Home

Pro-Life Issues

Events

Perspective

Press Releases

Newsletters

Resources

About Us

Contact Us

Illinois Right to Life Committee

Fall 2010 IRLC News

 

Making a Clear Declaration about Organ Donation

Abortion Coverage in Health Care: Now You See It, Now You Don’t

IL AG Sides with ACLU Instead of Defending Parental Notice

President's Report: Hijacking Palliative Care

FDA Approvals Based on Politics, Not Science

Choose Life License Plate Effort Continues in Illinois

Popping the Chicago Bubble Zone

Did You Miss Carson & Barnes Circus?

 

Making a Clear Declaration about Organ Donation

Most people may not be aware that the Illinois Organ Donor Registry (that you are asked to join each time you renew your driver's license) only records those who say "yes", and that "yes" is not revocable by your relatives and does not offer any option to limit which organs are to be donated.

To provide a more complete set of options regarding organ donation, IRLC has developed the organ donor declaration as an addition to the Patient Self-Protection Document, our life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care.  This addition allows you to make clear designations that are simply not possible with the Illinois Organ Donor Registry.

If you already have completed a Patient Self-Protection Document, you can complete the organ donor declaration as a separate document and then attach it to your Patient Self-Protection Document.  The organ donor declaration can be printed or downloaded from the IRLC web site, or call us at 312-422-9300.

 

 

Abortion Coverage in Health Care:
Now You See It, Now You Don’t

The recently-passed health care bill included Federal funding for new high risk health insurance programs to be created by the states.  After National Right to Life Committee's research discovered that abortion funding had been authorized in three states under this new program, the evidence was well established that abortion funding was included under the health care bill, as had been stated by both Pro-Life and abortion advocates upon passage of the bill.

National Right to Life Committee uncovered information showing a new Pennsylvania high risk health insurance plan was set to cover elective abortions.  Further evidence they obtained showed a similar high risk health insurance pool in New Mexico would also fund elective abortions using Federal funding.  Next, Maryland was found to have similar abortion coverage.

This situation became a political issue for the Obama administration, given their continued attempt to deny that government funding of abortion was expanded by passage of the health care bill.  Thus, in response to the facts about inclusion of abortion coverage in the high risk programs created by Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued a new regulation in July that it says prohibits the high risk health insurance pools from covering elective abortions with Federal taxpayer funds.

For the moment, it would appear the expanded abortion funding has been prevented.   Abortion advocates are upset, as they complain how this new DHHS regulation is not consistent with the provisions in the health care bill that do not prohibit funding of abortion.

How long will abortion funding be prevented and abortion advocates remain upset?  Since the regulation is not supported by the wording of the law, how long will it take to bring a legal case to challenge the regulation and find a judge who will overturn the regulation, opening Federal funds for abortion?  It should not take any longer than it will take to find a high risk client who "needs" an abortion in one of the state programs where funding abortion is now blocked.

Is there any evidence to suggest this chain of events is likely to occur?   Well, before passage of the Hyde Amendment in the mid-1970s, a similar court ruling established Federal funding of abortion under Roe v. Wade.  Why should we not expect the same result now? 

Bill Beckman

 

 

IL AG Sides with ACLU
Instead of Defending Parental Notice

The ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 in state court, making the outlandish claim that it violated the Illinois Constitution.   This action was taken after all Federal hurdles to allow the law to take effect had been cleared. 

After the Illinois judge ruled in favor of the law, Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office allowed the judge to offer the ACLU an open-ended injunction to prevent the law from taking effect until all appeals were completed. 

Recently, the Thomas More Society filed a motion that the Illinois Supreme Court take the case directly to shorten the appeal process.  The Attorney General again sided with the ACLU by opposing this motion.  For an officer of the State of Illinois, whose role is to defend its laws, this action to circumvent the will of the Legislature and the people of Illinois is a dereliction of duty and an outrage.   The Attorney General took the same position as the opponents of the law, who represent the interests of abortion providers.

Unfortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court denied this appeal to expedite the case, so Illinois will remain the profit haven for abortionists and the dumping ground for young girls from surrounding states to get abortions without the knowledge of their parents.  The full appeal process is likely to take a few years

 

 

President's Report: Hijacking Palliative Care

What happened in Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina in September 2005?  Dozens of patients were killed by lethal doses of morphine or the sedative midazolam.  A number of these patients were extremely ill and might not have survived the evacuation. Several were almost certainly not near death when they were injected, according to medical professionals who treated them at Memorial and an internist’s review of their charts and autopsies.  Most of these patients were chosen not because of their current health but because at some time they had consented to a “Do Not Resuscitate” order.  A DNR Order means: A patient whose heartbeat or breathing has stopped should not be revived.  It’s different from a living will which allows patients with a ‘‘terminal and irreversible condition’’ to request in advance that ‘‘life-sustaining procedures’’ be withheld or withdrawn.  All of these patients could have been evacuated.

The doctors involved in the killings have admitted to doing it and have even been praised by the American Medical Association.

Is this just an isolated incident during a terrible tragedy?  No, it’s the future under ObamaCare.

It’s called palliative care.  Under its original intent palliative care was never intended to hasten death.   Palliative care, also called comfort care, is treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of disease symptoms, rather than striving to halt, delay, or reverse progression of the disease itself or provide a cure. 

Palliative care originated with hospice, but with increased focus on rising healthcare costs, it’s hijacked form is becoming more common.  In 1994, “The Project on Death in America” was created, and it was funded by George Soros.

It provided “funding for individuals and institutions to address, through research and model systems of care, the barriers to appropriate compassionate care of the dying. The major medical, social and economic impediments include: changes in the trajectory of dying, exemplified by large numbers of patients living for months or years after diagnosis of incurable diseases such as cancer and AIDS; the increasing age of the population; high-technology medical support systems for patients with respiratory and cardiac failure; the greater emphasis on patient autonomy, along with the concerted shift from societal to individual rights; and the limitations in healthcare resources, particularly for patients with chronic medical illness.”

Simply put, sick people are living too long and it’s costing too much.  The way to reduce medical costs is to stop treatment and to have “terminal” patients die sooner. It’s described as an innovative end-of-life program.  With the baby boomers aging it’s expected that medical costs will increase dramatically and this is the plan to stop it.

While the Project on Death in America ended in 2003, it was just the start of the effort to institutionalize “palliative care.”  One of the more prominent organizations today is the Center to Advance Palliative Care or CPAC at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

In a publication on their web site, “Cost Savings Associated With US Hospital Palliative Care Consultation Programs”, the conclusion in the report is “Hospital palliative care consultation teams are associated with significant hospital cost savings.”

It’s already happening in Britain and France.  In France during the heat wave in 2003, 15,000 elderly - more people than the average or expected death rate - died.  As reported by Time magazine, it was geometrically higher than any other country in Europe.  Many of these deaths were in underfunded retirement homes run by the government.

Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, President Obama’s advisor, has said that rationing medicine and letting older or sick people die is the way to reduce cost.  The rationing and “death panels” that we’ve heard about are real.  “Palliative care” is most likely already practiced at a hospital near you.  As of 2006, 55% of hospitals with more than 50 beds have a program.

It is time for patients and their families to ask important questions of all health care facilities.  Do they subscribe to policies of “palliative care” or terminal sedation?  Will the patient continue to receive nutrition and hydration?   Who will decide, if the patient is unable to make the decision?  Your life or the lives of your family members may be in danger.  Be alert!

Rosemary Hackett

 

 

FDA Approvals Based on Politics, Not Science

Tragically for women, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved Ella, a new abortion drug, described as an emergency contraceptive or morning-after pill, for sale and distribution in the United States.  By allowing Ella to be marketed to the public as contraception, the FDA is allowing women to be deceived about the abortifacient action of Ella.

In giving their approval the FDA ignored serious issues about the drug’s safety and lack of sufficient testing.  They acted based on political expediency rather than science to approve Ella, which is little more than a chemical abortion drug similar to RU-486.   Ella is manufactured by Paris-based Laboratoire HRA Pharma and will be distributed in the USA by Watson Pharma Inc.

About two months before final approval the FDA declared Ella (also known as EllaOne and Ulipristal) “safe and effective” for women.  What are the criteria for "safe and efffective"?   The FDA released review documents stating that Ella appears to work "with no unexpected side effects."

Does it seem reassuring that Ella "appears" to have no "unexpected" side effects?  The report does identify "normal" side effects such as nausea, headache and abdominal pain as common.  How many unexpected side effects have not yet appeared because the drug is too new?  Might it be a carcinogen, or cause future fertility problems, or other adverse health impacts?  Abortion rights zealots do not care because "abortion rights" is their issue, not women's health.

The FDA does admit "Data on pregnancy outcomes after EC (emergency contraceptive) failure with Ella were too limited to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of Ella on an established pregnancy or fetal development."   That statement means no one knows the damage to the baby that will be caused if it survives this attempt at extermination, or if the woman already has an established pregnancy but just does not know it yet.

Proclaimed as a longer acting "morning-after pill" (up to 5 days after sex), Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, interfering with the lining of the uterus so an embryo cannot implant or, if implanted, will not survive, so it is clearly abortifacient.  And, if Ella injures babies in utero, they can simply be aborted later, with even more profit for abortion providers. 

Abortion drugs is not the only area where the FDA is driven by politics rather than science.  In July the FDA approved the application by cloning company Geron to undertake the first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans.  Is this a payoff for political support?  What is the scientific basis for the FDA to approve this trial?

The FDA had placed a hold on this trial in August 2009 after evidence showed Geron's GRNOPC1 encountered safety issues when used in animal studies.   Geron's own data showed higher frequency of small cysts within the injury site in the spinal cord of animals injected with the embryonic cells.  Without any convincing evidence to address those concerns, the FDA has now removed the hold and told Geron they can move forward. 

Dr. David Prentice, former biology professor at Indiana State University who is now a fellow at the Family Research Council, noted "It's unfortunate that the FDA has released Geron from the safety hold on their embryonic stem cell trial.  Even many pro-embryonic stem cell scientists have expressed reservations about Geron's trial, that it is not proven even in rats.  The concern for many of us is that Geron is endangering patient's health and very lives, to make a political point and increase their stock price."

In August 2009, Evan Snyder, a neuroscientist who heads up the stem cell research center at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in San Diego, warned Geron’s research may not be ready for humans.  He suggested that Geron should have done experiments involving larger animals before seeking FDA permission to use the controversial embryonic stem cells in humans.

For FDA rulings that relate to abortion drugs or embryonic stem cell research, can anyone be convinced that they are truly focused on public safety or rather on achieving political objectives?

Bill Beckman 

 

 

Choose Life License Plate Effort Continues in Illinois

Renewed efforts to obtain optional Choose Life license plates in Illinois have recently begun.   Look for details at the Illinois Choose Life web site.  If you recall, at one point success looked promising after a favorable Federal court ruling, but the state of Illinois appealed and got the ruling reversed.

Recognizing that the only means now available to obtain Choose Life plates is a return to the Illinois legislature, a new petition drive has been started with the goal of obtaining 25,000 signatures supporting Choose Life license plates in Illinois.  If the November elections are favorable to Pro-Life candidates, better possibilities may exist to get a positive legislative response to those signatures in 2011.

Can you get your relatives, friends, and neighbors to sign the petition?  Can you sponsor a petition drive at your church?  Please get involved in this important effort to support adoption in Illinois.  Funds generated would be used to assist women with unexpected pregnancies to consider the adoption option.

Given that 25 states have already approved Choose Life specialty plates and the plates are “on the road” in 23 of those states, why not Illinois?  Even “blue” states like Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts already have Choose Life plates “on the road.”

Tragically, Joe Walsh, who has been heavily involved in this effort from the beginning in 2002, will not be available after his untimely death in August.   Condolences can be sent to Joe's wife, Carol, at 718 Meadow Lane, Libertyville, IL 60048.

 

 

Popping the Chicago Bubble Zone

Last year at the urging of abortion providers, the Chicago City Council passed a bubble zone ordinance to "prevent intimidation of women seeking abortions" because of "aggressive protestors" alleged to frequently come to Chicago abortion facilities.  The first arrest under the ordinance occurred over nine months later on July 3, 2010, followed by a second arrest on July 8th.

On August 3rd the charges from the first arrest were dismissed because the actions of Joseph Holland did not violate the ordinance.  Two weeks later charges against David Avignone from the second arrest were also dismissed.

Both of them were standing in place and praying near the door to Planned Parenthood at 1200 N. LaSalle in Chicago.  The ordinance creates an eight-foot bubble zone around anyone approaching within 50 feet of the entrance of a medical facility unless that person gives permission to interact with someone who moves into the zone.  Unfortunately for the arresting officer, the abortion facility door does not receive a bubble zone under the ordinance.  Standing on a public sidewalk to pray is still legal in the city of Chicago, even near the entrance of an abortion facility.

Does this dismissal of charges from the first two arrests under a controversial new Chicago ordinance seem newsworthy?  Apparently, the major Chicago newspapers and television news organizations did not think so.  These dismissals of charges received no coverage in the Chicago media.

 

 

Did You Miss Carson & Barnes Circus?

Carson & Barnes Circus performed two exciting shows on August 16th at Maryknoll Park in Glen Ellyn, IL for the families of IRLC members, and other area families who learned about the circus from church bulletins and other area promotions such as radio.  IRLC board members were convinced the circus was about the best replacement for Kiddieland that we could find.  Based on feedback from those families who attended, they seemed to agree.  Everyone was very pleased with the quality of entertainment, which held the attention of both adults and children.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story.  IRLC needed to pay the circus for buying out the August 16th performances (in the same fashion as we had done for Kiddieland).  Since the numbers in attendance did not reach the average level done year after year at Kiddieland, IRLC was basically just barely able to breakeven after paying the expenses. 

We are certainly aware that economic conditions and job losses have stretched many families financially.  Maybe that was a factor in the reduced attendance compared to Kiddieland.

If you missed the circus, was it because of lack of awareness, bad timing, lack of funds, or other factors?  We welcome your feedback on any aspect of why attending the circus did or did not work out for your family.  If you have suggestions for IRLC family fun events in future years, we want to receive them.

The lower attendance leaves a big financial hole in the IRLC budget.  If you are in a position to help, we can really use some extra help at this time.  Please consider making a generous donation in response to this newsletter.  Providing accurate information on life issues is needed now more than ever.  We have always relied on the generous assistance of our members to support our vital work on life issues.  We need your generosity at this time more than ever.  

 

 

Return to List of Newsletter Articles

IRLC Home Page