Select Page


 Medical Students for Life (MSFL) —

NEW! ellaOne — Ulipristal — is an Abortifacient, but Deceptively Approved by FDA as an "emergency contraceptive"

DATE: National Pro-Life T-Shirt Week 2011 April 12 – April 18 (

Senator's Amendment Would Permanently Support Tax-Funded Abortion Abroad

Late-term Abortionists Dump Kansas Licenses, Will Avoid Discipline

Commentary: Obama Administration Wrong to Influence Vote on Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

Who’s REALLY Threatening Women’s Health?

Moms Take Babies Saved From Abortion by Pregnancy Help Centers to Congress

Pro-Life Movement Successful in Persuading Future Doctors to Not Do Abortions

Tiller Associate Faces Discipline from Kansas Medical Board

Commercial Markets Created by Abortion


24-Hour Helpline 800.723.8331

A "Failed" Abortion, Conceived in Rape, Black Genocide, Margaret Sanger, and Other Links…

The World Health Organization's Abortion Agenda

UN "Safe" Abortion Push Boosts Maternal Deaths: Pro-Abortion Advocates Divert Funds from Maternal Health

17 Mexican States Protect Human Life

Researcher of Chile's Maternal Deaths Debunks Plan to Legalize Abortion

African Union Submits to Pressure for Abortion as Cure for Maternal Deaths

Pro-Abortion Obama Health Care Bill Takes Major Hit, Proposition C Passes…

ellaOne — Ulipristal — is an Abortifacient, but Deceptively Approved by FDA as an "emergency contraceptive"

Today, August 13, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved the application for a new "Emergency Contraceptive" drug, ulipristal acetate, under the label ella. (See our June 12, 2010 letter, located on our website at )

Ella is the first selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) available in the United States for the indication of "emergency contraception (EC)."

This class of drug (SPRM) blocks progesterone which is necessary to maintain a pregnancy. It disables the uterine lining, compromising it's ability to form "secretory" endometrium—the lining which nourishes the fertilized, implanting new human baby.

This effectively deprives the brand new human child of oxygen and nutrients, and the child dies.

This is abortifacient action.

Today's approval, labeling ella as emergency contraception, is deceptive and dangerous to women and their newly conceived baby.

Women deserve to know that ella can cause an abortion, and the FDA is deliberately misleading women by mislabeling ella only as contraception and not as abortifacient. [emphasis added]

Here is what the FDA approved drug literature says:
"How does ella work?
ella is thought to work for emergency contraception primarily by stopping or delaying the release of an egg from the ovary. It is possible that ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus. "

Why does the FDA not consider this an abortifacient? Semantic smoke and mirrors.

Current medical semantics says "pregnancy begins with implantation. "

ProLifers say the "human life begins with fertilization."

So they say "this does not effect a pregnancy, thus not abortifacient."

We say, "This results in death of a new human being, thus abortifacient."

Don't miss this important fact: Ella only delays ovulation if taken in the day or so before ovulation happens. After ovulation, if the egg is fertilized, it works as a progesterone-blocking abortifacient.

How often do you guess a woman takes this in just the right widow to delay ovulation? Not often.

The egg must be fertilized on the day of ovulation.

And why does ella work for 5 days after ovulation? Because it is on about the 5th day after fertilization that the new baby begins to implant—but can't, because the uterine lining is disabled by ella.

That is abortifacient action.

The FDA literature hints at this (see quote above), but does not use the "A" word.

AAPLOG finds this very deceptive for the women considering using ella who would not otherwise even think of having an abortion.
[13 August 2010, AAPLOG]






Senator's Amendment Would Permanently Support Tax-Funded Abortion Abroad
Late Friday [6 Aug 2010], pro-abortion Sen. Frank Lautenberg slipped an amendment into the foreign appropriations bill that would make permanent Obama's overturning of the Mexico City Policy.

That's the rule that stops tax dollars from going to groups that promote and perform abortions overseas.

In January, Obama overturned the policy during his first week in office and opened the door to abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood receiving a share of $457 million designed to help impoverished nations.

The Appropriations Committee voted 18-12 to accept Lautenberg's proposal to make Obama's pro-abortion decision permanent.

If the bill becomes law with his provision attached, a pro-life president would not be able to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and protect taxpayers from funding abortions and abortion promotion. Congress would have to go back and pass a bill repealing the Lautenberg provision and a president would have to sign that bill into law.

The Senate State, Foreign Operations Appropriations bill also has another concern for pro-life advocates.

The legislation funnels millions more taxpayer dollars to groups like the United Nations Family Planning Fund (UNFPA), which has worked hand-in-hand with the population control officials in China who have enforced the nation's one-child policy with forced abortions and other human rights abuses. [8Aug2010, Washington, DC,]



Late-term Abortionists Dump Kansas Licenses, Will Avoid Discipline

Two Albuquerque late-term abortionists who worked for George Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services (WHCS) in Wichita, Kansas, before it permanently closed last year have dumped their Kansas medical licenses.

The move may have been deliberately made in order to place the pair outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA) [Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue]

Tiller and his employees have come under intense scrutiny from the KSBHA for engaging in practices of questionable legality.

The first of the two Tiller abortionists, Shelley Sella, cancelled her Kansas license the same week that the KSBHA notified Operation Rescue that an eleven-count disciplinary petition had been filed against former Tiller associate Ann Kristin Neuhaus, who allegedly provided improper late-term abortion referrals to Tiller’s abortion business.

The second abortionist, Susan C. Robinson, voluntarily put her Kansas license on “Inactive” status a month after WHCS closed.

Newman said that the abortionists’ decision “says a lot about their legitimate concerns that they could also have faced discipline for abortion abuses in which they may have participated while in Kansas.”

At the time of the closure of WHCS following Tiller’s murder, Tiller himself had faced an eleven-count disciplinary petition filed by the KSBHA for alleged illegal late-term abortions referred to him by Neuhaus.

Under Kansas law, a second opinion from an independent physician is required to authorize a late-term abortion; however, records show that Neuhaus worked exclusively for Tiller, rubber-stamping his every request for a second opinion, and making WHCS a "one-stop shop" for abortion.

Sella and Robinson would also have profited from what Operation Rescue contends was an illegally close relationship between Neuhaus and Tiller. The KSBHA closed their case against Tiller only because of his death in May, 2009.

Both Sella and Robinson are now operating in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at Southwestern Women’s Options, a late-term abortion mill operated by former back-alley abortionist Curtis Boyd. Boyd boasts of having done thousands of criminal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and acknowledges that he is aware that he is killing by doing abortions.

“The people of New Mexico, where Sella and Robinson have relocated, need to be aware that these two have a history of shady abortion practices. Sella, Robinson, and their new employer, Curtis Boyd, all have flouted the law and placed the lives of women at risk,” said Newman.

“Sella and Robinson’s recent efforts to place themselves outside of the disciplinary jurisdiction of Kansas show they are defiant and are unwilling to amend their ways or submit to justice. Their above-the-law attitude is a dangerous one that could cost women their lives.”  [Albuquerque, NM, August 6, 2010, ]    






Commentary: Obama Administration Wrong to Influence Vote on Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

Two weeks from today, millions of Kenyans will go to the polls either to affirm or reject a sweeping new constitution in a nationwide plebiscite.

In the run up to this referendum—just like any other election— the United States and other democracies have a profoundly important, but narrow role to play. And that is to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the plebiscite—referendum—is free, fair and peaceful.

Election monitoring is a hallowed process designed to protect the integrity and legitimacy of the voting process before, on the day of actual balloting and during certification of the results.

Thus the only legitimate role of the United States and other governments is ensuring that the August 4th Constitutional referendum in Kenya is free, fair and without violence.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides by supporting, facilitating and funding projects designed to identify and motivate votes for either side.

Yet that is precisely what the Obama Administration has done.

And because the proposed Constitution significantly alters existing abortion law in Kenya, expending U.S. federal funds in support of the “Yes” campaign is also illegal.

Today, my colleagues and I note with alarm, shock and dismay that the evidence gathered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Inspector General (IG) Donald Gambatesa clearly shows that the Obama Administration has funded grantees with the express purpose of identifying and mobilizing tens of thousands of “yes” votes.

Several grantees even have specific quotas of producing 20,000 “yes” votes per grantee built right into their USAID contract.

According to the USAID Inspector General, more than $23 million U.S. taxpayer funds have either been spent or obligated—far exceeding earlier estimates. A chart provided by USAID’s Inspector General shows that 60 sub-recipients got funds for activities that include transportation, fuel, road shows, voter ID and “yes” vote “buy in” for professional elites.

It is unconscionable that U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing a massive one sided political campaign thinly disguised as “civic education” in another sovereign nation. This is a very bad precedent. And it is illegal.
< br /> U.S. law prohibits using taxpayer funds to lobby either for or against abortion (proviso eight under the heading “Global Health and Child Survival” of division F of Public Law 111-117, [123 Stat. 3035]).

If approved, the proposed Kenyan Constitution will fundamentally change Kenyan law which currently permits abortion in situations to save the life of the mother. The proposed constitution would allow abortion for undefined “health” reasons which history has shown often means just about any reason. Since the life of the mother exception is included in the proposed Constitution as well as “health”, it is clear that the Constitution drafters intended that health means circumstance and exceptions entirely different from a “life of the mother exception.”

Additionally, under the proposed Constitution, a trained “health care professional” will determine the “need” for an abortion. There is no indication as to what that means. It certainly does not restrict the determination to a medical doctor, thus, putting women’s health and lives at risk. This too would be a significant change in Kenyan law thus precluding expenditures of U.S. funding to support its adoption.

No matter what your view is on abortion, the simple fact of the matter is that the proposed Kenyan Constitution significantly changes current Kenyan abortion law. What we know now is that the U.S. is illegally and systematically funding grantees in a scheme to identify and motivate a huge number of “yes” votes that looks to this 30 year incumbent Congressman exactly like a massive lobbying, and political campaign.

Making matters worse, several pro-abortion NGOs received U.S. funding and their influence in support of the abortion provisions is under investigation by the USAID IG.

For example:

· The Kenyan Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA-Kenya) is a member of the Kenyan Reproductive Health and Rights Alliance (RHRA), which is supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). According to the PPFA website, the RHRA’s activities include “drafting reproductive health provisions for the revised constitution.” PPFA’s work in Kenya includes “increasing the availability of affordable safe abortion services and supporting advocates to decriminalize abortion in the country.” FIDA-Kenya helped to draft controversial legislation and launched a campaign in 2008 to liberalize Kenya’s abortion law. It is receiving assistance not only from PPFA through the RHRA, but also $85,363 from USAID for advocacy activities related to the draft constitution.

· The Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review in Kenya, which drafted the abortion-related provisions in the proposed constitution, received over $180,000 of US taxpayer monies for office equipment and networking capability. The Committee rejected the life of the mother only exception to abortion inserted into the draft constitution by a Parliamentary committee, and added a “health” exception to abortion. It is commonly known that health exceptions to abortion often lead to abortion on demand owing to the broad definition of health that includes socio-economic reasons as exemplified in the US Supreme Court decision on abortion in 1973.

· Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), which is receiving almost $3 million as a primary grant recipient, advised USAID in 2000 that USAID/Kenya would benefit by supporting civil society organizations that are advocating for “efforts to eventually legalize abortion in Kenya.” While acknowledging that such activity would be “politically sensitive,” DAI suggested that USAID might support local advocacy groups in their efforts as part of USAID’s democracy and governance strategic objectives component that supports civic society organizations.

Finally, while the work and final report of the IG remains unfinished, new questions have been raised concerning recent actions taken by the Obama Administration.

After first dismissing and denying our concerns of serious illegal activity, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas in Nairobi admitted last Friday to an AP reporter that nine grantees had been suspended or their work concluded, presumably because of issues we and the IG have raised.

Today, we ask the USAID IG to investigate and report on exactly what that means, when were the grant recipients actually suspended or their work concluded, will they be required to return U.S. taxpayer funds, and who in the U.S. government is responsible and should be held liable for these matters? In other words, who knew and did what and when.

We are also deeply concerned that the nine grantees may be only a tip of the iceberg. The information we have obtained thus far from the USAID IG is based solely on a brief summary of the grant agreements. We ask the IG to comprehensively and with utmost urgency, ascertain whether other grant recipients are also illegally pushing the “YES” campaign at U.S taxpayer expense. [21 July 2010, Rep. Chris Smith, ; Note: Congressman Chris Smith represents a New Jersey congressional district and is the chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. Smith is a senior Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Ranking Republican of the Committee's Africa and Global Health Subcommittee. The above is a transcript of Smith's remarks at a press conference today/21 July 10]

Who’s really threatening women’s health?

Militantly pro-abortion NARAL Pro-Choice California has joined its national counterpart in a concerted attack on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. On July 12, NARAL’s California affiliate published a “study” reputedly revealing the results of “a two-year-long undercover investigation of more than 200 so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ in California.” The report, said NARAL, “reveals a disturbing pattern of how these unregulated centers mislead women about their reproductive health-care options, thus posing a serious threat to women's health.” The campaign launched by NARAL Pro-Choice California is part of a larger scheme by NARAL’s national organization to make it more difficult for crisis pregnancy centers to operate that has reached into the halls of Congress, where bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate that would restrict pregnancy center advertising.   [ ; 27 July 2010, ALL Pro-Life Today]




Moms Take Babies Saved From Abortion by Pregnancy Help Centers to Congress

Women who rejected the “choice” to abort their babies will be bringing their children to Washington D.C. this week to tell Congress how thankful they are for the life-saving work of pregnancy help centers. Babies Go to Congress, a Heartbeat International project, provides an opportunity for women to speak publicly, on Capitol Hill, about their gratitude for the support they received when faced with an unexpected pregnancy.  
Life Site News, 27 July 2010, ALL Pro-Life Today]




Pro-Life Movement Successful in Persuading Future Doctors to Not Do Abortions
The Sunday New York Times Magazine featured an interesting article entitled “The New Abortion Providers,” which details efforts by supporters of legal abortion
to cultivate a new generation of physicians who perform abortions.

Unsurprisingly, the article painted a very sympathetic picture, but it still makes interesting reading for pro-lifers, because it demonstrates that the pro-life movement has been quietly effective in ways that often receive little media attention. It also shows that the effort to encourage young physicians to perform abortions may well achieve little success.

One unheralded success of the pro-life movement is that it has convinced many Americans that abortion is wrong. Now, obviously, not everyone wants to see abortion banned. Some individuals see abortion as a necessary evil; others think that keeping abortion legal reduces the amount of misery and suffering in the country. But the fact that many Americans think abortion is immoral has paid some important dividends.

For instance, as this article nicely demonstrates, ever since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been effectively divorced from mainstream medicine. Many hospitals will not allow abortions to be performed on their premises; a very high percentage of doctors have no interest in performing abortions at all; most abortions are performed in clinics away from doctor’s offices and hospitals. This has done some good things for the pro-life movement: It has further stigmatized abortion; it has made it easier for sidewalk counselors to identify and approach abortion-minded women; it has also made abortions more difficult to obtain in many parts of the country.

Supporters of legal abortion realize that abortion has become increasingly stigmatized and marginalized within the medical community — indeed, the number of abortion providers has fallen by over a third since 1982 — and that younger physicians are less likely to perform abortions than their older counterparts. Furthermore, there are relatively few abortion providers in rural areas. The two programs this article highlights, the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program and the Family Planning Fellowship, are intended to reverse this trend.

But although both of these programs are well funded and have received generous donations from a foundation started by Warren Buffett, their efforts may not be effective at expanding access to abortion. The article cites a study of 30 OB-GYNs with abortion training: Of eighteen who wanted to perform abortions, only three were doing so.

This is sometimes because of high malpractice-insurance rates, sometimes because hospitals or group practices will not allow it. Even those physicians performing abortions seem to have little interest in taking their practice to rural areas: One physician in the article left Rockford, Ill., for the friendlier confines of a university campus.

Of course, most mainstream media outlets are quick to portray the pro-life movement as violent, deceitful, and ineffective, and this Times article is certainly no exception. It begins with the tragic murder of abortionist David Gunn, who was assassinated in Pensacola, Fla., in 1993. It also describes pro-lifers harassing the reporter and an abortion provider as they departed for lunch.

The author also presents abortion statistics from 1977 to make it appear that abortion rates have remained constant over time. In reality, the number of abortions has declined nearly every year since 1990, and overall, the number of abortions has fallen by around 25 percent between 1990 and 2005. Additionally, the article claims that crisis-pregnancy centers provide misleading information to women; it gets this information from the politicized investigation authorized by Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.). Stories about abortion providers providing misleading information to women appear nowhere in the article.

Regardless, pro-lifers should take heart. Our efforts may not result in puff pieces in The New York Times Magazine, but this article indicates that our efforts have made a real difference, in the medical community and elsewhere.

Every January, the media seems surprised at how many young people attend the March for Life; those of us in the pro-life movement are not surprised at all. The fact that supporters of legal abortion have to make such substantial investments on medical-school campuses is perhaps the best evidence of the gains pro-lifers have made among America’s youth.  [20 July 2010, Michael New, Ph.D., ; Note: Dr. Michael New is a political science professor at the University of Alabama and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He is a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.]


Tiller Associate Faces Discipline from Kansas Medical Board
 The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA) has filed an 11-count petition against Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus for negligence while making late-term abortion referrals for the late Dr. George Tiller.

“This petition is verification that we were correct about our allegations that Neuhaus and Tiller were operating outside the law," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger.

"It is also evidence that the efforts to work peacefully within the legal system that have been employed by us for over two decades are effective at exposing abortion abuses and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

"The system isn’t perfect, but it does work,”

The 30-page petition, which was filed on April 16, accuses Neuhaus of failing adequately to interview patients she evaluated, of failing adequately to review the history of patients she evaluated, of failing adequately to evaluate the "behavioral or functional impact" of the patients' status, and of failing to keep adequate medical records, among other charges.  It is based on a complaint filed by Sullenger in 2006, after she discovered that Tiller used only Neuhaus as the legally required second opinion for all abortions after the 21st week.

Kansas law states that abortions performed on viable infants after 21 weeks may only be performed if a woman faces significant and irreversible harm.  An independent physician must concur with the abortionist in this evaluation.  Although Neuhaus provided the ostensibly independent second opinion for Tiller's abortions, in 2003 Neuhaus had no source of income but her consulting work with Tiller, which enabled Tiller's facility to be a "one stop shop" for abortion.

In early 2009 Tiller was tried for performing abortions without having gained an independent opinion; although he was found not guilty, the KSBHA quickly filed a petition against him after the trial ended.

The KSBHA closed this case after Tiller was murdered; the current petition is based on the 11 patient files used in the KSBHA’s case against Tiller.  Patients named in the complaint had abortions in 2003, range from 10 to 18 years old, and had unborn children between 25 and 29 weeks of gestation.

In 1999 and in 2001 Neuhaus came under discipline by the KSBHA for medical abuses including violations of informed consent laws, shoddy record-keeping, and lack of proper patient care.

She has been charged with forcibly sedating and performing an abortion on a patient who had withdrawn consent and had attempted to leave the room. Dr. Neuhaus could face revocation of her medical license by the KSBHA because of the current petition.

An evidentiary hearing is set for January 11.  After this a hearing officer will make a recommendation to the KSBHA regarding whether Neuhaus should be disciplined.

"We wish that this petition had been filed years ago," said Sullenger, "when our complaint was first made, but are thankful for the Board’s willingness to pursue this matter against an abortionist who has been illegally operating for years in a manner that has endangered the li

ves of women and cost the lives of viable babies that the laws of Kansas were enacted to protect.”
[Kansas, July 28, 2010, ]


Commercial Markets Created by Abortion

Abortion is commonly viewed from an ideological perspective. Little is publicly known about the abortion industry’s role as a supplier of aborted fetuses to industries that exploit them for economic gain. In fact, abortion provides the foundation for a fetal distribution chain where profits grow with each link. Can human body parts be bought and sold? Technically, they cannot. But money can change hands to reimburse for “reasonable” expenses associated with securing human tissue. The question is at what point trafficking in fetal parts violates the law.

In 2000, Congress became concerned about this distinction. The House of Representatives began hearings on the marketing of body parts obtained from fetuses killed in elective abortions. The information at the heart of the hearings was based on a thirty-one-month undercover investigation by Life Dynamics, Inc., a nonprofit pro-life organization in Texas founded by Mark Crutcher in 1992. Information was provided by employees of Comprehensive Health for Women, a Kansas affiliate of Planned Parenthood.1

Sellers and Buyers
The undercover Life Dynamics report describes a system devised within the abortion industry to financially profit from the growing market in fetal tissues, parts, and organs. The system circumvents legal restrictions on buying and selling human bodies and body parts. Three participants are commonly involved—the seller, the buyer, and the wholesaler. The wholesaler (or middleman) enters a financial agreement with an abortion clinic (the seller) to pay a monthly “site-fee” to the clinic, comparable to rent. In exchange, the wholesaler is allowed to position a retrieval agent inside the clinic, where he is given access to the dead fetuses and a workspace to harvest their parts. In some cases, the retrieval agent may be a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler. The buyer is usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, biotechnology company, or government agency. When orders are received by the wholesaler from the buyer, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic, who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via common carrier.2

On the surface, this system does not appear to violate the legal prohibitions against trafficking in human body parts since, technically speaking, no one is buying or selling anything. The loophole is that site fees and retrieval reimbursement amounts are unregulated. The law requires that such payments be reasonable and reflect the actual cost of securing the parts, but there are no state or federal laws which establish guidelines or set limits regarding these payments. Additionally, no governmental or law enforcement agency is charged with overseeing the system. This means that the wholesaler is free to set site fees and retrieval fees at any amount.3

The fundamental legal question is whether site fees and retrieval reimbursements are used as proxy payments to circumvent state and federal laws making it illegal to buy or sell human body parts. For the transfers to be legal, the fetal parts and tissue must be donated, not sold. Only reasonable costs associated with the retrieval process may change hands.

There are three entities in a position to profit from the fetal parts industry: (1) the abortion provider, who supplies fetuses from abortions performed; (2) the ­wholesaler, who fills researchers’ orders by procuring the fetal parts, ­preserving them, and preparing them for shipment, thus facilitating their transfer; and (3) the researcher, who is the end user of the fetal parts. Technically, the ­abortion provider is permitted to receive only reasonable ­reimbursement for retrieval costs incurred. This amount is ­easily ­augmented through negotiation of favorable ­contract terms with the wholesaler, along with the application of some accounting ingenuity.

Wholesalers’ profits can be substantial. There is a material difference between the costs of harvesting fetal parts—consisting of ­wholesalers’ financial obligations to the abortion providers plus administrative overhead ­expenses—and the amount they can realize from ­researchers. The most significant profit potential, ­however, rests with the end users, the ­researchers, who work in educational and governmental institutions and in the product-development departments of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and cosmetics companies. The prospects for profit here are virtually unlimited.

Adding Up the Numbers
The Life Dynamics report illustrates these arrangements with concrete numbers. During the undercover investigation, it was determined that the Comprehensive Health for Women clinic received monthly site fees or rent supplements of $600 per month. In addition, they were paid $10 an hour for each hour the retrieval agent used work space at the clinic. The abortion clinic received these payments without having to incur any additional costs, “just because [the wholesaler’s] ­technician walked in the door.” 4 Calculations based on this information show that during the period under review, the clinic would have netted ­additional income of approximately $1,200 a month from this arrangement.

Traveling up the fetal distribution chain, profits of the company acting as wholesaler were calculated to be much higher. The wholesaler paid the clinic an average of $1,200 per month. It also incurred costs for salaries of its retrieval agents, administrative overhead, amortization of equipment (instruments, hood/dissection table, etc.), and disposable supplies. These costs were generously estimated to be approximately $5,500 per month. Total costs, including the payments of $1,200 to the clinic, were thus about $6,700 per month.5

To calculate the wholesaler’s monthly net profit, gross revenue received from the researchers was first computed. Payments for specific fetal parts and harvested tissues were based on a price list called “Fee for Services Schedule A” published by wholesaler Anatomical Gifts Foundation Inc. (AGF).6 The fee schedule purports to estimate the reimbursable cost allocable to ­retrieval of a particular body part, organ, or tissue. If the laws against trafficking were being observed, the fees for providing the fetal parts ordered should essentially correspond to the wholesaler’s costs of $6,700 computed above.7

According to logs detailing tissue shipments by AGF, 155 “specimens” were shipped in a representative month. These included 47 livers, 11 liver fragments, 7 brains,
21 eyes, 8 thymuses, 23 legs, 14 pancreases, 14 lungs, 6 arms, 1 kidney/adrenal gland, and 3 intact specimens for purposes of securing the blood.8 When priced out according to the fee-for-service schedule, the shipments of parts for the month would have generated gross revenues of between $18,700 and $24,700, depending on whether the parts were shipped fresh or frozen.9 Based on these transactions, the calculated monthly profit to the wholesaler was between $12,000 and $18,000 (gross revenues of $18,700 to $24,700 less monthly costs of $6,700).

The profits being earned by these middlemen are so significant that it now appears that some researchers are cutting out the middlemen to deal directly with ­abortion clinics. In these cases, the site-fee and reimbursement system is replaced with a bartering system. One bartering example involved a medical school that traded pathology reports for fetal cadavers or parts. “However, if an abor

tion clinic is trading baby parts for services which it would ­otherwise have to pay for, and the school is trading services for baby parts it would normally have to buy, both are still in violation of those statutes which prohibit trafficking in human body parts.” 10

The End Users
Where do the parts go? The predominant industries engaged in fetal tissue research are components of the emerging life science industry: the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and biologics sectors. The pharmaceutical industry is involved in the discovery, development, production, and marketing of drugs licensed as medications. The field of biologics is narrower and typically involves highly specific and potent medicines derived from living cells as opposed to chemical processes. It tends toward personalizing medicine through genetic testing and treating diseases at a molecular level. Biologics encompass a wide range of medical products, including bacterial and viral vaccines, blood and blood components, tissues, aller­genics, somatic cells, gene therapies, and recombinant therapeutic proteins created by biological processes.11

Although there is much money to be made in the pharmaceutical sectors, many people who work there are ­undoubtedly motivated by the altruistic belief that they act in service of humanity. The cosmetics industry ­cannot claim the same lofty motive. In their article ­“Fetuses Harvested for Cosmetic Procedures,” Drs. Michael ­Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak bring the problem into ­focus:

Lawyers love to talk about the slippery slope, how you bend the rules a little or do something a little wrong and it leads inevitably to worse. But sometimes the slope turns into a precipice and you find yourself looking into the abyss. The use of fetal tissue for cosmetic purposes—especially fetal tissue conceived only for that purpose—is such a precipitous plunge. The scientific and medical community knew it would happen eventually but didn’t know how soon. False hope for stem cells is cruel enough—but using stem cells from fetuses created for monetary gain to use for cosmetic purposes seems to us to cross the moral line.12

Yes, it does seem so, does it not? The end here is so superficial that one cannot even appeal to the good of humanity. It is only vanity that is being served.

Anti-aging cosmetics developed using fetal stem cells fall into the loose and unofficial category of “cosmeceuticals.” This term, coined simply for marketing purposes, refers to a marriage between cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Like cosmetics, cosmeceuticals are topically applied but contain active ingredients purported to have medical or drug-like benefits that influence the biological function of the skin. Some biotechnology companies have turned to the development of these beauty products. They hope the products will generate an early return on the lavish investments that have been made in stem-cell technology, since the prospects for therapeutic applications remain vague and distant.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not recognize the category of cosmeceuticals under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, nor are these ­compounds subject to review and approval by the agency. Although they are tested for safety, testing to determine whether beneficial ingredients live up to manufacturers’ claims is not mandatory.13 A manufacturer benefits if its products are not regulated as drugs by the FDA, as the FDA review process is costly and may prevent or delay introduction of a marketable product.

The use of fetal tissue for cosmetic purposes arose from its successful clinical use in burn victims. ­Stem-cell-based cosmetic lines were modeled on treatments employing fetal skin-cell cultures to heal second- and third-­degree burn wounds in children. After years of ­research, ­physicians ­discovered that fetal skin has a unique ability to heal wounds without scarring. According to a 2005 study, ­researchers from University Hospital in Lausanne, ­Switzerland, “obtained a four-centimeter skin donation from a ­fourteen-week aborted male fetus. Cells were expanded in culture and used to seed collagen sheets, and then grown for two more days until the sheets were applied to burn wounds. The fetal cells were used to treat eight children considered to be candidates for ­traditional grafting. . . . The cosmetic and functional results were ­excellent in all eight children.”14

From the original fetal skin biopsy, the University Hospital of Lausanne research team went on to establish a dedicated cell bank for developing a cream designed to reduce signs of aging and improve skin texture and the appearance of wrinkles. It is alleged that this fetal cell bank will provide a lasting supply of cells for producing a proprietary skin-care ingredient. The active ingredient, trademarked by Neocutis as Processed Skin Care Proteins, or PSP, is a combination of human growth factors and cytokines (intercellular messengers).

Neocutis, a privately held specialty ­biopharmaceutical company, was founded in 2003 as a spin-off of the ­University Hospital of Lausanne. Commercial ­activities are carried out by its U.S. subsidiary, Neocutis Inc.15 The company’s founding replicates a pattern common in the pharmaceutical industry, where hospital research­ ­personnel become founding entrepreneurs of commercial enterprises based on their successful research.

Market Demographics
The cosmetic industry in general, and the anti-­aging market in particular, have benefited from three ­factors converging to provide a perfect storm for business ­development. These factors—a record number of ­consumers, a high level of affluence, and a fear of ­aging—converged as a result of the so-called baby boom following World War II. Between the years 1946 and 1964, seventy-five million babies were born in the United States according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Today, those in this age group earn over two trillion dollars, control seven trillion dollars of wealth, and own over 77 percent of financial assets in the United States. They account for 28 percent of the U.S. population.16

This is a generation that believes it can stay young forever and is equipped with the resources to try. They are a captive market. One company’s marketing strategy speaks of the opportunity to cash in on this phenomenon. “The boomers are commanding attention with their voices and their wallets as they will be the primary contributors to the projected $12 billion increase in money spent on anti-­aging products and supplements in the next year and a half alone. . . . The anti-aging market is presently a $30 billion market. In the next three years, it is expected to grow to $70 billion. . . . This is the fastest growing market in the U.S.” 17

At the “low” end, miracle claims are made for creams, serums, and emulsions developed with fibroblasts and ­human growth factors—that is, with fetal cell technologies. Most are produced in the United States, and none of their claims have been evaluated by the FDA. All are unproven as to efficacy. One product, Amatokin, produced by Voss Laboratories, costs $190 for 30 milliliters or 1 ounce. A direct competitor, RéVive Skincare’s Peau Magnifique, retails for $1,500 for four one-milliliter ampoules. Another anti-aging treatment, Neocutis’s Journée Bio-Restorative Day Cream with PSP, can be purchased only through the offices of a doctor or dermatologist, and its price is kept confidential from the general public.18 The products are expensive because they are not mass produced and have a very limited shelf life.

At the “high” end, exclusive clinics all over the world offer face lifts and cosmetic procedures using tissues
from aborted fetuses and stem cells from human embryos. The cells are said to rejuvenate the skin.19 Wealthy American and British women, who cannot avail themselves of these treatments at home because of regulatory restraints, could travel to the Institute of Regenerative Medicine in Barbados, for example, where they could “spend $25,000 for a ‘treatment’ consisting of having liquefied unborn babies’ tissues injected into their bodies so they can feel ‘refreshed.’”20 The Institute promised improvement in its clients’ appearance, quality of life, and libido. Although the Institute reportedly closed after a 2006 exposé by the BBC, similar clinics continue to operate.21 They are not regulated by any local or national government body, nor are they subject to outside medical supervision. They have all refused membership in the International Stem Cell Forum, the only recognized ­international board regulating stem cell research.22

According to a 2007 report by Brian Clowes, the ­investigative reporter who uncovered this story for Human Life International, the raw materials for producing these liquefied fetal serums for injection were exported from the Ukraine. “Women were paid $200–$300—three months’ salary—to carry their pregnancies to a very late stage and deliver the babies alive in a kind of forced premature birth. This procedure allows the living baby’s organs to be harvested while they are still as fresh as possible.”23 The parts are passed to buyers, who screen the material and sell it at a huge mark-up to a worldwide network of clinics like the one in Barbados. In Moscow alone, there are more than fifty beauty parlors and cellulite clinics offering fetal injections. These establishments attract rich Russian and Western women for fetal injections to “eliminate cellulite from their buttocks, thighs, and arms.” Treatments cost up to $20,000.24 The fetal and newborn tissue network is driven by an enormous and increasing demand for fetal cells and organs for this purpose.

Clowes questions why the Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Barbados would “bother to import babies from 5,000 miles away [in the Ukraine] when you can get them locally?” He then answers his own question:

Barbados news sources are now reporting that women are having their newborn babies stolen at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. They are told their babies are “gone” or have died, and they never see them again. Perhaps not coincidentally, one of the members of the Board of Directors of Queen Elizabeth Hospital is George Griffith, who is the director of the Barbados Family Planning Association, the island’s largest abortion provider and an affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.25

Even the most ardent advocates of fetal tissue research express dismay at the abuses that are rife in these ­cosmetic procedures. It is an understatement to say that these uses of science and technology are not only dangerously experimental, but also damaging to the reputation of legitimate researchers. New and profoundly disturbing motives for expanded trafficking in fetal body parts are increasing worldwide.

Victoria Evans

Victoria Evans, a certified public accountant, is the Respect Life Coordinator for the San Francisco Archdiocesan Office of Public Policy and Social Concerns. In 2010, she received her ­licentiate degree in bioethics summa cum laude from the Pontifical ­Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum in Rome. This article is taken from her thesis, “Commercial Markets Created by Abortion: Profiting from the Fetal Distribution Chain.”

1 Mark Crutcher, Baby Body Parts for Sale: The Marketing of Aborted Baby Parts, Life Dynamics, February 2000, ­updated March 2007,

2 Ibid., web page 1.

3 Ibid.

 4 Ibid., web page 4.

 5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., web page 5.

9 Sample prices for individual body parts from another wholesaler, Opening Lines, a division of Consultative and Diagnostic ­Pathology, Inc., are liver $150, pancreas $100, thymus $100, ­kidney $125, lungs and heart block $150, brain $999, spinal cord $325, bone morrow $350, both eyes $75, gonads $550, intact ­cadaver $400, intact trunk with/without limbs $500, limbs (at least 2) $150. These prices were in effect through December 31, 1999. See the Opening Lines “Fee for Services Schedule,” ibid, web page 7.

10 Ibid., web page 8.

11 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Vaccines, Blood and Biologics: Resources for You (Biologics),” May 11, 2010, http://www.fda

12 Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, “Fetuses Harvested for Cosmetic Procedures,”, August 24, 2006, http://

13 See the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, U.S. Code 21 (1938), chapter VI, “Cosmetics,” sections 361–363,

14 K. Gale, “Fetal Skin Cells Help Heal Burn Wounds in Children,”, August 18, 2005,
_children.html; and Judith Hohlfeld et al., “Tissue Engineered Fetal Skins Constructs for Paediatric Burns,” Lancet 366.9488 (September 3, 2005): 840–842.

15 See the Neocutis Web site at

16 See data from the U.S. Census Bureau at

17 Zeolite Marketing, “The Anti-Aging Market,” http://www.zeolite

18 Neocutis Web site,

19 Glueck and Cihak, “Fetuses Harvested for Cosmetic Procedures.”

20 Thomas J. Euteneuer, “Pro-Choice Violence and Big Pharmaceutical,” Human Life International e-Newsletter 1.50 (January 12, 2007),

21 Matthew Hill, “The Stem Cell Swindle,” BBC Radio 4, December 12, 2006.

22 Brian Clowes, “Special Report: Ukrainian Trafficking in Baby Parts,” Human Life International Special Report 270 (June 2007), 2,

23 Ibid., 4.

24 Ibid., 5.

25 Ibid., 6.

The Biology of Prenatal Development, DVD, published by National Geographic. This is an excellent resource for education on the beauty & intricacies of prenatal life… it is an encyclopedia of prenatal milestones… that… explores fertilization, implantation, organ formation, and brain growth. Viewers learn, in fascinating detail, various physical activities of the unborn child up to birth. Available through National Geographic, or visit [Life Issues Connector, June 2010]



24-Hour Helpline 800.723.8331


A "Failed" Abortion, Conceived in Rape, Black Genocide, Margaret Sanger, and Other Links…
A "Failed" Abortion: Now a Social Worker, Melissa is Silent No Mo

re —

Conceive in Rape

Jill's Story of Courage & Hope!/note.php?note_id=266440534975&id=1046736013


Abortion and Black Genocide (Barack Obama and the Negro Project)

Birth of Planned Parenthood: Photo of Margaret Sanger Speaking to KKK Members on Eugenics!/photo.php?pid=229460&id=115678715129567

After Ku Klux Klan Speech: A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups  [July 28, 2007]



The World Health Organization's Abortion Agenda
66 Page PDF White Paper on WHO Agenda —
62 Page PDF Ford Foundation: Founder of Modern Population Control —


UN "Safe" Abortion Push Boosts Maternal Deaths: Pro-Abortion Advocates Divert Funds from Maternal Health — Studies by the World Health Org (WHO) itself reveal that the biggest killers of women in childbirth are bleeding, blood pressure disorders, anemia, and sepsis. Abortion [ed.: this is primarily referring to abortion in nations where abortion is not legal], including "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage, is only number 10 on the list and causes 5 percent of the deaths. The paper says "it is scientifically, medically, and morally unacceptable to divert resources" from what's really needed to save moms' lives: skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care.

UN member countries specifically refused to include "Universal Access to Reproductive Health" in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit, the new paper reports, because the document "included a target to eliminate 'unsafe' abortion", which some UN bureaucrats "defined as any abortion in a country where abortion was not legal."  "Reproductive Health" is UN code language that includes abortion.

Though member states rejected the goal, "the monitoring mechanisms for achievement of [UN Millennium Development Goal] MDG 5 have nevertheless implicitly incorporated the targets related to that rejected goal", the paper reveals. That amounts to "cultural imperialism" that "deprives member nations of their right and duty to evaluate medical and policy effects of induced abortion within their own religious, cultural, and regional contexts."

This "Paper" was recently submitted by an NGO to the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR); it shows the potentially deadly effects of "safe" abortions that UN agencies promote, and lists 113 studies linking abortions to dangers such as premature births in later pregnancies.

"The encouragement by UNFPA [the UN Population Fund] and WHO [World Health Organization] of the use of mifepristone (RU 486, Mifegyne) and misoprostol (Cytotec) as 'safe' abortifacients in medically resource-poor nations is unconscionable, " the paper notes, "and a violation of the human right to health of women."

The paper, by Donna Harrison, MD, President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynceologists (AAPLOG, calls on the UN Human Rights Council "to defend the right to bodily integrity of all human beings from fertilization to natural death," and to "refrain [from] supporting in law and policy meastures…empirically proven to HURT rather than help pregnant women."

The paper reports that "in the first three years of 'safe' mifepristone (Mifegyne) abortions in the United States… one-third of the women with adverse events (237) experienced severe bleeding requiring emergency surgery, half of these required hospitalization, and forty-two (42) bled over half of their blood volume."

What is more, a WHO study showed that "one of every five women who had 'safe' misoprostol abortions failed to abort and required surgical intervention." In poor countries where women have NO emergency care or even skilled birth attendants, the paper points out, "there events would be fatal". [January 2010, Letter From the UN Front]

So, why is the UN diverting funds from the REAL causes of maternal mortality to continue to promote abortion methods that could potentially increase maternal mortality?

"If we must err, err on the side of LIFE!"



17 Mexican States; Protect Human Life
17 Mexican States have amended their constitutions to protect babies from the moment of conception onward, as of December 2009. This now sets the stage for an amendment to the federal constitution. An amendment needs approval by the majority of the 32 state legislatures and two-thirds of the bicameral Congress.

The Mexican abortion promoters did not forsee such a popular counterattack in defense of preborn babies.
The Supreme court in the capital had caved to lawmakers, but it refused to decree that killing babies in their mothers' wombs is a constitutional right.

And Mexico's growing resistance to abortion is not unique: it's part of a wave of pro-baby victories around the globe in 2009. Wins such as the following debunk the assertion that a "customary" pro-abortion global norm is developing:
* First was the reform of the Dominican Republic's constitution, which now declares that "the right to life is inviolable from conception until death". The nation also strengthened the protection of preborn babies in her penal laws.

* Lawmakers in East Timor also rejected a liberalized abortion law in June 2009. Instead, they approved a very tight law recognizing that babies are entitled to protection "from the moment of conception".

* Honduras' legislature enacted a measure outlawing "emergency contraception" the high-hormone "morning after" pill (MAP) that can act as an abortifacient by preventing the implantation of a new life in the mother's womb.

* The Constitutional Court of Peru ruled that due to the MAP's sometimes-abortifacient nature, people may not distribute it in public health facilities. Both Peru's and Honduras' constitutions safeguard babies in their mothers' wombs.

* Worries about her looming demographic collapse prompted South Korea to announce the its widely fouted abortion law will now be enforced.

* At this year's meeting of the UN Commission on Population and Development, Japan and Russia issues strong statements favoring healthy birthrates, reflecting concerns like South Korea's…
[January 2010, Letter From the UN Front]

"If we must err,

err on the side of LIFE!"



Researcher of Chile's Maternal Deaths Debunks Plan to Legalize Abortion
Research by a leading biomedical researcher on the huge drop in maternal deaths in Chile over the past 50 years seems to debunk assertions by global abortion lobbyists that countries need legalized abortion to reduce maternal mortality rates.

Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist at the University of Chile, says Chile's promotion of "safe pregnancy" criteria such as "prenatal detection" and access to skilled birth attendants in a hospital setting are the main reasons for the drop in mothers' deaths. Maternal deaths plummeted from 275 per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 per 100,000 live births in 2000, the largest decline in all of Latin America.

Chile's laws and constitution safeguard her preborn babies, so obviously the decline cannot be due to legal abortion. Dr. Koch's work shows that maternal mortality in Chile declined over the last century, whether abortion was legal or not. The country strengthened her protections form preborn babies in the late 1980s, and today she boasts a maternal health record like those of developed nations.

Even UN WHO figures support the pro-Life position.
WHO says Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America — whereas Guyana, which stripped her preborn babies of much legal protection in the mid-1990s (by citing the need for abortion to lower maternal deaths) has the highest rate of maternal mortality in South America.

Maternal health experts such as obstetrician Donna Harrison, MD, point out that if you legalize abortion in developing nations without first improving basic maternal health care, mothers' lives are put in danger.


Because the poor health systems cannot cope with the damage that abortions can cause. Countries such as South Africa, which has one of Africa's most liberal abortion laws, have suffered more maternal deaths, in part due to the harm that legal abortions do to mothers.

The anti-life industry has always used the BIG LIE technique to justify abortion, and the maternal-death scam is its latest variation.  [March 2010, Letter From the UN Front]

[ed. "Legal abortion" vs. "illegal abortion" doesn't matter much when the very same abortionists perform all of them…]





African Union Submits to Pressure for Abortion as Cure for Maternal Deaths

The African Union (AU) finished its annual summit last week with governments agreeing to make maternal and child mortality a continent-wide priority.

The summit ended with Member States extending the controversial, non-binding Maputo Plan of Action (PoA) for an additional five years and expanding new initiative called the Campaign on Accelerated Reduction on Maternal Mortality in Africa (CARMMA).

     Pressure was placed on the AU from UN agencies and foreign non-governmental organizations (NGO). While United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) executive director Thoraya Obaid, called on delegates to focus on non-controversial interventions to reduce maternal deaths – such as skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care – the very next day in a speech at Makerere University in Kampala Obaid focused instead on "unsafe abortion," "reproductive rights," "reproductive health services" and "sexuality education."

     The pro-abortion NGO coalition told the AU assembly they were "ashamed" of Africa's high maternal and child mortality.  The NGOs called on governments for "guaranteed access to family planning services," "reproductive health commodity security" and to address "unsafe abortion." The NGO statement did not mention skilled birth attendants or emergency obstetric care, what are traditionally understood as the cures for high maternal mortality.
     Abortion advocates have heralded the Maputo PoA as a victory for their cause since the document calls for "policies and legal frameworks to reduce incidence of unsafe abortion" and to "prepare and implement national plans of action to reduce incidence of unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion." While the focus on maternal health is generally viewed as a positive development, critics warn that the warm feelings about reducing maternal mortality are being used also to promote a right to abortion.

     Critics point to the sneaky way the Maputo document came into being. Prior to the 2006 passage of the PoA, several AU delegations objected to the abortion provisions and only agreed to the document on the understanding that the abortion clauses would be removed. The changes were never made and several African nations charged the AU secretariat with “manipulation.”

     Originally intended to be a short-term three-year plan, the AU decision will extend the Maputo PoA through 2015, to coincide with the planned conclusion of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

     In addition to extending the PoA, AU member states committed to expanding CARMMA, an initiative to promote "intensified action" on MDG 5 maternal health. Since the initial launch in May 2009, CARMMA has since been launched in 20 countries. Last week, AU members committed to ensuring that CARMMA would be launched in all 53 African countries before the next AU summit.

     In addition to renewing the Maputo PoA and expanding CARMMA, AU member states also committed to increasing health funding to 15% of national budgets, making health services free for women and children and called on donor nations to fulfill their pledges.

     Such funding became a major part of the conference negotiations. 

While participants praised the recent $7.3 billion pledged by the G-8 for maternal health, delegates said much more was needed. Some proposed additional money could be siphoned off from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria though this was not acted upon. [5 Aug 2010, Volume 13, Number 34, Samantha Singson,  KAMPALA, UGANDA, ]



Pro-Abortion Obama Health Care Bill Takes Major Hit, Proposition C Passes

The pro-abortion health care bill President Barack Obama signed received a major blow on Tuesday from voters in Missouri. They voted overwhelmingly to reject a federal mandate to purchase health insurance — important because some of the plans in the program will pay for abortions with federal funds.

Proposition C passed by almost a 3-1 ratio as Show Me State residents voted to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law.

Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Republican who was one of the prime sponsors of the measure, lauded the vote afterwards.

"The citizens of the Show-Me State don't want Washington involved in their health care decisions," she said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "I've never seen anything like it. Citizens wanted their voices to be

Missouri was the first of four states seeking to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law Obama pushed and the vote on Tuesday could prompt others to move forward.

"It's like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall," Cunningham said. "Missouri's vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states."

Proposition C is a non-binding referendum on ObamaCare that asked voters whether state law should be amended to "deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services."

Conservative writer Ed Morrissey of HotAir talked about the ramifications of the vote for the national health care debate.

"One meme had materialized over the last couple of weeks that ObamaCare had begun to get more popular with voters. Using a couple of carefully-selected media polls, the White House had started this claim and the press seemed willing to ignore the avalanche of other polling showing that solid majorities favor repeal of the overhaul and the candidates who argue for repeal,' he explained.

"That meme died in Missouri, where almost three-quarters of the voters who came to the polls cast votes for a largely symbolic measure repudiating one of ObamaCare’s key provisions,' he said.

Morrissey says the polling data showed 58 percent of Missouri residents support the repeal of the pro-abortion health care law and the results of Missouri's referendum suggests that number may be larger.

"If anything, this shows that opposition to ObamaCare is growing, not receding, but that’s probably not what actually happened. While general-population and registered-voter samples may have seen a bit of softening to ObamaCare opposition, those aren't the people turning out to vote this year," he said.

"Prop C got more votes than the combined voting in both Senate primaries — which tells us something even more about the passion in the electorate," he said. "Democrats may have to hit the panic button after seeing the results from this swing state. ObamaCare set fire to the electorate last year, and that may be an inferno for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in November.."

On Monday, a federal judge ruled that a Virginia-based lawsuit against the mandate should move forward, rejecting an attempt by the federal government to have the case thrown out on procedural grounds.
[August 4, 2010, Ertelt, Jefferson City, MO, ]