Wednesday, June 30, 2010  --  "Unwanted medical treatment" or euthanasia

Recent news has clearly demonstrated the shift in thinking toward rapid denial of life-sustaining treatment, even food and water, reflecting the relationship between living wills (or power of attorney for health care with similar wording) and the push toward euthanasia. 

The concept of denying food and water as an unwanted medical treatment has been proclaimed in the text of most living wills and many power of attorney for health care documents.  Such text might read, “I do not want my life to be prolonged nor do I want life-sustaining treatment to be provided or continued if my agent believes the burdens of the treatment outweigh the expected benefits.”  This thinking is very dangerous to your life if you need treatment to overcome a serious injury or disease.  Consider some recent cases in the news.

90-year-old Don Holley recently died at St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco after he suffered a stroke.  When a physician explained to his neighbor, who had power-of-attorney privileges, that Don’s condition was not good, the neighbor agreed.  Soon after the doctors had Don on a morphine drip, removed nutrition and hydration, assured the neighbor that Don would be dead in two days and, of course, he died.

In Utah, Gary Coleman’s living will and durable power of attorney stated that he be kept on life support for 15 days prior to making a final decision about continuing his treatment.  After he sustained a head injury, even that provision did not prevent Coleman’s former wife, who had power to make the decision, from having treatment disconnected within a day of his hospitalization, leading to his quick death. 

A spokesman for the Utah Medical Association said, “A family member's wishes have more weight than what's written in a living will.”  This cavalier attitude led Matthew Hoffman of LifeSiteNews to comment, “A person on life support, even for a few hours, is vulnerable to being dismissed as a ‘vegetable’ and his life terminated on the most flimsy criteria.”

A German case involves a woman who had been comatose since a cerebral hemorrhage in 2002. This woman’s daughter claimed her mother had previously expressed a desire not to have her life artificially prolonged and asked nursing home staff to discontinue her mother’s “artificial diet” through a feeding tube.  When the nursing home refused, the daughter cut the feeding tube and was charged with attempted manslaughter. 

A ruling in this case by the German Federal Court of Justice in late June has legalized direct euthanasia, ruling that it was not unlawful since the comatose woman had previously given consent.  “The expressed wishes of the patient ... justified not only the end of treatment via the withholding of further nourishment but also the active step of ending or preventing the treatment she no longer wanted,” the court said.  Did anyone ask to see this "consent" in writing?

The only protection against this push toward euthanasia is to find a friend or relative to appoint as your agent who truly has your best interests at heart, and who is aware of these trends and ready to oppose them.  You can better empower your agent by using a life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care, such as the IRLC Patient Self-Protection Document. 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010  --  Pro-Life witness on the street, right here in Chicago

Corrina Gura from the Pro-Life Action League has some very good news about recent successful witness for life at Chicago abortion facilities.  Last Friday she was blessed to be able to help a mother who was being pressured into an unwanted late-term abortion.  With guidance from these on-site witnesses for life at the FPA Albany facility at Elston & Cicero, this mother was able to get the medical assistance she needed to reverse the abortion process that had been started with insertion of laminaria (seaweed sticks) into her cervix to dilate it for the abortion.

This mother had a change of heart when, from the moment they shoved the first stick into her, she knew she was doing the wrong thing.  However, the abortion provider had told her the process was irreversible.  That claim was completely inaccurate.  With the aid of a pregnancy care center and a referral to the emergency room of a local Catholic Hospital, her pregnancy was restored to normal.

Passage last year of the Chicago bubble zone ordinance raised many concerns about interference that would prevent such help for women from being effective.   In practice, the bubble zone has had very limited effect, with the exception of Planned Parenthood at 1200 N. LaSalle.  Confusion about the provisions of the bubble zone ordinance by police at that location seem to be the origin of most of the difficulties that have occurred. 

It is becoming clear that the police are being mislead by Planned Parenthood staff.  As Corrina observed, "They give the officers their version of what they wish the law said; then they ask the police to enforce their imaginary law." 

That strategy appears to be backfiring as the police tire of getting calls about pointless complaints and misled about provisions of the ordinance they are being asked to enforce.  Determined Pro-Lifers are maintaining prayer vigils and still witnessing to women, giving help to those who want to have a real choice.

Monday, June 28, 2010  --  Planned Parenthood's definition of basic human needs

In discussing end of life issues, one topic covered is establishing what are basic human needs that cannot ethically be denied to a person.  These consist of: food, water, air, warmth, and movement.  None of them can be considered a medical treatment because they are basic human care without which anyone would soon die.

Would you like to know Planned Parenthood's definition of basic human needs?  They have proclaimed them as "food, sleep, and sex" in an advertisement found twice (both north and south) on June 24th at the CTA's Loyola University Red Line station.  The ad states:     

Food     Sleep     Sex
It's simple.  These are the basic human needs.  Sexual health is just as important as food or sleep.  At Planned Parenthood, we ensure convenient, quality, affordable reproductive health care.  (followed by PP phone number and address)

As Jim Rogers, who saw the ad states, "It's obvious why these two ads are displayed at this particular location.  PP is making a big pitch for the Loyola University student body."  Such crass marketing certainly reflects the real agenda of Planned Parenthood: make as much money as possible by promoting casual sex, with abortion as the ultimate high profit goal.

Friday, June 25, 2010  --  How often does contraception act as an abortifacient?

We are now being told that the drug called Ella (or ellaOne) is just a longer-acting "morning-after pill" than Plan B, with the usual assurances that both drugs are contraceptives.  Of course, that assurance is helped immensely by the unscientific redefinition of the beginning of pregnancy as implantation of the embryo.  Even so, Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, interfering with the lining of the uterus so an embryo, if already implanted, will not survive, so it is clearly abortifacient. 

For those who accept the biological and scientific recognition that pregnancy begins at conception, both Ella and Plan B can act as abortifacients when they prevent the young embryo from implanting in the uterus.  However, a 5/17/10 article by William May entitiled "Does contraception prevent abortion?" challenges this abortifacient effect.

I am not familiar with the background of William May, but it appears that he has been easily swayed to change his own position about the abortifacient effect of contraceptives without sufficient evidence.  I have not reviewed the first reference he cites [National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 2007), “Is Plan B Abortificient: A Critical Look at Scientific Evidence”].

However, if that article supports a conclusion that the Plan B morning-after pill has no abortifacient effect, such a conclusion is certainly not supported by William May's second reference, "Hormone Contraceptives and Clarifications."  In this article, Plan B is fully accepted as being abortifacient.  It is also highly ironic that even the manufacturer of Plan B, on their web site, admits that it can act to prevent implantation of the embryo.

"Hormone Contraceptives and Clarifications" recognizes that other standard contraceptives are controversial with regard to the issue of whether they have a potential abortifacient effect.  The article mentions how newer contraceptives are more likely to have such an effect compared to the original formulations.  Because the article does recognize that the debate continues, it makes the statement quoted by William May: "At the current time we feel that each individual physician should evaluate the available information, and then follow the leading of his/her conscience in this matter."

Such a statement certainly does not support the conclusion, implied by William May, that contraceptives have no abortifacient effect when he posits that the article "seriously questions whether this claim is true and shows that there are good reasons to think that it is not."  Of course, this wording itself is still very conditional with phrases like "seriously questions" and "good reasons to think" which are certainly not sufficient as definitive support for a statement that "contraceptives have no abortifacient effect."

Another irony is that William May's major point is to counter the claim that contraceptives prevent abortions, which he does reasonably well.  Thus, even if it was true that contraceptives have no abortifacient effect, William May is still coming out against them as a solution that has any merit, and that is without even dealing with the negative health consequences they have for women.

Thursday, June 24, 2010  --  Stem cell success versus funding stem cell futility

Why are many of the reports of success with adult stem cells coming from other nations?  Are such efforts getting adequate funding in the USA, or has the focus been switched to the highly questionable area of embryonic stem cell research?

Italian scientists report that they have restored sight to patients blinded by chemical burns <>using the patient’s own stem cells.   The team treated 112 patients blinded in one or both eyes, some of whom had been blind for years.  Adult stem cells were taken from the edge of a patient’s eye and cultured on fibrous tissue, then the cell layers transplanted onto the damaged eyes.  

The adult stem cells produced healthy corneas and functioning eyes.  Some patients regained sight within two months, while for others with deeper injuries the process took a year before vision was restored.  Patients were followed up to ten years after the transplant.  After a single transplant, 69% of patients regained vision.  Including cases where a second transplant occurred, total success was achieved for 77% of the patients, with partial vision restored for 13% of the patients.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is making American taxpayers fund research using more lines of embryonic stem cells, even though they have never helped any human patients since they cause tumors in animal research.  On June 21st, NIH Director Francis Collins approved eight more embryonic stem cell lines for Federal funding.

With this latest approval, the total number of human embryonic stem cells lines approved for Federal taxpayer funding has reached 75 stem cell lines since President Barack Obama overturned President George W. Bush's executive order prohibiting taxpayer funding of new embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human life.

Currently, adult stem cell research has helped patients dealing with more than 100 different diseases and conditions.  Dr. David Prentice, former Indiana State University biology professor who is now an advisor at the Family Research Council, observed, "Of course, the total number of patients helped by embryonic stem cells is still zero, while adult stem cells are being used to treat over 50,000 patients a year." 

Wednesday, June 23, 2010  --  Abortions to end at another 40 Days for Life location

Five abortion facilities have closed where 40 Days for Life vigils have been held.  News has just been received that abortions will no longer be performed at another facility where previous 40 Days for Life vigils have been conducted.  June 26th will be the last day for abortions at the "National Women’s Health" abortion center in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The Raleigh News & Observer newspaper reports, "One of four Triangle abortion clinics will no longer do procedures after Saturday, but it’s unclear whether it will close or simply stop offering abortions."  Pray that this facility completely closes and that many more abortion facilities, including those in Illinois, will soon be closing as well.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010  --  New abortion risk revealed, plus two others again confirmed

Have you received information about any recent studies dealing with abortion risks?  Not likely!  Covering such information would not be politically correct so it is not considered newsworthy.  Might there be a connection between abortion and auto-immune diseases in women?

According to a new report by Dr. Ralph P. Miech of Brown University, "The consistently rising incidence of auto-immune diseases in women over the past four decades may be attributed to the increase in the utilization of abortion."  Fetal microchimerism - the transfer of fetal cells into the bloodstream of the mother, where they may be grafted onto bone marrow or other tissues - is the key link between abortion and autoimmune disease, says Miech. 

The researcher pointed out that as the placenta is destroyed during a surgical abortion, there is an increased fetal-to-maternal transfer of fetal cells.   These fetal cells may persist in the mother’s body for decades.   "Activation of hibernating fetal microchimeric cells," Dr. Miech writes, has "been postulated to result in the initiation of an autoimmune disease."

Shortly after that report, two new studies were released on the same day.   A study from McGill University in Montreal has found a strong link between a past abortion and premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.  A study from researchers in Sri Lanka finds women who had abortions more than triple their breast cancer risk compared with women who carry their pregnancy to term.

Both of these studies confirm many previous studies that support those same conclusions.  Even so, abortion advocates suggest that presenting such information to women amounts to "scare tactics" and discount such conclusions as "unscientific."  It seems that any result that puts a negative light on abortion is always "unscientific" as far as they are concerned.

Monday, June 21, 2010  --  Psychological impact on children conceived from donor sperm

Illinois recently enacted a controversial law allowing adopted children easier access to their original birth certificates so they could learn more about their background.  Given the emphasis placed on how important it was for adoptees to learn more about their identity, what might be expected for children who were conceived using donor sperm?

A study recently released by the Commission on Parenthood's Future reveals some disturbing evidence about the negative psychological impact that children face when conceived from donor sperm.  The study compared results for three groups of children: those conceived with donor sperm, adopted children, and those with both biological parents.

In most categories, children conceived from donor sperm had twice as many concerns as adopted children.  Children with both biological parents had less concerns than either of those groups.  For example, 25% of donor-conceived children strongly agreed that no one really understood them, compared to about 12% of adopted children and roughly 8% of those raised by their biological parents.  About 50% of donor-conceived children agreed that when they saw friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it made them feel sad.  Only 20% of adopted children said that.

Concepion from donor sperm was problematic in a number of contexts.   Over 50% of the donor offspring agreed that it hurt to hear other people talk about their genealogical background.  Almost 50% said they were bothered that money was exchanged in order to conceive them, while 10% thought of themselves as a "freak of nature" because of the artificial circumstances of their conception and 13% said they felt like a "lab experiment."

Some of these concerns would seem to apply with children conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), even with their biological parents.  Apparently, bypassing the natural means of conception presents serious concerns to many of the children so conceived.  These concerns seem to coincide with other issues regarding IVF, including moral issues raised by the Catholic Church.

Friday, June 18, 2010  --  Absolutely no concern for women's health

Operation Rescue has noted, "We have yet to find an abortionist or an abortion mill that totally complies with the law."  So far, their actions have led to the closing of at least 30 abortion facilities based on violations of a whole laundry list of laws.  Operation Rescue's findings are strong evidence that making abortion legal does nothing to make it safe.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has taken this insult to women's health to a new level.  Dr. K. J. Fabisiak was scheduled to appear before their disciplinary committee because of allegations against him from 25 patients.  He was accused of having “failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and is incompetent in his care and treatment of Patient ‘A’, Patient ‘B’ and 23 patients.”

This hearing was cancelled after Fabisiak agreed to restrict his practice, and the allegations were withdrawn.  Under these restrictions he will practice only at the prescribed family planning clinics in Ottawa or Toronto or at a setting approved by the College.  In other words, he has been forbidden from practicing everywhere except in abortion facilities.

Might one conclude that the so-called right to abortion comes with some serious risks to the life and health of women?  In the USA abortion facilities are not subject to most of the regulations that apply to medical facilities.  This under-regulation reflects the same casual attitude about women's health reflected by this Canadian decision.

Another example of this preference for abortion access without regard to women's health are yesterday's votes by the FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. This panel approved the early abortion drug Ella.  I mentioned some of the health concerns earlier this week.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, noted, "The drug sponsor couldn't provide information on whether Ella can cause birth defects, or what happens to women who are pregnant who take it. And yet the committee strongly recommended not giving a woman a pregnancy test.  In Europe, Ella is contra-indicated (not to be used) in pregnancies.  But the FDA committee voted not to test women to detect if they're pregnant.  They are telling doctors to be willfully blind when giving the drug."

Can we conclude that the FDA panel members think it is perfectly fine for women to abort babies without even knowing that possibility exists?  Well, this lack of concern for women's health, or even providing informed consent, has been consistent from RU-486 to Plan B, and now to Ella.

Thursday, June 17, 2010  --  If you believed the claims about ObamaCare, think again

Family Research Council (FRC) reports on the most recent findings about the reality of ObamaCare versus the claims made that if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it.  FRC wrote:

President Obama said that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it. He just didn't say for how long. Unfortunately for most Americans, the days of controlling their medical care are numbered. Scott Gottlieb of the New York Post analyzed some of the draft regulations that had "leaked" from HHS in his column, and what he found was a major break from the President's biggest promise: "If people like their insurance, they'll be able to keep it."

On the contrary, Gottlieb writes, more than half of all policies will have to change over the next three years. The problem with ObamaCare isn't what the law says -- but what it doesn't say. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is using those "gray areas" to wrestle more control away from patients and take giant steps toward her vision of socialized medicine. Although Congress passed the reforms, her Department is in charge of implementing them.

And unfortunately, most of the big ticket items -- including the government's role in the private market -- were left to the discretion of Secretary Sebelius, an unelected, pro-abortion, Washington-based bureaucrat. She, more than anyone -- including the plan holders themselves -- will be responsible for defining medical care in America . Need proof? The bill, as Gottlieb points out, uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725 times!

Wednesday, June 16, 2010  --  FDA likely to inflict another dangerous drug on women

Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration declared a new abortion drug called Ella (also known as ellaOne and ulipristal) safe and effective for women.  What is the criteria for "safe and efffective"?   The FDA released review documents stating that Ella, made by French drugmaker HRA Pharma, 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 ulipristal were too limited to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of ulipristal 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.  A public hearing will be held tomorrow where Obama administration officials will decide whether to market the drug in the United States.  

Even though Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, will testify against Ella at the hearing, do you think the outcome of this hearing is in doubt?  Could the abortion rights advocates in the current administration possibly be deterred by potential unexpected side effects from approving a drug, currently used in Europe, for women in the USA?  And, if Ella injures babies in utero, they can simply be aborted later, with even more profit for abortion providers. 

Tuesday, June 15, 2010  --  Secrets of success revealed

When people are praying in front of abortion facilities, how often are babies saved, but no one learns the effect their simple presence had on abortion-bound women?  Here are a few examples where those unknown results were later revealed:

Pro-Life leader Wynette Sills in Sacramento, California reported on May 4th:  At the Wright Street Clinic [this past week], a young lady pulled up and said, “I just want to tell you that last year I came to this clinic for an abortion, but because you were here praying I could not do it.  The baby’s father was really pressuring me to do it, so I came back again but I still could not do it.  Today I have a beautiful one year-old little girl.  Thank you for being here and doing what you do.”

Commenting on this beautiful news, a Pro-Life leader in Glendale, California, said, “I love these stories.  We’ve had a couple like this, too.  It always gives us hope.  Once a worker in the mill whispered to us, ‘Keep it up. Some women just sit in the office and just leave without getting the abortion, and you never know about it’.”

Another Pro-Life leader tells of hearing years ago about a young woman who went to an abortion mill and saw an elderly Catholic sister, in her habit, kneeling there in the snow and praying.  The woman decided to let her baby live.  She left without the sister knowing.  Later she said, “The sister probably went home that day and thought she didn’t accomplish anything; but, oh, she did—she saved my baby.”

One of the prayer participants in Columbia, Missouri tells of a woman in a parked car who said she wanted to talk.  This woman said that months ago [during the Fall 2009 40 Days for Life], she had her mind set on having an abortion.   But three times she arrived for her abortion appointment, and all three times there were people outside praying.  Three times, she turned around and went back home without going in.  Still, she made a fourth appointment.  There were people praying again this time, but she went in anyway.  But the Planned Parenthood staff said she was anemic, so they could not do the abortion.  She had never been anemic — ever — but it just seemed that this abortion was NOT meant to happen.   Then she said, “I want you to see the joy of my life — my three-week-old baby boy!” She pointed to her baby in the back seat.

Many Pro-Lifers have similar stories.  Sometimes grateful mothers drive up to Pro-Lifers outside abortion mills and happily let them hold their babies.  Of course, these revealed secrets of success represent the many more mothers who changed their minds, but never came back to reveal their change of heart.  Presence at abortion facilities is a spiritual battle for the hearts of mothers and fathers to give life to their babies.  Will you help witness for life?

Monday, June 14, 2010  --  Is abortion a factor in the autism epidemic?

Maybe they are at least partially right.  Maybe there are other factors besides vaccines that are contributing to the epidemic increase in cases of autism.  Might previous abortion be a factor in the increased risk of autism?   Is anyone researching this potential connection? 

Canadian researcher Brent Rooney recently shared some well hidden information with American Life League.  Such studies are not covered by the pro-abortion "lamestream" media.  Here are some little known results that ought to be getting more attention: 

In a 1999 article entitled “Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for autism,” the scientists used five variables.  The study was conducted with 78 individuals who had been diagnosed with autism.  Among the variables examined was the “termination” of a prior pregnancy (Page 447).   The scientists concluded, among other things, that the risk of autism in a future pregnancy among those who had a previous abortion was 23.6%.

In 2008, Norwegian researcher Dag Moster co-authored a study that found that an “extremely premature newborn (under 28 weeks' gestation) had 9.7 times the autism risk of [a] full-term newborn (at least 37 weeks' gestation).”  Research has already indicated that one of the negative effects of surgical abortion is that subsequent pregnancies are premature.

In an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons dealing with informed consent, Brent Rooney and co-authors Byron Calhoun, M.D. and Lisa Roche, J.D. pointed out that even when an “adverse risk from a medical treatment is merely a potential or plausible one, the patient must be warned of it.”

As Judie Brown points out, “That certainly does not seem to be the case when the 'treatment' is a surgical abortion.”  None of the normal rules seem to apply when abortion is involved.  Nothing can be revealed, or even researched, that might put the "right to abortion" at risk.

Friday, June 11, 2010  --  Defending Down syndrome babies from extermination

Last year statistics became known that with the prevalence of prenatal testing, over 90% of Down syndrome babies are now aborted.  Since that time, one family with a daughter who has Down syndrome has taken visible steps to educate the public about the great contribution that these children make to both families and society.

Kurt Kondrich is a father who made a serious commitment after his daughter Chloe was born with Down Syndrome six years ago.  Kurt returned to college to earn a masters degree in Early Intervention.  After graduation, he retired from his law enforcement career to become Director of Community/Family Outreach for Early Intervention in the Pittsburgh area.

Kurt has established a blog to save Down syndrome babies and another blog for his daughter.  They are also getting support for this cause from Andy LaRoche of the Pittsburgh Pirates.  A video from Life Issues Institute tells this heartwarming story.

The truth about the potential of Down syndrome children, versus the worst case scenario often conveyed by doctors after prenatal testing reveals evidence of the condition, is a start in offering parents the support they need to make the right decision and choose life.

Thursday, June 10, 2010  --  Hastening death to obtain their inheritance

Whether for an inheritance, to eliminate inconvenience to relatives, or to reduce health care costs charged to the government or private insurance, senior citizens are becoming as much an endangered species as children in the womb. 

Do not count on government entities to provide any protection either.  Courts and public guardians may actually make matters worse in this age where "compassion" is defined as hastening death when quality of life is deemed by others to be too low.

The only protection is to find a friend or relative to appoint as your agent who truly has your best interests at heart, and also using a life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care, such as the IRLC Patient Self-Protection Document.  Read more...

Wednesday, June 9, 2010  --  Confronting the culture of death in Orland Park, IL

Last Saturday the monthly vigil at Orland Planned Parenthood Express occurred as scheduled from 10am to Noon.  Earlier rain and the threat of rain reduced attendance somewhat, but 17 Pro-Life citizens who came anyway were rewarded with no rain during the vigil.

Because of the annual observance of "The Pill Kills" Day sponsored by American Life League, I had created a few signs with the message "The Pill Kills People."  I was holding one of those signs when a young woman pulled into the parking lot and came over to confront me. 

She informed me that she was being responsible by taking the pill so she could successfully continue her education, and I was preventing women from obtaining their birth control pills by holding my sign.  Apparently, disagreeing with her definition of "responsible" behavior bothered her very much since she took the time to stop and talk about it.

She asked how the pill kills people.  I told her first it kills babies.  She rejected that concept.  Then I told her it kills women because it causes cancer and has been rated as a #1 carcinogen by the United Nations.  Her response was that life has many risks from the air we breathe to the food we eat so this risk was nothing to be concerned about.  I told her that this risk was preventable.

She decided it was time to leave so I did not get a chance to offer further advice such as: being responsible should mean saving yourself for marriage, not taking the birth control pill.  No one else took the time to stop, but vocal reactions from within the cars going by were greater than usual.

I had learned just last Friday that Couples for Christ was organizing an hour in front of Orland Planned Parenthood Express for "The Pill Kills" Day from 3:30pm to 4:30pm.  I returned with my "The Pill Kills People" signs to assist them.   It turned out that Planned Parenthood Express closes at 2pm on Saturday so they were not aware of this double vigil to confront the Planned Parenthood mentality of life, so accurately programmed into the woman who had stopped to talk to me earlier.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010  --  $125 million campaign rolled out to defend health care reform

Have you seen advertisements sponsored by the Federal government?   First, the beer commercial, then the car commercial, and then one promoting ObamaCare?  I don't think so!  But you may soon see such propaganda because, according to Politico.com, White House allies are rolling out a $125 million campaign to defend health care reform.

Andrew Grossman, a veteran Democratic operative, will head up to day-to-day operations for this aggressive campaign.  He is already raising money from unions, corporations, and foundations to fund this planned five-year effort.  Given all the current and former Democrat office holders expected to be directly involved in this campaign, it almost becomes a quasi-government agency.

Do you think they will find ways to funnel your tax dollars to pay for at least a portion of this campaign?  Any use of tax money would most likely be against the law.  Congress has enacted a number of statutes that restrict agencies' authority to spend funds for "publicity or propaganda" or for lobbying. 

Can you imagine what criticism the "lamestream" media would be generating if a Republican administration was rolling out a media campaign in support of one of their programs?  I learned years ago that Federal agencies are prohibited by law from advertising.  We were vacationing in Arkansas and took a tour of a beautiful cave with so many amazing formations.  We asked why we had not seen advertising for this cave while seeing ads for so many other caves.  We were told that they could not advertise this federally owned cave. 

But proponents of government-controlled health care will find a way around such restrictions to produce publicity and propaganda for a program that the public is currently rejecting with over 60% opposition.  They may not spend tax money directly, but most of this publicity campaign's donors are already beneficiaries of govenment dole helping to produce the huge deficits being generated by out-of-control Federal spending.

Monday, June 7, 2010  --  The pain of abortion can be healed

Katie Reidy has been a counselor at a pregnancy care center, but her experience revealed how many women were already suffering from the impact of previous abortions.  She became more involved in helping women who are seeking healing after abortion. 

Katie also gives presentations to help people understand the scope of this issue and where they can direct people to find help.  She noted that having a secret abortion in your past often leads to thoughts that people hate you because somehow they know you had an abortion.  This fear of condemnation further represses the pain.   These women desperately need to hear a message of reconciliation that can relieve their spiritual pain.

Project Rachel is an excellent starting point for women (and men) who need to seek healing from the negative impact of abortion on their lives.  In Chicago area Project Rachel can be reached at 312-337-1962.  To locate the closest Project Rachel contact person, call 888-456-HOPE.

Project Rachel uses five steps to overcome the pain of abortion as follows:

1)  reconciliation with the child who was aborted: name the child, ask forgiveness, write a letter to
2)  ask God for forgiveness, including the Sacrament of Reconciliation for Catholics
3)  forgiving those who were involved: parents, boyfriend, husband, etc.
4)  forgiving yourself -- this can be the hardest step
5)  having a Mass for the child (for Catholics)

After, or during, these five steps, which vary by person in the time needed, other auxiliary efforts can be made to facilitate healing.  Katie has developed a group program that runs 12 weeks which focuses on women of the New Testament.   That program also includes material from Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women and Theology of the Body.  Ask about it through Chicago Project Rachel at 312-337-1962.   Woman's Choice Services offers a group program that reflects on women of the Old Testament.  Ask about it at 630-261-9221.

Thursday, June 3, 2010  --  Support IRLC at no cost to you through Real Estate for life

Illinois Right to Life Committee has joined the program of Real Estate for Life that locates real estate agents who are willing to provide a referral fee in support of Pro-Life efforts.  Real estate agents are happy to get new business and so, when the transaction is completed, will give a portion of their fee to Real Estate For Life as a referral fee.  

Real Estate For Life will give 80% of that fee to IRLC if we were identified as the Pro-Life organization to be supported.  On a house with a value of $150,000, about $1000 would be  provided to support the work of IRLC - all without costing you a penny!  Whether you are buying or selling, Real Estate For Life is a great way to not only get a superb agent, but also to help IRLC promote a culture of life.

If you, or a friend or family member, is looking to buy or sell a house anywhere in the United States or Canada, you can call Real Estate For Life at 1-877-LIFE-US1 (877-543-3871).  Tell them you are a supporter of Illinois Right to Life Committee.  They will put you in touch with an expert agent having a proven track-record from a company such as Remax or Century21.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010  --  Rape and incest cannot justify abortion

I am currently reading the book Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault.   Near the end of the first section, the book's editor, researcher David Reardon, summarizes as follows:

It is irrational and dangerous for society to make the children conceived in rape the targets of social revenge.  These children have done no wrong, and abortion certainly does not undo their fathers' crimes nor mend their mothers' wounds.

Nowhere would the old proverb, "two wrongs don't make a right," seem more appropriate.  Even convicted rapists are not punished by execution.  Does it make sense that the innocent child should be condemned to death in the father's place?

Does it make sense to heap violence on top of violence, especially when the women's body and psyche are made the battleground for both attacks?    Does it make sense to encourage a victim of violence to find comfort in participating in another violent act?

The testimonies of rape victims contained in this book answer those questions.  Women who took the abortion route, usually under the advice or even pressure from others, regret their abortions years later, long after they have recovered from the trauma of rape.  Women who choose life for their children do not regret that decision, which allows them to experience the good that can be achieved from overcoming a bad situation.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010  --  More courts deny the scientific reality of human life

Recent court rulings from Sourth Korea and Mexico deny the scientific reality of the beginning of human life in favor of an anti-life agenda.  The South Korean Constitutional Court has ruled that frozen embryos are not living and thus may be experimented upon and destroyed at will.

The Korean court's decision claimed that before fourteen days of development, an embryo is not a human being.  "Although we acknowledge the basic rights of fetuses before birth, pre-embryos, which have been fertilized but within which the 'primitive streak' has not yet formed, cannot be regarded as humans," the court wrote.

The Supreme Court of Mexico has ruled that the abortifacient 'morning after pill' must be distributed by all hospitals in Mexico, public and private.  A Supreme Court Minister stated that officials who refuse to comply with the ruling may be removed from their positions, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

Even though doctors universally acknowledge that the 'morning after pill' can take the life of the zygote, which is a human life at the earliest stage, the Mexican court ruled on May 28th that it does not cause abortions, and therefore is compatible with the right-to-life amendments recently passed by the states of Mexico.

While there is no immediate evidence that the Korean and Mexican courts referenced the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in making their anti-life rulings, they are certainly following the same lack of sound science and reasoning in making their decisions that was first reflected in Roe v. Wade's denial of knowledge of the origin of human life.