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

November is NATIONAL ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

  Truth Booth -- A Window to the Womb -- http://www.truthbooth.org/

Hippocratic Medicine means TO DO NO HARM

Women have the Right to Know about the LINK between abortion and breast cancer

Women deserve full medical disclosure.

Silent Day of Solidarity for LIFE -- was held 18 October 2011 -- http://www.silentday.org/

Abortion Business Workers: Report Problems --  http://clinicworker.com/

Fatherhood Begins in the Womb --http://www.toomanyaborted.com/?page_id=4009

  www.internationalprolifeyouth.com

NEW RESOURCE -- www.imagesofabortion.com

Abortion-Breast Cancer: 53 of 66 Studies in 54 Years Show Connection

The San Jose Articles

Reduce the Number of Abortions

Webcam 'TELEMED' Abortions Head to Minnesota; Wisconsin May be Next

Pink Ribbon Scandal: Groups Speak Out Against Komen

Behind the Pink Ribbon: SG Komen's Ties with Planned Parenthood

Flawed Miscarriage Diagnosis Criteria May Lead to Abortion of Healthy Babies: Study

Who is the Anonymous ‘Fly-in Abortionista’?

Doctors' Group Intervenes in Kansas Abortion Case to 'Promote an Acceptable Standard of Care'

Small but Important Victories for Life

Lords in London Launch San Jose Articles

Undercover Calls Reveal Medicaid Pays for $9,000 Late-term Abortions Now, with Tax Dollars

Mammogram Questions Reveal Many Breast Cancer Risks, But Hide Abortion As a Risk

THOUGHT! Physician Commentary: If "Every Woman Counts", Then Abortion - Breast Cancer Connection Info Should be Available to Women

STUDY: Study Confirms Abortion Negatively Impacts Women’s Health

STUDY: Abortion and Disabilities: 87% of Downs Die, 64% Spina Bifida

Planned Parenthood and TaxPayer Funded Abortion

Abortion Industry Puts Profits Over Women by Pushing RU 486 Drug (Mifepristone)

** Mifeprex Video / Abortion Conscience Politics

Providing Help for Fathers Grieving From Abortion Involvement

Abortion Business in Illinois Shut Down, Failed Inspection

FL Abortionist Suspended for Covering Up Sexual Assault Case

Late-Term Abortionist Martin Haskell Allowed to Avoid Ohio Law

Doctor Bowers, Working With Haskell Abortion Business, Faces More Discipline

** The San Jose Articles Provide Expert International Legal-Medical-Public Policy Testimony that the Unborn Child is Protected Under International Law / Major Pro-Life Legal/Scientific Document, The San Jose Articles, Launched at UN Headquarters

Ireland Safer for Pregnant Women than All Six Countries Pushing to Legalize Abortion

STUDY:  Birth Control NOT Stopping Unplanned Pregnancies OR Abortions

MORE ABOUT BREAST CANCER

** Komen for the Cure’s Planned Parenthood Ties Must be Exposed

** Power Point Presentation Helps Explain Abortion-Breast Cancer Connection

RU-486 Abortions Lead to 14 Maternal Deaths, 2,207 Adverse Effects: FDA Report / Australian Study Finds RU-486 More Dangerous Than Surgical Abortion

Conflict Of Interest, Part 5: Betrayal Trauma Theory / Conflict of Interest, Part 6

Abortions Down in Ohio; Cuyahoga County Still the Deadliest County in Ohio

Conference: Legal Abortion Does NOT Reduce Maternal Mortality

DATE: Post Abortion Conference  -- www.healingvision.info

LEGISLATION

U.S. Senate Amendment Would Prohibit Tax-Funding of 'Telemed' Abortions

Arizona Abortions Drop 30% Soon After Pro-Life Law Takes Effect

INTERNATIONAL

Russia Adopts Stricter Abortion Law

Irish Government Rejects UN Abortion Demands

Commentary -- March for Life Berlin: Standing Against Abortion in Germany

Supreme Court says “No” to Mexican Roe v. Wade, State Personhood Amendment Upheld / Three Dozen Mexican State and Federal Legislators Take Out Full-Page Ad Defending Personhood Amendments

Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Second State Abortion Ban Law...

Truth Booth -- A Window to the Womb -- http://www.truthbooth.org/
The mission of the "Truth Booth" is to educate the public on the pre-natal development of the child in the womb using ultrasound video footage presented through an unmanned kiosk.

It is factual and scientific, presented in an ingenious, gentle format that allows all age groups to comprehend our early development with clarity.

Strengthen your community with your own Truth Booth, contact us to get started -- http://www.truthbooth.org/contact.asp

Purchase a DVD for your own presentations -- http://www.truthbooth.org/purchase.asp

Fatherhood Begins in the Womb
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/?page_id=4009

Abortion-Breast Cancer: 53 of 66 Studies in 54 Years Show Connection
 In 1996, the Brind quantitative meta-analysis of the extant induced abortion and breast cancer studies showed that there were 23 studies, 10 of which were statistically significant. Since then, there has been no tabulation to include the studies after 1997. An unpublished review in 2003 showed that there were 40 studies which showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

In 2004, the Beral “re-analysis” was purported to review the literature regarding the induced abortion breast cancer studies. There were many articles in the popular press asserting that this study showed that “more accurate” prospective studies did not show a link between abortion and breast cancer. A positive association was found with the retrospective studies, but this result was reported to be “misleading” in the abstract.

However, there were many major flaws in this “re-analysis.” This study eliminated 14 published studies which had been subjected to peer review confirming the abortion breast cancer link, including a prospective study that showed a 90% increase in breast cancer risk with abortion. This demonstrated blatant selection bias.

Meanwhile, of the 53 “studies” reported upon, 28 were sets of data that had not been previously published, yet they were reported upon as “studies.”

There is no way to examine those data sets to be certain each set can be credibly used as “a study.” There was no scrutiny of peer review.

There is no information as to the length of time patients were followed after the abortion; it takes a minimum of 8-10 years to develop a clinically detectable cancer after exposure to abortion. There is no way to know if the women were mostly women who had already given birth or if they had not; women without a birth are at higher risk.

A full critique of this flawed study can be found on the BCPI web site on the Published Papers page -- http://www.bcpinstitute.org/publishedpapers.htm

Frequently, BCPI has been queried about the number of studies showing a positive correlation or statistically significant results regarding induced abortion and breast cancer. A recent literature search was done by BCPI president, Dr. Lanfranchi, to answer that question.

Since 1957 there has been 66 studies done which looked at the relation of induced abortion and breast cancer, including 53 which showed a positive correlation and 25 that were statistically significant. There were only 13 which showed no association.

What is most telling is that one study author, Louise Brinton, had been a leader at the 2003 NCI Workshop on Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Risk which concluded that there was no association between breast cancer and induced abortion. In 2009, Louise Brinton has now reported that there is a 40% statistically significant increase of breast cancer with induced abortion -- http://www.lifenews.com/2009/01/01/nat-5850/

Recent studies from Turkey, Iran and China have been published in the last 5 years. The list of these studies will be available soon on the BCPI website’s Resources Page. We hope that this list of studies will be useful to you so that women will be informed of this preventable risk.

LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Jersey who has extensively explained how abortion increases the breast cancer risk -- http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/23/nat-6787/

[Dr. Angela Lanfranchi | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/18/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/18/abortion-breast-cancer-53-of-66-studies-in-54-years-show-link/]

San Jose Articles

Article 1.  As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.

Article 2.  Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.

Article 3.  From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.

Article 4.  All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights.  This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.

Article 5.  There exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law.  No United Nations treaty can accurately be cited as establishing or recognizing a right to abortion.

Article 6.  The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and other treaty monitoring bodies have directed governments to change their laws on abortion.  These bodies have explicitly or implicitly interpreted the treaties to which they are subject as including a right to abortion.

Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.

Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law.

Article 7.  Assertions by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and should be rejected.

There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any ground, including but not limited to health, privacy or sexual autonomy, or non-discrimination.

Article 8.  Under basic principles of treaty interpretation in international law, consistent with the obligations of good faith and pacta sunt servanda, and in the exercise of their responsibility to defend the lives of their people, states may and should invoke treaty provisions guaranteeing the right to life as encompassing a state responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.

Article 9.  Governments and members of society should ensure that national laws and policies protect the human right to life from conception. They should also reject and condemn pressure to adopt laws that legalize or depenalize abortion.

Treaty monitoring bodies, United Nations agencies and officers, regional and national courts, and others should desist from implicit or explicit assertions of a right to abortion based upon international law.

When such false assertions are made, or pressures exerted, member states should demand accountability from the United Nations system.

Providers of development aid should not promote or fund abortions.  They should not make aid conditional on a recipient’s acceptance of abortion.

International maternal and child health care funding and programs should ensure a healthy outcome of pregnancy for both mother and child and should help mothers welcome new life in all circumstances.

We — human rights lawyers and advocates, scholars, elected officials, diplomats, and medical and international policy experts — hereby affirm these Articles.

San Jose, Costa Rica
March 25, 2011
Signers -- http://www.sanjosearticles.com/?page_id=2
Footnotes -- http://www.sanjosearticles.com/?page_id=88

Commentary: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS

Abortion is the most heinous evil of our day: unspeakable violence against the most vulnerable and innocent.  It is not possible to compromise with the bloodshed of babies.  There is no 'right' to murder an innocent bystander.  To deny that the child in the womb is a distinct human life is scientifically untenable and willfully ignorant.  Why does the press ignore abortion as the worst type of child abuse?  It is human sacrifice to the gods of profit making efficiency and hedonistic indulgence.  

In times past, Native Americans and African slaves were denied human rights.  They were treated as commodities.  The same is true today for another class of human beings: the unborn.  For the past fifteen years the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood has steadily increased: the child in the womb used as a mere instrument of profit.[1]

Relativism exercises an intolerant dominion over the minds of those whose opinions are so enslaved that they are not free to believe in any truth as absolute, even the sacredness of human life.  [Many people] do believe in the inviolable dignity of human life as true for every person, independent of race, religion or stage of life.  

In line with this belief, we must ask ourselves, what are we doing in response to the silent scream of the victims of the holocaust inside the womb? 

Do we consider the issue as an irritant not worthy of our response?  Let us today permit initiatives ... to lead us out of morally culpable lethargy and, at the very least, pray daily with deep compassion for our brothers and sisters in the womb who are quite literally being torn apart.   

Do babies feel pain during this ‘medical procedure’? 

Contrary to obsolete opinions, the New England Journal of Medicine observes, “Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns.”[2]

The answer is yes, babies in the womb feel pain.[3]

Pro-abortion advocates speak of ‘safe and legal’ abortions, yet abortion is neither safe for the child nor for the mother.  The child is deprived of life, and the mother incurs horrible physical and psychological consequences.[4] 

“The leading causes of abortion related deaths are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.”[5] 

“The best record based scientific study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion found that mothers who aborted their babies were about four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term.”[6]

Our society destroys more human life by abortion than by any natural disaster, war or disease in human history. In the United States, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005.   There were more than 45 million ‘legal’ abortions in the period starting from the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973 through 2005.[7]  Worldwide there are approximately 42 million abortions each year which is about twenty percent of total births.[8]

Our response must first be prayer.  We can, for example, pray for our president to introduce effective programs to reduce the number of abortions and make a real change in his unyielding pro-abortion record of bill signings and appointments (cf. http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/).  

Secondly we are called to offer compassion for all mothers and fathers who have lost their children by whatever means. 

Thirdly we are to overcome violence with love.  Just as the brutality of many of the Roman Emperors during the first three centuries of the Church was conquered by persevering prayer and works of mercy, so too, we will also rise above the culture of death by the saintly means of preaching the Gospel of Life and offering prayer and sacrifice for the conversion of the purveyors of violence. 

Finally, we respond by addressing the problem at its root: sex without commitment.  Love and Responsibility, by Karol Wojtyla and the Theology of the Body for Teens by Jason Evert et. al. (cf. www.chastity.com) are incredibly efficacious resources to direct a virtue based education which leads young people away from ‘recreational sex’ to encounter the authentic and abiding intimacy of faithful family life.

“I have set before you life and death . . . choose life!” (Deuteronomy 30:19).  

Let us be truly ‘pro-choice’ and seek to promote the right to choose for those human persons waiting to be born into this world.

Footnotes
[1] The ‘non-profit organization,’ Planned Parenthood, took in an $85 million profit for the fiscal year 2007-2008.  The operating budget was 1 billion dollars, one-third of which came from the government.  Cf. http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/PlannedParenthoodagenda.htm retrieved August 18, 2011.

[2] K.J.S. Anand, P.R. Hickey, "Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus" The New England Journal of Medicine, v. 317, n. 21: 1321-1329, November 19, 1987 at http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/ retrieved August 18, 2011.

[3] The latest scientific evidence in the field of pre and perinatal psychology (e.g. the works of David B. Chamberlain, Ph.D.) confirms the teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion at any stage is a crime.  Faith and reason are always in harmony when understood properly.

[4] Cf. Barbara Lebow, Psychological Complications of Abortion (Stafford, VA: American Life League) 1986.  Philip G. Ney, M.D., The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. David Mall and Walter F. Watts, M.D. (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America 1979).

[5] A. Kaunitz, "Causes of Maternal Mortality in the United States," Obstetrics and Gynecology, 65(5), May 1985.

[6] M. Gissler, et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997).  For basic facts about abortion, given from both the pro-choice and pro-life perspectives, see http://www.abortionfacts.com/life_or_choice/pro_choice.asp retrieved  August 18, 2011.

[7] R. K. Jones et al., “Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services 2005,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, 40(1):6–16.

[8] G. Sedgh, S. Henshaw, S. Singh, E. Åhman,  IH Shah, “Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide.” Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.
[September 2011, By Jim Hedderman, published in One Voice, Sept 11]

Webcam Abortions Head to Minnesota; Wisconsin May be Next

The Planned Parenthood abortion business has expanded its webcam abortions — taking the dangerous practice of denying women an in-person meeting with a physician before using the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug to Minnesota.

The practice started with the Planned Parenthood of the Heartland affiliate using it in Iowa, a rural state where the abortion business has a difficult time getting an abortion practitioner to each of its clinics. As a result, it set up a process by which the abortion practitioner only visits with the woman considering using the mifepristone abortion pill via a videoconference, as opposed to an in-person visit the FDA suggests.

With the drug having killed dozens of women worldwide and injured more than 2,200 alone in the United States, according to April 2011 FDA figures, pro-life groups have been concerned about Planned Parenthood putting women’s health at risk.

Now, officials with Wisconsin Right to Life inform LifeNews that Planned Parenthood has begun using the extremely dangerous RU 486 web-cam abortion technique in Minnesota. According to Planned Parenthood Minnesota spokesperson Connie Lewis, the organization began doing webcam abortions at their Rochester facility — making it the first time the abortion business has expanded doing abortions beyond the twin cities area.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/17/webcam-abortions-head-to-minnesota-wisconsin-may-be-next/

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

Breast Cancer, Its Risk from Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, by Dr Chris Kahlenborn, is available for FREE reading at   
http://onemoresoul.com/featured/breast-cancer-its-link-to-abortion-and-the-birth-control-pill.html
The Q&A format is very reader friendly.  
There is a Breast Cancer epidemic in the USA, and this book explains why and how.

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

Pink Ribbon Scandal: Groups Speak Out Against Komen

 With October as the month for breast cancer awareness and Komen for the Cure, which donates to the Planned Parenthood abortion business, holding events across the country, pro-life groups are taking a more active stance speaking out about the problems with the organization.

Texas Right to Life has launched a new effort, “Pink Ribbon Scandal, A warning to Pro-Lifers about Susan G. Komen’s ‘race against Life.”

“October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and men and women clad in pink will gather to mourn, celebrate victories of healing, and express solidarity in their goal to eradicate breast cancer by participating in Susan G. Komen Foundation-sponsored races to fundraise for this worthy cause. Susan G. Komen, however, compromises its own mission to find a cure for breast cancer by associating with Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider,” the pro-life group says. “Texas Right to Life urges Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop sponsoring Planned Parenthood immediately and to start benefiting real health clinics for women. Furthermore, Texas Right to Life calls on Pro-Life individuals to boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its ‘Race for the Cure’ until Komen severs all ties and affiliations with Planned Parenthood.”

The concerns over Komen are more than its donations to Planned Parenthood — which totaled $730K in 2009 and $569K in 2010.

“Many studies have linked an increased risk of developing breast cancer after an abortion, yet both Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood deny the risk abortion poses to breast health,” TRTL says.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/11/pink-ribbon-scandal-pro-life-groups-speak-out-against-komen/

Behind The Pink Ribbon: Komen’s Ties With Planned Parenthood

Every year thousands of women train and prepare to Race for the Cure organized by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the world’s largest breast cancer nonprofit.  During October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, almost every product on the shelves, from batteries to blenders, turns pink and contributes a portion of their sales to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.  One needs not see the name to know who is behind the pink ribbon.  Most people, however, do not know what is beyond the ribbon and the name for which it stands.

$731,303.  That is the amount donated to Planned Parenthood by Susan G. Komen for the Cure in 2009 alone.  The relationship between Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen has been documented and objected to for so long that Komen actually has an explanation letter on their website.

    “Komen provides funding for local community health programs through our network of more than 120 affiliates across the United States.  Each Affiliate is responsible for assessing the breast health service needs—including education, screening, treatment and support—for the residents within its region as well as identifying and providing funding to organizations that can meet those needs. Annually, Komen Affiliates fund programs that provide breast health education and breast screenings for hundreds of thousands of low-income, uninsured, or medically under-served women via nearly 2,000 local organizations, including 19 Planned Parenthood programs.

    The decision to fund any breast health and screening program is based on a thorough assessment of a community’s breast health needs and resources. In some areas of the U.S., our affiliates have determined a Planned Parenthood clinic to be the best or only local place where women can receive breast health care.

    In all cases, Komen funding is used exclusively to provide breast cancer programs, including clinical breast exams conducted by trained medical personnel. When symptoms indicate a need for further screening, patients are provided with a referral to obtain a mammogram. Depending on local resources, that mammogram may be paid for using a Komen grant. It’s important to note that Komen will only make grants to non-profit organizations. As many mammography providers are for-profit entities, we are only to fund mammography services through grants made to local non-profit service providers.

    Twice each year, Komen affiliates conduct a thorough review of their community health grant programs to ensure that funds are being used only for breast health services. Under no circumstances are Komen funds used to fund abortions or other non-breast services, and any service provider shown to violate those rules would be immediately terminated from the Komen grant program.

    During the past five years, Komen Affiliate grants to Planned Parenthood have funded 139,000 clinical breast exams and nearly 5,000 mammograms, enabling the detection of 177 breast cancers. Our mission is to help save lives by increasing screening rates among all populations of women across the U.S. and around the world.  As long as there is a need for health care for vulnerable populations, Komen will fund the facilities that can best meet those needs.”

While some have doubted the accuracy of Komen’s statement regarding the lack of facilities available in rural areas for breast cancer services, Texas, unfortunately, serves as a prime example.  The rural counties surrounding Dallas are littered with Planned Parenthoods, many of which only have Planned Parenthood to serve their needs.  Planned Parenthood of El Paso even managed to receive federal stimulus funds, despite the President requesting Planned Parenthood be removed from the stimulus bill. Instead of contributing money to build clinics in the many underserved areas of rural Texas, which would be more in line with their supposed life-affirming goals, Susan G. Komen curiously chooses to give money to the Planned Parenthood facilities instead. As Komen surely understands, money is fungible, and their contributions to Planned Parenthood allows money that would have been used for breast cancer services to, instead, be used for their more popular and nefarious practices.

One needn’t look further than Live Action’s recent phone calls to 30 different Planned Parenthoods who all admitted they don’t offer mammograms to wonder where Susan G. Komen’s money is going.  In fact, as far back as 2003, according to Planned Parenthood’s 2003-2004 Annual Report, abortions increased by 14,000 in 2002-2003, while breast exams decreased by more than 141,000.  Yet, in 2003 Planned Parenthood of Dallas, of which Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, has served on the advisory board, built a new $5 million dollar facility.  In Houston, Planned Parenthood recently opened the largest abortion facility in the world, second only to China, which is 78,000 square feet and has an entire floor dedicated to late-term abortions of up to 25 week old babies.  Thankfully, the state of Texas has fought back against those seemingly bent on making Texas the abortion capital.  Four Texas Planned Parenthood centers had plans to close after the state took away taxpayer funding.

As if supporting Planned Parenthood wasn’t bad enough because they are the antithesis of life, abortion has long been thought to increase the risk of breast cancer.  The first cancer study that included a possible link between abortion and breast cancer was in 1957.  While many studies since then have sighted abortion as a key risk factor for developing breast cancer, Susan G. Komen firmly denies even the possibility of a link between the two.  In 2002, the Bush administration created a furor when it altered the National Cancer Institute’s official statement concerning abortion and breast cancer on their website to read:

    The possible relationship between abortion and breast cancer has been examined in over thirty published studies since 1957. Some studies have reported statistically significant evidence of an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions, while others have merely suggested an increased risk. Other studies have found no increase in risk among women who have had an interrupted pregnancy.

A New York Times editorial called the statement an “egregious distortion,” and 28 members of Congress complained to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  In response, the National Cancer Institute held a 3 day workshop and concluded not only that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer, but that the issue was resolved.  However, in January 2010 the chief organizer of the workshop, Dr. Louise Brinton, reversed her opinion to say abortion does raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer.  An April 2009 study found that abortion increases breast cancer risk by 40%, and oral contraceptives can multiply the risk by 4.2 times.  Still the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure have ignored the findings.

The stated goal of Susan G. Komen for the Cure is to find a cure for cancer.  In October of 2005, researchers at the University of Minnesota successfully used human embryonic stem cells to kill cancer cells; a study that surely didn’t go unnoticed by Susan G. Komen.  Could it be that Susan G. Komen continues to financially support Planned Parenthood because they may hold the key to a possible cure for cancer?  When they aren’t harvesting baby body parts for money, Planned Parenthood has offered women the option of donating tissue from their aborted babies to medical research.  In their words, “Most agree that such decisions reflect generosity, courage, and the hope that some humanitarian good may come out of an unintended pregnancy.”  Humanitarian good from unnecessarily killing an unborn baby?   The truth is that adult stem cells have been treating all kinds of cancers, among many other diseases and conditions, for years.  So why use embryonic stem cells instead of adult stem cells?  According to the National Institute of Health, Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells.  In other words, they want to explore the possibilities because it could lead to something; ethics be damned.  Yet, the NIH website also states that adult stem cells have recently been found to be more flexible than previously thought.  It would appear that continuing to explore all the uses of adult stem cells might be a little more difficult and embryonic stem cells could be an easier route.

Whatever their reasons for financially supporting Planned Parenthood, Susan G. Komen is thankfully not the only option for those dedicated to life for women with cancer and babies.  The National Breast Cancer Foundation also provides funding for free mammograms and cancer research and has no affiliation with Planned Parenthood.  The Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy recently made national news for using HIV to completely eradicate cancer.  The Breast Cancer Society focuses on providing help for women currently battling breast cancer.  Susan G. Komen for the Cure would like to do everything in their power to end breast cancer forever, an idea with which no one would disagree.  However, a strong message should be sent that our greatest ideals don’t have to be realized through compromise.

Life is precious, be it the beautiful, familiar faces of the women we love, or the new faces of the babies we’ve yet to meet.

LifeNews.com Note:  Breeanne Howe is a conservative political activist and writer. How is a stay-at-home mom of children and a proud former liberal. This article originally appeared at Red State and is reprinted with permission.
[Breeanne Howe | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/13/11   http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/13/behind-the-pink-ribbon-komens-ties-with-planned-parenthood/]




Flawed Miscarriage Diagnosis Criteria May Lead to Abortion of Healthy Babies: Study

According to a report published in the international journal Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, current ultrasound scan guidelines used to determine if a women has had a miscarriage are inadequate and unreliable, and following these guidelines may result in healthy and wanted pregnancies being aborted.

“This research shows that the current guidance on how to use ultrasound scans to detect a miscarriage may lead to a wrong diagnosis in some cases. Health professionals need clearer evidence-based guidance to prevent this happening,” said Professor Basky Thilaganathan, editor-in-chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Currently, when a miscarriage is suspected, the standard test is an ultrasound scan to measure the size of the gestational sac and look for the presence of an embryo.

When there is doubt about the diagnosis of miscarriage, current guidelines suggest the gestational sac should be re-measured seven to ten days later. If the sac has not grown, it is assumed that a miscarriage has occurred.

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here.

However, the study led by Professor Tom Bourne from Imperial College London found that perfectly healthy pregnancies may show no measurable growth over this period of time. Moreover, the study revealed a variation of up to 20% in the reported size of gestational sacs when different clinicians measure the same women, showing that an incorrect first measurement compounded by an error in the second measurement could easily lead to the misdiagnosis that a miscarriage had occurred when in fact a healthy child was living in the mother’s womb.

If a miscarriage is diagnosed a mother may be advised to wait and let the miscarriage progress naturally, or choose to speed up the process by a surgical intervention, such as dilatation and curettage where the lining of the womb is scraped with a curette, which could lead to the death of a healthy child if miscarriage is misdiagnosed.

“Currently there is a risk that some women seeking reassurance with pain or bleeding in early pregnancy may be told they have had a miscarriage, and choose to undergo surgical or medical treatment when the pregnancy is in fact healthy,” said Professor Bourne.

“By identifying this problem we hope that guidelines will be reviewed so that inadvertent termination of wanted pregnancies cannot happen.”

Researcher Dr Shakila Thangaratinam, Senior Clinical Lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London said there is an urgent need to conduct a large-scale study to be confident that diagnosis of miscarriage is correct in every case using the ultrasound measurements.

“When we’re testing to see if someone has a healthy pregnancy or not, we want to be absolutely confident that the test is reliable to avoid making a misdiagnosis. Our paper raises concerns about the gaps in evidence,” said Dr Thangaratinam.

The full text of the study titled “Accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic review” --  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.10108/full
Accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound in the diagnosis of early embryonic demise: a systematic review
 Y. Jeve1, R. Rana2, A. Bhide2, S. Thangaratinam3,*
Article first published online: 13 OCT 2011
DOI: 10.1002/uog.10108

[Thaddeus Baklinski, LONDON, UK, October 17, 2011,   http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/misdiagnosed-miscarriages-may-lead-to-abortion-of-healthy-babies-study?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=24350fc230-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_17_2011&utm_medium=email]






Who is the Anonymous ‘Fly-in Abortionista’?: Operation Rescue Knows

“On a plane bound for the Midwest from an East Coast city, a lanky 55-year-old woman sits in the 12th row window seat, knitting a sweater. Her waist-length, wavy white-blonde hair is held up in a bun behind her head by a pair of silver knitting needles, while another set clacks away at a gray top. Knitting is her way of keeping busy on this and the many other flights she must take for her unusual, and these days much in-demand job as a traveling abortion doctor, or as she puts it, a ‘fly-in abortionista.’”

So begins a story published on October 5 in the Santa Fe Reporter describing a “circuit-riding” abortionist who travels to the Midwest to ply her grisly trade. She wears a creepy Stooge mask to hide her identity and dives under blankets in the back seat of vehicles to keep pro-life activists from photographing her.

The article calls her “Clara Taylor” but we know her by her true name, Nicola Louise Moore.

Moore works as an independent contractor for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, doing surgical and medical abortions at their recently opened abortion clinic in Omaha, Nebraska, and at the main office on Army Post Road in Des Moines, Iowa, as well as PPH’s three other Iowa abortion clinics in Iowa City, Bettendorf, and Sioux City.

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here.

In addition to Iowa and Nebraska, Moore is licensed in Massachusetts, New York, and California, where her license is delinquent.

Moore was born in London, England and educated in America. She attended Yale University where she earned Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees. She graduated with her doctorate from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1999, and served her residency at the University of Rochester, in New York.

The focus of her practice has always been on abortion. In fact, she turned down a job at an Indian Reservation in New Mexico because Federal policy did not allow her to do abortions there.

In the article, Moore confesses that she has never married – her busy schedule wouldn’t permit it. And she confesses something else — that at 18 she had an abortion while a student at Yale University in 1974.

Freedom from relationships made it easy for Moore to travel abroad providing abortions in third-world African and South American countries. But in 2004, it was her relationship with her aging mother that brought her home. Moore continues to stay with her mother, Sally Falk Moore, Professor of Anthropology, Emerita at Harvard University, at her home in Cambridge, Massachsetts.

From there, Moore flies around the nation doing abortions where few others will. But there is a catch. She’s happy to do abortions anywhere, as long as no one knows who she is. She worked in Mississippi briefly last year, until pro-life activists discovered her identity in spite of the mask and other efforts to disguise herself. Then she quit.

“Abortionists don’t deserve anonymity,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “It keeps them from being held accountable for their actions. In some states, patients aren’t even told the full names of their abortionists and when things go wrong, women don’t even know who to file a complaint against.”

Identifying abortionists has helped Operation Rescue and other pro-life groups to warn women of abortionists with histories of abortion abuses.

“People who are proud of their work are willing to put their names on it. People who are ashamed or are trying to get away with something, like bank robbers and abortionists, wear masks,” said Newman. “It’s time to unmask Nicola Moore and allow Christians to pray for her — as a post-abortive woman and as an abortionist — to seek repentance, salvation, and healing through the Great Physician, Jesus Christ.”

Note: All information contained in this article was obtained through public sources.
[13 Oct 11, OperationRescue.org,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/who-is-the-anonymous-fly-in-abortionist-operation-rescue-knows?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifesitenewscomLatestHeadlines+%28LifeSiteNews.com+Latest+Headlines%29

Doctors' Group Intervenes in Kansas Abortion Case to 'Promote an Acceptable Standard of Care'
[NOTE: Apparently, the judge has thrown out this amicus brief.]

Comment: This is an email message from AAPLOG (American Assoc. of Pro-Life OBGs) explaining why they have joined the legal situation in Kansas over abortion safety regulations in Kansas; they are trying to promote an acceptable standard of care for women's health by requiring that the 3 abortion businesses in Kansas abide by the newly passed state health/safety regulations.  

We oppose abortion because it is the intentional killing of an innocent unborn child. Abortion is contrary to our Hippocratic Oath, and we feel it is contrary to sound moral principle...
 
However, our intercession in the case mentioned below has a different basis. It concerns an acceptable standard of care for women's health.
Induced abortion is the law of the land (whatever our personal conscience convictions may be).
 
As the Philadelphia case of Kermit Gosnell starkly demonstrated, unregulated abortion businesses can degenerate to unbelievably gross, unsanitary, medically unacceptable standards.
 
The government has a responsibility to protect the general public from this kind of wanton dissolution. That is one reason the FDA exists, and that the State health departments have all kinds of regulations for hospitals and offices---except, often, for abortion [businesses].
 
Currently, only 23 states have health and safety regulations for abortion [businesses]. In eight states, laws are on the books but are being blocked by court action. Kansas is one of those.
 
Abortion Business regulations exist for the protection of the patient. (Who is protecting the women is the 27 states without regulations?? —In Philadelphia, apparently no one was protecting these women, at least in Gosnell's area).
 
And who is responsible for follow up care of complications? Is it a responsible standard of care for a doctor to do a significant procedure on a woman, and not be available for problems that arise?
 
The new Kansas law seeks to correct some of these situations. But it was blocked by a judge.
AAPLOG, on behalf if it's Kansas members, is interceding, asking that the legislation be allowed to proceed.
 
Following is part of the AP account:  Doctors' Group Intervenes in Kansas Abortion Case
 
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A Michigan-based group of doctors opposed to abortion appealed a federal court order keeping Kansas' restrictive new abortion rules from being enforced, even though the court has yet to grant it permission to intervene in the case.
 
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a motion to intervene in the case Monday, along with a notice of its appeal of the injunction. The group claims it has legal standing in the case because its members in Kansas are losing childbirth-related business to abortion clinics. It also says its members are placed at a competitive disadvantage because abortion providers pass along the costs of any complications or medical care after abortions to other doctors.
 
U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia, who issued the temporary injunction blocking the new state clinic licensing law on July 1, hasn't yet ruled on the group's request to intervene. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals put its appeal on its docket Tuesday and assigned it an appeals court number.
 
The Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers represent the Kansas abortion providers who filed the lawsuit, said in an email that it does not see how AAPLOG can appeal the court's decision when it is not a party in the case. It plans to oppose the motion to intervene, which it believes is groundless.
[3 Aug 11, www.AAPLOG.org]




Small but Important Victories for Life
Recently, the County Commission in Shelby County, Tennessee, voted 9 to 4 to re-direct $397,000 in Title X family planning funds to Christ Community Health Services instead of renewing a longtime contract with Planned Parenthood.

That means that—thanks to the hard work of pro-life Tennesseans who have been working to stop Planned Parenthood for years—Tennessee has completely defunded Planned Parenthood. It also means that our Scoreboard is now up to $61 million tax dollars stripped from Planned Parenthood so far this year by nine states.

Between the good news in Tennessee, the recent passage of the Protect Life Act in the House of Representatives, and the congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood, momentum in the fight for Life is clearly on our side.
[18 Oct 11, Susan B. Anthony List]

Lords in London Launch San Jose Articles

When Lord Nicholas Windsor became a Catholic, he renounced his claim to the throne and embraced the Church’s teaching on the right to life of the unborn.  This week in a Committee Room of Parliament, he supported a groundbreaking defense of that right, stating “I see the San Jose Articles as an attempt to draw a line and fight back against the strong drift towards conjuring a fully-fledged right to abortion from out of the provisions of international human rights law.”

More than 30 senior politicians, diplomats, lawyers, scholars and public figures from around the world have signed the San Jose Articles, a document that defends the unborn child and refutes the subversive international campaign that falsely claims that abortion is a human right.

The importance of the Articles was recently underlined when the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the UN Secretary General all wrongly stated that a right to abortion exists.  It is precisely this approach which has led to the gendercide that has taken the lives of over 100 million girls – aborted because of their sex.

The San Jose Articles, named for the city where they were drafted in Costa Rica in March 2011, were launched this month at the United Nations.  Further launches have taken place in legislatures around the world – with Jim Dobbin MP and Fiona Bruce MP, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the All Party Pro Life Group, joining me at Westminster.

The San Jose Articles begin by proclaiming the scientific fact that human life begins at conception and further explains that no UN treaty mentions abortion or defines reproductive health as including abortion. On the contrary, a number of human rights treaties recognize the humanity of unborn children and the rights and duties of governments to protect them as members of the human family.

Over two-thirds of UN member-states have laws recognizing that unborn children deserve protection. Only 56 countries permit abortion for any reason, and only 22 of these are without restriction.

Some UN agencies, non-governmental organizations and wealthy countries are waging a campaign to bully and manipulate nations - from Nicaragua to Kenya; from Columbia to Ireland - into changing their laws on abortion. In this effort they misquote treaties and, more deplorably, use aid as a form of blackmail. Developing countries are told they will lose help for the poor if they fail to conform. Protecting the unborn can lead to retaliation and retribution. Sweden, for instance, withdrew all assistance to Nicaragua after it failed to pass a liberal abortion law. To justify this shocking intrusion, Sweden said abortion “is super important to us”.

Some countries are undoubtedly succumbing to the bullying and bogus assertions.  The High Court of Colombia changed its country’s abortion laws based on false claims.

While no international right to abortion exists, the “right to life” is set out in Article 3 of The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which had its genesis in the horrors of the Second World War. The San Jose Articles re-assert the admirable impulses that gave birth to the 1948 Declaration and recognize that the greatest of all rights is the right to life.

I ended my remarks at the Westminster launch with a true story.

In 1954 Joanne Schieble, a young unmarried student, discovered she was pregnant. Her father would not let her marry the child’s father. Although she could have had an abortion, it was illegal and dangerous. Instead, she arranged to have the baby adopted.

Paul and Clara Jobs adopted the baby boy and named him Steven.

Not every child will have a life as remarkable as Steve Jobs. But with every abortion we have little idea of who we are so casually losing.  As the San Jose Articles remind us, every life is precious.
[Oct 13, 2011,  Lord David Alton, London,  http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/title.html]

Undercover Calls Reveal Medicaid Pays for $9,000 Late-term Abortions Now, with Tax Dollars
As debate over tax-funding of abortions in Obamacare is scheduled in Washington, D.C. for Thursday, an investigation conducted by Operation Rescue and Project Defending Life shows millions of tax dollars are already paying for abortions each year. Operation Rescue has released a short video containing excerpts from an undercover recording showing that Medicaid pays not only for abortions, but completely covers third-trimester abortions for no medical reason whatsoever.

The caller identified herself as having a healthy pregnancy in the 26th week of gestation to a Southwestern Women's Options employee named Sue. She told Sue that the reason she wanted an abortion was because her husband had just lost his job.

"It's shocking that our tax dollars would pay $9,000 for a third-trimester abortion simply because of a lost job. The vast majority of the American people strongly object to their tax money being used in this way," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

Operation Rescue has identified 15 states where Medicaid funds pay for abortions. Those states are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

The undercover caller phoned abortion businesses in 12 of those states and in every case was told that Medicaid would pay for abortions.

Medicaid is a joint government program that is funded completely by tax dollars. Up to fifty percent of the money comes from state taxes and the rest comes from the Federal tax coffers, depending on the state's poverty level.

Federal Medicaid funds are not supposed to cover abortions, but do so in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, exceptions that have been exploited in the past to include more abortions. But it is State money that generally funds abortions to the tune of millions of dollars annually.

For example, California's Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, paid out over $23.6 million to cover abortions in 2007 alone.

Abortion businesses are well aware of Medicaid funding and jump at the chance to use it. One abortion fund website coaches women how to obtain free abortions through Medicaid and the number one way is to go through the abortion clinic for assistance.

"If we are serious about stopping tax-funded abortions, then we need end it in every government program at the State and Federal levels," said Newman. "We encourage everyone to contact their U.S. Congressman this week and demand a complete end to publicly funded abortions."
Read article and listen to the calls -- http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/undercover-calls-reveal-medicaid-pays-for-9000-late-term-abortions-with-our-tax-dollars/

[ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Oct. 12, 2011, Christian Newswire, http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/undercover-calls-reveal-medicaid-pays-for-9000-late-term-abortions-with-our-tax-dollars/ ; PFLI PharmFacts E-News Update -  12 Oct 2011]

New Resource -- www.imagesofabortion.com
Citizens for a Pro-Life Society Announces New Website Project:  www.imagesofabortion.com  

One of the CPLS summer projects was the design and organization of this new and very valuable website. Our goal is to provide a pro-life resource that is focused exclusively on abortion victim photography. Very few--if any websites are dedicated strictly to making these images available to the pro-life community.  Our hope is that pro-lifers will take advantage of the site. Also available are several videos that reveal the truth about abortion.  

At http://www.imagesofabortion.com/exposed/pages/start/home.aspx  you will see, without question, some of the most spectacular photographs ever taken of unborn children who have endured the injustice of abortion.
 
These photos are shocking, disturbing, poignant and even sadly beautiful. I know this word is over-used--but these photos are AWESOME! And most importantly-- these photos and videos SPEAK THE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION!

You will find over 350 images mounted on this site. Some of them are the most recent photos taken of abortion victims in America--babies retrieved from the trash in the year 2010.

Many photos on the site are of unborn children killed in the 7th or 8th weeks of gestation---their humanity blatantly evident. These photos prove that unborn children at this stage are recognizably human--members of the human family who have a right to be protected!   Photos on the site range from 6 weeks to 7 months gestation.
 
CPLS believes that the actual reality of abortion-- the use of images--has an vital role to play in the effort of the pro-life movement. I know from my own vast personal experience that photos of aborted babies have converted hearts and indeed saved other babies from abortion.  We believe that these photos honor the victims. These are the hidden victims of our national slaughter. We must look at them-- the tragedy of their deaths must bore into our hearts--become anchored there and arouse us to action!
 
The photos found at imagesofabortion.com can be made into large posters for demonstrations,used in videos, printed in brochures and pamphlets, used in school term papers, reports and projects, pro-life articles, postcards for mail inserts, etc. etc.  All we ask is that photo credit be given to Citizens for a Pro-Life Society -- www.prolifesociety.com
 
All of the babies in these photos were killed by abortion, retrieved from the dumpsters of clinics, buried by CPLS between the years 1987-2010.   
Each photo is accompanied with descriptive information.  http://www.imagesofabortion.com
[10 Oct 11, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D., Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, http://www.imagesofabortion.com]

Mammogram Questions Reveal Many Breast Cancer Risks, But Hide Abortion As a Risk

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, in case you haven’t seen the pink ribbons on practically every consumer item.

According to last week’s bulletin from the state health department (KDHE), 1,916 women were diagnosed in Kansas with breast cancer in 2007 (the most recent year for which statistics are available). In 2009, 369 women and 3 men died of breast cancer in Kansas.

The bulletin said, “Several lifestyle recommendations may reduce the risk of breast cancer. These include avoiding tobacco, staying active, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol intake to one or fewer drinks per day, and increasing fiber intake with whole grains, vegetables, and fruits.”

At my mammogram last week, I was asked a series of questions as part of the exam. I was NOT asked anything about smoking, food and alcohol intake or my exercise regimen. I was asked:

   1. at what age did my period begin and menopause begin;
   2. how many pregnancies did I have;
   3. how many children were living;
   4. had I ever used oral contraceptives or post-menopausal hormones.

That is because any honest expert understands that breast cancer is largely an “estrogen” story, and the questions all reflect that.

Estrogen surges at puberty, decreases at menopause, and rises 2000% above monthly peaks during each pregnancy except during nearly all pregnancies that naturally miscarry in the first trimester. Estrogen is also affected by birth-control and menopausal hormonal regimens.

Estrogen multiplies breast cells and breast cells are vulnerable to cancer-causing agents until they mature by having become milk-producing cells.  This is why the World Health Organization has taught for over 50 years that the first, full-term birth gives the mother the strongest life-long protection from breast cancer.

The carefully-posed question #3 about living children is supposed to deduce the number of miscarriages and induced abortions. They are not the same biological events.

Miscarriages in the first trimester are predominantly due to a lack of estrogen, and thus do not increase breast cells. Later -term natural miscarriages and induced abortions (in all stages) end the pregnancy, but they leave the mother with MORE un-matured (cancer-vulnerable) breast cells than she had before pregnancy.

Although lowering one’s statistical risk of breast cancer is not a reason to become pregnant, it sure is information pertinent to remaining pregnant. In fact, breast surgeon Dr. Angela LanFranchi writes,

    It amounts to child abuse to take a teenager in a crisis pregnancy for an abortion. At best, it will give her a 30% risk of breast cancer in her lifetime. At worst, if she also has a family history of breast cancer, it will nearly guarantee this. As a mother, I need to be informed of this to protect my daughter.

In an October 2010 KDHE press release, the state health officer wrote, “Other [breast cancer] risk factors are potentially – but not easily – modifiable, such as getting your first menstrual period early (before age 12 years), having your first child after age 35 or never having a child, and reaching menopause after age 55 years.”  This truth is reflected in questions #1-2 of the mammogram questionnaire.

The 2010 release added, “Many people overestimate family history in calculating their risk. In fact, genetic factors account for no more than 5 to 10 percent of cases. Most women who develop breast cancer have no close relatives with a history of the disease, and most female relatives of breast cancer patients will never get the disease themselves….Still other risk factors for breast cancer are more modifiable, at least with determined effort. These include… long-term use of hormone replacement therapy…”

Thus, the 2010 bulletin shows the basis for question #4. However, neither the 2010 or 2011 KDHE bulletins explain the estrogen story behind breast cancer that is obviously reflected in the mammogram questionnaire.

The most avoidable breast cancer risk, but one so politically incorrect they dare not even speak its name– is ABORTION.

For more information, go to the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute for explanations in a reader-friendly booklet that can be ordered or downloaded.

LifeNews.com Note: Kathy Ostrowski is the legislative director for Kansans for Life, a statewide pro-life group.
[10 Oct 2011, Kathy Ostrowski, DC,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/10/mammogram-questions-reveal-breast-cancer-risks-hid-abortion/]

Physician Commentary: If "Every Woman Counts", Then Abortion - Breast Cancer Connection Info Should be Available to Women

Dear Editor: Given the toll that breast cancer exacts on women, it is both appropriate and commendable that The Advocate recently allowed so much space for discussion of this disease.  However, little was written on prevention – which is usually far less expensive to implement than treatment – other than general comments on healthy nutrition, and bilateral mastectomy for those women at high risk for the inheritable form.   

There was no comment on the link between induced abortion, contraceptives and breast cancer, nor on the protective effect of a first, full-term pregnancy.  

Based on a very recent international conference of obstetricians and gynecologists in Italy, and as a physician and medical scientist, I feel compelled to bring the following to the attention of your readers:
After beginning menstruation, a woman’s entire, intricate hormonal physiology and much of her innate psychology revolves around the fulfillment of her reproductive capability, as embodied in her periodic fertility until menopause.  

Tinkering with this process, especially by interrupting pregnancy, or by hormonally inducing a state of false pregnancy (“the pill”), has negative consequences.  

Medical estrogen is classified by the World Health Organization as a class II carcinogen; after 5-12 years of pill use, cervical cancer rates double.   

Also, in a 2009 study co-authored by Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute, "a statistically significant 40% increased risk [of breast cancer] for women who have abortions” was found, as was “a 320% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives.”  

In contrast, and hereditary factors aside, a first, full-term pregnancy confers a protective effect against later breast cancer that is lost through induced abortion (which also markedly increases the rate of premature birth).  According to 16 of 17 statistically significant studies done in Japan, abortion produced an independent risk for breast cancer, while four conducted within the last year and a half in the U.S., China, Turkey and Sri Lanka, similarly concluded that “induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk.”   

Finally, an epidemiologic study conducted in a localized area in Britain several years ago showed such a close relationship between abortion and subsequent breast cancer that the authors were able to predict a later rise in annual breast cancer rates in the study area.  

Clearly, not all women who develop breast cancer have had an abortion.  

Nevertheless, in the context of “Every woman counts,” and wanting to “Stop the silence” – phrases from The Advocate’s pink breast cancer insert – while recognizing that there have been at least 53 million abortions done in the U.S. over the last 38+ years, this information must be made available to help women prevent breast (and cervical) cancer!
[5 Oct 11, The Advocate, Krotoski, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., The Hippocratic Resource]



Pink Ribbon Scandal: Pro-Life Groups Speak Out Against Komen

0 Mammograms
332,278 Abortions
There is a better way to fight breast cancer.

 With October as the month for breast cancer awareness and Komen for the Cure, which donates to the Planned Parenthood abortion business, holding events across the country, pro-life groups are taking a more active stance speaking out about the problems with the organization.

Texas Right to Life has launched a new effort, “Pink Ribbon Scandal, A warning to Pro-Lifers about Susan G. Komen’s ‘race against Life.”

“October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and men and women clad in pink will gather to mourn, celebrate victories of healing, and express solidarity in their goal to eradicate breast cancer by participating in Susan G. Komen Foundation-sponsored races to fundraise for this worthy cause.

Susan G. Komen, however, compromises its own mission to find a cure for breast cancer by associating with Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider,” the pro-life group says. “Texas Right to Life urges Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop sponsoring Planned Parenthood immediately and to start benefiting real health clinics for women. Furthermore, Texas Right to Life calls on Pro-Life individuals to boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its ‘Race for the Cure’ until Komen severs all ties and affiliations with Planned Parenthood.”

The concerns over Komen are more than its donations to Planned Parenthood — which totaled $730K in 2009 and $569K in 2010.

“Many studies have linked an increased risk of developing breast cancer after an abortion, yet both Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood deny the risk abortion poses to breast health,” TRTL says. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/11/pink-ribbon-scandal-pro-life-groups-speak-out-against-komen/



Study Confirms Abortion Negatively Impacts Women’s Health
 A recent study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry has concluded what pro-abortion groups have tried to discount for decades: abortion substantially increases a woman’s risk of mental health problems. More specifically, post-abortive women experience an 81% increased risk of having subsequent mental health issues. Hundreds of published studies have demonstrated the distinct correlation between induced abortion and the devastating psychological issues it has on women.

Several recent literary reviews on this correlation (including one from the American Psychological Association) have concluded that abortion does not significantly impact a woman’s mental health. However, these studies are unreliable for a few notable reasons:

First, there have been just a few studies that comprised of pregnancies that were unintentional but carried to term as a control group. Sometimes pregnancies that are originally intended are aborted, and sometimes unintended pregnancies become wanted as the pregnancy continues, so the wantedness of the pregnancy can alter over time. The intendedness of a pregnancy is determined only by “intended” or “unintended,” when many women may actually feel their intendedness of the pregnancy lies somewhere in between.

Half of pregnancies in America are labeled “unintended.” Adolescents and women over forty years of age report that their pregnancies are unintended over 75% of the time. This means most women in control groups of the research studies that compare abortion with full-term pregnancies actually gave birth to “unintended” babies, even if this is not explicitly evaluated.

Second, abundant pieces of data in peer-reviewed literature were not included in those studies.  According to the study from the BJP, “in the 2008 review by Charles et al, several of the studies that were overlooked actually met the inclusion criteria,” and “studies examining substance misuse were not included in two of the three reviews, with no rationale for excluding them.”  Interestingly, many studies have concluded that there is a strong correlation between induced abortion and subsequent substance abuse, which is a known prominent mental health issue.

Third, the methods by which studies were chosen in the literary reviews were insufficient.  The samples of studies introduced to the reviews were either overly broad, “resulting in incorporation of results from numerous weaker studies,” or the studies were too specific, resulting in unjustified elimination of sound studies.”  The review from the American Psychological Association, the largest literary review, illustrates both of these problems: the criterion that was chosen for the study with a comparison group was only a report based on provisional research on induced abortion “with at least one mental health measure in peer-reviewed journals in English on US and non-US samples.”

However, non-US samples were completely evaded for another type of study (which lacked a comparison group) without any sufficient reasoning, so dozens of relevant international studies were disregarded.

Fourth, the number of effects was not determined by any of these three research teams although there was no reason neglect doing so. A 2003 review published by Thorp et al “resulted in the conclusion that abortion is associated with an increased risk of depression that may lead to self-harm.”  This study neglected to examine a large quantity of mental health effects as well.

The BJP study notes that since the abortion issue is so greatly politicized and debated, it is imperative to utilize scientifically sound standards in evaluation and draw conclusions on the issue in an unbiased manner. 

The objective of this published analysis is to “conduct meta-analyses of associations between induced abortion and adverse mental health outcomes” while ensuring use of decipherable control groups that are used in other varied studies, including unintended pregnancies brought to term.  For the most accurate analysis possible, studies that utilized Medline and PsychINFO databases were employed in the report if they met the standard of having at least one hundred subjects, used a comparison group, and referenced at least one potential mental health effect (including alcohol and substance abuse)...

Health benefits following an abortion procedure “have not been empirically established.”  When inquired as to their emotional state after an abortion (defined by ‘happy,’ ‘pleased,’ or ‘satisfied,’) the average response was a 2.24 on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being “not at all” to 5 being “a great deal.”  When questioned again about their emotions regarding their abortion two years later, the rating dropped to 2.06. 

However, since solid evidence that documents the benefits of abortion on mental health are currently unavailable, “clinicians should convey the current state of uncertainty related to benefits of abortion in addition to sharing the most accurate information pertaining to statistically validated risks.”

This review is intended to be a systematic evaluation of data in regards to induced abortion and the mental health of women. 

The review admits that only a fifteen-year period of publications was studied, but insists that the criteria is of the “largest and strongest studies published in recent years” and calls for the continuation of quantitative literary reviews of studies, but also notes the fact that “methodologically sophisticated studies on the topic of abortion and mental health are being published at a significantly higher rate than ever before” and that researchers worldwide are more able to delve into the issue that once repulsed them for its political connotations. 

To conclude, the review indicates that “abortion is a statistically validated risk factor for the development of various psychological disorders.”
[Jennie Stone | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/11/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/11/study-confirms-abortion-negatively-impacts-womens-health/]





Abortion and Disabilities: 87% of Downs Die, 64% Spina Bifida

The targeting of unborn children in abortion is especially heartbreaking for parents who have raised children with disabilities and experienced the love and joy they share together.

Now, a new flier produced by Right to Life of Michigan provides some startling stats in terms of the percentage of unborn children diagnosed with various medical conditions who become victims of abortion.

“Disabled individuals, no matter what age or status, are human beings worthy of protection. To say a disabled person is less of a human being diminishes the respect for every human life. The value of life does not depend on looks or abilities. There is innate dignity in every human life,” it reads. “Yet unfortunately, unborn and newborn children with disabilities are the least protected members of society. Masked under the cloak of compassion, innocent human beings are being killed without their consent because their lives are proclaimed not worth living.”

The chilling numbers reveal what Right to Life calls the “sinister side of abortion.”

“A study from Wayne State University found that 87% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome were aborted. An review of studies in several countries showed 92% of unborn children who were diagnosed with Down Syndrome were aborted,” RLM says.

Meanwhile, children diagnosed prenatally with spina bifida were aborted 64% of the time and the flier talks about 26 children diagnosed with cleft lips or palates, conditions that are correctable by surgery, who were aborted in the United Kingdom from 2002 to 2009.

“While the vast majority of abortions are done for purely social or economic reasons, the fact that the vast majority of babies with particular conditions are being aborted raises troubling questions about how we as a society are caring for the most sick and vulnerable,” it concludes.

Pam Sherstad of Right to Life of Michigan talked with LifeNews about the new publication.

“The right to life should be extended to all, but for some that right is seriously jeopardized because of a prenatal diagnoses. Our goal is to educate on the disturbing trend of abortion for those diagnosed with disabilities,” she said. “Studies have shown that unborn and newborn children with disabilities are among the least protected members of the human family. Our prolife voice of hope and help is desperately needed.”

Print the flier for your use at http://media.rtl.org/pdf/DisabilityAbortionFlier.pdf

[10 Oct 2011, Ertelt, Lansing, MI,   http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/10/abortion-and-disabilities-87-of-downs-die-64-spina-bifida/]

Planned Parenthood and Taxpayer-Funded Abortion
...In 2009, PP reported doing 332,278 abortions in the USA, or 28% of the 1,183,000 abortions done annually in this country... [in] a report by Americans United for Life, PP receives at least one-third of its [abortion business] income from taxpayer dollars, yet is not accountable to the taxpayers or even to Congress for how it spends that money! Still, PP is fully in the abortion business, and its bottom line depends on performing more and more abortions.

Ninety eight percent (98%) of pregnant women who visit a PP business ultimately have an abortion.

Furthermore, according to the report, PP endangers women's lives by referring them to affiliated, substandard [abortion businesses] that are currently under investigation in 14 states, and has a record of violating state sexual assault and child-abuse-reporting laws, encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent reporting laws.

In 2009, abortion represented 97% of Planned Parenthood's pregnancy-related services nationwide. Moreover, although officially prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, pregnancy terminations accounted for at least $119 Million of Planned Parenthood's $404.9 Million "clinic" [sic] income currently supported by $317 Million of taxpayers' Title X funds.

Is this where our hard-earned TAX dollars should go?  You do the math!
[August, 2011, Resource Roundup, The Hippocratic Resource, vol. 11, nos. 8-9]

Abortion Industry Puts Profits Over Women by Pushing RU 486 Drug

Earlier this week, a pro-life group out of London highlighted a study confirming that abortion drugs are more painful and less preferred by women than standard surgical abortions.  That study, originally pubished in late 2010, is particularly important now as the issues of health care, the defunding of abortion providers, and the limiting of “telemed abortions” are debated across the United States.

Specifically, researchers found the following:

    * Women preferred surgical abortion to medical [medication] abortion (i.e., abortion caused by drugs)
    * Women who had medical abortions experienced more pain on the day of the procedure (43 percent, compared to 23 percent)
    * Women who had medical abortions experienced more bleeding (37 percent, compared to just 4 percent)
    * Almost half of the women in the medical abortion group indicated that they would not choose medical abortion again, but none of women in the surgical group who were available for follow-up indicated that they would opt for a different procedure
    * Almost half of the women in the medical abortion group stated that the procedure was worse than they expected, while none of the women in the surgical group indicated that that the surgical procedure was worse than expected.

While the study focused on women in their second trimester, it confirms other reports that RU-486 causes more bleeding and cramping tha surgical abortion methods.

The researchers acknowledged that it was hard to find women willing to participate in the study, because women have such strong preferences for one abortion method over another—and in this study, that preference was clearly for surgical abortion.

Significantly, the “study also produced evidence that the surgical method is associated with better short term psychological outcome….”

So all of this begs the question: If abortion drugs are more painful and cause more bleeding than surgical abortions, why do abortion providers push them on women so frequently?

Predictably, the answer is money.  Abortion-inducing drugs are more convenient for abortion providers, especially given the fact that providers in the U.S. admittedly administer the drugs in a manner not approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA).  For example, the drugs are given to women past the gestational age approved by the FDA, and women are instructed to take the second dose at home (and not under direct physician supervision). 

This allows providers to give the drugs to more women in a day than they could otherwise see. 

And obviously, abortion providers can provide more women with medical abortion than they can provide with surgical procedures.

Sadly, abortion advocates claim a “need” for medical abortion for women in rural areas, who might not have access to providers of surgical abortion. 

So what this means is that women without adequate health care are given a medication that causes more pain and more bleeding than a surgical abortion, and are sent home to deal with it by themselves and outside of a physician’s supervision. 

This is not health care, and it is not compassionate.  Plain and simple, abortion providers are looking to profit—otherwise, providers would be more concerned for the physical and psychological complications that follow medical abortion.

But abortion is not about women’s health.  It is all about money.

LifeNews.com Note: Mailee Smith is an attorney for Americans United for Life, a pro-life legal group that focuses on national and state legislative matters.
[Mailee Smith | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 9/27/11,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/abortion-industry-puts-profits-over-women-pushing-ru-486-drug/]

Mifeprex Video / Abortion Conscience Politics

An excellent and very accurate 4 minute video on Mifeprex informed consent in an abortion business setting can be found at:
www.youtube.com/WeAreFactNotOpinion 
After viewing this resource, please recommend this video to any woman considering using Mifeprex.
"It ought to be mandatory viewing for high school students."

ABORTION/CONSCIENCE POLITICS
Recent administration decisions reflect the current administration's values on the abortion/conscience scene. We include this info so that you will know the playing field you are playing on in your medical practice. Additionally, there is increasing pressure at the United Nations for member nations to recognize abortion on demand as a fundamental human right.

The following notes are taken from Jonathan Imbody, cmda's VP for govt relations, and from Austin Ruse, of C-fam, the Catholic UN watchdog:

The administration's pattern is obvious regarding conscience rights and religious freedom:
1. gutting the only federal regulation protecting conscience rights in health care
2. wording PEPFAR AIDS grants requirements to effectively disqualify Catholic and other faith-based organizations over the issue of contraception
3. mandating contraception coverage nationwide with a nano-exemption for religious entities
4. arguing at the Supreme Court against the ministerial exemption regarding employment practices by religious organizations
5. wording trafficking in persons grants requirements to give preference to pro-abortion groups and eliminate pro-life groups

You may be interested in the information below regarding a human trafficking victims assistance grant. According to reports, a federal contract with the USCCB was not renewed after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) indicated they would give "strong preference" to applicants willing to offer referrals for the "full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care." The change was made while a related American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit filed in 2009 is still pending. The ACLU suit claims that the contract with the USCCB was unconstitutional because the USCCB refuses to provide or refer for abortion.

If the grant was denied based on the USCCB's refusal to participate in abortion, such discrimination is not permissible under the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause (an annual pro-life limitation amendment or "rider" included in the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bills). However, entities protected by Hyde-Weldon lack judicial recourse leaving few options when they believe their conscience rights have been violated.

H.R. 361, the "Abortion Nondiscrimination Act" (ANDA) was introduced earlier this year by Reps. John Fleming (R-LA) and Dan Boren (D-OK) to make the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause permanent and add judicial recourse for victims of discrimination.

This information is particularly timely since language similar to ANDA is included in H.R. 358, the "Protect Life Act" which passed the House this week.
Similar language was also included in H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" and the proposed House draft of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill.
********************

To see the recent UN directives , go to:
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/major-pro-life-legal/scientific-document-launched-at-un-headquarters.html
[13 October 11]

Providing Help for Fathers Grieving From Abortion Involvement http://www.menandabortion.net/

I’m packing my bags and pro-life materials in preparation for an exciting opportunity to once again take the pro-life message to an international level.

Tomorrow I’ll be traveling to Santiago, Chile to address regional pro-life leaders about a little discussed topic when one thinks of the pro-life movement. Specifically, how to counsel and minister to fathers suffering from a loss of a baby to abortion. For many years I’ve been reaching out to and counseling post-abortive men, it’s been an issue very near and dear to my heart...

That’s why I and others founded the Men and Abortion Network (MAN) to create more awareness to the plight of these grieving fathers, and to provide resources and counseling to help them.

Many people are well aware of the mental pain and anguish suffered by mothers who abort their babies—and that’s important. But sadly, the fathers involved in the same decision are often left out in the cold to deal with their pain all alone. That’s precisely what I’ll be tackling during my time in Chile with fellow pro-life leaders.

In addition to equipping pro-life counselors through a series of workshop talks, there will be some unique chances to raise awareness of this issue before some key influencers in the pro-life community. I’ll be participating in an International Congress where I’ll give a lecture on men and abortion.

Following that Congress, I’ll head over to a specially-invited gathering of evangelical leaders at the La Moneda in Santiago. To put this into perspective, La Moneda is Chile’s equivalent of our White House here in the US.

This trip will be a golden opportunity to equip more pro-life ambassadors with vital tools to reach out to hurting fathers in respective areas. I’d definitely appreciate your prayers for me to speak with effective clarity and boldness during my time in South America.

Learn more about how abortion affects the fathers of aborted babies and the work of MAN by clicking here -- http://www.menandabortion.net/

And take advantage of the considerable resources complied on this site. Also, regardless of where they live, hurting fathers can request [from this site] a free counselor to help them through the healing process.

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group. Mattes is a veteran of the pro-life cause, with over three decades of educational, political and humanitarian experience.
[7 Oct 11, Brad Mattes | Washington, DC,  http://www.menandabortion.net/  ;   http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/07/providing-help-for-fathers-grieving-from-abortion-involvement/]

Abortion Business in Illinois Shut Down, Failed Inspection
 An abortion business in Illinois has been suspended by state health inspectors for health violations. The Northern Illinois Women’s Center in Rockford had its license suspended by the Illinois Department of Health after failing a subsequent inspection — following a June 2011 inspection that had state officials telling the abortion business it needed a plan of correction.

Despite the plan, the corrections had not been sufficiently made and health inspectors still found numerous violations.

The Rockford Register Star newspaper indicates Illinois Department of Public Health officials gave the abortion center a three-page report of deficiencies on September 29 signed by Damon T. Arnold, the director of the state department. The notice says officials “found conditions at (the Northern Illinois Women’s Center) that are directly threatening to the public interest, health, safety and welfare requiring immediate, emergency action.”

The Northern Illinois Women’s Center abortion business violated the stipulations of the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Licensing Requirements Code and Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, which makes abortion centers abide by the same rules and regulations that apply to legitimate medical centers doing outpatient surgeries.

Some of the violations, according to the newspaper, include not having a registered nurse on hand during abortions, not having a registered nurse supervising other abortion facility staff, not having two physicians with admitting privileges at a local hospital to admit patients when abortions are botched and women need immediate medical treatment, and not having a valid written agreement with a laboratory for lab work.
For remainder of article, visit  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/03/abortion-clinic-in-illinois-loses-license-failed-inspection/

FL Abortionist Suspended for Covering Up Sexual Assault Case
Abortion practitioner Michael Benjamin has had his medical license suspended by the state of Florida for failing to report a suspected case of statutory rape to officials — in what is becoming a problem with the abortion industry nationwide.

The Florida Department of Health voted on Saturday to indefinitely suspend the Tamarac-based abortion practitioner’s medical license after failing to report the case of a 12-year-old girl who was six months pregnant. The Sun Sentinel newspaper indicates the abortion practitioner will challenge the ruling, saying he believed the story the girl told about having consensual sex with a classmate and he thought he didn’t have to report it to authorities.

Authorities later found the boyfriend of the girl’s mother was responsible for impregnating the pre-teen girl and the state health department filed a case against Benjamin saying physicians are required to report cases of suspected sexual abuse of any girl under the age of 16.

Benjamin discovered the girl’s situation because she came to him in November 2009 for an abortion with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend after finding his name through a pro-abortion hotline that refers people to abortion practitioners. The girl’s mother reportedly told Benjamin she did not discover the pregnancy until her daughter was 24 weeks pregnant and the daughter had had no prenatal care for the baby or herself during that time.

Authorities later apprehended the boyfriend, who is now serving 15 years for sexual assault.
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/04/abortionist-suspended-for-covering-up-sexual-assault-case/



Late-Term Abortionist Martin Haskell Allowed to Avoid Ohio Law
The Ohio health department has updated an arrangement that allows late-term abortion practitioner Martin Haskell to continue doing abortions without following state law requiring him to have a transfer agreement at a local hospital.
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/04/late-term-abortionist-martin-haskell-allowed-to-avoid-ohio-law/



Doctor Bowers Working With Haskell Abortion Business Faces Discipline
One of the doctors who has been picked by Martin Haskell’s Ohio abortion business to treat patients who may become victims of botched abortions has himself faced discipline from medical boards in Ohio and Kentucky.

As LifeNews.com reported yesterday, pro-life advocates in Ohio are upset that the state health department has granted Haskell’s abortion business a variance allowing him to avoid complying with state law requiring a transfer agreement with a local hospital to transport patients who are injured in botched abortions for immediate medical care.

Ironically, documents the pro-life group Operation Rescue obtained reveal obstetrician William Bowers, who has been accepted by the Ohio Department of Health to offer emergency hospital care for botched abortion patients of Haskell’s has been disciplined in Kentucky and banned from the practice of obstetrics for five years. He also faces further discipline in Ohio.

Bowers was named in the ODH variance because Haskell and other abortion practitioners who work at his facility lack hospital privileges as required by law. The variance allowed Haskell’s late-term abortion facility in Sharonville to stay in business as long as two other physicians agreed to provide hospital care whenever Haskell or his associates inflict injuries on abortion patients. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/06/doctor-working-with-haskell-abortion-business-faces-discipline/




The San Jose Articles Provide Expert International Legal-Medical-Public Policy Testimony that the Unborn Child is Protected Under International Law
We try to keep you current on world scene abortion info. Our Sept 23 email letter to you detailed a report by the U.N. Human Rights Council which declares elective abortion to be a fundamental human right, linked to the "right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."

There are persistent attempts to pressure nations with pro-life laws to change these laws to make abortion universally available. Finally, we have some pressure in the other direction: the San Jose Articles. This is a crucial initiative.

The San Jose Articles were drafted by a large group of experts in law, medicine, and public policy. The Articles will support and assist those around the world who are coming under pressure from UN personnel and others who say falsely that governments are required by international law to repeal domestic laws protecting human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development against the violence of abortion.

Be informed. Read about it at: www.sanjosearticles.org

Why the San Jose Articles?

It is now commonplace that people around the world are told there is a new international right to abortion.

Those who receive this message are people who have the power to change abortion laws; parliamentarians, lawyers, judges and others.
Those delivering this message are influential and believable people; UN personnel, human rights lawyers, judges and others.

The assertion they make is false. No UN treaty makes abortion an international human right.

Even so, the assertion is gaining traction around the world. The high court of Colombia changed their country's abortion laws based on this false assertion. More are considering such a change.

The purpose of the San Jose Articles is to provide expert testimony that no such right exists. The San Jose Articles were prepared an a group of 31 experts in international law, international relations, international organizations, public health, science/medicine and government. The signers include law professors, philosophers, Parliamentarians, Ambassadors, human rights lawyers, and delegates to the UN General Assembly.

The purpose of the San Jose Articles is also to demonstrate that the unborn child is already protected in human rights instruments and that governments should begin protecting the unborn child by using international law.

We hope that experts around the world will place a copy of the San Jose Articles on their desks and that the next time they hear this false assertion they share this expert testimony.

It is also our hope that the San Jose Articles will begin to appear in law review articles, in Parliamentary resolutions and in the debate of the UN General Assembly.

Finally, it is our fervent hope that governments will begin to utilize their right to refer to existing international law to protect the unborn child from abortion.

Those who make the false assertion that there is new international right to abortion have had the microphone too long.

The San Jose Articles take that microphone away.

San Jose Articles

Article 1. As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.

Article 2. Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.

Article 3. From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.

Article 4. All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights. This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.

Article 5. There exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law. No United Nations treaty can accurately be cited as establishing or recognizing a right to abortion.

Article 6. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and other treaty monitoring bodies have directed governments to change their laws on abortion. These bodies have explicitly or implicitly interpreted the treaties to which they are subject as including a right to abortion.

Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.

Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law.

Article 7. Assertions by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and should be rejected.

There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any ground, including but not limited to health, privacy or sexual autonomy, or non-discrimination.

Article 8. Under basic principles of treaty interpretation in international law, consistent with the obligations of good faith and pacta sunt servanda, and in the exercise of their responsibility to defend the lives of their people, states may and should invoke treaty provisions guaranteeing the right to life as encompassing a state responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.

Article 9. Governments and members of society should ensure that national laws and policies protect the human right to life from conception. They should also reject and condemn pressure to adopt laws that legalize or depenalize abortion.

Treaty monitoring bodies, United Nations agencies and officers, regional and national courts, and others should desist from implicit or explicit assertions of a right to abortion based upon international law.

When such false assertions are made, or pressures exerted, member states should demand accountability from the United Nations system.

Providers of development aid should not promote or fund abortions. They should not make aid conditional on a recipient's acceptance of abortion.

International maternal and child health care funding and programs should ensure a healthy outcome of pregnancy for both mother and child and should help mothers welcome new life in all circumstances.

We — human rights lawyers and advocates, scholars, elected officials, diplomats, and medical and international policy experts — hereby affirm these Articles.
San Jose, Costa Rica
March 25, 2011, www.sanjosearticles.org
[6 Oct 2011, www.aaplog.org e-message]

Major Pro-Life Legal/Scientific Document, the San Jose Articles, Launched at UN Headquarters

It is commonplace now for UN officials and American law professors to tell foreign governments that they are required by international law to liberalize their abortion laws. Just last month the UN Special Rapporteur on Health issued a report making this claim. The Secretary General endorsed his report. Shortly thereafter the UN High Commission on Human Rights said the same thing.

Pro-life activists have been saying for years that this is a false assertion. Even so, some governments have started to listen and to liberalize their laws. The High Court of Colombia changed their abortion laws based on these assertions from a UN committee. Two judges on the Mexican High Court have made these assertions also.

Enter the San Jose Articles, which were launched today in the UN press briefing room at UN headquarters in New York. Professor Robert George told UN press and observers that the San Jose Articles were drafted for the purpose of helping government officials fight back against such assertions.

“The San Jose Articles were drafted by a large group of experts in law, medicine, and public policy. The Articles will support and assist those around the world who are coming under pressure from UN personnel and others who say falsely that governments are required by international law to repeal domestic laws protecting human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development against the violence of abortion” said George.

Ambassador Joseph Rees, former US Ambassador to East Timor and one time US representative to the UN Economic and Social Council joined George at the press briefing. Rees said, “When I was in Timor I witnessed first-hand a sustained effort by some international civil servants and representatives of foreign NGOs to bully a small developing country into repealing its pro-life laws. The problem is that people on the ground, even government officials, have little with which to refute the extravagant claim that abortion is an internationally recognized human right. The San Jose Articles are intended to help them fight back.”

The Articles were a year in the making including a two-day negotiating session in San Jose, Costa Rica in March. Altogether 29 experts helped draft and sign the document.

Signatories to the Articles include Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Professor John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews, Francisco Tatad, the former majority leader of the Philippine Senate, Javier Borrego, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor Carter Snead of UNESCO’s international committee on bioethics, and Lord Nicholas Windsor an outspoken pro-life proponent who is a member of the British Royal Family.

In the coming days, the Articles will be launched in the British House of Lords, the European Parliament, and the Italian Parliament, also in Madrid, Washington DC, Santiago, Manila, Buenos Aires, Calgary and San Jose.

The Articles can be viewed at a website, also launched today, at www.sanjosearticles.org.
[6 Oct 2011, Austin Ruse, New York, http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-14/major-pro-life-legal/scientific-document-launched-at-un-headquarters.html ; 6Oct11,
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/06/major-pro-life-document-san-jose-articles-launched-at-un/]




Ireland Safer for Pregnant Women than All Six Countries Pushing to Legalize Abortion

The UN Human Rights Council today examined Ireland’s human rights record as part of the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, represented the Government at the public session in Geneva this morning. The Minister was questioned on a wide range of issues.  Six countries raised Ireland’s abortion laws and openly called on Ireland to legislate for abortion. The countries were Holland, Germany, Denmark, Slovenia, Norway and Spain.

Speaking from Geneva on today’s UN session, Ms Caroline Simons, Legal Consultant to the Pro Life Campaign, said:

It is interesting to note that Ireland has a much better record of safeguarding the lives of women in pregnancy than any of the six countries that challenged our laws on abortion at the UN session this morning.

The latest UN study on maternal mortality, published in 2010, shows that out of 172 countries for which estimates are given, Ireland remains a world leader in safety for pregnant women.

Contrary to what pro-choice groups claim, Ireland is not obliged to legislate for abortion following on from the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling in A, B and C v. Ireland. It would also be grossly irresponsible to do so, given the sheer volume of published peer reviewed studies, highlighting the negative consequences of abortion for women.

The UN’s Universal Periodic Review presents a genuine opportunity to re-affirm self evident inalienable human rights, the most basic of which is the right to life.  If ending the life of an unborn child were to be officially declared a human right, the term ‘human rights’ would be stripped of all its meaning. Were the UN to adopt such a position, it would do incalculable damage to its credibility as a protector of genuine human rights, Ms. Simons concluded

[6 Oct 11, Education Officers Geraldine Martin , Dr Ruth Cullen. Pro Life Campaign, News Release by the Pro Life Campaign,  www.prolifecampaign.ie]




Study: Birth Control NOT Stopping Unplanned Pregnancies OR Abortions
 A study conducted by a former research arm of Planned Parenthood shows the policies of the abortion business promoting contraception and birth control to poor women aren’t working, as unplanned pregnancy rates are rising.

The Guttmacher Institute released a new study [http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html] showing considerable decline between 1981 and 1994 in the overall unplanned pregnancy rate has continued recently and remains relatively stable at 5 percent of American women having an unintended pregnancy annually. However, the rate has increased dramatically among poor women, while among higher-income women it has continued to decrease substantially.

With the Planned Parenthood abortion business, which the pro-abortion institute is formerly affiliated with, targeting lower-income women with contraception, birth control and abortion, the new study is a blow to its agenda.

Lawrence B. Finer and Mia R. Zolna conducted the study [Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006 -- http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.contraception.2011.07.13.pdf], which compares the 1994 data to 2006 figures, and it found that, in 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line was 88 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. That increased to 120 in 2001 and 132 in 2006—a 50% rise over the period. At the same time, the rate among higher-income women (those with incomes at or above 200% of the poverty line) fell from 34 in 1994 to 28 in 2001 and 24 in 2006—a 29% decrease.

“Poor women’s high rate of unintended pregnancy results in their also having high—and increasing—rates of both abortions (52 per 1,000) and unplanned births (66 per 1,000). In 2006, poor women had an unintended pregnancy rate five times that of higher-income women, and an unintended birth rate six times as high,” the new report showed.

“Analyzing U.S. government data from the National Survey of Family Growth and other sources, Finer and Zolna found that of the 6.7 million pregnancies in 2006, nearly half (49%) were unintended. Although some unintended pregnancies are accepted or even welcomed, more than four in ten (43%) end in abortion,” the study indicates. The figures make it clear that the birth control and contraception Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates promote are not working to prevent either unplanned pregnancies or abortions.

This new study follows another Guttmacher Institute report, issued in January, showing the decline in abortions that had been taking place over the last two decades has finally stopped. The stoppage of the decline in abortions come as Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates successfully lobbied the Obama administration and Congress to shift taxpayer funding from abstinence education to family planning, arguing it will decrease abortions further. Yet, the report indicates a majority of abortions took place after contraception failure.

The Guttmacher report shows “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”

These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.
And, of the women who say they did not intend to become pregnant, the report said “most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.”

The reasons women give for having an abortion are birth control in nature. Asked to check off a list with more than one reason, 75 percent say they can’t afford to have a baby, 75 percent say having a baby would interfere with work or school, and half say they don’t want to become a single parent or have issues of having a child with their husband or partner.

[from http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html]:
“Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006” is currently available online -- http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.contraception.2011.07.13.pdf -- and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Contraception.

For more information on the impact of unintended pregnancy on public policies and programs, see “Wise Investment: Reducing the Steep Cost to Medicaid of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States,” by Rachel Benson Gold -- Guttmacher Policy Review, Summer 2011, vol. 14, no.3 -- http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.pdf

[ED NOTE: The above 2 paragraphs were posted at the end of the new Guttmacher report about the pregnancy rates...
(Yawn) It’s the AMAZING Guttmacher solution for the ridiculously high pregnancy rates in the women who already use contraception: MORE contraception...    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140306.pdf ]

[Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 8/25/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/25/study-birth-control-not-stopping-unplanned-pregnancies-abortions/ ; Disparities in Unintended Pregnancy Grow, Even as National Rate Stagnates -- http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/08/24/index.html ; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.contraception.2011.07.13.pdf

BREAST CANCER

Komen for the Cure’s Planned Parenthood Ties Must be Exposed

 With October being Breast Cancer Awareness Month, the Susan G. Komen Foundation is hungry for “research” funds and is going full-force after them. Shockingly, many still don’t know that the nation’s most visible breast cancer research organization funds Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.

When you closely look at Komen and Planned Parenthood’s relationship, you’ll see that their financial ties have existed for quite some time. During 2010—the latest year figures that are available—18 Komen affiliates gave more than a half-million dollars in grants to Planned Parenthood. Since 2005, more than $3 million has gone toward Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills from the Komen Foundation.

It appears that money speaks louder than women’s safety for these two organizations working hand-in-hand.

The connection is counterproductive to Komen’s mission to end breast cancer. Numerous studies from 1957 to the present have linked abortion to an increased risk in deadly breast cancer for women. With this frightening connection, it makes no sense why this close association with Planned Parenthood should have ever existed. For the remainder of the article, visit -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/14/komen-for-the-cures-planned-parenthood-ties-must-be-exposed/

PowerPoint Helps Explain Abortion-Breast Cancer Link
A new guide prepared by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer helps pregnancy centers who are facing attacks from abortion advocates for accurately informing women of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

The organization’s director, Karen Malec, told LifeNews that the new Crisis Pregnancy Center PowerPoint Presentation [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/presentation2011/] provides “a new resource to help them defend themselves against NARAL’s and Planned Parenthood’s attacks on them for informing women about the risks of induced abortion.”

The timing of the new guide is crucial, with the city of San Francisco becoming the latest to attack pregnancy centers.

Malec hopes people will share this professional presentation of the abortion-breast cancer link with legislators, crisis pregnancy centers, journalists, medical professionals and pregnant women.

The presentation shows how pregnancy hormones structurally change the breasts. Pregnancy outcome (i.e. full term pregnancy vs. induced abortion, 2nd trimester miscarriage or a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation) influences the maturity and cancer-resistance of the breast cells. Breast cells are not fully cancer-resistant until they lactate, Malec explains.

Malec provided LifeNews a synopsis of the new presentation, which exposes the lies that women are being told about the abortion-breast cancer research by leading pro-abortion advocacy groups.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women:

1. Eight medical groups have issued statements acknowledging an independent link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.

2. Abortion raises breast cancer risk in four ways; and only one of those four ways continues to be contested by scientists (the independent link, i.e. whether abortion leaves the breasts with more places for cancers to start).

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women That Medical Texts and Medical Authorities Agree:

1. First full term pregnancy reduces lifetime breast cancer risk.
2. Every subsequent full term pregnancy reduces risk by an additional 10%.
3. Every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy increases premenopausal breast cancer risk by 5% and postmenopausal breast cancer risk by 3%.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women That Abortion Causes the Mother to:

1. Lose the protective effect of full term pregnancy.
2. Have a smaller family.
3. Delay her first full term pregnancy.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women It’s Indisputable That:

1. The woman who has a full term pregnancy has a lower risk than does the one who has an abortion.

2. Full term pregnancy lowers risk, but abortion does not reduce risk.

3. Even a paid expert witness testifying under oath on behalf of Florida’s abortion providers in 1999 agreed with this statement, “A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she chooses to carry that pregnancy to term.”

4. The World Health Organization lists the birth control pill with estrogen and progestin in it as a Group 1 cancer-causing agent – the highest level of carcinogenicity. A 2006 meta-analysis in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, confirms the carcinogenicity of the pill. Two studies in 2009 and 2010 strongly link the pill with the aggressive, deadly form of breast cancer called “triple-negative breast cancer.” Abortion clinics give women cancer-causing abortions and then add “fuel to the fire” by prescribing them cancer-causing birth control pills.

Why the U.S. National Cancer Institute Is Unreliable:

1. National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton was the chief organizer of the NCI’s 2003 workshop which concluded abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk. In 2009, however, Dr. Brinton put her name on a study whose authors included abortion among “known and suspected breast cancer risk factors.” They found a statistically significant 40% increased breast cancer risk for women who had abortions. They concluded abortion is a risk factor for the disease.

2. The workshop’s summary contradicted itself by admitting that early first full term birth, larger family size, and increased duration of breastfeeding reduce risk; but the statement is at war with itself because it concluded: “Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

3. The workshop’s conclusions contradicted 46 years of biological, epidemiological and experimental research showing that abortion raises breast cancer risk in four ways: delayed first full term pregnancy, loss of the protective effect of full term pregnancy, leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start, and putting women at risk for having premature births before 32 weeks gestation in future pregnancies (which is an uncontested breast cancer risk for the mother).
Presentation: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/presentation2011/
[22 Sept 11,  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/22/new-powerpoint-helps-explain-abortion-breast-cancer-link/]

RU-486 Abortions Lead to 14 Maternal Deaths, 2,207 Adverse Effects: FDA Report

Fourteen U.S. women have died after taking RU-486 and a total of 2,207 reported adverse effects after using the drug, according to a report from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released this summer. The FDA report, released in mid-July, shows a significant rise in women who have been subjected to “adverse effects” resulting from taking RU-486 since the previous report in 2006 noted 1,100 women.

Approximately 1.52 million women have used the abortion drug through the end of April 2011.

Of the women experiencing medical and physical problems resulting from the abortion drug mifepristone, more commonly known as RU-486, 612 women required hospitalizations, 339 experienced blood loss significant enough to require a transfusion, 256 experienced infections, and 48 women experienced “severe infections.”

“Severe infections generally involve death or hospitalization for at least 2-3 days, intravenous antibiotics for at least 24 hours, total antibiotic usage for at least 3 days, and any other physical or clinical findings, laboratory data or surgery that suggest a severe infection,” the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) report says.

The U.S. abortion industry has resisted FDA guidelines for usage of RU-486. The FDA reveals that RU-486 drug has been misused in 58 cases where the abortion drug was given to women who had ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy outside the uterus.

“Administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy,” the FDA observes.

RU-486 has also been at the center of the controversy surrounding “telemed” abortions, in which an abortionist prescribes RU-486 via a internet video link to a woman in a remote location. “Telemed” abortions are being increasingly pushed by Planned Parenthood, but opposed by pro-life organizations who argue that the practice is dangerous.

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortions.

A recent study out of England found women who have drug-induced abortions prefer the surgical abortion procedure. They complained of more pain and more emotional distress following the use of RU-486 and the passing of the body of the dead baby than woman who underwent surgical abortions.

An Australian study found evidence that RU-486 abortions have a far higher rate of serious complications than surgical abortion. The study found that a massive 5.7% of women undergoing such chemical abortion, versus 0.4% of women who had surgical abortion, were re-admitted to the hospital for post-abortion treatment.

Some states have begun clamping down on reckless use of RU-486. In May, Oklahoma legislation was signed enforcing the FDA rules. Texas is considering similar legislation.

Related Stories
Study finds RU-486 much more dangerous than surgical abortion -- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-finds-ru-486-much-more-dangerous-than-surgical-abortion
[28 Sept 2011, Jeremy Kryn, D.C., http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ru-486-abortions-lead-to-14-maternal-deaths-2207-adverse-effects-fda-report?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=656379c874-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines09_28_2011&utm_medium=email]

Study Finds RU-486 More Dangerous Than Surgical Abortion

A new Australian study has found strong evidence that chemical "medication" RU-486 abortions have a far higher rate of serious complications than surgical abortion, undercutting a major selling point of the abortion drug regimen.

The Australian reports that the first major study comparing the risks of chemical and surgical abortion has just been published in the Australian Family Physician, a medical journal for Australia’s general practitioners.

Drs. Ea Mulligan and Hayley Messenger examined approximately 7,000 abortions, which the Australian reports were carried out in the state of South Australia in 2009 and 2010.

The study found that 3.3 percent of women undergoing the RU-486 abortion process (which uses the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol) in the first trimester sought emergency room help, compared to 2.2 percent of women who had first trimester surgical abortions.

The Australian also noted that the study found that a massive 5.7 percent of women undergoing RU-486 abortion, versus 0.4 per cent of women who had surgical abortion, were re-admitted to the hospital for post-abortion treatment.

The study also found that the risk of women suffering severe hemorrhaging was one in 3,000 in surgical abortion. The risks rose to one in 200 for women procuring chemical/medication abortion.

The rate of hospital admission for infection was one in 1500 for surgical abortion, but one in 480 for chemical abortion.

The Australian reports that since its introduction five years ago, the use of the chemical abortion regimen has been growing fast due to its lower cost, the privacy of an induced abortion at home, and assurances as to its safety.

In Australia, only an authorized dispenser of RU-486 may provide the 200mg tablet of mifepristone. The abortion begins in the hospital or abortion clinic where the pill is taken. Approximately 48 hours, after the unborn child is dead, the mother takes the drug called misoprostol, which causes her to expel the dead child’s body and the rest of the womb’s contents. The last part usually takes place at home.

Mulligan, one of the authors of the study, chalked the higher risks of RU-486 abortion up to Australian doctors still being on a “learning curve” with the drug, and said that “follow-up surgical intervention will come down” as they get used to it.

Australian pro-life advocates disagree.

“We always said that taking RU-486 would have a very deleterious effect on women’s health,” Margaret Tighe, founder of Right to Life Australia, told the Australian, adding, “taking a pill seems very easy, but what we are seeing here is there can be quite a lot of complications.”

Pro-life advocates in the United States and elsewhere around the world have also noted the severe complications that may occur with RU-486 abortions.

RU-486 was made legal in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, and since then at least six American women have died of complications from medically induced abortion.

Abroad, the Italian Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics in 2008 reported 16 maternal deaths associated with RU-486, leading the Italian Senate to delay sale of the chemical abortion regimen.
[May 10, 2011, Peter Smith, ADELAIDE, Australia, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-finds-ru-486-much-more-dangerous-than-surgical-abortion]

Power Point Helps Explain Abortion-Breast Cancer Connection

A new guide prepared by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer helps pregnancy centers who are facing attacks from abortion advocates for accurately informing women of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

The organization’s director, Karen Malec, told LifeNews that the new Crisis Pregnancy Center PowerPoint Presentation [http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/presentation2011/] provides “a new resource to help them defend themselves against NARAL’s and Planned Parenthood’s attacks on them for informing women about the risks of induced abortion.”

The timing of the new guide is crucial, with the city of San Francisco becoming the latest to attack pregnancy centers.

Malec hopes people will share this professional presentation of the abortion-breast cancer link with legislators, crisis pregnancy centers, journalists, medical professionals and pregnant women.

The presentation shows how pregnancy hormones structurally change the breasts. Pregnancy outcome (i.e. full term pregnancy vs. induced abortion, 2nd trimester miscarriage or a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation) influences the maturity and cancer-resistance of the breast cells. Breast cells are not fully cancer-resistant until they lactate, Malec explains.

Malec provided LifeNews a synopsis of the new presentation, which exposes the lies that women are being told about the abortion-breast cancer research by leading pro-abortion advocacy groups.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women:

1. Eight medical groups have issued statements acknowledging an independent link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk.

2. Abortion raises breast cancer risk in four ways; and only one of those four ways continues to be contested by scientists (the independent link, i.e. whether abortion leaves the breasts with more places for cancers to start).

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women That Medical Texts and Medical Authorities Agree:

1. First full term pregnancy reduces lifetime breast cancer risk.
2. Every subsequent full term pregnancy reduces risk by an additional 10%.
3. Every one year delay of a first full term pregnancy increases premenopausal breast cancer risk by 5% and postmenopausal breast cancer risk by 3%.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women That Abortion Causes the Mother to:

1. Lose the protective effect of full term pregnancy.
2. Have a smaller family.
3. Delay her first full term pregnancy.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood Don’t Tell Women It’s Indisputable That:

1. The woman who has a full term pregnancy has a lower risk than does the one who has an abortion.

2. Full term pregnancy lowers risk, but abortion does not reduce risk.

3. Even a paid expert witness testifying under oath on behalf of Florida’s abortion providers in 1999 agreed with this statement, “A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she chooses to carry that pregnancy to term.”

4. The World Health Organization lists the birth control pill with estrogen and progestin in it as a Group 1 cancer-causing agent – the highest level of carcinogenicity. A 2006 meta-analysis in the journal, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, confirms the carcinogenicity of the pill. Two studies in 2009 and 2010 strongly link the pill with the aggressive, deadly form of breast cancer called “triple-negative breast cancer.” Abortion clinics give women cancer-causing abortions and then add “fuel to the fire” by prescribing them cancer-causing birth control pills.

Why the U.S. National Cancer Institute Is Unreliable:

1. National Cancer Institute branch chief Dr. Louise Brinton was the chief organizer of the NCI’s 2003 workshop which concluded abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk. In 2009, however, Dr. Brinton put her name on a study whose authors included abortion among “known and suspected breast cancer risk factors.” They found a statistically significant 40% increased breast cancer risk for women who had abortions. They concluded abortion is a risk factor for the disease.

2. The workshop’s summary contradicted itself by admitting that early first full term birth, larger family size, and increased duration of breastfeeding reduce risk; but the statement is at war with itself because it concluded: “Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

3. The workshop’s conclusions contradicted 46 years of biological, epidemiological and experimental research showing that abortion raises breast cancer risk in four ways:

a) delayed first full term pregnancy,

b) loss of the protective effect of full term pregnancy,

c) leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start, and...

d) putting women at risk for having premature births before 32 weeks gestation in future pregnancies (which is an uncontested breast cancer risk for the mother).

Presentation: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/presentation2011/

Conflict Of Interest, Part 5: Betrayal Trauma Theory
 
In the abortion debate, is there a "Conflict of Interest" within the Black community and among her leaders?
 
Betrayal Trauma

"I propose that the core issue is betrayal -- a betrayal of trust that produces conflict between external reality and a necessary system of social dependence." — Jennifer J. Freyd

Betrayal Blindness is the unawareness, not-knowing, and forgetting exhibited by people towards betrayal. This blindness may extend to betrayals that are not traditionally considered "traumas," such as adultery, inequities in the workplace and society, etc. 1

Dr. Jennifer J. Freyd, who is author of the terms "Betrayal Trauma" and "Betrayal Trauma Theory," wrote in 1999 "We now have a much clearer picture of the conditions that make human memory vulnerable to suggestion and distortion. We are beginning to understand the relevance of factors such as event plausibility and social authority." 2

As we go deeper we learn that victims, perpetrators, and witnesses may exhibit Betrayal Blindness in an effort to maintain relationships, institutions, and social systems upon which they depend.

This is part five (5) of a seven (7) part series examining why Black Leadership rejects the Pro-Life movement, is helping to perpetrate the genocide of their own people and what can be done to reverse this horrific reality.

Betrayal Trauma: Turning A Blind Eye

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." — MALCOLM X, speech, Thursday, January 7th, 1965. Just six (6) weeks before he was assassinated Sunday, February 21st, 1965 in Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom.

The Number Four Reason Black leadership rejects the Pro-Life movement is that he or she is: Un-Informed.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, 30% Of All Abortions Are Performed On Black Women. 3

According to the National Vital Statistics Reports of 2009, in 2005 there were 587,000 Live Black Births, 452,000 Induced Black Abortions and 292,808 Black Deaths from all causes, excluding induced abortion. 4

If we do the math we have 587,000 Live Black Births against 744,808 Black Deaths (i.e., 452,000 Induced Black Abortions + 292,808 Black Deaths from all other causes) which equates to a Black Life Deficit of a Negative 157,808. 5

Abortion, which has taken the lives of more Black Americans than heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined, is the number one (1) cause of death in Black America. 6 In the last thirty-eight (38) years Black Americans have suffered the loss of over twenty (20) million lives to abortion alone. 7

Still further, these numbers do not include those aborted by abortifacients such as ellaOne 8 or by "private physicians' procedures."

How is it possible for Black Leadership to miss this? Is simply being Un-Informed a plausible explanation? Could the depth of our responsibility for the death of our own children be so deep, that we can no longer fathom right from wrong? Could the blood on our hands be so rich and red, that we blind ourselves to the truth?

Could the pain from helping to perpetrate the genocide of our own people have left us blind, deaf and dumb? Could the cost of the silence in our pulpits have left us morally bankrupt? Could the results of our own betrayal of our cherished Christian values be so traumatic that in order to maintain relationships with institutions, and social authorities, we deliberately turned a "Blind Eye" to the realities of abortion all around us and in plain sight?

Betrayal Trauma: Was Blind, But Now I See …

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that sav'd a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see." — Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman John Newton, (1725—1807)

I was not always aware of the creeping culture of death in my own community. Like many I relied on others (Black Leadership) to keep me informed... Finally, God used the pre-mature birth of my son and the immediate possibility of his death to open my eyes ... With more death than life in Black America, the clock is ticking and our survival is what's running out of time...

♥ THE QUESTION IS: Who among us is willing to risk it all by going into a house on fire to wrestle with those who are burning in the fires of betrayal trauma?...

Brothers, we really need to talk.

Reference(s):
01. Freyd, J.J. Memory repression, dissociative states, and other cognitive control processes involved in adult sequelae of childhood trauma. Invited paper given at the Second Annual Conference on A Psychodynamics - Cognitive Science Interface, Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, University of California, San Francisco, August 21-22, 1991.
02. Freyd, J.J. (2009). What is a Betrayal Trauma? What is Betrayal Trauma Theory? Retrieved Friday, August 26th, 2011 from: http://bit.ly/q0Uuop.
03. Alan Guttmacher Institute, State Facts About Abortion: California (http://bit.ly/hPeqLo).
04. National Vital Statistics Report: Vol. 58, No. 4 - Oct. 14, 2009 (http://bit.ly/d5K3jk).
05. National Vital Statistics Report: Vol. 58, No. 8 - Dec. 23, 2009 (http://bit.ly/hjtsxt). (http://bit.ly/hjtsxt)
06. "Abortion kills more black Americans than seven leading causes of death combined, says Centers for Disease Control data" (http://bit.ly/dMDHJshttp://bit.ly/dMDHJshttp://bit.ly/dMDHJs).
07. "Over Twenty (20) Million Aborted: Why Planned Parenthood Targets The Inner-City", February 11th, 2010 (http://bit.ly/ewh67w)).
08. "Abortifacients", Life Issues Connector, February 2010 edition (http://bit.ly/gQwyqM).
09. Jude 22, "And of some have compassion, making a difference." (KJV)
10. 2nd Timothy 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts." (KJV)
11. Jude 23, "And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (KJV) 
[3 Oct 11, Archives Issue No.: 2011.276, Issues4Life Foundation Media Relations, issues4life.org]



Conflict Of Interest, Part 6: Betrayal Trauma
 
In the abortion debate, is there a "Conflict of Interest" within the Black community and among her leaders?
 
Betrayal Trauma

"I propose that the core issue is betrayal -- a betrayal of trust that produces conflict between external reality and a necessary system of social dependence." — Jennifer J. Freyd

According to Dr. Jennifer J. Freyd, author of the terms "Betrayal Trauma" and "Betrayal Trauma Theory," Betrayal Trauma Theory predicts that dissociating information from awareness is mediated by the threat that the information poses to the individual's system of attachment. 1

By definition, dissociation means "to sever the association of (oneself) or separate." When we dissociate information from our awareness, we sever association or separate ourselves from such knowledge. Corroborating research has found significant correlations between symptoms of dissociation with those experiencing intra-familial trauma (i.e., trauma occurring within a family) versus those experiencing extra-familial trauma (i.e., trauma lying outside the family or its control). 2

What is it about Betrayal Trauma within the family that lends itself so easily to dissociating information from our awareness?

This is part four (4) of a seven (7) part series examining why Black Leadership rejects the Pro-Life movement, is helping to perpetrate the genocide of their own people and what can be done to reverse this horrific reality.

Betrayal Trauma: Familly Inflicted

"Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity." — Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Black Church Face | Gilbert & George.3

The Number Three Reason Black leadership rejects the Pro-Life movement is that he or she is: Compromised. Abortion is the #1 issue in America. Abortion, much like slavery, is an issue that threatens to shut down our entire government. In the Black Church, abortion is no less of a threat to church government.

When you learn that 30% of all abortions in the country are Black abortions 4 and understand that Black Americans constitute only 12% of the population, you're beginning to get the picture. But you can't stop there.

When you realize that about half of us are women, you're now down to 6% of the population responsible for 30% of all abortions in the country. But you can't stop there. When you consider child bearing age (ages 15 to 44), you're now down to 3% of the population responsible for 30% of all abortions in the country. The numbers are shocking, but you can't stop there.

Women generally do not get pregnant by themselves.

In the abortion debate, men play a vital role.

According to the sociological research performed by MenAndAbortion.Com "about 600,000 men (male partners in ill-timed and unwanted pregnancies) accompanied a client to her abortion appointment [in 2005] (about half of all abortion-seeking women generally have a man sitting by in the clinic or doctor's waiting room)." 5

Furthermore, research shows that the abortion industry's population control facilities (i.e., abortion clinics) target Black America, so it is no surprise that Black Americans are the abortion industry's #1 customer. 6

The economic front for Black America is both dire and desperate. "According to the data, taken from the the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, median net worth of white households fell from $134,280 in 2004 to $97,860 in 2009, while over the same period median black household net worth went from $13,450 to $2,170." 7

Given the overwhelming data surrounding Black abortions and the Black family in America, it's easy to see a Black Pastor preaching to a severely post-abortive congregation and dissociating him or herself from the threat that this information poses to their church family. With no help on the horizon, a church about to split over this issue and his or her job on the line, many Black leaders have chosen the money over the mission or the treasure over the truth.

This is The Choice. What would you choose?

Betrayal Trauma: Survival Is At Stake

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." — Martin Luther King Jr., I Have a Dream, 1963.

Samuel Frederick Yette (1929 — 2011)Samuel Frederick Yette (pronounced "Yet"), Newsweek's First Black D.C. Correspondent, was a journalist, author and educator. Mr. Yette died at 81 on Friday, January 21st, 2011 at the Morningside House Assisted Living facility in Laurel, Maryland. He had Alzheimer's disease. 8 May he rest in peace. Samuel was an influential and sometimes incendiary voice on Civil Rights. Yette's book "The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America" 9 gained him the full attention of major media. In a 1972 press conference, Yette said: "I don't mean to be pejorative or vindictive when I say this, but had I been a nigger instead of Black, a spy instead of a reporter, a tool instead of a man, I could have stayed at Newsweek indefinitely." 10

In 1996 Yette told the Tennessee Tribune, "there were those well-placed in our government who were determined to have a final solution for the race issue in this country — not unlike Hitler's 'Final Solution' for Jews 50 years earlier in Germany. I wrote this and documented it. It caused the Nixon White House to say to Newsweek in effect, 'Don't come back until you are rid of him.'" 11 Mr. Yette's very public stand is well documented in the Maafa21 DVD (http://maafa21.com) which boldly carries on his message, that there are elite efforts to exterminate the Black race in America.

If Betrayal Trauma Theory can indeed predict "that dissociating information from awareness is mediated by the threat that the information poses to the individual's system of attachment" then it should come as no surprise that Black leadership is struggling as he or she faces "The Choice" of life or death.

As I wonder how many of us would be willing to risk losing our financial security and/or our family relationships over the abortion debate, John 8:7 comes to my mind. What comes to yours?

Brothers, we really need to talk.

Reference(s):
01. Freyd, J.J. Memory repression, dissociative states, and other cognitive control processes involved in adult sequelae of childhood trauma. Invited paper given at the Second Annual Conference on A Psychodynamics - Cognitive Science Interface, Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, University of California, San Francisco, August 21-22, 1991.
02. Freyd, J.J. (2009). What is a Betrayal Trauma? What is Betrayal Trauma Theory? Retrieved Friday, August 26th, 2011 from: http://bit.ly/q0Uuop.
03. British artist duo Gilbert (L) and George, 1980.
04. Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, Guttmacher Institute (http://bit.ly/gUufbn).
05. "Abortion Clinics and Waiting Room Men: Sociological Insights", MenAndAbortion.Com (http://bit.ly/qtCD5X).
06. "Racial Targeting and Population Control", Life Dynamics, Inc. (http://bit.ly/n8PuyL).
07. "Why do blacks still let Obama off the hook?" Star Parker (http://bit.ly/qzUSKH).
08. Saynsumthn's Blog, "Samuel Yette's message continues in the powerful documentary on black genocide: Maafa21 DVD" (http://bit.ly/pPQgID).
09. "The Choice: The Issue of Black Survival in America" Amazon.Com (http://amzn.to/qSP5pY).
10. Saynsumthn's Blog op. cit.
11. Ibid. 
[26 Sept 11, www.issues4life.org, California Civil Rights Foundation, www.civilrightsfoundation.org]

Abortions Down in Ohio; Cuyahoga County Still the Deadliest County in Ohio

In a release this morning Ohio Right to Life notes that Ohio abortions have reached an all-time low, declining for the tenth consecutive year, according to the latest report released by the Ohio Department of Health. The 2010 Abortion Report revealed a decrease of approximately 600 abortions from 2009 for a state total of 28,123 abortions performed in 2010. 

The new statistics show that abortions in Ohio have declined a total of 26% since the year 2000.  Since 1982, when reported abortions peaked, the number of abortions in Ohio has decreased by nearly 40%.

"During the past decade, more and more women and families chose life in Ohio," Ohio Right to Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis said.  "While we will not rest until the number of reported abortions is zero, each year these statistics reaffirm our statewide pro-life strategies which focus on supporting young women through our pregnancy centers, promoting adoption and identifying common sense legislative solutions to end abortion.  Moms are being protected, more babies are alive today and we can all agree that this is good public policy," said Gonidakis.

"It continues to be of great to concern to us that while abortions have decreased in Cuyahoga County, our county is still the deadliest place in the state, for unborn children." said Molly Smith, Executive Director of Cleveland Right to Life. "We have worked closely with Ohio Right to Life to build a unified approach to this problem, and commend their success in passing legislation that will reduce abortion in our County and throughout the State. And Cleveland Right to Life will continue our work which provides invaluable life saving education and support to the region," Smith said. 

Smith notes that while the resident abortion rate is down in Cuyahoga County, the overall number of abortions performed in the County is up. "We are working with Ohio Right to Life and Hands of Hope Network pro-life groups and churches to find a regional approach to eliminate abortion," Smith added.

The 2010 Ohio Abortion Report reports shows that of all abortions:

The majority occur in the metropolitan areas of Cuyahoga County at 36.8%, Franklin at 19.2%, and Hamilton at 17.8%;
The majority are performed on women younger than 24 years old;
37.1% are performed upon black women (while only 12.2% of the population is black);
56.6% occur during the first 9 weeks of gestation; and,
83% are performed upon women who are unmarried.

"In July, Governor John Kasich signed our late-term abortion ban.  Had this law been enacted last year, up to 629 more babies could be alive in Ohio today.  No longer will babies who can live outside their mother's womb be put to death in Ohio," said Gonidakis. 

The 2010 abortion report can be reviewed in its entirety by visiting www.clevelandrighttolife.org or www.ohiolife.org

Cleveland Right to Life is an affiliate of Ohio Right to Life, working in tandem with the State Organization to ensure that Northeast Ohio's concerns and successes are reflected in discussions and decisions at the State level so as to achieve our joint missions.
[September 30th 2011, Press Release, Cleveland Right to Life, Ohio]

Conference: Legal Abortion Does NOT Reduce Maternal Mortality
Abortion activists at the United Nations routinely claim that abortion access is essential to reduce unacceptably high rates of maternal mortality among women in some developing nations.

But this claim is completely false, participants heard earlier this month at a MaterCare International conference in Rome. Abortion isn’t what vulnerable pregnant women in such countries need. Instead they need a “Marshall Plan for Mothers” that will provide the basic health care they currently can’t get at their time of greatest need.

The Marshall Plan for Mothers is the idea of Dr. Robert Walley, the British-born Canadian doctor and professor of obstetrics and gynecology who founded MaterCare International to deliver care to impoverished mothers. The idea is to mobilize the resources of the Catholic Church to take the global lead in delivering adequate medical care to women who currently lack even the most basic rudiments of modern health care.

“The Culture of Death is spreading throughout the world,” Dr. Walley commented in an EWTN broadcast about MaterCare’s Rome conference. “So I thought to myself, maybe we should have a Marshall Plan for Mothers, when we know that what mothers need is essential health care. And that means what? Clean, safe places to have their babies, somebody who is properly trained to help them. Because most of the mothers who die — 330,000 a year — have nobody to help them.”

At the Vatican-sponsored conference, attended primarily by practicing obstetrician-gynecologists, participants were asked to submit ideas within the next month about how the Marshall Plan for Mothers proposal might be implemented. While it’s being fleshed out, MaterCare International continues to demonstrate how to deliver innovative maternity programs tailored to developing world needs. Funded solely by donations and without any government support, MaterCare currently operates locally-based programs in Kenya and in Haiti.

Jeanne Head, Vice President for International Affairs and UN Representative for National Right to Life (NRLC), attended MaterCare’s Rome conference. Head, who is an experienced obstetrical nurse, said the Marshall Plan for Mothers was the most important and exciting topic discussed there.

To counter the international drive to promote abortion as a component of maternal healthcare, Head said, it’s important to disprove the abortion lobby’s false claims that legalized abortion is necessary to save women’s lives. However, it’s crucial to deliver the same kind of maternal health care, which provides a healthy outcome for mother and child, that is available to women in the developed world.

Commented Head, “For years, the pro-abortion UN agencies and NGOs have been falsely claiming that legal abortion is needed to save women’s lives and have been diverting valuable resources toward decreasing the number of children women in the developing world deliver, rather than toward making the delivery of their children safe.”

Dr. Walley told the Friday Fax that developing-world women are pleading for this life-saving maternity care. “Believe me, that’s what mothers want,” he said. “They want life and hope, not despair and death. And we can offer them some love as well.”
[23 Sept 11, New York, Tom McFeely, c-fam.org, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/23/conference-legal-abortion-doesnt-reduce-maternal-mortality/]

DATE: Post Abortion Conference  -- www.healingvision.info
Healing Vision conference is set for 26-29 October 2011, in Milwaukee.  There have been 12 Healing Vision conferences in the past, the last one in 2000. The conference is for anyone with an interest in post-abortion issues and healing…people running ministries or programs, mental health professionals, drug and alcohol counselors, clergy of all denominations  and interested others.

This is a think tank sort of post-abortion conference, where researchers and others will address issues we encounter.

Speakers include Henry Venter who will speak about pseudo-recovery and authentic recovery; Anne Speckhard PH.D., a pioneer in this work and a world renowned traumatologist who did research on abortion’s aftermath in Eastern Europe, Althea Hayton who is an abortion survivor and runs the web site www.wombtwin.com

Greg Lester, Ph.D. who will be the banquet speaker on self-care and will speak about  personality disorders, Kathleen Gray, founder of the Centre for Reproductive Loss in Montreal and author of Grieving Reproductive Loss: The Healing Process (Death, Value and Meaning), Vincent Rue, Ph.D. and Catherine Coyle, Ph.D, both pioneers .

Men’s grief will also be addressed, as well as healing from abortion in the African American community. 

LEGISLATION

Senate Amdt Would Prohibit Tax-Funding of 'Telemed' Abortions
Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, is offering an amendment to legislation in the U.S. Senate that could receive a vote as early as today or tomorrow to ensure taxpayer funds are not used to pay for the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug under a telemedicine grant section. [18 Oct 2011]
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/18/senate-amdt-would-prohibit-tax-funding-telemed-abortions/

Arizona Abortions Drop 30% After Pro-Life Law Takes Effect

Showing pro-life legislation protecting women and unborn children has a tremendous impact in saving lives, new figures from Arizona show a new pro-life law has resulted in dropping abortions 30 percent.

Last week, Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy indicated the state released new abortion figures comparing the number of abortions in September 2011 with those done in September 2010.

“In September of 2010, 1,053 abortions were performed in Arizona. This September, 729 abortions – that’s 324 fewer abortions – a 30% decrease,” Herrod explained. “That number is also down from 1,069 abortions in August of this year. Simply incredible.”

The new data follow on the heels of an appeals court upholding a pro-life law that protects the health and safety of women and their unborn children by giving them information they don’t normally receive. Planned Parenthood sued the state soon after its signing and a Superior Court judge blocked the law from taking effect while the case moved forward.

The Arizona Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in June in Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Horne, a case the abortion business filed which challenges key aspects of the 2009 Abortion Consent Act. The law is a pro-life measure Governor Jan Brewer signed which tells women of the risks associated with and alternatives to abortion.

The law states that Arizona will require a notarized parental signature before an abortion can be performed on a minor child, women will be provided with full and accurate information by a doctor in person at least 24 hours before an abortion, medical professionals cannot be forced to perform abortions if it contradicts their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs and non-doctors will not be permitted by law to perform surgical abortions.

Responding to the decision, Planned Parenthood announced it will no longer do abortions at seven locations — including communities outside of Phoenix and Tucson rather than comply with the law.

Herrod says the new law and its effects are responsible for the abortion decline.
“Following the August court ruling upholding the 2009 Abortion Consent Act, Planned Parenthood announced they would stop providing abortions at 7 of their 10 clinics,” she explained.

“Arizona’s new laws now ensure that all women considering an abortion are given an ultrasound exam and are provided the opportunity to see those results and to hear the baby’s heartbeat. Now, non-doctors are not allowed to perform surgical abortions, and doctors must be involved in the care of all women seeking abortion.”

“These initial numbers are the fruits of your partnership with Gov. Brewer, state legislators, and CAP to make a difference to empower women and give them the opportunity to make an informed choice,” Herrod continued. “The work is far from over – I anticipate further lawsuits from the abortion industry. For now, our CAP Policy Team is assessing what else can be done to protect women and preborn children. And, I hope you rejoice with us that lives are being saved.”

Herrod also thanked the work of pregnancy centers in the state — providing women with abortion alternatives — as part of the reason for the drop.

“The work of the almost 50 pregnancy resource centers in Arizona means more now than ever. As the new pro-life laws take effect, women facing crisis pregnancies will turn to your local pregnancy center rather than an abortion provider. Please do what you can to help those centers thrive and meet the overwhelming needs,” she said.
Naturally, Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, disputed the reasons for the decline, but admitted part of it has to do with the fact that non-doctors it formerly used to do abortions are no longer allowed to do them. “It’s 100 percent due to the shortage of providers,” Howard said, according to the Yuma Sun.

Still, Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion business in the state, doing 653 of the 729 abortions in September.
[Ertelt | Phoenix, AZ | LifeNews.com | 10/12/11]

INTERNATIONAL

Russia Adopts Stricter Abortion Law

The Russian Parliament has passed a law limiting the availability of abortions after the twelfth week of pregnancy. The law was enacted following growing concerns with Russia’s declining and aging population.

...Health officials say Russia's abortion rates are among the world's highest, contributing to a fertility rate of only 1.4 children per woman — far below the 2.1 needed to maintain the existing population. The country's birth rate has become a serious concern for Russia as it fights to stem a steep population decline.

The Health Ministry says more than a million pregnancies are terminated in Russia annually, although abortion critics say the statistics don't include private clinics and the real number amounts to six million a year.

The law passed Friday limits abortions to 12 weeks of pregnancy, except for women who say they can't afford a child, who may have an abortion up to 22 weeks. The law also stipulates a mandatory waiting period of two to seven days before the procedure to allow a woman to reconsider her decision...

Russia's population, now at 143 million, has shrunk by 5.7 million since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, a plunge blamed on rampant alcoholism, bad diets and lack of exercise. [Ed. and -- of course -- abortion]

AP story --

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnLGP0vwatgg9NMG0gIefSbxDxWg?docId=b9d73a61e2404f1ba85a08f53113e00e

(21 Oct 2011)
[October 21, 2011, Stefano Gennarini; 21 Oct, c-fam.org]

Irish Government Rejects UN Abortion Demands

Following intense criticism of the passive response of the Irish Minister for Justice to last Thursday’s call for Ireland to legalize abortion at a major UN hearing, the government has now said that it will reject those recommendations attacking Ireland’s pro-life laws.

At the UN meeting, delegates from Britain, Denmark, Spain and other countries had called for Ireland to legalize abortion - with Denmark calling for legislation to allow for abortion on demand. The countries pointed to a controversial ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the famous A,B,C case, that demanded that Ireland introduce legislation to allow abortion in cases when the mother’s life is in danger.

In response, Minister for Justice Alan Shatter had claimed that the Irish Supreme Court had decided that it was lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland when it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, and that the government would address the issue and meet their obligations under the Convention on Human Rights – a muted response that was slammed by pro-life advocates.

“Minister Shatter did not refer to the fact that the majority of Irish people oppose abortion, and that the people, rather than the European Court, decide Ireland’s pro-life laws,” said Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute at the time. “And he failed to point out that Ireland’s leading medical experts had confirmed - before a parliamentary committee - that abortion was never medically necessary.”

Yesterday the UN published its draft outcome report from the Universal Periodic Review of Ireland’s human rights record, which revealed that Ireland had rejected 15 of the UNs recommendations, including all the recommendations relating to abortion...
For remainder of article, visit -- http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-government-rejects-un-abortion-demands?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=105b3e9ebe-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines10_11_2011&utm_medium=email
[Oct 11, 2011, John Jalsevac]

  abortion, ireland, un

Commentary -- March for Life Berlin: Standing Against Abortion in Germany
...I think the history of Berlin makes the March for Life there even more important to me than marches in any other city in the world.  I have been part of protests and marches in hundreds of cities and over a dozen countries, but nothing is as powerful as the March for Life Berlin.

We gathered just around the corner from the Brandenburg Gate, where Adolph Hitler marched for the beginning of this “Thousand Year Reich”.  
We were just around the corner from the Jewish Memorial in the center of Berlin, a place where thousands of people a day remember the bloodshed of the holocaust that took over six million lives just 70 years ago.

As I stood and pondered all of this I was overwhelmed with grief by the fact that we were standing here in this city, a city where lessons were obviously not learned.
Here we were in the home of one of the worst human rights atrocities in history, standing up to fight against another holocaust that is being celebrated instead as a so-called “right to choose.”

The Germans told me that they were not allowed to compare the Jewish Holocaust with the Abortion Holocaust; it was just not acceptable for them to draw these comparisons. They encouraged me to continue to do so, to shed light on the fact that what is happening around the world today in abortion businesses is no less deplorable and deadly than what happened in the death camps of WWII.

The crowds started to gather in the park for the March for Life and the counter-protestors also started to gather and take their places in the audience.  

I began to take photos of the counter-protestors and they quickly began to hide their faces; they refused to answer when I asked them if they were ashamed of their stance.

...Once again I was honored to speak from the stage along with Eric Schiedler of the Pro-life Action League who came from America with me to stand with our European pro-life brothers and sisters...  

One of the coolest things was the fact that many of us who spoke on that stage also spoke together in Belgium, Ireland and many other places.  There is a new coalition of Pro-life youth from around the world who are coming together and supporting each other’s nations as we take a stand against child killing globally.

The March itself was a beautiful sea of international youth and older people standing, marching together, hold crosses and praying as we walked through the heart of Berlin.  There were hundreds of counter-protesters following us, trying to disrupt us and throwing things at us in vain.  We finished the March for Life at a Church where everyone gathered for an ecumenical prayer service.

That night many of the young people gathered for a conference where we all took turns sharing the work we are doing in our own nations and giving each other ideas.  We may all speak different languages and live in different countries but we were all one family that night as we knew we were the all united in purpose...

I am so excited to know that many of the international youth pro-life movement will also be joining us in January for the March for Life in Washington DC.  
The youth pro-life movement is growing and the abortion holocaust worldwide is in danger.  
We are coming together as a united voice to be the light that will destroy the darkness of abortion.
[Bryan Kemper | Berlin, Germany | LifeNews.com | 9/27/11, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/march-for-life-berlin-standing-against-abortion-in-germany/]

Supreme Court says “No” to Mexican Roe v. Wade, State Personhood Amendment Upheld

The Supreme Court of Mexico ruled on Wednesday to uphold the state constitutional personhood amendment of Baja California. A similar decision in the San Luis Potosi case is expected. The Court’s most recent appointee, Justice Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, sided with three members of the Court to reject an Action for Unconstitutionality submitted against the measures. Pardo Rebolledo was appointed last February and had yet to rule in an abortion case. His vote ensures that the Court will not reach the supermajority necessary to overturn the amendment.

“Pardo Rebolledo, as well as Justices Salvador Aguirre, Margarita Luna, and Guillermo Ortiz have our gratitude,” said Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D. “Thousands of Mexican girls and boys will, one day, be able to thank them personally for defending their very right to exist.”

In total, eighteen states have passed measures enshrining into law full personhood protections for preborn children. The amendments were passed in reaction to the legalization of abortion in Mexico City in 2009. The state measures received the support of 88% of the members of state legislatures including members of every major political party such as PAN, PRI, and PRD.

On September 19th, 50 nonprofit organizations took out a full-page ad in the largest newspaper in Mexico, El Universal, expressing their concern and opposition to any actions which would overturn the personhood amendments. On September 22nd, three dozen state and federal legislators took out a similar ad in El Universal urging the Mexican Supreme Court to respect the democratic process. Personhood USA joined the organizations, legislators, and millions of Mexican citizens in support of the amendments.

The executive branch of Mexico also weighed in on the developments this week. President Felipe Calderon submitted to the Senate a withdrawal of reservation to the first paragraph of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Mexico entered into the treaty in 1981, but interpreted the provision the same year so that it would not oblige the country to protect life from conception.

“Mexico has recognized human rights enshrined in international treaties such as the American Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among them the right to life, which is protected by our legislation, both federal and local,” read Calderon’s statement. “Mexico endorses a commitment to the right to life as protected by Mexican law.”

First Lady Margarita Zavala wrote an editorial this week endorsing the personhood measures. “I am a woman and a lawyer who has fought for the rights of women, and I am convinced that the rights of women do not override other rights and therefore need not be the cause of invalidating the state reforms,” she said.

“Today, the rule of law was victorious in Mexico. Unlike the United States, Mexican states are free from judicial tyranny and the people retain the right of self-determination,” continued Garcia Jones. “The Mexican people recognize that every human being is a person, and that all persons are inherently possessed of the right to life. We commit to work towards the day when this truth is realized for all children in Mexico, the United States, and around the globe.”
[28 Sept 11, Mexico City, Personhood USA]

Three Dozen Mexican State and Federal Legislators Take Out Full-Page Ad Defending Personhood

Mexico City, Mexico - 09/22/11 - Personhood USA has learned more details from their Mexican counterparts, who have passed personhood amendments in Mexico. The Mexican Supreme Court is considering overturning two state constitutional amendments that guarantee the right to life of Mexican children in the womb by reviewing cases 11/2009 and 62/2009. Personhood USA has announced that they are joining more than three dozen legislators, over 50 nonprofit organizations, and millions of Mexican citizens in support of the personhood amendments.

“A favorable ruling for abortion advocates in this case could have the effect of decriminalizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, thus becoming Mexico’s Roe v. Wade,” explained Gualberto Garcia Jones, J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA.

Since 1973, approximately 50 million children have lost their lives in the United States through abortion.  The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research arm, estimates that 42 million children lose their lives every single year from abortion.

The 18 Mexican State Constitutional amendments were passed in reaction to the legalization of abortion in Mexico City in 2009. In order to revoke the personhood rights of preborn children in Mexico, opposition would have to get 8 out of 11 Supreme Court votes.

A full-page open letter ad in Mexico’s largest newspaper, “El Universal” was taken out by three dozen state and federal legislators on Thursday Sept. 22 urging the Mexican Supreme Court to respect the democratic process. Just a week prior to this publication, 50 nonprofit organizations published a similar ad defending the personhood amendments.

The Mexican state personhood amendments were passed with the overwhelming support of 88% of the members of state legislatures. Support for the Mexican personhood amendments included members of all major political parties such as the PAN, PRI, and PRD, highlighting the fact that Mexico’s population is strongly opposes abortion.

The full-page open letter lists the 18 states where the state legislatures voted to grant full constitutional protection to unborn children.  In the open letter, the legislators publicly ask the Supreme Court to respect the right of self-determination of the states.  The Legislators state in the open letter that the same constitutional logic which recognized Mexico City’s law which legalized abortion in 2009 as a valid exercise of the democratic process, now must be applied to uphold the Constitutional Amendments in the 18 states who chose to protect all human life from conception to natural death.

A decision is expected next Wednesday.
[22 Sept 11, Personhood USA]



Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Second State Abortion Ban Law
The Mexico Supreme Court has delivered a second victory for pro-life advocates there just one day after upholding a first state law protecting unborn children from abortions by validating a second.
For remainder of article -- http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/30/mexico-supreme-court-upholds-second-state-abortion-ban-law/
[30 Sept 2011]