Friday, Jan 30, 2009  --  They would not comply with the court order

"A regional government official said it (the government) would not comply with the court order."  What?  Isn't that a revolt against the rule of law?  Well, the court order ruled that the government of the region (in Italy) must provide a clinic that will remove Eluana Englaro's feeding tube, resulting in a drawn-out painful starvation and dehydration death.

Terri Schiavo's family would have been overjoyed if then Governor Jeb Bush had refused to comply with Judge Greer's court orders and had instead taken action to save her.  Sometimes ethics and morality must be placed above the rule of law.  So far, it seems that more people can be found in Italy who value defending life than could be found in Florida in 2005.

In November after the highest court in Italy granted Englaro's father the right to kill her via euthanasia by removing her feeding tube, the nuns who ran the hospice were she lived refused to remove it.  Another facility said they would comply if Englaro was transferred there, but backed off after a government official indicated killing Englaro would produce negative consequences.

Later, the Lombardy government (the region where Englaro is living) issued a directive forbidding Lombardy clinics from removing Eluana’s feeding tube.  Then several other regions offered to help Englaro's father take her life, but backed off when Health Minister Maurizio Sacconi  warned that hospitals receiving government funds would face consequences for killing the disabled woman.

Now the Lombardy Regional Court said the Lombardy government was wrong to issue a directive forbidding Lombardy clinics from removing Eluana’s feeding tube, but a regional government official said, ''At least for the moment we do not intend to comply with the instructions of the sentence because the Court's evaluations appear unfounded to us."  Government officials observed that while some doctors believe Englaro is in a vegetative state, "Nobody is in a position to say that this state is irreversible."

As with Terri Schiavo, there is much debate about Eluana's condition.  Last year, some of Italy's leading neurologists said Englaro should not be killed, and they questioned whether she is in a persistent vegetative state.  "She is not a person in coma, or a terminal patient, but a severely handicapped person in need of special basic care, as occurs in many other situations of serious injuries to parts of the brain that limit the capacity of communication and self-sustenance," they said.

Pray that this effort to defend the life of Eluana Englaro will have a happy ending and not end with her being starved and dehydrated to death in the same painful manner that took Terri Schiavo's life over the course of 13 days in March 2005.   Terri's Day is observed annually on March 31st, the day she died.

Thursday, Jan 29, 2009  --  Safeguards ignored in the name of science

Shortly after Barack Obama became President, the FDA approved a human trial using treatments derived from embryonic stem cells.  The trial will involve 10 spinal cord patients with injuries Geron Corp. hopes to treat with an experimental drug containing embryonic stem cells.  This quick approval has been criticized as premature.

Evan Snyder, a neuroscientist at Burnham Institute for Medical Research in San Diego, says the mice Geron used to conduct pre-human trial research had more excessive injuries than scientists would normally prefer to see prior to trying the procedure on human patients.  He suggests that Geron should have done experiments involving larger animals before seeking FDA permission to use the controversial embryonic stem cells in humans.

Jerry Silver, a neuroscience professor and stem-cell researcher at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, explained, "Frankly, I cannot conceive of a human trial with the use of human embryonic stem cells following immediately from experiments in rodents only.  Many treatments that work in rodents to alleviate disease fail miserably in humans."

Bioethicst Wesley J. Smith says he's concerned the FDA didn't make Geron offer more proof its experiments were ready for human trials.  "Indeed, when the FDA said no to Geron last year, I expected successful larger animal work would be a necessary precondition to obtaining the FDA's approval," he said.

Smith is worried the decision may have been made for political rather than scientific reasons.  Have normal safeguards been ignored by the FDA to deliver a political payoff to supporters of Obama for President?  If so, the 10 spinal cord patients may be at serious risk because true science has been set aside for politics and profit.

Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009  --  Promote abortions to reduce them?

Quietly last Friday, President Barack Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy."  This policy prohibits taxpayer funds from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that use other funds to promote and perform abortions.   How can promotion of abortion internationally reduce them?

During his campaign, Obama vowed to find 'common ground' on the issue of abortion and that he would work to 'reduce the number of abortions.'  His action represents a quickly broken campaign promise.  When you subsidize abortion, abortions will increase, so U.S. taxpayers will be forced to fund this exportation of the culture of death.   Even worse, forced abortion will also be subsidized with Obama's decision to reinstate funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), ignoring the connection between the UNFPA and the Chinese forced-abortion program.

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama issued a statement that read in part, "We are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make."  This statement amounts to veiled language that he will find ways to increase funding to the abortion industry at every turn.

So far two expensive gifts to the abortion industry have been found lurking in the economic stimulus bill, first by expansion of Medicaid coverage and second with funds for condoms and sex ed programs.  This abortion industry bailout through Medicaid was defended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but vocal concerns about this first gift led to its apparent removal.   Will the second gift receive the same fate?

Next on the agenda will be throwing out the Hyde Amendment so that any abortion industry bailout funds can legally be used to pay for abortions.  Professor Robert George noted, "It is the pro-abortion side that tells us that the Hyde Amendment alone has resulted in 300,000 fewer abortions each year than would otherwise be performed - and that is why they so desperately want it to be repealed.  Yet the putatively pro-life Obama apologists claim that the man who pledges to repeal it is going to reduce the number of abortions."  Then he added, "Let me say it again: this is delusional."

Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009  --  Ethicist Monsignor William Smith Dies -- helped with PSPD

Monsignor William B. Smith died on January 24th.   He was Professor of Moral Theology at Saint Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers since 1971 and one of the leading Catholic voices in the U.S. on moral and medical ethics.   Msgr. Smith was frequently on EWTN where he was well known for his ability to clearly explain difficult theological and ethical concepts.

When Illinois Right to Life Committee members recognized in 1990 the need to create a life-affirming durable power of attorney for heath care, Msgr. Smith was included on the team that created the Patient Self-Protection Document (PSPD).  The PSPD is still available today to offer people a sound choice when they consider their options for advance directives.

Unfortunately, the standard forms adopted by Illinois law and offered by many attorneys are seriously ambiguous and rarely convey the signers' true intentions for medical care in case they are not able to make those decisions themselves.

The two standard forms are the "living will" and the basic "durable power of attorney for heath care."  Neither of these forms overcomes confusion about treating food and water as medical treatment that can be denied.   Illinois Right to Life's Patient Self-Protection Document is an enhanced durable power of attorney for heath care that eliminates these and other ambiguities. 

When considering end of life issues, make a life-affirming choice by completing the Patient Self-Protection Document.  Do not take the risk of signing a living will or a basic durable power of attorney for heath care.  Never execute both documents because that just multiplies the confusion.    

Monday, Jan 26, 2009  --  Report on the March for Life in Washington, D.C.

My wife Nancy and I attended this year's March for Life in Washington, D.C. on January 22nd.  Every experienced marcher that we talked to came to the same conclusion we did -- this was a very large turnout, likely the largest ever, estimated at over 300,000.  Both weather for the Noon rally and the march to the Supreme Court building, as well as travel conditions to get there, were ideal. 

The day was sunny with a temperature reaching the low 40s.  There was no snow on the ground.  Actually, the National Mall ground was dusty.  Signs placed on the ground even for a moment picked up dust like a magnet. Many remember standing on ice and snow in previous years with concern of falling down at any moment, and toes getting very cold.  A little dust was much better!

The rally speakers included organizer Nellie Gray, many Congressmen, some eloquent ministers, and other special guests, including a woman who help found Silent No More to support women in expressing the damage abortion has done to their lives, including her own.

The route for the march was much shorter than the last time I attended a few years ago.  Then the march went up Constitution Avenue from the Washington Monument at 15th Street to First Street, where the Supreme Court is located.  This year the route left the National Mall at 4th Street to reach Constitution Avenue, only about one third of the earlier distance.  I wondered if the new administration had anything to do with this change, but I checked the Internet to discover the same shorter route was used in 2008.

Coverage of the March for Life was less than ideal, reflecting the rather obvious bias of the media, but USA Today and Fox News had reasonably good coverage.  In Chicago, both the Tribune and Sun-Times carried articles, quite an improvement from the total shutout of recent years.

Tuesday, Jan 20, 2009  --  Pregnant Women Support Act vs Prevention First Act

Last week I described the Prevention First Act (S. 21) as the "Federal bailout for Planned Parenthood."  Claims that S. 21 would prevent unwanted pregnancies by expanding access to birth control and so-called comprehensive sex education fly in the face of the facts.  Now the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 270) has been introduced.  While this bill is not likely to reduce unwanted pregnancies, it will reduce abortions by offering real support and choices to those mothers. 

These two bills may seem similar, but they are starkly different in philosophy and results.  Let your voice be heard with Congress to make a difference on which of these bills can move forward.

Unfortunately, not everything that threatens preborn life needs Congressional action.  President Obama will issue an executive order by tomorrow that allows your tax money to be used to promote abortion around the world.  His order will rescind the Mexico City policy that prevents Federal funds from going to any international organization that promotes or provides abortions. 

That action will mark a sad day because it will put our nation back in the business of pushing abortion on nations that do not want it.  On this score, so-called third world countries are more civilized than developed ones because many of them still recognize the humanity of preborn children.

Monday, Jan 19, 2009  --  Marching for life in Chicago

About 100-125 people braved the cold to participate in the 4th Annual Chicago March for Life yesterday.  The Chicago Tribune sent a reporter and ran an article, including a picture, in its Monday edition.  Still, it is disappointing that there were not thousands of people participating.

Will the Tribune also cover the January 22nd March for Life in Washington, D.C. this year?  Their coverage has often been lacking in past years.  In response to a complaint about that lack of coverage a number of years ago, the Tribune spokesperson claimed the March for Life was not newsworthy.  That a gathering of well over 200,000 in Washington, D.C. can be declared "not newsworthy" represents prime evidence of media bias.

Ask the media to fairly cover the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, January 22nd.  You can contact them at:

NBC Nightly News
Nightly@NBC.com
 
ABC World News With Charles Gibson
Click here for their e-mail form
 
CBS Evening News
evening@cbsnews.com
 
The Fox Report
foxreport@foxnews.com  

Chicago Tribune
ctc-tribletter@tribune.com

Chicago Sun-Times
letters@suntimes.com  

Friday, Jan 16, 2009  --  When a picture is not worth 1000 words

Rev. Walter Hoye offers real choice to women about to enter Family Planning Specialists clinic in Oakland, California, by holding a sign and gently calling out to them.  He happens to be African-American, and is motivated to address the high abortion rate among black women.

Deathscorts regularly harass Rev. Hoye by blocking his sign and making noise so the women cannot hear him.  The situation was so disturbing that Oakland passed a law that prohibits contact within eight feet of women entering abortion businesses without their consent.  Unfortunately, nothing in this law prohibited deathscorts from harassing Rev. Hoye.

Ultimately, Rev. Hoye was charged with violating the new law.  In court, prosecution witnesses made all kinds of detailed explanations of how Rev. Hoye harassed and threatened women, deathscorts, and even the clinic director when she tried to intervene.

Unbeknownst to these witnesses and the district attorney, however, an associate of Rev. Hoye had been videotaping from across the street on both the days on which Rev. Hoye was accused of violating the law.  Thus, until the defense revealed the existence of the videotape during cross-examination, the witnesses conjured up phantom patients whom Rev. Hoye had allegedly harassed, as well as claiming that he threatened two escorts and the clinic director.

After the existence of the videotape was revealed to the prosecution, there were no more claims that Rev. Hoye had made any threatening gestures toward anyone, although deathscorts did claim more approaches to phantom patients.  Despite the implosion of witness testimonies, the district attorney kept trying to conjure evidence of a “threat of force” from Rev. Hoye out of nothing.

The jury was allowed to view this videotape.  That destroyed the credibility of the witnesses, and the jury found the defendent not guilty -- right?  Wrong!  The jury found Rev. Hoye guilty.  Apparently, there is a different standard for Pro-Life "crimes."  Lies from "threatened" clinic staff outweigh wall-to-wall video coverage that completely contradicts these egregious lies.

Life Legal Defense Foundation will be appealing this miscarriage of justice.  They can pursue overturning the jury decision based on the facts in the case, or they can challenge the law itself as a violation of First Amendment free speech rights, or both.  Pray that the appellate court throws out the double standard and seeks justice based on the facts.

Thursday, Jan 15, 2009  --  Respecting the disabled and other life-affirming news

In response to the grim statistic that 90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted, parents and families of children with Down Syndrome are preparing to gather at the March for Life in the U.S. Capitol on January 22nd to spread awareness of the massive number of disabled children targeted for eugenic cleansing in the womb.

Kurt Kondrich, father of Chloe, who has Down Syndrome, wrote an article on the positive impact Chloe has already had, and she is only five years old.  He also established a web site to educate people about the eugenic movement to abort Down Syndrome babies.

Meanwhile, efforts in Italy continue to spare Eluana Englaro, disabled in a 1992 car accident at age 20, from death by dehydration.  An open letter by doctors, asking that Englaro be spared, now has over 700 signatures.  The letter says that physicians have a “professional and scientific duty” to provide hydration and nutrition to a patient who is not capable of feeding himself.

The Misericordine (Mercy) sisters, who have been caring for Eluana in their nursing home, announced that they would refuse to participate in her killing.   An attempt to transfer her to another facility awaits the resolution of new court proceedings that are trying to overturn the death sentence already issued to allow Eluana's father to authorize that she be denied her tube feeding.

While efforts to ban abstinence education from schools continue, positive results from abstinence were recently covered in U.S. News & World Report.   According to government-supported research at the Heritage Foundation (called the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health), abstinent teens are far more likely to attend and graduate from college than those who are sexually active. 

Teens who abstain from sex share eight personality and behavioral traits, including: future orientation,  perseverance, impulse control, resistance to peer influence, respect for parental and social values, and sense of self-worth and personal dignity.  One might conclude that abstinence helps produce life-affirming choices that make a positive difference both short term and long term.

Only in a culture where self-destructive behavior is considered freedom can such results be ignored in favor of travesties like "comprehensive" sex education, morning-after pills, "reproductive choice," and other politically correct mis-guidance of young people.  The battle is truly between a culture of life and a culture of death.

Wednesday, Jan 14, 2009  --  Other states reveal laws pushed by abortion advocates

In the liberal meccas of New York and Maryland, lawmakers appear ready to pass bills that would have serious negative consequences.  New York's legislature is getting ready to consider a bill that is effectively the state equivalent of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress.  In Maryland, an attempt to place serious and totally unjustified restrictions on pregnancy help centers was defeated last year, but is expected to be considered again this year. 

Might enough Pro-Life Democrats be found to stop such radical legislation in those two states?  That can be a difficult commodity to find.  Pray that Pro-Life citizens will be energized to make a difference so such radical bills are defeated.  Similar efforts by Pro-Life citizens in Illinois have been successful in recent years to block almost all radical proposals so far.  Get involved to ensure that record can be maintained this year.  Be alert for any calls or postcards asking you to contact your legislators, and check Action Needed regularly over the next four months to stay informed.

Tuesday, Jan 13, 2009  --  Are pro-lifers defeated or energized after Nov election results?

As the new political realities begin to unfold, assessing the impact on Pro-Life policies and the potential reaction of Pro-Life citizens begins.  Some are suggesting that it is time to compromise.

Frank Schaeffer, son of Pro-Life leader Francis Schaeffer, observed that Pro-life advocates have a choice between “railing against” the election of Obama or “working with an administration that has clearly stated in its position paper that it would like to see the number of abortions reduced.  But it’s not going to be done by overturning Roe v. Wade.”

I see two big problems with Frank Schaeffer's assessment.  First, Obama's actions totally contradict his statement about reducing the number of abortions.   Steps to increase government funding of abortion, remove restrictions on "reproductive rights," and even force health care facilities and personnel to perform abortions will only increase the number of abortions.  Where is the "common ground" for reducing them?

Second, the Pro-Life movement has not solely focused on overturning Roe v. Wade over the last 36 years, but has consistently used the "incremental" approach.  Laws have been passed to provide parental involvement, informed consent, reduce or eliminate government funding, etc.  These are all incremental steps to reduce abortions, and they have been working.  Why do you think abortion advocates are so excited about getting these incremental steps reversed?  And they expect Obama will accommodate them!

Deal Hudson reports, "Five-hundred people were turned away from the 'Pro-Life Summit to End Abortion' held by Dr. Monica M. Miller this past weekend in Ann Arbor, MI.  Most of the 500 who did have tickets made it to Christ the King Church in spite of the ten inches of snow that started falling Saturday morning." 

He continued, "Anyone who had predicted the withdrawal of pro-life Catholics from political engagement after Barack Obama's victory would have been stunned by what they saw and heard at Christ the King."  A strategy of "working with" the Obama administration did not get any support at this conference, that included Fr. Frank Pavone, Prof. Janet Smith, Joe Schiedler, Ed Rivet of Michigan Right to Life, and radio talk-show host Al Kresta among its speakers.

Are you energized to join the vital effort to defend the lives of all citizens from conception to natural death?  Now is not the time to stay on the sidelines.  Prayerful witness against abortions where they occur and ongoing contact with lawmakers to oppose the agenda of abortion advocates need your active support and involvement.  Let your voice be heard.

Monday, Jan 12, 2009  --  Federal bailout for Planned Parenthood?

The title sounds so good.  How could "prevention first" be a negative thing?  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the lead sponsor of S. 21, called the Prevention First Act.  What will be prevented and how much will it cost?

As usual, the claimed intent is to prevent "unwanted pregnancies."  How might the provisions of S. 21 achieve such a result?   First, the bill would prohibit health insurance plans from excluding coverage for birth control drugs and devices. Even people who do not want or need such "coverage" would be forced to pay for it.

Hospitals that receive any federal funds would be forced to dispence the morning-after pill (Plan B), which can sometimes cause an abortion, to women who indicate they have been raped.  This provision would force hospitals opposed to abortion to become involved in practicing at least one form of abortion. 

Will such a requirement really help women who have been raped?  Why does S. 21 promote use of the drug for women who have been victims of sexual assault without providing them with tangible help?  Though the bill requires offering Plan B, it has no reporting requirement in place for young girls who may have been victims of abuse or rape.

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business and the likely recipient of the bulk of the funding, praised the introduction of the bill in a press release.  S. 21's provisions for expansion of Medicaid funding for "family planning services" and to award grants for "teenage pregnancy prevention programs" and "teenage pregnancy prevention research" put dollar signs in the eyes of Planned Parenthood's leaders.

Planned Parenthood certainly has no interest in truly helping young women who have been sexually assaulted, as demonstrated by their consistent failure to comply with mandated reporting and parental involvement laws.  How can Planned Parenthood's ongoing encouragement of casual sex prevent teen pregnancy?  Such grants would amount to giving them more money to "solve" the problem they are creating.  With no accountability for results, their Federal funding just keeps rising.

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has also filed a bill in the new Senate session.  His bill would strike the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.   However, the measure likely will not get a vote because pro-abortion Senate Democrats control the chamber and what legislation will get hearings and votes. Vitter wants to hold Planned Parenthood accountable for ignoring the law and compounding the problem rather than solving it, but he admits his bill probably won't come up for discussion.

Friday, Jan 9, 2009  --  Death is the politically correct solution

The slippery slope is as slick as black ice on the roads this winter.   A Montana judge has ignored typical judicial convention and refused to enjoin her ruling that assisted suicide is a "right" under the Montana Constitution while an appeal moves forward. Thus, assisted suicide is now legal in Montana through judicial fiat.

Meanwhile in Oregon, assisted suicide is being offered as the only cost-effective medical treatment in circumstances determined solely by administrators of the Oregon Health Plan.  In Ohio, where assisted suicide is still illegal, an experimental treatment has led to a push to agree to assisted suicide in case the treatment fails.

Would you be willing to sign a paper saying that if your surgeon fails to get good results, you'll accept assisted suicide?  Last month, a woman in Cincinnati, Ohio, needed a very experimental face transplant.  Her doctor would actually be grafting the face of a dead person on to hers.  However, the hospital was afraid that if the operation did not work, the woman would die a slow death.  A bioethicist suggested that she sign a form agreeing to an assisted suicide - just in case. 

How long will it be before this "just in case" option is routinely offered with more common operations?  Jane St Clair makes the following observation regarding the votes in Oregon and Washington state to allow assisted suicide:

People vote in favor of assisted suicide laws because they think they are giving themselves a new right - a right to a dignified death.  They don't realize they are giving insurance companies and doctors new rights too.  They think in terms of assisted suicide as something they can do at the very end of life to make their deaths more comfortable.  They don't realize that they have created a new form of medical treatment.  And yes, it's already here.

Thursday, Jan 8, 2009  --  Pile on: blame 2006 teen birth rate increase on abstinence ed.

Yesterday, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released its final report on birth rates for 2006.  When the preliminary report was released in December 2007, the headlines read "Teen Birth Rate Rises for First Time in 15 Years."  The final report has produced headlines stating "Teen Birth Rates Up in 26 States" based on a sentence in the report's introduction. 

As fast as the presses started rolling, the claims appeared that this new teen pregnancy crisis was caused by abstinence education.  More than half the nation is being overwhelmed with "soaring" numbers of teenage mothers.  Hold on for a minute!  

To really evaluate this information, abortion rates also need to be considered, but abortion statistics are not yet available for 2006.  The latest available abortion statistics cover 2004, so it will be some time before legitimate data is available to make a true comparison of teen pregnancies.

Note that the birth rates per 1000 for 15-19 year olds of all races continued downward from 2000 to 2005, and the increase for 2006 remains well below the 2000 rates.  The 2006 increase also coincides with a general increase in birth rates for all age levels from 15-44. 

Since the Hispanic birth rate is much higher than other races (83 per 1000 for Hispanic 15-19 year olds compared to an overall average of 42), one likely factor involved in the increase could be the increasing percentage of Hispanics in the population.

Was there significantly more abstinence education in 2006 than in 2005?   With President Bush supporting abstinence education beginning in 2001, why not give abstinence education credit for the declining teen birth rates from 2000 through 2005?   In fact, even in 2006, birth rates continued to fall for 15-17 year olds.  

These CDC 2006 birth rate statistics provide no logical basis to criticize abstinence education.  Such criticism just represents more jumping to a politically correct conclusion.  What effect has been contributed by glowing media reports on teen births among celebrities?  What other cultural factors might be involved?

Wednesday, Jan 7, 2009  --  Claimed "science" is just more liberal ideology

The attack on abstinence education continues unabated.  Attempting to prove the preconceived conclusion that abstinence education fails, a research study (if you can call it that) published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health claims that abstinence pledges made by teens are ineffective.

Note that the ages chosen for the study were 17-year-olds with follow-up at age 22.  Most abstinence programs focus on younger teens so factors such as age of introduction and sufficient reinforcement of the abstinence message are ignored by this study.  No attempt was made to determine if the abstinence pledges delayed sexual activity, but this study simply concluded that if sexual activity had occurred by age 22, then the abstinence pledge had failed.  The conclusions of this study amount to a serious over-simplification of a complex situation.

Since other studies have shown positive outcomes from abstinence programs, the conclusions to be reached from this one limited study are questionable at best.  In fact, the details buried in this study appear to support conclusions almost completely opposite of those reached by the study's authors.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, commented on conclusions that should be considered from the Johns Hopkins study.  “It was really quite extraordinary that you find in this survey that kids who took this very brief exposure to virginity pledges have dramatically better life outcomes compared to kids from the same socio-economic background,” Rector stated.   He said it included “dramatically lower rates of teen births, abortion rates down, teen sex down, out of wedlock births down, number of sexual partners down a third to a half compared to kids from a similar socio-economic backgrounds.”

In other words, the conclusions reached by the John Hopkins study ignore the overwhelming facts on the benefits of abstinence education by focusing on one questionable conclusion that supports the anti-abstinence education agenda.  Liberal ideology is presented as science once again.