Gyn. News.1

Like similar medications with an approved 3-day window, the newer drug contains a hormone which not only delays ovulation but also alters the environment inside the uterus to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.2
And like the others, it claims to not cause abortion if the woman happens to already be pregnant.3

But what does “being pregnant” really mean? Some clever sleight of hand has been underway for years to allow “guilt-free” abortions by redefining the words involved. In reality, the use of hormones “after-the-fact” has been going on since the 1970s, long before the specially approved drugs were available, by the creative dosing of prescription oral contraceptives with physician advice.

The 1988 advent of RU486, freely acknowledged to cause abortion and approved in the United States since 2000, created a stir and prompted some medical and pharmaceutical personnel—people who were often not involved in the conventional “surgical” abortion industry—to face issues of conscience—asking themselves, “am I willing to participate in abortion?” RU486 was obviously an abortifacient.4

What about non-surgical termination of pregnancy before implantation—the so-called “morning-after pill”?
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception.5

Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.

The move to redefine conception actually started in 1959 when Dr. Bent Boving at a Planned Parenthood symposium pointed out “the social advantage of [implantation preventatives] being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy.”6

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists followed Boving’s advice in 1965 by adopting this definition: “conception is the implantation of an ovum.”7

Since fertilization cannot be detected until the time of implantation—when the physical connection to the mother’s body allows a hormone from the developing placenta to enter the mother’s bloodstream—the reasoning was that the beginning of pregnancy could be redefined to the time when we can medically detect it.

This reasoning is tantamount to asking whether a man alone on a desert island really exists if no one knows he’s there. Such reasoning amounts to philosophical meandering, not science.

Thus those who cling to the idea that pregnancy begins at conception have been gradually derailed.

And with the widespread adoption of these “socially advantageous” definitions having no genuine basis in science much less in biblical morality, people who wish to prescribe or take “emergency contraceptives” need no longer be afraid they might cause an abortion because now [using this new terminology] no pregnancy actually exists—even if it does.

Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, testified against approval, telling the FDA that “ulipristal worked as an abortifacient.”

She [stated] in a letter to members that the labeling of this drug is “deceptive and dangerous to women and their newly conceived baby.”

She asserts that the FDA is “deliberately misleading women by mislabeling ella [the European name for the drug] only as contraception and not as an abortifacient.”8
We applaud her stand for the truth.

Semantics don’t change truth. The FDA’s recent decision continues to reinforce the worldview that a baby’s life hasn’t even started until man says it has. But God created human life. He therefore gets to set the rules. And no matter how many times man redefines human life, God’s truth doesn’t change...

Footnotes

   1. FDA Approves EC Effective Up to 5 Days, Ob.Gyn. News September 2010. www.obgynnews.com/article/PIIS0029743710703104/fulltext.
   2. The FDA-approved label states that the “likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception” is inhibiting or delaying ovulation by postponing follicular rupture when taken immediately before a woman ovulates. The statement adds: “However, alterations of the endometrium that may effect implantation may also contribute to efficacy.”
   3. The FDA is asking the manufacturer to conduct additional studies on the effects when the drug is inadvertently taken when “already pregnant, or when it fails.”
   4. Incidentally, the new drug and RU486 are actually the same class of drugs, selective progesterone receptor modulators.
   5. In the 26th edition (1995) of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, conception was defined as the “act of conceiving, or becoming pregnant; fertilization of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatozoon to form a viable zygote.” In the 27th edition (2000) of Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, conception is defined as follows: “Act of conceiving; the implantation of the blastocyte in the endometrium.”
   6. www.all.org/article.php?id=10678 quoting from “Implantation Mechanisms,” in Bent Boving (ed. C. G. Hartman). 1963. Mechanisms Concerned with Conception, New York: Pergamon Press. p. 386.
   7. Terms Used in Reference to the Fetus. ACOG Terminology Bulletin 1, September 1965. Chicago: American College of Obstetrics ad Gynecology. The ACOG definition was refined in 1972, changing the word ovum to blastocyst, but maintaining that conception, and therefore pregnancy, begins at implantation.
   8. Quoted in the Ob.Gyn. News article.
[10 November 2010, Elizabeth Mitchell, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/semantics-and-truth ]



***********************

LEGISLATION
Commentary: Republicans: Make De-Funding Abortion Industry Your Top Goal

Few observers anticipated the conservative wave election would produce the first Pro-Life majority in the House of Representatives in decades, yet that is the reality.

This is an excellent opportunity to enact meaningful change that will do right by American taxpayers who never should have had to fund abortions in the first place.

As House Republican leaders discuss who will chair committees in the new Congress, they should strongly consider committee assignments that reflect the new pro-life majority. While not the only issues on our list, we do ask that upon taking office in January the new Congress should immediately act to:

·         Pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: This act will essentially codify the Hyde Amendment and make sure no taxpayer dollars are ever used for abortions and will ensure no agency is exempt from this law. Currently the Hyde Amendment only applies to Medicaid and has to be renewed yearly. The bill would also codify the Hyde-Weldon provision, offering protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortions

·         Defund Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country, doing over 305,000 abortions per year (according to their last yearly report in 2008) and receives over $300 million taxpayer dollars yearly. They have been caught on tape covering up child rape and abuse and accepting money specifically targeted to abort African-American babies. In several states, the organization is undergoing audits for improper billing practices as well. This organization deserves no funding from taxpayers.

·         Ban Taxpayer Dollars from Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Plenty of research has yielded very positive results from using adult stem cells to treat of range of diseases and conditions while embryonic stem cells have shown little to no positive conclusions. Taxpayers should not be funding research that intentionally kills and uses for research a human being at its very beginning stages of life, especially when there is a viable alternative that does not take life.

The election emphatically repudiated the so-called “conventional wisdom” that talking about abortion loses races and social issues are of little importance.  There was a net 52-seat gain of Pro-Life Members in the House, an unprecedented statement that voters reject taxpayer-funded abortion and want a more conservative, pro-life legislature moving forward.

We urge all conservative and Republican leaders to join us in calling for the above actions. Responding to the American people, who spoke loudly and clearly on Election Day, doesn’t have to wait … nor should it.
[10 Nov 2010, Penny Nance, Washington, DC; LifeNews.com Note: Penny Nance is the CEO of Concerned Women for America; http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/10/opi-2007/]




“It’s Time to Take Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Off the Table, Once and For All”:

No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, HR 5939

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today in support of legislation introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) that would provide a government-wide prohibition on federal dollars for abortion services:

    “Millions of pro-life Americans believe it’s morally wrong to end an unborn human life and they are appalled that their government would pay for abortion services with their hard-earned tax dollars. It’s time to take taxpayer funding of abortion off the table, once and for all.
    
    “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act provides a clear blanket rejection of abortion in every facet of government spending. During the health care debate Speaker Pelosi claimed that ‘the law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion,’ and she assured the American people that this policy would stand. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has said tax dollars can pay for abortion under ObamaCare.  It’s time for the Speaker to allow a straight up or down vote on this important bill that has the support of the American people.”

According to Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), if the Act (HR 5939) becomes law, it will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition of taxpayer-funded abortion, reduce the need for separate abortion funding policies, and ensure that no federal program or federal agency is exempt.
[ 7 Oct 01, D.C., http://www.gop.gov/press-release/10/07/30/pence-supports-no-taxpayer]






Mike Pence Presses for De-Funding Whole Abortion Industry, Including Planned Parenthood -- Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, H.R. 614

Congressman Mike Pence is pressing for support for his bill he expected to re-introduce in the next session of Congress to de-fund Planned Parenthood — and the abortion business is not happy.

In an email to conservative and pro-life activists yesterday, Pence touted the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act [http://www.lifenews.com/2010/06/17/nat-6431/ see below;

see also http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/stop-abortion-funding/no-taxpayer-funding-abortion-act AND http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/stop-abortion-funding/title-x-abortion-provider-prohibition-act].

“Reports show that Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, receives nearly one-third of its $1 billion annual budget from the federal government. And it’s about to get worse, because Obamacare is hiding even more tax dollars in handouts for abortion providers,” Pence explained.

“Nearly 3,500 abortions are performed every day in America. That’s 3,500 lives taken away, many on the government dime without the knowledge or direct approval of taxpayers! It’s reprehensible and we can’t allow it to continue,” Pence added.

Pence referred to the Pledge With America that House Republicans put forward before the elections promising to dismantle ObamaCare, which contains a full prohibition on abortion funding, and to cut off taxpayer funding for abortions in other areas.

“I’m ready to deliver that promise with legislation that will prevent abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving a single dime from the federal government,” the Indiana congressman wrote. “With a new Republican majority, Planned Parenthood is running scared.”

That appears to be the case as Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards sent a desperate email to supporters of the abortion business today pleading for funds to combat the legislation.
Richards claims Pence is not telling the truth about the $650 million in federal funds a GAO report shows the abortion business getting over a seven year period. http://www.lifenews.com/nat6425.html
“He’s lying to them, telling them that tax dollars fund abortion services — but he’s deadly serious about eliminating all federal funding for Planned Parenthood’s life-saving work,” she claims. “I knew the attacks would start soon — but this is outrageous and, I fear, only the beginning. The attacks on Planned Parenthood and the people Planned Parenthood serves are bound to get worse.”
“If Rep. Pence and his anti-choice cronies are successful, the consequences for women will be dire. Federal funding helps local Planned Parenthood health centers across the country,” Richards added, claiming none of the money helps the abortion business do abortions. “After the gains anti-choice legislators made in the recent elections, we knew attacks like this would be coming.” Richards called Pence’s bill a “vicious campaign to eliminate Planned Parenthood” and promised to “fight this and every effort to undermine” her organization’s work.

In his email, Pence said he’s not surprised Planned Parenthood has gone after him by name.
“The fear of losing their federal funding has led them to target me for my pro-life positions. They’ve even named me to their 2010 Election Hall of Shame for advocating a pro-life agenda on Capitol Hill,” he said. “But I refuse to back down.”

“Our tax dollars should not be spent on abortions. I know it. You know it. Let’s make sure every member of Congress knows it,” he concluded.

Related:
H.R. 5939 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/stop-abortion-funding/no-taxpayer-funding-abortion-act
H.R. 614 Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
http://www.sba-list.org/legislation/stop-abortion-funding/title-x-abortion-provider-prohibition-act

ED. According to the Susan B. Anthony List, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act would ensure that organizations, including Planned Parenthood, do not receive federal dollars under the Title X federal family planning assistance program.
A 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study [GAO study – http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-533R ] found that the abortion industry received over 1 billion dollars in federal funds over an 8 year period.  This is both morally and fiscally irresponsible.
[24 Nov 2010, Ertelt, Washington, DC, LifeNews.com]

Bill Would Stop $1 Bill Abortion Groups Get, But Pro-Life Congress Needed
17 June 2010, D.C., http://www.lifenews.com/2010/06/17/nat-6431/

Yesterday, a new GAO report revealed the abortion industry received over $1 billion in taxpayer funds from the federal government in the last seven years. A congressman has proposed a bill to begin de-funding the pro-abortion groups, but he needs more pro-life colleagues to move it forward.

As LifeNews.com reported, the Government Accountability Office report shows the Planned Parenthood abortion business reported receiving over $650 million in federal funds over a seven year period.

The report also shows the pro-abortion group Population Council, which sponsored the dangerous abortion drug RU 486, received $284.3 million in federal funds as well for its international family planning efforts. And the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group that does research on abortion statistics, received $12.7 million.

Congressman Mike Pence has introduced the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 614), a bill prohibiting the distribution of Title X family planning money to entities that use abortion as a method of family planning.

With the GAO report showing $342.1 million of the federal funds Planned Parenthood received coming from the Title X family planning program, Pence’s bill would take a big first step in de-funding the abortion industry.

"It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. But it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use those funds to promote abortion," Pence told LifeNews.com.

"This report confirms that the largest abortion provider in America is being bankrolled by American taxpayers. In these tough economic times, there is simply no reason why taxpayer money should go to fund the activities of abortion providers and equip them with the resources they need to end innocent human life," he said.

"We must stop providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers through Title X. We must put an end to Americans unwillingly providing financial support to the abortion industry. The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act," Pence added.

The bi-partisan bill has 93 co-sponsors but with pro-abortion lawmakers in control of the House, Pence’s measure will likely not come up for a debate and vote.

To move Pence’s bill forward, pro-life advocates would have to switch control of the House to Republicans, as GOP House leaders are pro-life and would give Pence’s measure a hearing and vote.

Although the federal funds don’t pay for abortions directly, because of the Hyde amendment, Pence says the bill is needed because the $1 billion allows pro-abortion groups to use other funds for abortion performance and promotion.

"When Title X money goes to clinics that provide both abortions and family planning services, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions, it is being used to offset operational costs with federal funds, freeing up money to promote and provide abortions," he said.

The congressman said the current regulations do not contain a descriptive standard of what constitutes "separation." They only require the level of separation to be more than "mere bookkeeping."

Related web sites:
GAO study – http://gao.gov/products/GAO-10-533R
[17 June 2010, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/06/17/nat-6431/ , Ertelt, WASHINGTON, DC, LIFENEWS.COM, 6/17/10 ]



NJ Congressman Hails Prospect of 'Most Pro-Life House Ever'
Rep. Smith (R-N.J.) noted that candidates favoring legal abortion had been defeated in 38 races, while 14 other incumbents not considered to be reliable supporters of the pro-life cause had also lost their positions in Congress.

In total, he said, "at least 77" of the 93 freshman representatives who will begin terms in January are "committed to defending the unborn."Representative Chris Smith...with three decades of experience Capitol Hill, is welcoming the possibilities for defending the unborn in next year's session of Congress. Results from the Nov. 2 election, he said, heralded the prospect of "the most pro-life House ever" in January.

The election results concur with recent Gallup polls showing that the number of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life has increased to 47 percent in recent years. That figure now exceeds the declining number of citizens who say they support abortion, which has fallen to 45 percent.

Although economic issues dominated the election, some observers said opposition to abortion was the "untold story" of the midterm vote, noting the number of pro-life candidates who emerged victorious in primary races.

With many of those candidates now joining the House of Representatives, Smith hopes to pass his "No Taxpayer Dollars for Abortion Act," a bill with 185 cosponsors that he introduced along with Rep. Dan Lipinski (D - Ill.).

The bill would prohibit all methods of federal abortion funding, including those not affected by a presidential executive order that followed the passage of health care reform.[Washington D.C., Nov 7, 2010,EWTN News]

Michigan Bills Seek Dignified Burial for Abortion Victims
A new set of bills that has cleared the Michigan Senate would protect the remains of aborted babies if passed into law. The proposed legislation comes in response to the revelation in late October that abortion [businesses] in Delta Township and Saginaw had been illegally dumping fetal remains and medical records into a dumpster.

The new package of bills passed the Senate on November 10 with a vote of 30-8. Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) says that they have assurances from sponsors of the bill that the issue will be taken up in the House at the beginning of the next legislative session in January.

The bills aim to give greater dignity to the remains of unborn children killed in abortion. According to Right to Life Michigan, one bill (H.B. 5928) would change the Michigan health code “so that fetal remains will no longer be classified as ‘products of conception,’ along with the placenta, umbilical cord, and other uterine contents.”

Two other bills (S.B. 1563 and H.B. 5929) would directly legislate the methods hospitals and abortion [businesses] use to dispose of fetal remains. RLM says that these two bills would “require hospitals and abortion facilities to bury or cremate any fetus or part of a fetus that has recognizable anatomical parts or has completed at least 8 weeks gestation.”

Earlier this year 17 aborted babies were found in a dumpster used by the Women’s Choice [abortion site] in Delta Township. The remains were discovered by pro-lifer Chris Veneklase, who contacted the group Citizens for a Pro-Life Society (CPLS). Upon further investigation, Dr. Monica Miller of CPLS and Veneklase took the case to Eaton and Saginaw County Sheriffs.

After a 7-month investigation, the Sheriffs departments determined that the Women’s Choice [facility] in Delta Township and another in Saginaw were dumping fetal remains and patient records in dumpsters. However, the Sheriffs department was unable to file charges since abortion [businesses] are allowed to dispose of fetal remains in dumpsters under certain conditions. The Sheriffs also found that the businesses] were improperly incorporated, and thus could not face prosecution for the dumping of patient records.

Related:
Aborted Babies Found in Michigan Dumpster
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102705.html
[November 17, 2010, Matthew Anderson, LANSING, Michigan,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111709.html ]

**********************************************************

CONSCIENCE

Have U.S. Conscience Clause Protections Been Eviscerated?

An American nurse who was forced to participate in a late-term abortion has effectively nowhere she can lodge a grievance. 

Can an American nurse refuse to participate in a medical procedure repugnant to her conscience? As of last week, it appears that the answer is no. A Federal Court has ruled that a nurse who was told to assist in a late-term abortion or lose her job cannot file a grievance.

Here is the legal background.

A federal statute known as the "Church Amendment" prohibits an institution that receives federal money under certain programs from discriminating against an individual who either participates or refuses to participate in an abortion. (The statute is named for its sponsor, the late Senator Frank Church, not for any religious organization.) On November 23, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that individuals cannot file suit to vindicate their rights under the Church Amendment. (Cenzon-DeCarlo v. Mt. Sinai Hospital, no. 10-556 (2d. Cir. 11/23/10)).

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo worked as a nurse at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. She sued the hospital in July2009, alleging that its management forced her to participate in a late-term abortion, despite her written conscientious objection that she had provided on the hospital’s personnel form when she was hired. Furthermore, she claimed that when she filed a personnel grievance after the abortion, Mount Sinai attempted to coerce her into signing a consent to participate in abortions in the future.

The federal appellate court dismissed Ms Cenzon-DeCarlo’s case without a trial. It said that Congress had not provided a "private cause of action" for enforcement of the statute. In other words, Congress had not allowed an individual to file a lawsuit in federal court when his or her rights were violated.

So, If Ms Cenzon-DeCarlo’s has a legal remedy at all, it lies in the courts of New York State. This is not a surprising result, for in the past 30 years or so, the US Supreme Court has turned remarkably hostile to allowing private parties to file suit in federal courts to protect rights granted under federal statutes, if the statutes do not explicitly allow it.

This attitude shifts responsibility for protection of individual rights onto the Federal government , including the conscience-rights protections under the Church Amendment. This is exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do when it promulgated regulations in December, 2008 to enforce federal conscience clause rights.

The enforcement mechanisms would have begun with the Office for Civil Rights, which was designated in the regulations “to receive complaints of discrimination and coercion based on the healthcare conscience protection statutes . . . [and to] coordinate handling of complaints with the staff of the Departmental programs from which the entity, with respect to whom a complaint has been filed, receives funding…” Annual certifications of compliance by the funded hospitals and other institutions would be required under the Bush regulations. HHS could ultimately withhold federal money from institutions that violated the conscience rights of protected individuals.

Contrary to some rather histrionic claims from pro-abortionists, the 2008 regulations did not enact any new rights or restrictions. They simply provided the means to initiate federal administrative enforcement remedies for the rights which had already been guaranteed in the Church Amendment.

Within 60 days of taking office, the Obama Administration effectively cut off the enforcement of conscience clause rights by announcing an intent to rescind the Bush regulations. The new management of HHS asserted the need to give further consideration to the issues and “to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with current Administration policy.”

True to its habit of making grandiose announcements and then waffling or reversing course, the Administration has not actually carried out its announced intent, much to the chagrin of some pro-abortionists. In fact, the President told Catholic journalists in 2009 that he intended to leave “robust” conscience clause protections in place that would "certainly not be weaker" than the Bush regulations. No official rescission of the Bush regulations has appeared in the Federal Register, although no replacement regulations for the Bush regulations have been issued, either.

However, now there is no need for the Obama Aministration to alter the old regulations. The Bush regulations are just as dead as if they had been officially rescinded, as the Obama Administration obviously intended. They have not been printed in the Code of Federal Regulations for the years 2009 and 2010, where they should have appeared under 45 CFR part 88.

We can be certain that if Ms. Cenzon-DeCarlo were to send a complaint to the Office for Civil Rights of HHS under the Bush regulations, it would probably be unacknowledged and would certainly be ignored.

As a result of the federal courts’ jurisprudence and the current Administration’s unwillingness to enforce the Church Amendment, federal conscience clause protections are dead letters.

Nor is success likely for complaints pursued in State Courts. They are not likely to provide remedies based on federal conscience rights, not only because of the general antipathy toward the pro-life side of abortion issues within the legal profession, but also because all American state courts are being overwhelmed by sheer numbers of pending cases in a time of stringent budget cuts. Expanding the possible number of lawsuits is not a favored position in current American jurisprudence.

Until the new Congress enacts specific legislation to allow individuals to vindicate the conscience rights Congress has given them (and overrides a Presidential veto), or until a new Administration is inaugurated that will live up to its duty of enforcing the laws on the books, federal conscience clause protections might as well not exist.

There is an old legal maxim, “Where there is a right, there is a remedy” (“Ubi jus ibi remedium”). The converse applies, too: Where there is no remedy, there is effectively no right.

James S. Cole graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978 and practices law in St. Louis, Missouri.
[http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/have_us_conscience_clause_protections_been_eviscerated/
N Valko R.N., 1 Dec2010]

ACOG Again Denies Conscience Rights of Doctors on Abortion

The hostilities toward conscience rights are abundant.  This month the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) reviewed and reaffirmed the 2007 Ethics Committee Number 385, entitled The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine.

And last week a pro-life nurse was denied the right to sue the hospital where she was forced to participate in abortion. There has never been a greater need to pass comprehensive conscience protection measures than there is now.

The ACOG Ethics Committee rule requires pro-life physicians to refer for abortions. Furthermore, it disparages the notion of conscience to nothing more than a subjective feeling. It suggests that pro-life physicians should relocate in order to better refer patients to nearby abortionists. And it proposes that patient autonomy trumps a physician’s right to conscience.

These rules get their teeth when they are coupled with the requirements for board certification found in the 2011 Bulletin for Basic Certification in Obstetrics and Gynecology from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG).

Section III Part F of this Bulletin explains that an individual can have his or her board certification revoked if he or she acts in “violation of ABOG or ACOG rules and/or ethical principles.” This means that refusing to conform to the ACOG recommendations could result in the loss of livelihood for healthcare providers.

Another example of antagonism toward conscience protection came from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals this week, when it denied Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo the right to sue Mount Sinai Hospital in New York for forcing her to participate in the abortion of a 22-week unborn child.

This nurse asserted her rights under the Church Amendment, the 1973 law designed to protect healthcare practitioners from being coerced into participation in abortion. Unfortunately, the court did not recognize an individual’s right to enforce that freedom. Clearly, there is a great need to strengthen conscience protection laws.

The new Congress has the opportunity to further establish conscience protection for healthcare providers like Catherina DeCarlo from coercive employers or board certifying organizations.  The new Congress should make it a priority to pursue a law that will make the Hyde/ Weldon Conscience Protection permanent.

Hyde/ Weldon prohibits federal, state, or local governments from discriminating against any institutional or individual healthcare entity that does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

This amendment has a broad scope of protection—but Hyde/Weldon is an appropriations rider that is subject to annual renewal. The way to make the protection stronger is (1) to make Hyde/Weldon permanent, and (2) to include an express remedy for healthcare providers and entities, allowing them the right to sue for damages when their rights are violated.
[29 Nov 2010, by Bill Saunders, Washington, DC, LifeNews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/29/wbs-109/