Illinois Right to Life Committee
PRO-LIFE BLOG
Friday, July 31, 2009 -- Another case of voting for it before voting against it The last House of Representatives committee debating provisions for the health care reform bill was the Energy and Commerce Committee. Between Pro-Life and Blue Dog Democrats, there was hope that finally an exclusion of abortion could be added to the bill (H.R. 3200). One such Pro-Life provision was offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to abolish the abortion mandate. Their amendment said that the health care bill may not require coverage of abortion; however, it did permit exceptions for the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. This amendment initially passed with backing from both conservative Democrats and Republicans. But only hours after the amendment's approval, Committee Chairman Henry Waxman invoked House rules that allowed him to bring the amendment up for a second vote. This time, with a vote change to "no" by Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee and an additional "no" vote from Conservative Democrat Rep. Zack Space of Ohio (who did not vote the first time), the amendment failed on a vote of 29-30.
Thursday, July 30, 2009 -- Hospice in Albuquerque described as another Auschwitz Today I received a call from a hospice volunteer for a hospice organization located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was trying to learn more about hospice after encountering a situation she found extremely disturbing. She felt she was witnessing something similar to the Auschwitz concentration camp. This hospice provides services both in the home setting, which is very common, but also has an in-patient hospice unit. As a hospice volunteer visiting patients in their homes, she felt comfortable in her role. Then she was asked to help at the in-patient hospice unit. With one exception, she found that all the patients there were comatose and not being fed. One patient died during the short time she was working there. Apparently, this hospice is practicing terminal sedation on an assembly line basis. Terminal sedation is defined as the deliberate "termination of awareness" for "relief of intractable pain when specific pain relieving protocols or interventions are ineffective" and/or "relief of intractable emotional or spiritual anguish (existential suffering, psychological distress, emotional exhaustion)." An essential component of terminal sedation is also the withdrawal of all treatment, including even food and water, so that death occurs as soon as possible. How could so many people have intractable pain or anguish? What about the hospice role to provide palliative care and counseling to overcome such concerns? Tragically, such interventions are actively promulgated by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO). The only non-comatose patient seen by this overwhelmed volunteer at the Albuquerque in-patient hospice unit was there for respite care to relieve family caregivers. The family of the patient she was visiting at home was considereing using respite care in the near future. She was thinking she needed to inform them of the potential risk that they might find the patient dead on their return. Since she was definitely resigning as a volunteer for that hospice, she wanted that family to know what was happening. She wanted to continue being a hospice volunteer at another hospice. I suggested that she use the IRLC Hospice Checklist to see if she could locate another hospice in Albuquerque that actually follows the original mission of hospice. Hopefully, she will find one. I also encouraged her to seek advice from Hospice Patients Alliance on possible steps she might take to request that government authorities investigate this hospice for abuses.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 -- New study confirms the dangers of Gardasil Why did this report not make the news? Researchers from the Federal Vaccine Events Reporting System recently issued a report concluding that the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil has a 400% higher rate of adverse effects than another comparable vaccine, the Menactra anti-meningitis shot. The researchers considered Gardasil and Menactra equivalent for the purposes of comparison because they are given to similar age groups at similar frequencies. The researchers wrote, “It is unusual for there to be such a big discrepancy between two vaccines used in similar populations involving serious and relatively rare life threatening adverse events and autoimmune disorders.” The study concluded that Gardasil was associated with twice as many emergency room visits, four times as many deaths, four times as many heart attacks, seven times as many “disabled” reports and 15 times as many strokes. Even fainting occurred six times more often, countering the claim that ‘fear’ of needles caused it, since both shots are given to girls in the same age group. The report recommends that the government more thoroughly investigate reports of dangerous side effects from the HPV vaccine, that research be conducted into mechanisms by which the vaccine might cause these effects, and that patients and parents be more adequately warned of the risks before vaccination. It also recommends that Congress investigate how the vaccine was fast-tracked for approval in the absence of safety data on girls younger than 17. These recommendations confirm the concerns that Pro-Lifers raised from the beginning. These findings confirm that Gardasil is too dangerous to use, especially given the questionable protection that it offers against HPV. Just say NO if any doctor pushes this vaccine on your daughter.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 -- Deception continues about expansion of abortion funding The pro-abortion agenda in Washington is pervasive from the President and his appointees to the leaders of Congress. But everyone wants to carry out this agenda secretly. Apparently, they know very well that the public is opposed to paying for abortions. Now Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois has gotten into the act. He removed a Pro-Life amendment to prevent funding of abortions under the government employee health plan. Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, reports Durbin "at the same time has been on TV assuring the public that the Hyde Amendment will prevent the Obama-backed health care bills from funding abortions -- which is untrue." Johnson confirmed that the longstanding ban on abortion funding in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) has been deleted. He reported Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, is responsible for removing the language preventing taxpayer funding of abortions for federal workers. "In the subcommittee that he chairs, [the Senate] approved a bill that would repeal the ban on funding of elective abortions for federal employees," Johnson said. It seems that Senator Durbin thought he could slip this change through while the focus was on the health care bill. He even got more cover when Jonathan Allen, a columnist for Congressional Quarterly, blasted Pro-Life advocates saying the concern "doesn't exist." Douglas Johnson researched the bill and confirmed that Allen was wrong.
Monday, July 27, 2009 -- Ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells raises concerns A July 24th article in the Chicago Tribune described it as a breakthrough. Chinese researchers were able to produce mice from adult mice stem cells that were reverted to embryonic stem cells. Wait a minute! How can stem cells grow into new mice? If a similar step was successful with human adult stem cells, this process becomes just another form of cloning! This situation creates as many or more ethical problems than destroying embryos to obtain their stem cells! The researchers did take an additional step after they had introduced four genes into fibroblast cells of mice, hoping to "reprogram" the cells so that they could differentiate into any type of cell in the body (following the new procedure to create iPS cells that have been deemed the ethical alternative to embryonic stem cells). The new extra step occurred when these iPS cells were transplanted into a 'tetraploid' embryo - one that would produce a placenta, but has no embryonic inner cell mass. In that environment the reprogrammed cells became whole mouse embryos that were later transplanted into surrogate mothers. Of course, embryos must have been killed to obtain 'tetraploid' embryos. Science without ethics is dangerous and leads to serious threats against maintaining respect for human life.
Friday, July 24, 2009 -- Trying to have it both ways: not to be trusted Does government run health care being formulated in Congress cover abortion or not? Oops! I would already be in trouble if I was in Congress because the House leadership insists it must be called "public option health care" or they will not pay the postage for letters to constituents. I wonder if they censor email as well. But let's get back to the question at hand -- will it cover abortion or not? President Obama told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that he would "rather not wade into" the issue of abortion funding in health care "at this point," citing a "tradition in this town ... of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Does it make any difference that Obama has always been strongly opposed to that tradition? In contrast to Obama suggesting he would not push for abortion funding in government run health care, just last week Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, spoke to more than 400 pro-abortion activists at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Organizing and Policy Summit, telling them pretty much the opposite. If you abide by the axiom that actions speak louder than words, who do you think reflects the true position of the administration. Besides, how many versions of the story are there. Not long ago Obama said he would let independent experts decide if abortion would be covered.
Thursday, July 23, 2009 -- Is Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines Linked to Autism? Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development are found on the X chromosome provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the "hot spots" identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA? These questions must be answered, and quickly. Recent literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder may now impact one out of every 100 children. The pharmaceutical industry is also currently moving to replace more animal-produced vaccines with aborted-fetal-cell production and also to produce biologic drugs using aborted fetal cells. Get more details on this theory in the article "Is Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines Linked to Autism?" at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072106.html. There could be more than a moral concern about using vaccines derived from aborted fetal tissue. These vaccines could simply be very dangerous. These vaccines should be avoided to reduce such risks, especially for boys. Two sources for learning which vaccines have been derived from aborted fetal tissue are: http://www.vaccineawareness.org/information/FactSheet.htm#vacingredient with this summary:Vaccines Grown in Aborted Fetal Cell Cultures and Children of God for Life (http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm).
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 -- Encourage the Blue Dog Democrats Protecting life and maintaining real choice in health care may depend heavily on the Blue Dog Democrats. They are slowing down the ongoing push for anti-life and anti-choice health care coming from Congressional leadership and the President. I sent the Blue Dogs an email at BlueDog@mail.house.gov and recommend that you do the same. Below is my message: I thank you for monitoring the economic and cost issues in the
proposed health care bill. Please continue to insist that any bill not put a burden on
future generations through repressive taxes to pay for health care.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 -- Has anyone actually read the health care bills? You may recall how Congress was not even given a slight chance to read the so-called stimulus bill. Apparently, the same approach is being used with the health care bills. Gary Bauer's daily report stated: Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and health care expert, has made it her mission to do what most members of Congress won’t – read the bill. Writing in Friday’s New York Post, McCaughey offers this disturbing information: “One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.” Why might this be in the ObamaCare bill? One of the reasons health care costs a lot is because we are living longer lives, and we have more health issues as we age. So, as columnist Charles Krauthammer recently put it, death is cheaper. It’s the same “logic” with abortion, a procedure that costs far less than delivering and raising a baby. Sadly, to Big Government’s bottom line each human life is a liability, not an asset with intrinsic worth and value.
Monday, July 20, 2009 -- One-size-fits-all health care coming to a location near you? The health care plan under development in Congress is poised to give abortionists and their supporters everything they could ask for. If it gets enacted, everyone could get "free" birth control and abortion, but you will just have to get on the waiting list if you need your broken leg fixed. A Federal administrator will need to see if you will get "healthier" so watch out if you are viewed as disabled or elderly because you may not be deserving of health care expenditures. Representatives from "third world" nations have often complained that they have an excess of birth control products, but are not able to obtain sufficient antibiotics and other critical health care supplies. Now it seems that the national health care plan may do about the same thing for us right here in the USA. Let's face it, when Planned Parenthood insists that they be considered as a vital part of the health care reform process, you know there will be an abundance of birth control products and abortions. When is the last time you seriously considered running to Planned Parenthood for cancer screening, heart problems, or joint pain? The health care reform bills in Congress right now will create a massive take-over of
health care that will require abortion on demand, unregulated and taxpayer funded.
Health care will be rationed so the disabled and elderly - anyone who bureaucrats decide
won't get "healthier" - will get cut off. Massive increases in costs (and
taxes) will be the result, but with less access to services. Abortion would be
fully included as follows:
Friday, July 17, 2009 -- Response to negative reactions about showing abortion pictures A Daily Herald article reported on the controversy created by a Truth Tour stop in Arlington Heights. Most of the online comments on this article oppose showing the pictures, and many support abortion, including inaccurate claims that abortion reduces crime by eliminating future criminals. I submitted the following response: These responses demonstrate that pictures of aborted babies (not
miscarriages) have an effect since people then consider the issue of abortion.
Thursday, July 16, 2009 -- Guttmacher study confirms "need" for gov't-funded abortion Is the glass have empty or half full? A recent Guttmacher Institute study shows that government funding increases the number of abortions (and should be banned -- Pro-Life perspective) or demonstrates the "need" for government funding so poor women can get abortions they need. Just ask Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg. The Guttmacher Institute concluded from a survey of 38 studies that women unable to pay for abortions on their own were frequently "forced to carry their pregnancy to term." Stanley Hershaw, a Guttmacher Institute senior fellow and the study's lead author, commented that "Antiabortion advocates are using these restrictions in a misguided attempt to reduce the nation's abortion rate." Did anyone bother to ask the poor mothers who could not afford abortions what they thought after their babies were born? How many of them would have said they were really upset they failed to get an abortion? Oh, but now we come back to Justice Ginsburg's reasoning about controlling the population of groups "that we don't want to have too many of."
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 -- British government promotes irresponsible sex for teens Do you want to see where our Federal government's new push for "comprehensive" sex education, wider distribution of birth control, and government funded abortion will lead? Look to Britain now to see the future envisioned for our nation by the likes of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. The first hint of this exciting news for teens coming from Britain appeared in a very small Chicago Sun-Times article on July 15th entitled "U.K. message: Teen sex can be fun." Britain's National Health Service (NHS) has approved a new booklet, entitled "Pleasure," intended for distribution in public schools. How do they justify such outrageous material? On the one hand, they say teens can reduce their risk of heart attack with more sex, but they also express concern that some experts focus too much on "safe sex" and fail to emphasize sexual enjoyment. There you have it! Forget abstinence and marital fidelity. Sex is for pleasure and exercise. As one promoter of this approach noted, "As long as teens are fully informed about sex and are making their decisions freely as part of a 'caring relationship,' they have as much right as an adult to sex." I think you can find a very similar quote in Planned Parenthood material. This situation gets confusing for an outsider, given that just last week I reported on the British Department of Health assessment of a pilot program offering more "comprehensive" sex education and wider availability of birth control, stating it "did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further." Is NHS the same agency saying the exact opposite? Not exactly -- NHS consists of the publicly funded healthcare systems, apparently explaining why they want to connect sexual activity with a reduced risk of heart attack. Maybe NHS does not keep tabs on the results of Department of Health programs, or maybe it is simply a timing problem between agency projects. However, NHS has apparently not received the bad news that encouraging teens to have sex "safely" does not reduce teen pregnancies. Well, maybe they do not care because they think they can save more money on heart health care, even if they need to provide more abortions for teens.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 -- Finally, parental notice becomes reality in Illinois! Congratulations to the Thomas More Society and many other Pro-Life advocates in Illinois for preserverance in working to activate the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. Judge David Coar should be embarrassed by how his ruling to maintain the injunction against enforcement of this law was completely dismantled by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Here are some key observations from this Appeals Court ruling that will allow parental notice of abortion to function for the first time in Illinois. "The district court's ruling appears to rely on plaintiff's arguments" ... that "may be an excess of ingenuity." The ruling proceeds to discredit each premise of the plaintiff's argument within five detailed points and a summary conclusion that include: "The district court's interpretation of the statute ignores its purpose..." "neither will we construe a statute in a way that leads to absurd results." "The order of the district court is REVERSED and the permanent injunction barring enforcement of the act is dissolved." The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 appears likely to become effective by August 4, 2009. After a 14 year wait, that will not be a moment too soon to stop allowing Illinois to be the dumping ground for teenagers from surrounding states to get abortions without parental involvement.
Monday, July 13, 2009 -- Does the health care bill have FOCA buried inside? What are we to discern about the content of the health care bills being crafted in Congress? National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Congressman Chris Smith are warning the new government-sponsored health plan will provide for a vast expansion of abortion. NRLC Federal Legislation Director Douglas Johnson noted, "Once abortion is defined - as it would be - an 'essential benefit,' then other things flow from that. The law requires that every health network show that it has adequate access to these mandated services. ... So you would have federal bureaucracy refusing to certify health plans unless they show they have local access to abortion. There would have to be the establishment of many more abortion providers across the country to meet this mandate." Family Research Council reported that amendments to eliminate this abortion mandate have been rejected in committee. Several amendments were offered to protect conscience rights and to prevent funding or mandating of abortion. Sen. Orrin Hatch's (R-Utah) amendment to prevent funding of abortion failed. Sen. Michael Enzi's (R-Wy.) amendment to prevent the healthcare bill from mandating abortion coverage was defeated. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) also offered several amendments to the Kennedy legislation. His amendment to codify the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection law was defeated. His amendment to prevent the healthcare bill from preempting state laws on abortion was defeated. The agenda driving health care "reform" through Congress is rejecting any attempt to limit coverage of abortion. Since there is nothing in this legislation to prevent mandating abortion as a covered service, it would be mandated. Call both your Representative and Senators to let them know you object to abortion coverage in any health care reform.
Thursday, July 9, 2009 -- British provide crystal ball on results of "safe sex" programs While the Obama administration pushes relentless onward for more "comprehensive" sex education and wider availability of birth control and abortion, all funded by your tax dollars, we learn about the results of such a program in Britain. The Young People's Development Programme (YPDP) cost £2,500 ($4,085 US) per person and involved giving teenagers sex education and advice about contraception. At the end of the project a total of 16% of those involved became pregnant compared with just 6% in a comparison group. A British Department of Health spokesman said, "This pilot was based on a successful American program. It did not appear to reduce teenage pregnancy so we will not be taking it any further." And where might they have found a "successful" American program? Someone must have had a different definition of "successful" because the British program was based on a similar model in New York, but New York is a state with one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Planned Parenthood is gearing up for the increased business, and more government money to pay for it, as our Federal government continues down the path of eliminating funding for abstinence education while expanding "comprehensive" sex education and availability of birth control for teens. Will anyone monitor the results and be held accountable for the coming disaster?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 -- Indication that the Hyde Amendment is threatened? The Obama budget calls for government funding of abortion. Unfortunately, the first segment of that agenda appears to have succeeded. The appropriations bill for Washington, D.C. for 13 years has contained a ban on federal funding of abortions there, called the Dornan Amendment. Yesterday, this long standing amendment failed to pass the full House Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 26-33. Five Pro-Life Democrats joined 21 Republicans in favor of the Dornan Amendment, but fell well short. Three Democrats who had recently supported the amendment voted against it this time, but even their votes would not have been enough to get it passed. Appropriations bills often contain such amendments, with the Hyde Amendment being the most well known. The Hyde amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. Does this vote on the Dornan Amendment reflect a serious threat to the Hyde Amendment, that has been passed every year since 1976? Time will tell.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009 -- More concerns about hospice care I received an email and then a phone call from a women who lost her husband after a hospice nurse intervened in his care, even though he had been transfered to a hospital because he was experiencing difficulty breathing. This hospice nurse authorized use of morphine when the patient was not in pain. This sad ending was only the last chapter in a disconcerting experience with hospice care over a three month period. No concerns appeared until after first 3 months of hospice care. From then onward, the hospice nurse kept pushing morphine even though the patient was not in pain. At the same time, the hospice nurse had little or no interaction with the patient during her one hour visits twice a week, often just watching television. However, the nurse did talk with the patient's wife in front of him, making statements that "he is dying" and "surprised he made it through the weekend" and "have you made funeral arrangements?" Even with the issues that she was experiencing with hospice, this woman had no idea about some of the details until after she obtained the hospice records for her husband's case after his unexpected death following the uncalled-for use of morphine. The wife discovered inaccurate record keeping by the hospice nurse that might have had the potential for building a case against her for "abusing" her husband. The record included notes that the husband placed calls to the hospice agency when no such calls were placed and misrepresented the wife's attitude about getting a contractor to complete a home improvement project, falsely suggesting that she was critical of her husband for failing to complete it himself. Did this situation reflect simply a lack of competency on the part of this
hospice nurse or was there more to it? The experience of this wife certainly
contrasts unfavorably with the original mission of hospice to help patients get the most
out of life as the end nears and never to hasten death.
Monday, July 6, 2009 -- Actions still speak louder than words In an interview with Catholic media on July 2nd President Obama made some comments attempting to claim what might be described as a moderate position on abortion. He claimed support for conscience protection for doctors and mentioned more than once his attraction to Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's consistent life ethic theory of social justice. This consistent ethic advocates a holistic approach to the sanctity of human life by opposing abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and economic injustice. As usual, no question was raised about how Obama could support this ethic so selectively. He certainly rejects the consistent ethic's positions on both abortion and euthanasia. The President may have picked up some pointers while at Notre Dame to give the commencement speech. Too bad the nice sounding rhetoric does not reflect the actions of his virtually unanimous abortion advocate appointees who are working to advance their "pro-choice" agenda with Obama's clear support. Obama also continued his rhetoric that ultimately distinguishes between reducing the number of abortions and reducing the "need" for abortions when he stated, "I would be surprised if those who believe abortion should be legal would object to language that says we should try to reduce the circumstances in which women feel compelled to obtain an abortion." How could anyone expect to reduce the number of abortions when Obama's administration is working on all fronts to increase government funding of and international availability of abortion? His budget proposal called for Congress to provide government funding for abortions in both Washington, D.C. and around the nation, and they are working hard to comply with his request. Obama used executive orders to restore U.S. funding to international organizations that provide and/or advocate abortion, including the United Nations Population Fund which has been implicated for supporting forced abortions in China. In April Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that the Obama administration would work to dismantle Pro-Life laws around the world as part of its policy of promoting "reproductive health." Last week, the Obama Administration called for universal access to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 -- Abortions decline in Wisconsin and Minnesota Abortion statistics for 2008 have just been released for Wisconsin and Minnesota. In both states abortions are still declining, reaching levels not seen since the mid-1970's. If the Obama administration achieves any of its stated objectives for abortion policy, 2009 and 2010 could see a reversal of these positive trends. In Wisconsin, the efforts of pregnancy care centers combined with parental consent and informed consent laws, Pro-Life television commercials, and a younger generation that tends to be more Pro-Life, overcame an increase in abortion facilities to maintain the downward abortion trend, even after a 14% drop the previous year. In Minnesota, abortions dropped 6.5% with some of the same factors in play, but also a Positive Alternatives grant program administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. Grants are given to life-affirming organizations offering essential services in the following areas: medical attention for mother and her unborn child, nutritional services, housing assistance, adoption services, education and employment assistance, child care assistance, and parenting education and support services. The results in these states provide clear evidence that offering alternatives to abortion make a big difference in the results. States that offer government funded abortions and "comprehensive" sex education have not experienced these trends. National policy that promotes access to abortion would have serious consequences around the nation.
|