http://www.humanlife.net Pro-life resources for HumanLife en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:22:54 PDT Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:22:54 PDT http://backend.userland.com/rss092 info@familyed.info (Mister Smith) webmaster@familyed.info (Mister Jones) http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=601 In 2006, the Governor, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Northwest Women's Law Center (now Legal Voice) demanded that the Washington Board of Pharmacy pass regulations forcing pharmacists and pharmacies to violate their conscience and dispense Plan B , the morning after pill. Their demands were a part of a national agenda by pro-abortion groups to eliminate conscience rights for these health care professionals and to force private businesses to sell early abortifacients such as Plan B and Ella. Although the Board initially voted to pass a regulation supporting conscience rights, it abruptly reversed its position when the Governor threatened the Board. In 2007, the Board passed the final regulations that require pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense drugs like Plan B and Ella regardless of a pharmacist's religious objection. They prohibit providers from referring patients to nearby providers when the providers have a conscientious objection, but in practice allow providers to refer patients for business and secular reasons. In a recent turn of events, the Board has re-opened the rulemaking process. The Board is considering amending the anti-conscience regulations to allow providers to refer patients to nearby providers if they have a conscientious objection to dispensing a drug. It is essential that the Board hears the voice of those who support conscience rights. We have a unique opportunity to stand up for life and faith and to change the law. Our right and our duty to act according to our conscience is a foundational principle of liberty. A society that denies individuals the right to act in accord with their conscience, being forced to either violate one's conscience or abandon one's livelihood is an act of the worst sort of oppression. The right to act according to one's conscience is a right that no American should be apathetic about. Here's how you can help: Provide a written comment on the Pharmacy Board website at fortress.wa.gov/doh/policyreview/AddComment.aspx?ID=647 [After identifying yourself, you will be required to indicate whether you concur or not. Indicate you concur - you are not concurring with any specific rule, but with the CR101 that explains the board is considering amending the rules to allow more options for pharmacists], or email your own comment. (For record-keeping purposes, you must provide your contact information. Comments are anonymous). Attend the Board hearings on September 17th in Renton and September 29th in Kent. Consider providing testimony at the hearings that supports the right of pharmacists and pharmacies to conscientiously object to dispensing Plan B and Ella. The pro-abortion groups have sent out many emails to their supporters urging them to provide written comments and testimony at the hearings. Whether or not you provide live testimony, it is important for the pro-conscience community to stand up and be counted. We don't want to miss this opportunity. The Board of Pharmacy will hold two rules writing workshops. Date: Friday, September 17, 2010 Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Place: Blackriver Training and Conference Center 800 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Place: CenterPoint Commons - Conference Center 20809 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:22:54 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=601 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=600 In every major election since National Right to Life PAC was founded in 1980, pro-life candidates have had the advantage when it comes to voters and the abortion issue. Consistently, more voters who select their candidate based on his or her abortion position will vote for the pro-life candidate than the pro-abortion candidate. These votes will come from men and women, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. In a close race, this "pro-life advantage" - - more single-issue pro-life voters than single-issue pro-abortion voters - - can make the difference between winning and losing. Unfortunately, sometimes pro-abortion candidates win because part of the pro-life community doesn't help elect pro-life candidates, it helps defeat them. When pro-abortion candidates win, unborn babies lose. So what could you do that would help defeat pro-life candidates? 1) Fall in love with your candidate. We encourage pro-lifers to get involved in campaigns. Their active participation and volunteer activities can help a pro-life candidate build a strong campaign. It also puts the pro-lifer in contact with the candidate so that if he/she wins, a relationship can be built and strengthened. Too often pro-lifers get so excited about their candidate that if he/she loses to another pro-life candidate (especially in a primary), the pro-life grassroots person becomes like the child who lost a game - - he takes his toys and goes home. He doesn't support the pro-life candidate who won and won't volunteer in the campaign or work to get others to vote for that candidate. Pro-life candidates need the active support of all pro-lifers and, all too often, without that full support, a pro-abortion candidate wins. 2) Believe that your candidate is the only "real" pro-life candidate in the race and bash other pro-life candidates. In a primary where there are several pro-life candidates, pro-life individuals will select the candidate they think is best. Then, unfortunately, some attack other pro-life candidates as not being "pro-life enough." If, for example, another candidate has a 20-year pro-life voting record, they pick out the one or two votes that he didn't vote right on and attack him as not being really pro-life. By doing this, the pro-lifer demoralizes other pro-lifers and weakens enthusiasm for the pro-life candidate who does win the primary. The pro-abortion candidate will, of course, take advantage this. Because some pro-lifers have attacked the successful pro-life candidate, the pro-abortion candidate will use that in pro-life circles to hold down support for his opponent. Ironically, at the same time, the pro-abortion candidate is going to other voters, attacking the pro-life candidate as a "radical pro-life extremist." 3) Support a really nice candidate who is pro-life but has no chance of winning. Millions of unborn children's lives are at stake. That's why the viability of a candidate must be considered when we decide who to vote for. There are some wonderful pro-lifers who may even be active in our chapters, who decide to run for office. However, if they can't gain enough support to be a viable candidate, they need to be encouraged to step aside for a candidate who can actually win and take action to protect unborn children. 4) Expect the candidate to sound like a Right to Life chapter chairman. People who are not directly involved in the pro-life movement are not going to be as articulate or well-versed on all the pro-life issues. They may not know about the abortifacient properties of RU 486 or understand the ins and outs of the Mexico City Policy. Unless there has been some prior discussion with active pro-lifers, some candidates may not realize that there are certain "code words" that are interpreted differently by the pro-life community. Just because the wrong word comes out of his/her mouth doesn't necessarily make the candidate a phony. Sometimes a truly pro-life candidate can be tripped up by the media, confused, ill-informed, misquoted, or quoted out of context. Give him a chance to explain why he said what he did. Many candidates are against abortion because they have a religious background that tells them abortion is wrong, or they have a natural instinct that wants to protect the babies. They will do what's right when they're elected, but that doesn't mean they will be comfortable or eloquent talking about the killing of unborn babies. Remember, words are nice, action is better. 5) Expect the candidate to make abortion the top issue in the campaign. A November 2008 post-election poll by the Polling Company found that 34% of voters said abortion affected the way they voted. Of those, 25% said they voted for the pro-life candidate and 9% said they voted for candidates who favored abortion. While it is a distinct advantage for candidates to be pro-life and does make a difference in the outcome of an election, it also means 66% of the voters had other issues that were more important to them. In order to win, a candidate has to focus on many issues that will appeal to a broad variety of voters. It is the job of the right to life movement to inform the pro-life community about the candidate's position on abortion. It is the candidate's job to reach a cross-section of voters on a broad range of issues. 6) Vote for a third-party or independent candidate who has no chance of winning. When a general election is between a pro-life candidate and a pro-abortion candidate representing established parties, there will be times when a third-party or independent candidate will get into the race, claiming to be the "real" pro-lifer. He will attack the pro-life candidate and get other pro-lifers to do the same. This is a sure strategy to elect the pro-abortion candidate. Pro-lifers who support the third-party or independent candidate, to the detriment of the pro-life candidate who could win, may feel like they have not compromised their principles - - but if they succeed in helping to elect a candidate who will allow the killing of unborn babies to continue, they have compromised away something far more important - - children's lives. Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:09:40 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=600 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=598 More evidence of the discredited abortion culture that supposedly "cares about women." ELKTON, Md.,(LifeSiteNews.com) - Troubled abortionist Steven Chase Brigham has been issued a cease and desist order by the Maryland State Board of Physicians. The order demands that he stop the illegal practice of medicine, including abortions, at five locations throughout Maryland because he does not and never has been licensed in that state. The order, dated August 25, 2010, indicates that Brigham has been practicing illegally in Maryland since January, 2010. The document referred to an incident that occurred on August 13, 2010, where Brigham had begun a surgical procedure presumed to be an abortion, since that is the sole focus of his business. However, something went wrong and Brigham instructed the woman to travel to his abortion clinic in Elkton to complete the procedure "on an urgent basis." "The health of Maryland patients is being endangered by the Respondent's unlicensed practice of medicine in this State," the order read. The Maryland locations involved are located in Baltimore, Cheverly, Fredrick, College Park, and Elkton. Currently, all the clinics remain open and staffed by other abortionists. Brigham operates a number of abortion centers in several states (NJ PA MD VA) under the name American Women's Services. Brigham has been under investigation and discipline throughout his entire 20-year career. He voluntarily retired his medical license in Pennsylvania while under investigation just six years after graduating from medical school. Since then, Brigham had medical licenses revoked in New York and Florida, and received disciplinary action in California and New Jersey. He served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud. A judge once ordered him to stop advertising his abortions as "painless" and "safe." "The only thing that will stop Brigham from committing illegal abortions that endanger the lives of women is to toss him in jail for a long time," said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who said that her organization is planning on filing a complaint against the abortionist demanding criminal charges. "Traditional means of discipline simply don't work with this guy," she said. "He has found that he can get away with just about anything without much more than a slap on the wrist. The only way to protect women from Brigham's predatory and unsafe abortion business is to criminally charge him and order all his mills closed." Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:35:09 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=598 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=597 Abortion clinic cleared "SWAT style" by police, stopping abortions for nearly two hours ALBUQUERQUE, N.M, Aug. 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- A man was arrested Saturday, August 28, outside Southwestern Women's Options, a late-term abortion clinic operated by Curtis Boyd in Albuquerque, New Mexico, after he threatened to shoot two pro-life women who were offering help to abortion-bound women. The unidentified man and his wife were escorting their daughter into the abortion clinic when the wife and daughter walked over to the pro-life women to discuss alternatives to abortion. The man became angry and ushered his family members toward the clinic. "When we come out, I'm going to put a bullet in your head if you talk to her," the man told the pro-life women, whose identities are being withheld for their security. Witnesses said that the man then lifted his shirt to show the women a dark object that was partially tucked into his trousers. The women recognized the object as a gun and called the police. "The police responded appropriately and took him away in handcuffs," said former Operation Rescue intern Bud Shaver, who arrived on the scene in time to witness the arrest and the clearing of the clinic by police. "They cleared Boyd's clinic to search for the gun SWAT style. Everyone, including staff, had to come out with their hands up." The area was cordoned off and the clinic was closed to patients for nearly two hours while police conducted their investigation. It is currently unknown if a gun was recovered by police or what charges were brought against the man. Death threats against pro-lifers have been viewed with greater concern in the wake of the shooting death of activist Jim Pouillon of Owosso, Michigan, who was gunned down last year as he held a pro-life sign outside a local high school. The killer admitted that he murdered Pouillon because he did not agree with his public abortion protests. Shaver told Operation Rescue that he has been threatened a number of times since he has been in Albuquerque, but the police never responded in the way they did on Saturday. "We are thankful that no one was injured and that the police took appropriate action," said Newman. "Violence against pro-lifers has become something that we have to guard against every day. Those who reach out to women in front of abortion clinics should not be afraid to continue to do so, but should always have security and an awareness of their surroundings in mind." [Dan] Research shows that many abortions perpetrated against minors are coerced. Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:22:21 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=597 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=596 By Thaddeus M. Baklinski LONDON, August 30, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The religious beliefs of doctors strongly influence the decisions they make when caring for terminally ill patients, according to research published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Dr. Clive Seale, a professor at the Centre for Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, conducted a postal survey of 3733 UK medical practitioners, 2923 of whom reported on the care of their last patient who died. Dr. Seale found that "doctors who described themselves as non-religious were more likely than others to report having given continuous deep sedation until death, having taken decisions they expected or partly intended to end life." Many of the doctors surveyed were specialists in geriatrics or palliative care, though doctors in other specialties were included in the study. Significantly, the report stated that "doctors in 'other hospital' specialities" were "almost 10 times as likely to report this (decisions taken with some intent to end life) when compared with palliative medicine specialists, regardless of religious faith." A BBC report released last year said that the use of continuous deep sedation, also known as "terminal sedation" is becoming more common in the UK and may be the way physicians are skirting the law prohibiting direct euthanasia. BBC News health correspondent Adam Brimelow said that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both of which have legalized direct euthanasia. Alex Schadenberg, the director of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, has said that continuous deep sedation can be used ethically in cases of dying patients to alleviate intractable pain, such as neuropathic pain that does not respond to morphine. The ethics, however, depends upon the situation and the intention, he said. "It's important to make the distinction between what we do with someone who is nearing death and someone who is in pain but not dying." In some cases, he said, patients who are not dying but may be suffering are put into deep sedation, and then dehydrated to death - a use that is always unethical. "[Deep sedation] can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically," he said. "The issue is intention. The intention must be the alleviation of pain and suffering. Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often." An abstract of Dr. Seale's research is available here. Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:57:22 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=596 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=595 On August 23, 2010, the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction in the case Sherley v. Sebelius, ruling that there is sufficient evidence to warrant halting funding for embryo-destructive research while the case is under consideration. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs presented a strong case that NIH Guidelines for Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) violate the Dickey-Wicker Amendment,language attached to the annual LHHS appropriations bills since 1996, which prohibits federal funding for "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death..." Background In 2001 President Bush established a policy allowing research on embryonic stem cell lines created prior to August 9, 2001. On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order overturning the Bush policy and allowing taxpayer funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after 2001. (NIH Guidelines were finalized on July 7, 2009) Sherley v. Sebelius The injunction puts NIH funding for embryo-destructive research on hold. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in his ruling stated "(Embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed," and "Congress has spoken to the precise question at issue,whether federal funds may be used for research in which an embryo is destroyed. The Dickey-Wicker Amendment provides that no federal funds shall be used for 'research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 C.F.R. § 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).' Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 509(a)(2). Thus, as demonstrated by the plain language of the statute, the unambiguous intent of Congress is to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds on 'research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed.'" (pg 10, 12) The Court Order states the Federal government is "enjoined from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research, 74 Fed. Reg. 32,170 (July 7, 2009), or otherwise funding research involving human embryonic stem cells as contemplated in the Guidelines." This is an ongoing case that will involve additional actions but the court has put a stop to NIH funding of embryo-destructive research pending the outcome of Sherley v. Sebelius. Information Regarding Research Involving Stem Cells On Friday July 30, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration lifted a hold it had placed on a Geron Corp embryonic stem cell trial for treatment of spinal cord injury. This is the first FDA-approved trial involving embryo-destructive stem cell research in humans. However, there are no published reports indicating whether the trial is yet underway. You may be aware that adult stem cell treatments are already producing results addressing spinal cord injury and over 70 other diseases and disabilities. In addition, adult stem cell research continues to out-perform embryonic stem cell research according to a recent AP article entitled Adult Stem Cell Research Far Ahead of Embryonic. You may also be interested in seeing information about other breakthroughs in ethical adult stem cells here: Stem Cell Research Facts. Legislation Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009 (H.R. 1050),by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Zach Wamp (R-TN) would ban creating cloned embryos by somatic cell nuclear transfer. The Stupak/Wamp bill is a total ban on human cloning. Patients First Act of 2009 (H.R. 877),by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Randy Forbes (R-VA) prioritizes stem cell research toward treating and curing patients, by promoting research and human clinical trials using adult stem cells that show the most potential of providing clinical benefit and are ethically obtained. Pro-Life leaders oppose the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act (H.R. 4808) by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mike Castle (R-DE) because it directs federal funds to embryo-destructive research and authorizes policies that are more expansive than current NIH guidelines and are more expansive than any embryo-destructive research bill approved by the Congress so far. Unlike prior bills considered by the Congress, H.R. 4808 provides a basis for research on stem cells taken from cloned embryos and embryos created solely for the purpose of destruction. (Pro-Life leaders also oppose H.R. 873 and H.R. 872 which also permit embryo-destructive research) Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:48:30 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=595 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=594 The future of the pro-life movement: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:39:45 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=594 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=593 Today, August 13, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved the application for a new abortion drug, ulipristal acetate, under the label ella. Ella is the first selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM) available in the United States for the indication of "emergency contraception (EC)." According to the European Medicines Agency, SPRMs block progesterone which is necessary to maintain a pregnancy. This effectively deprives the unborn child in the womb of the nutrients he or she needs to live. Today's approval labeling ella as emergency contraception is deceptive and dangerous to women and their unborn children. Women deserve to know that ella can cause an abortion and the FDA is deliberately misleading women by mislabeling ella as contraception and not an abortion drug. Until today, the only SPRM approved in the United States is the medical abortion drug, mifepristone (RU-486), which is approved for use to induce an abortion through Day 49 of pregnancy. Prior to today's decision, FDA approved "emergency contraception" available in the U.S. (Plan B & Next Choice)can act in three ways - prevents ovulation, fertilization and implantation. Many pro-life Americans oppose emergency contraception because it can kill an embryo by preventing implantation in the womb. Ella also prevents ovulation, fertilization and implantation. However, ella's strong similarity to mifepristone indicates it could also cause an abortion after implantation days, weeks or months into pregnancy. On August 2, 2010, Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) sent a letter signed by 90 Members of Congress to FDA Commissioner Hamburg regarding the application for this new abortion drug. The letter raises concerns regarding the similar chemical makeup of ella to RU-486, the absence of research to demonstrate that the drug does not cause abortion, the failure to address the dangers of off-label use, and the lack of information about health risks for a woman or her unborn child. We are also concerned that approval of this new abortion drug could result in taxpayer subsidies for abortion. Approved as an emergency contraceptive, ella could be purchased using taxpayer funds through Medicaid, Title X, and international family planning programs. In addition, it would be eligible for funds appropriated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (P.L. 111-148 and insurance companies could be forced to cover ella under the requirements of P.L. 111-148. We are concerned that this approval creates a loophole to existing prohibitions on abortion funding since ella can cause abortions when used off-label or when prescribed to women who are not yet aware that they are pregnant. This could also pose significant conscience concerns as pharmacists would not be protected from being forced to dispense this new abortion drug. Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:22:44 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=593 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=592 by George Weigel On June 30, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision inHarris v. McRae and upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment, which had prohibited federal funding for Medicaid abortions since 1976. Three decades later, Harris v. McRaeremains the pro-life movement's most important legal victory since Roe v. Wade created a "right to abortion" in 1973. That victory is now jeopardized by Obamacare, and by the insouciance of some Catholics about the extension of the Hyde Amendment to future federal health-care legislation. On this 30th anniversary, therefore, it's important to remember just what was achieved in Harris v. McRae. First, writing for the Court majority, Justice Potter Stewart made clear that, whatever putative "right to abortion" may be found within the interstices of the Constitution, such a "right" does not imply that the federal government can compel American taxpayers to pay for the deaths of innocents. As Justice Stewart put it, "Regardless of whether the freedom of a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy for health reasons lies at the core or the periphery of the due process liberty recognized in [Roe v. Wade], it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." In plain language: any putative "right to abortion" does not carry with it the power to make me pay for abortions. MORE... Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:59:44 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=592 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=590 Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new analysis from the Gallup polling organization provides more good news for pro-life advocates heading into the 2010 elections. Its review of presidential approval ratings just before midterm congressional elections finds presidents like Barack Obama with lower ratings see their party lose seats. If that is any indication of the potential November results this year, the pro-life movement can expect to see a slew of pro-abortion members of the House and Senate lose their seats. MORE... Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:38:39 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=590 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=589 San Francisco, CA (LifeNews.com) -- The local San Francisco, California affiliate of Planned Parenthood where teenager Holly Patterson died from using the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug has lost its affiliation with the national abortion business. The decision is not related to Patterson's death but is said to be because of management problems. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate will not longer be a Planned Parenthood affiliate as of September 3, according to the Bay Citizen newspaper. MORE... Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:36:41 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=589 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=588 WASHINGTON, DC, (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Over 200 active and retired military physicians have signed a letter organized by the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA), in which they ask Senators to vote against the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, unless an amendment permitting abortions to be performed on military bases is stripped from the bill. "In addition to facilitating further destruction of unborn life, the provision will place military physicians with life-honoring convictions in the unenviable position of either disobeying orders, abandoning their conscience, or seeking objector status," said CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, who has received the Gorgas Award for distinguished service in the American military. Current law prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense (DoD) medical personnel or using DoD medical facilities, except in case of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. An amendment added to the Defense Authorization Act by the outgoing Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), however, would permit abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases. "Such a drastic and controversial change in longstanding federal policy could disrupt military medicine in a time of war and also undermine military physician retention and recruitment," the letter says. When President Clinton instituted a policy in 1993 permitting abortions on military bases, most military physicians refused to participate in them. The letter warns that the efforts of those holding to "partisan abortion ideology" in attempting to diminish conscience rights, combined with pro-abortion policies such as the Burris amendment, could "drastically reduce the number of physicians, thus reducing patient access." "Reducing physicians and patient access during two wars and at a time of a growing and severe national shortage of physicians - especially in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine - is hardly wise policy, regardless of one's views on abortion, " the letter states. Abortion has been prohibited on military bases since a 1996 law overturned Clinton's policy. That law "has enabled military physicians to practice medicine according to the life-honoring principles expressed in the Hippocratic oath and Judeo-Christian ethics," according to the letter. CMA Director of Global Health Outreach Col. Donald Thompson, MD, who recently retired from the Air Force, said that "this provision would put conscientious military medics on the losing side of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in key areas crucial to good order and discipline in the military." "Our military exists to fight our nation's wars, not to be a ideological playground. If this provision stays in the NDAA, it will drive out of the military those who are most likely to serve their nation by going in harm's way." The FY 2011 Defense Authorization act would also end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy and permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military. You may find contact information for your Senator here. Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:31:20 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=588 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=587 The doctor made it sound so easy, like I was getting a wart removed or a taking an antibiotic to treat a virus. September 15, 2009 was a day I'll never forget. Standing in the doctor's office in Bellevue, shocked to find out I was pregnant. A little about me then…I was in my mid twenties, a graduate from the University of Washington, former sorority girl and a small business owner. At this point in time, my new business was less than a year old and my husband had just been laid off due to the weak economy. My husband and I were going to celebrate our 3rd wedding anniversary the very next day. We had been bickering often (as every couple does at some point in their marriage) during this tumultuous time in our lives. When the doctor came in the room to share with me that the 10 (yes, 10!) pregnancy tests I took at home were in fact correct, I stared at her with huge round eyes and started to cry. Now it must be said that I can't remember whether I was more shocked, scared, overwhelmed or just dealing with the many hormonal surges that come along with pregnancy… but the news certainly threw me for a loop. As I sat there in tears I told the doctor I wasn't planning this and couldn't believe that I really was pregnant. I kept asking her "Are you 100% sure?!" Now here's the part that makes me angry. Yes, I was shocked and I'll admit I didn't think it was "the best timing" but as most of you know God doesn't always do things on "our time." And yes, I was visibly upset when I heard the news. But all that said, the doctor hands me a workbook and tells me not to worry because I have "options." She goes on to explain that if I go through the workbook I may find that the timing really wasn't right and that I could easily "take care of the situation." She handed me paper after paper with abortion clinic addresses in the area. She gave me an empathetic smile and told me that sometimes it is easier to plan for better time later in life. I was raised in a Christian home; I was married, had a wonderful support system and have never believed abortion was an "option" for me. So of course I didn't need a workbook to tell me that I was going to have this baby. But the most heartbreaking thing about the conversation that I had was the realization that young women, or mature women for that matter, could so easily be swayed in a moment of emotional distress to make a life haunting decision. The doctor made it sound so easy, like I was getting a wart removed or a taking an antibiotic to treat a virus. My heart breaks for girls in college or high school that are faced with the so-called "options" they have. I was scared at 25; I can only imagine how terrified I would have been in college having to have told my parents that I was pregnant. And I can't say for certain that in a moment of weakness, with the counsel of a respected medical professional advising me to "take care of it" that I wouldn't have made a horrible, life altering decision myself. I'm eternally grateful that I was never in that situation. Zoe Jean was born April 29, 2010. She was 5 pounds 2 ounces and the most beautiful baby girl I have EVER laid eyes on. She has changed my world in every imaginable way…ALL for the best. She is the greatest blessing God has EVER given me. I love her with the most unconditional, indescribable love that I've EVER known. My husband and I look back on the day we found out we expecting our little girl as the scariest but ultimately the BEST day of our lives…well second to the day she was born of course. If I can share my story with just one person, who is given a workbook like I was, and influence their decision to give the miracle that is human life. I'm a happy girl. At top left is a picture of Robin and baby Zoe. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:57 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=587 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=586 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:52:33 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=586 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=585 Amazon.com Widgets Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:15:05 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=585 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=582 NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE REACTS TO APPOINTMENT OF DONALD BERWICK TO HEAD HHS' CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES WASHINGTON -- Today, President Obama used the power of the recess appointment to install Donald Berwick as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), in an attempt to avoid examination, through the pending confirmation process, of Berwick's well-documented support for rationing health care. "The Obama recess appointment of rationing advocate Donald Berwick to head the key government agency that will apply the new health care law is disastrous news for the vulnerable, especially the elderly and the sickest of American patients," said Burke Balch, J.D., director of National Right to Life's Powell Center for Medical Ethics. Confirmation of Berwick would have faced strong opposition from pro-life Republican senators appalled by his open advocacy of government-imposed rationing of medical treatment. In a June 2009 interview with the journal Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." In an article in the May/June 2008 issue of Health Affairs, he called for "rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest" so as to "reduce per capita costs." Lamenting that "[t]oday's individual health care processes are designed to respond to the acute needs of individual patients," Berwick wrote that instead government should "approach new technologies and capital investments with skepticism and require that a strong burden of proof of value lie with the proponent." Berwick's advocacy of the decimation of American health care is long-standing. In a 1994 Journal of the American Medical Association article, he wrote, "Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging." "Donald Berwick is a one-man death panel," said David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., National Right to Life executive director. "While Americans may not remember the agency he heads, he will quickly become known as Obama's rationing czar." Berwick is also an enthusiastic supporter of Britain's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the agency charged with determining which medical advances will - and which will not - be made available to the British public. Berwick claims NICE has "developed very good and very disciplined . . . models for the evaluation of medical treatment from which we ought to learn." England's five-year cancer survival rate for men is only 45%, compared with 66% in the U.S. That for women is 53%, compared to 63% in the U.S. (See: Arduiono Verdecchia and others, "Recent Cancer Survival: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data," Lancet Oncology, 2007, no. 8, pages 784-796.) The difference can in large measure be attributed to the refusal of NICE to authorized British use of pioneering cancer drugs routinely available in the United States. That is to say - currently routinely available in the United States - an availability Berwick will soon be using the power of government to curtail. "President Obama's appointment of this open advocate of rationing to implement his health care law underlines the need for repeal before untold numbers of vulnerable Americans suffer death from denial of life-saving treatment," O'Steen added. "The Obama health care rationing law much be repealed and voters need to remember its deadly provisions in November." The National Right to Life Committee is the nation's largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide. Amazon.com Widgets Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:15:58 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=582 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=581 RNC for Life: Planned Parenthood cannot account for millions of taxpayer dollars, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which detailed federal funding for pro-abortion organizations, including Planned Parenthood. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) held a news conference last week announcing the results of the report, which shows that while PP took in $2.3 billion in government grants and programs between 2002 and 2008, its audit shows that PP spent just $257.1 million during that same time period. Where are the rest of the funds? And though its fiscal year will be completed in just days, PP still has not released its annual report for 2009-2010. The GAO report is the result of a request dating back to April 2009, which was signed by 31 pro-life Republican U.S. Senators and Representatives, including Cong. Olson's fellow Texans Sen. John Cornyn and Congressmen Joe Barton, Kenny Marchant, Ron Paul and Lamar Smith. Other pro-life Republicans signing on included Sens. Sam Brownback (KS), Jim DeMint (SC), Jim Inhofe (OK), and David Vitter (LA).Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) was on board and joined by other pro-life Members of Congress: Paul Ryan (WI), Mike Pence (IN), Todd Akin (MO), Michele Bachmann (MN), Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Paul Broun (GA), Vern Buchanan (FL), John Fleming and Steve Scalise (LA), Trent Franks (AZ), Scott Garrett and Chris Smith (NJ), Phil Gingrey (GA), Duncan Hunter Jr. (CA), Walter B. Jones (NC), Jim Jordan (OH), Steve King (IA), and Doug Lamborn (CO). These pro-life legislators are to be congratulated on their action to "follow the money" , taxpayers' money at that! Encourage them to keep up the pressure on PP for a full accounting before Congress allocates another dime of our money to this pro-abortion powerhouse. The abortion giant can't puts its fingers on a cool $1.3 billion in federal funds. Of the $2.02 billion that the International Planned Parenthood Federation raked in between 2002-2009, only $657.1 million is accounted for. Twenty-six House members and five senators have filed an information request demanding to know where the missing money is. Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:11:55 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=581 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=580 From Abortion in Washington I just received this email that mentions the following incident at Planned Parenthood Kenmore: I was next door yesterday (June 21, 2010) for a dental appointment and my car was blocked in by an ambulance and fire aid car. As I waited I saw them bring a woman out on a stretcher to the ambulance. Prayed for her and the innocent life lost. Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:27:35 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=580 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=579 WASHINGTON, D.C., June 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Overturning a lower court ruling, a federal appeals court has told adult stem-cell researchers that they have standing to fight guidelines allowing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued Friday its decision (pdf) finding that doctors doing adult stem cell research have 'competitive standing' to sue. Therefore, the court reinstated the doctors' federal lawsuit, filed last summer, that seeks to preliminarily enjoin and ultimately overturn the controversial guidelines for public funding of embryonic stem cell research that the National Institutes of Health issued on July 7, 2009. The implementation of these guidelines marks the first time that taxpayer dollars will be used to fund research that will result in the destruction of human embryos. Since 1994, Congress has expressly banned the NIH from funding research in which human embryos "are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." According to Thomas G. Hungar, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, "the language of the statute is clear. It bans public funding for any research that leads to the destruction of human embryos. NIH's attempt to avoid Congress's command by funding everything but the act of 'harvesting' is pure sophistry. The guidelines will result in the destruction of human embryos and are unlawful, unethical, and unnecessary." The plaintiffs contend that the NIH guidelines violate the congressional ban because they "necessarily condition funding on the destruction of human embryos." In addition, the plaintiffs also allege that the NIH guidelines were invalidly implemented, because the decision to fund human embryonic stem cell research was made without the proper procedures required by law and without properly considering the more effective and less ethically problematic forms of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell research. President Obama instituted the funding policy in a March 11, 2009 Executive Order, purportedly backing funding for "responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research...to the extent permitted by law." Yet pro-life leaders say Obama's new guidelines fail his own test, arguing that they are both unlawful and based upon an ethically irresponsible misunderstanding of available scientific evidence. "The great irony of the guidelines is that research involving stem cells safely derived from human adults and other sources presents the same if not greater potential for medical breakthroughs, without any of the troubling legal and ethical issues related to embryonic stem-cell research," explained one of the expert stem cell researcher plaintiffs, Dr. James L. Sherley. Clinical trials using adult stem cells have successfully reversed the effects of diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The plaintiffs argue that because NIH promulgated its guidelines with a preconceived determination to fund human embryonic stem cell research and without considering these scientifically and ethically superior alternatives, the guidelines are invalid regulations and should be struck down. "The majority of the almost 50,000 comments that the NIH received were opposed to funding this research, and by its own admission, NIH totally ignored these comments," said Sam Casey, Co-counsel for the plaintiffs and General Counsel of Advocates International's Law of Life Project. "The so-called spare human embryos being stored in IVF clinics around the United States are not 'in excess of need,' as the NIH in its guidelines callously assert. They are human beings in need of biological or adoptive parents." The lawsuit is brought by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including Dr. James L. Sherley, a former member of the MIT faculty, currently working as a senior scientist at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute; Dr. Theresa Deisher, the founder, managing member, and research and development director of AVM Biotechnology; Nightlight Christian Adoptions, a non-profit, licensed adoption agency dedicated to protecting and finding adoptive parents for human embryos conceived through in vitro fertilization; all individual human embryos whose lives are now at risk under NIH's guidelines; parents seeking to adopt human embryos; and the Christian Medical Association. The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending religious freedom and the sanctity of human life, is also serving as co-counsel on the case and providing financial support. Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:48:20 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=579 http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=578 [The Washington Examiner's Mark Hemingway explains just how partisan it is: The restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way--against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably the primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government guaranteed [sic] billions directly as a result of the TARP funding--UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns. Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected.] By Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With a political audacity that has become characteristic since the caustic health care debates, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve a campaign finance disclosure bill that critics on both the left and the right say will disable grassroots political voices - including the nascent "Tea Party" movement that has been looking to sweep away liberal incumbents in November. At approximately 4:30 p.m., the House voted 219-206 to approve H.R. 5175, the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act," which the National Right to Life Committee, other pro-life, pro-family groups, and even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have condemned as a threat to free speech and free participation in the political process. (See how your representative voted here) The Act would force grassroots organizations to release the names of donors and members of their organizations into a publicly searchable database maintained by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Opponents of the bill say it would frustrate the ability of grassroots entities to communicate effectively with the public about public policy. "This is a blatant attack on our organizations, members, and donors," said Douglas Johnson, NRLC's Legislative Director. "National Right to Life will do everything possible to keep this bill from coming out of the Senate." Johnson said that stopping the Senate from approving its version (S 3295) of the DISCLOSE Act is "a jump ball." "I think we have to take it very seriously. There are already 50 cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. But as you know, the Senate has different rules, and we will certainly do our best to persuade any Senator who will listen that this bill is unconstitutional, unprincipled, and nakedly partisan." Should the Senate approve the DISCLOSE Act, and should it be signed into law by President Barack Obama, the act would take effect in 30 days, even if the Federal Elections Commission has not yet crafted new guidelines - just in time for the mid-term elections in November. During the one-hour debate on the bill, Rep. Dan Lungren expressed outrage that unlike every other campaign finance bill passed by the House, this bill has no provision for expedited judicial review. He said the lack of such a provision makes it clear the DISCLOSE Act is meant to influence the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. He also expressed frustration that so little time was given the House to debate a matter impacting Americans' First Amendment rights. "We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. Can't we spend a little time protecting the Constitution of the United States?" Lungren exclaimed. "We're talking about political speech: the essence of the First Amendment." Under the bill, all groups subject to the law's requirements - including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups - would have to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed. But the DISCLOSE Act exempts large 501(c)4 groups - like the 4 million strong NRA and 750,000 member Sierra Club - from having to report their donors if they have at least 500,000 members, over 10 years of existence, chapters in all 50 states, and receive no more than 15% of total contributions from corporations. Unions also have significant exemptions. Most union dues are under $600 dollars, and so do not have to be reported. Union to union transfers of money also do not have to be disclosed. In a letter(pdf) to Congress, the ACLU noted the irony that a bill ostensibly dedicated to uprooting corruption in the political process would exempt entrenched "mainstream" political interests from its reporting requirements, while "smaller organizations and those just starting out would have to disclose their donors in order to engage in political speech." "Those groups not challenging the status quo would be protected; those challenging the status quo would be suppressed," they concluded. House members had virtually no time to read the final version of the bill approved yesterday behind closed doors by the House Rules Committee. Instead of waiting for Congressmen and their staff to analyze the final bill, the Democrat leadership forced through today's vote today by invoking a "Martial Law Rule." The Martial Law Rule dispenses with a longstanding House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) intended to give U.S. Representatives and the public enough time to understand significant legislation. The rule requires that there be at least one day between a bill's unveiling and the House floor vote, and can only be suspended if two-thirds of the House agrees - but the Martial Law Rule dispenses with that process entirely. Critics on both the left and the right have denounced the tactic, saying it empowers a party's leadership to act in an authoritarian manner and endangers democratic self-government by forcing members to vote blind on measures demanded by their leaders. The bill requires that every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization's name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad - even if they had nothing to do with the ad's funding - must also have their names listed in the ad. In addition, the most "significant" donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad. Critics of the bill say that the disclaimers effectively devour valuable airtime bought by these groups that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate's record. "We're getting a little silly here. We're talking about making disclaimers that are going to take the entire time of a commercial," stated Rep. Lungren during debate. He also expressed grave concern that individuals - with names and addresses publicly available - would be subject to reprisals for making a political statement. He pointed to the situation in California, where supporters of Proposition 8 have been victims of reprisals by homosexualist activists. "We are chilling speech already, and now we are getting into direct intimidation by requiring the residence of people living there," he said. Other affected entities under the bill will likely include vocal liberal and conservative groups that communicate through the internet. While traditional media organizations like newspapers and television stations are exempt from the bill, bloggers, the vanguard of the "new media," are not. LifeSiteNews.com Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:32:00 PDT http://www.humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=578