Did you know that if a customer enters Planned Parenthood with Pro-Life literature in her possession, Planned Parenthood employees take the literature away from that customer, even if she wants it?   This blatant act is certainly a violation of choice, actually an act of theft!

This denial of choice actually happened recently at the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress in Aurora, IL.   As reported by Matt Yonke at Families Against Planned Parenthood:

Sidewalk counselor Karen Koller reports she was speaking with a young lady who was going to Planned Parenthood for birth control, but was very interested in the literature Karen gave her. On her way out of Planned Parenthood, she stopped to ask Karen for some more literature. She needed more because Planned Parenthood employees had taken it away from her!

They forced her to give them the literature she had received from our sidewalk counselors. Karen said employees told the girl, “We need to take these” and when she said she wanted to keep them, she was told the pamphlets were “not allowed in here.” The young lady was livid and, after getting more literature from Karen, told her she was never coming back to Planned Parenthood after their rudeness and, let’s call a spade a spade, theft of her materials.

The most common complaint expressed about the display of graphic abortion photos is concern about the impact on young children. For example, a mother said her daughter “wanted to know why those people had signs of bloody babies. I should not be forced to explain something to her that she is not mature enough to understand.”

In today’s world parents need to be prepared to deal with many images their children may encounter. The key factor that will make the difference in how children react to seeing anything disturbing is the role of their parents, who are present in a loving and comforting way, answering their questions and calming their fears.  Most children will reflect concern for the injured children in the pictures.  Simply stating that the people holding the pictures are trying to protect children will address that concern. 

The First Amendment allows citizens to display messages to the public, and courts have consistently upheld that right.  There is no law against displaying pictures of aborted babies because such a law would be unconstitutional.

Pictures of aborted babies are disgusting because abortion is disgusting.  When we put an end to the killing of babies by abortion, we can stop showing the disgusting pictures intended to convince our nation abortion should not be tolerated. 

Graphic images have been among the most successful tools in every human rights struggle since the 18th century when William Wilberforce used them in his campaign against the slave trade. Photos of the Nazi holocaust of the Jews are widely understood to have played a crucial role in awakening the world to the reality of that evil. 

Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life stated, “There is no single thing that I have seen more powerful to change people on abortion than simply showing them the pictures… When people see what abortion does to a baby, they are stung to the heart and their consciences are awakened.” Fr. Pavone emphasizes the graphic images frequently cause numerous, almost instant conversions of pro-abortion people to a pro-life position. Many babies have also been saved from abortion when their mothers encountered graphic images.

Have you become aware of the latest environmental threat?  Most likely, you have not, because this one is not politically correct.  While the focus has been placed on issues such as over-population (totally untrue), global warming (evidence in dispute), and other popular crises, the estrogen from birth control pills has been deforming fish and polluting our water.  Where are the crisis headlines?  Where are the public hearings and calls for action?

Why is everything so quiet when it comes to negative impacts of contraceptives?  The UK Environment Agency confirmed the contraceptive pill as a pollutant back in 2002.  The Agency warned then that fish stocks in British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water.  A survey of 1,500 fish at 50 river sites found more than a third of males also displayed female characteristics.

In 2005, University of Colorado scientists, sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that of 123 fish caught in Boulder Creek downstream from the Boulder sewage treatment plant, 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 had both male and female characteristics.  More recently, in June 2007, scientists from the University of Pittsburgh investigated the fish populations in the Allegheny River near storm sewer outflow pipes and discovered the same deformations. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that other study results have shown ambiguous gender in 85% of the catfish caught on the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers.

Most recently, a study by Dr. Karen Kidd, of the University of New Brunswick and the Canadian Rivers Institute, confirmed that estrogen from birth control pills entering the water system through sewage adversely affects fish populations.  The researchers added estrogen to an experimental lake at a level commonly found in the treated wastewater from cities with about 200,000 people.  They discovered that exposed male fish became feminized, producing a protein normally found in females.  Chronic exposure to estrogen led to the near extinction of the lake’s fathead minnow population, as well as significant declines in larger fish, such as pearl dace and lake trout.  Kidd observed, “What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish - a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term.”

Fish are not the only creatures threatened by estrogen pollution.  At a conference on breast cancer in Toronto in 1998, author and cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love said, “Pollutants are metabolized in our bodies as estrogen.  And it is lifetime exposure to estrogen that has increased world cancer rates by 26% since 1980.... We live in a toxic soup of chemicals.”

Further recognition of the cancer-causing effects of estrogen occurred in 2005.  A July 29th press release issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as carcinogenic. The IARC placed them into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.”

With this significant evidence of the growing pollutant impact of estrogen from contraceptives on both fish and humans, where is the outcry of concern?   It seems that contraceptives are so politically correct that neither environmentalists nor cancer researchers are willing to raise concerns about the increased risks caused by estrogen pollution.

Bill Beckman 

Illinois Right to Life Committee has a new president! At my request, the Board of Directors elected a new president at the Annual Meeting in April. I have served as president for 20 years and three years before that as a member of the board. It has been a labor of love and a joy for me to participate in this important cause. My heart is committed to the cause of life and even though I will no longer be president of Illinois Right to Life, I will continue to work for the pro-life cause as a volunteer in several capacities.

The new president is my daughter, Rosemary Hackett. She has served on the board of Illinois Right to Life for 10 years and has recently served as Vice-Chairman. Other newly elected officers are Vice Chairman – Mari Heavey, Vice President – Diane Pietrzak, Secretary – Kathy Swift. Bob Bland was re-elected as Chairman of the Board. The officers will continue to be supported in the work of Illinois Right to Life by other board members, Larry Theriault, Vice Chairman of Special Events, Dr. Rafael Carreira, Mary Lynn Davison, Rev. Jaime Canty, and Dr. Jeffrey Cullen. Two new board members – Jeff Eschbach and Dorsey Jastrebski - were also elected at the board meeting in April.

It is my belief that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, not making abortion illegal again but returning the decision to the states. The battleground for changing the laws on abortion, restricting its access and even hopefully making it illegal, will be fought at the state level in all of the states. I am excited about the new team of officers at Illinois Right to Life who will be leaders in our state battle for the right to life. New ideas and new plans of action can be put in place, while still receiving the support and advice of the seasoned members of the board.

My work has been made easy by the wonderful staff at the office, Bill, Alice and Denise. I want to thank Maureen Sager who is also leaving the board at this time. She has served as Secretary of Illinois Right to Life for many years and has been a friend and volunteer who has worked with me in the numerous events of Illinois right to Life.

Finally, I must take this opportunity to thank all of you, our members, for your friendship and support for me personally and for Illinois Right to Life over the years. I have always considered our work a partnership with you. And the great success we have had in educating the public through speakers, college flyers, car cards, mall ads and, currently, radio ads could only be accomplished through the generous and faithful support you have given to Illinois Right to Life. I know I can depend on you to continue to support the work of Illinois Right to Life and the new officers who have willingly stepped up to defend the cause of life. Abortion can be ended in America and in the State of Illinois if we have the resolve to do it. God bless you and God bless Illinois Right to Life!

Mary Anne Hackett

Evidence mounts about the impact of ultrasound for abortion bound mothers who visit pregnancy care centers.   With a Chicago pregnancy care center moving to the “medical model”, initial use of ultrasound has already produced dramatic results in just a few days.  

Women intent on abortion changed their minds.  One mother discovered she had twins.  Another saw her baby at 11 weeks and called her boyfriend to say, “The baby really is fully formed like they say.”  Babies are immediately seen as real persons by most mothers who view ultrasound.

Statistics compiled by one pregnancy care center showed impressive results when comparing 18 months prior to having ultrasound with the first 18 months using ultrasound.  Over twice as many mothers decided in favor of life after seeing ultrasound images of their baby.

Ultrasound also provides important medical information about the viability of the pregnancy.  Almost 10% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.  With ultrasound, these miscarriages were predicted and unnecessary abortions were avoided. 

Some women with positive pregnancy tests were even found not to be pregnant.  How many women suffer unnecessary abortions without the medical benefit of ultrasound to evaluate their pregnancy?  No wonder there are reports of abortionists performing abortions on women who are not pregnant.

The false compassion of withholding the basic necessities of life from disabled patients has become a serious problem in our nation.  However, if statistics presented in a March 18th New York Times article are correct, the threat is far worse than one might imagine. 

In that article, written by Jane Brody, she quotes Judith Schwarz, a registered nurse and clinical coordinator for “Compassion & Choices” of New York, as saying the following: “1.3 million people die each year in American hospitals as ‘a consequence of someone’s decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment.’”

We must be cautious in taking this statistic at face value for at least two reasons.    First, it is not clear how many of these claimed deaths occurred after denial of food and water versus how many were based on rejection of extraordinary treatments.    Both categories are described as “life-sustaining treatment” — part of a planned strategy by “right-to-die” advocates to confuse the argument.   Second, given the agenda of the group “Compassion & Choices,” they could have a motive to overstate such incidents to make hastening death seem commonplace and acceptable.

On the other hand, since 1.3 million deaths is such a shocking number, even if it is an overstatement, the problem is very real.  Ironically, this death count matches the commonly cited number of babies killed by abortion each year.  Is the culture of death overwhelming us?

The loss of human life is hard to imagine.  Cyclone Nargis left at least 133,000 people dead or missing in Myanmar.  The International Federation of the Red Cross estimates 2.5 million people are in desperate need of clean water, food, medicine and shelter with 500,000 of them being children. 

Ironically, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is working to provide 220,000 condoms “to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives.”  UNFPA aid advisor Chaiyos Kunanusont said 72,800 condoms had so far been delivered to “survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May.” 

Who delivered these condoms when the people need food, water, and shelter?   For these millions left homeless and in desperate need of food, the idea of allocating limited distribution resources to pass out condoms must seem absurd; or might we say insane?   The Red Cross says an estimated 375 tons of food a day are needed in the hardest hit areas to hold off starvation.

UNFPA is consistently outrageous in their approach for providing disaster relief.  They are also providing condoms to the victims of the China earthquake and provided this same relief to victims of the tsunami disaster of 2004 in Indonesia.

The latest strategy of abortion supporters accuses Pro-Lifers of causing more abortions by opposing both “comprehensive sex education” and wide distribution of birth control. A recent letter from Human Life International (HLI) offers convincing facts from real world circumstances showing a shocking comparison of the results of “safe sex” with condoms versus abstinence and marital fidelity.  HLI cites the case of two Asian countries with similar populations: Thailand ( pop. 63,753,000) and the Philippines (pop. 88,351,000).  Both nations saw their first cases of AIDS appear in 1984.  Both embarked on campaigns to combat the threat and spread of this deadly disease. 

That’s where the similarity ends.  The Philippine government educated its people and stressed the importance of chastity, fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage.   Thailand, on the other hand, embraced “King Condom” and distributed massive numbers of condoms to its people, without any attempt to change people’s behavior.

Here are the results. As of 2007, there have been a total of 2,965 individuals infected with AIDS in the Philippines, over 23 years.  In Thailand, the number is a shocking 1,106,000 infected with AIDS.   In other words, only one out of every 21,850 Phillipine citizens have become infected with AIDS while one of every 90 citizens of Thailand are infected.  As a comparison, here in the U.S.A., one out of every 200 citizens contracts AIDS. 

The next time you hear the charge that abstinence does not work, remember how the condom works in Thailand versus abstinence in the Phillipines. Isn’t this enough proof that “safe sex” is not safe?

Abortion supporters have been trying to pass the so-called Freedom of Choice Act since Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1993.  If this radical bill was enacted into law, it would force on our nation public funding of abortion for any reason for all nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states, by rescinding all Federal and state laws that regulate abortion in any way.   Even laws restricting performance of abortions to doctors to would be rescinded, and also any laws placing even the slightest medical regulations on abortion clinics.

Here is some evidence of just how radical this law would be.  Both houses of Congress had a Democrat majority in 1993-1994 with a Democrat President who was ready to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  The bill was never even brought to a vote during those two years after many citizens expressed their concerns about the bill. 

The Freedom of Choice Act has never been voted on after that time either, but now efforts to pass the Freedom of Choice Act are getting more attention again.   Democrats again control both houses of Congress and Barack Obama has stated, “The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act” (during his 2007 talk before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund).

This bill is more radical than the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.  It would eliminate both freedom and choice for anyone who opposes abortion on demand by establishing the right to abortion as a “fundamental right.”  No wonder Planned Parenthood, as the nation’s largest abortion provider, wants such a law passed.