Illinois Right to Life Committee
PRO-LIFE BLOG
Friday, May 28, 2010 -- After Oklahoma governor's veto, its "wait until next year" Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry has been vetoing most of the Pro-Life bills passed by the legislature, but they have overriden his veto three times. With Governor Henry's fourth veto of a Pro-Life bill, he will finally get one to stick (for now) simply because the legislative session ends today and there is not enough time to attempt to override this veto. Fortunately, the bill that must wait until next year is one that can wait. This measure would have allowed the state to opt-out of the massive abortion funding found in the government-run health care bill President Barack Obama signed into law. There is still sufficient time to address this issue. Actually, in addition to exercising the option to opt-out of abortion funding, the Oklahoma legislature also approved Senate Joint Resolution 59. SJR 59 allows citizens to vote on a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit “forced participation in a health care system,” and allow individuals to pay directly for health services and carry private health insurance. This referendum is a direct challenge to the constitutionality of ObamaCare. If enacted, Oklahoma will join Virginia, Florida, and Arizona in challenging President Obama’s health care legislation on the basis of state law, but with a twist: the Virginia challenge to the health care bill is based on a state statute, while Oklahoma would up the ante by using a constitutional amendment. Voters in Florida and Arizona will also go to the polls in November to vote on constitutional amendments opting their states out of the national health care law. Thus, Oklahoma is trying to address the issue both ways, under the abortion funding opt-out provision of ObamaCare and by rejecting the entire bill. Ironically, Governor Henry vetoed a resolution that would have rejected the entire bill via statute so the legislature enacted the resolution that puts that question to voters directly.
Thursday, May 27, 2010 -- Vaccination choice and informed consent The inaugural American Rally for Personal Rights was held on May 26th in Grant Park at the corner of Columbus and Jackson. This rally was sponsored by Generation Rescue and Autism One and included a long list of speakers on various vaccine issues and concerns. The purpose of the rally was to demand the universal human rights standard of informed consent for all medical interventions. Compulsory vaccination cannot be legally and morally justified. Attendees were encouraged to support grassroots advocacy, education, and leadership in defense of the rights of parents and children to life, liberty, and personal security. I attended this event and discovered there are a number of concerns about vaccines that I was not previously aware of. The number of vaccines being pushed on children continues to grow at an alarming rate with no end in sight and many of these vaccines are mandated by most states. Effective in 2009, New Jersey mandated the flu vaccine for children between the ages of six months and five years. Unvaccinated children will be excluded from day care or preschool. Back in 2007 mandating of the HPV vaccine Gardasil was rejected by every state except Virginia. Now that the controversy is no longer in the news, Gardasil mandate bills have again been introduced in 20 states. Apparently, none of these mandates have been passed yet. At the rally Gardasil was reconfirmed as a major concern when a mother spoke about the tragic case of her 14-year-old daughter who had been athletic and an "A" student. Within a few weeks after getting the first Gardasil injection, this girl experienced seizures and became totally dependent on a respirator and feeding tube. After many medical tests, there is still no conclusion on what is causing this girl's condition. Ironically, from the beginning the medical profession has been very skeptical that the problem was even real. First, they accused the girl of taking illegal drugs, but had to finally let that one go when tests showed no evidence of any drugs. Then they started accusing her of just plain faking her condition. Even now that seems to still be happening. In conclusion, I will state it again. The risks of Gardasil far outweigh any potential benefits of this vaccine. Do not allow your doctor to inflict this dangerous vaccine on your daughters, or your sons, now that the FDA has approved Gardasil for males. Just say NO! If you do not say NO, you may find yourself in the shoes of this distraught mother who will forever regret that she did not learn more about the dangers of Gardasil before accepting her doctor's recommendation that it be given to her daughter. Her daughter's future is unknown, her life and that of her other three children have totally changed, and the medical profession has no answers except to criticize the victim.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 -- Making every home a potential abortion clinic On May 20th Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards revealed that expanding RU 486 drug-induced abortion into every Planned Parenthood center in the nation using a procedure called "telemed abortion" is part of PP's Strategic Plan for 2015. Richards revealed this dangerous plan at a 30-year anniversary celebration of Planned Parenthood in Cedar Rapids, IA. Outside that Planned Parenthood "celebration" over 150 activists braved the rain to protest the event with the message "abortion is nothing to celebrate" and revealing Planned Parenthood as "Abortion, Inc." That label was certainly confirmed given the plan that Richards unveiled, making abortion almost a drive-through business for the nation's largest abortion provider. Iowa has served as the testing ground for "telemed abortion" which is abortion via a teleconferencing service. An off-site abortionist appears over the Internet on a computer monitor and explains the medical abortion procedure. After the brief teleconference, the patient presses a button on the computer screen to open a box containing the RU 486 abortion drug. That pill is taken at the clinic, but four Misoprostol pills are taken later at home to induce contractions to expel the dead baby. This approach is a violation of the FDA protocol for using RU 486 and also a violation of most state laws that require a physican to be present. The patient is never physically examined by the medical doctor prescribing the drugs – or any other, for that matter – and never sees the abortionist again. As Operation Rescue points out, expansion of "telemed abortions" to all Planned Parenthood locations would nearly double the number of locations committing abortion in the nation. Their study identifies just over 700 abortion clinics currently, but this Planned Parenthood expansion would create at least 694 new abortion locations. Jill Stanek has issued an article entitled "On the path to over-the-counter abortions" which reveals another means to further expand abortion into the home. She writes, "On June 17, the FDA's Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health will hold a public hearing to begin the approval process of a new abortion pill, Ulipristal acetate, to be marketed by the brand names ella® or ellaOne®." This drug has been inaccurately described as emergency contraception similar to Plan B, but it works much more like RU 486 so it always acts as an abortifacient, not a contraceptive. By labeling ella® as emergency contraception, Jill anticipates that it will be pushed to be dispensed over-the-counter like Plan B. At that point we would truly have "drive-thru" abortion, making every home a potential abortion clinic. If nothing is done to prevent "telemed abortions" and ella® is allowed to become available over-the-counter, a radical increase in the number of abortions can be expected. With government funding of abortion lurking in ObamaCare, abortion expansion could become catastrophic. Will slipping ella® into women's drinks become standard practice for predatory males?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 -- Turning "offensive" on it head Do you consider photos of aborted babies "offensive"? Are you offended by the painful death of an innocent unborn child revealed by the picture, or by the person making the choice to show the truth about abortion with this shocking picture? Can you recognize the image of a 12-week preborn as a beautiful view of the developing baby? Are you aware that some people react to those beautiful images as if they were seeing pictures of aborted babies? If a fetal model of the 12-week baby was given to your 3rd-5th grade child in school, would you be upset about the information shared with your child? Currently, there is an uproar in Virginia because such fetal models were distributed at an elementary school there. Those involved have been suspended and school board members have expressed outrage at the "baby figurines not authorized by the division as instructional materials." School Board Chairman Stephen Tonelson said, "It is hard to imagine that we would have an employee who believes it would be appropriate to share plastic fetus dolls with students in one of our schools." Board member Kirk Houston Sr added: "Very life like, and it's a pro-life tool. To be quite honest, that is so incredible to me, that a staff member would do something so... entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. [Board members] were all pretty dumbfounded." Do I have this right? Presenting an image of the developing baby to school children is offensive because it is "a clear anti-abortion message", but teaching them "comprehensive" sex education is healthy. Children must be taught about oral sex, masturbation, use of condoms, etc., but no one gets suspended because "comprehensive" sex education is authorized instructional material. Apparently, for today's education "experts" teaching respect for the developing child in the womb is harmful, but teaching graphic details in "comprehensive" sex education is healthy. Yes, such an approach is certainly healthy for the wallet of the nation's abortion providers. Keep children ignorant about the reality of preborn children, but make sure they are trained to become sexually active at as early an age as possible.
Monday, May 24, 2010 -- Vigil for Lydia, forced to take high dosage painkillers On Saturday May 22nd, I facilitated a prayer vigil and witness for life in an attempt to bring attention to the outrageous treatment of Lydia Tyler occurring at Brighton Gardens in Orland Park, IL. Lydia has no underlying illness or condition that would suggest she is in any imminent, or even remote, danger of death. At 94 years old, Lydia was alert and involved in activities. This inconvenient fact did not prevent her public guardian from convening an "end of life meeting" on April 28th to arrange for Lydia to be given high dosages of pain medications. Lydia made it clear she was opposed to taking these drugs, but they were forced on her anyway. Very shortly, Lydia was heavily medicated and could neither focus nor speak. Concerned family members asked the Thomas More Society for help, recognizing that Lydia would soon be dead if these measures were not stopped promptly. They have been trying for nearly four years to overcome the mistreatment Lydia has experienced at the hands of the public guradian and the courts. The Saturday vigil was quickly organized as an additional means to focus attention on this injustice. About 15 people participated, and some media coverage occurred. Tom Brejcha of Thomas More Society will be back in court today, seeking removal of the public guardian so that Lydia can be saved from this assault on her life. Pray that Tom is successful in getting fast action because time is running out for Lydia.
Friday, May 21, 2010 -- Pregnancy as the cause of maternal mortality Abortion advocates maintain that making abortion legal will reduce maternal mortality. However, they do not have statistics on their side in making these unsupported claims. For example, their claims that abortion is safer than childbirth do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, in one sense they could claim to be right. Did you know that studies of death rates among pregnant women in the U.S. have found that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women? Thus, abortion advocates could claim that if more women got abortions that they did not want, the maternal mortality rate would be reduced because of a fall in the homicide rate among pregnant women. Somehow, I do not think abortion advocates will be promoting that solution.
Thursday, May 20, 2010 -- Trapped abortion workers leave when helped More evidence has been revealed showing that employees of abortion providers often feel trapped in their jobs, wondering who else would hire them. When circumstances lead to opportunities offered by Pro-Life supporters to help these employees find another job, they become motivated to take action. The 40 Days for Life vigils have allowed more such opportunities to develop. At last count, 35 employees from abortion facilities have quit their jobs, including office managers and even abortionists. Friendly interaction with 40 Days for Life participants has been a powerful catalyst to help produce these results.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 -- Outrageous attack on free speech of pregnancy centers I do not think it would be surprising to learn that abortion advocates want to put pregnancy care centers out of business. In fact, NARAL and NAF have been conceiving strategies for years with that goal in mind. Even though they have failed to generate any clear evidence that pregnancy care centers even have dissatisfied customers, and certainly absolutely no evidence that they are violating any norms of care, abortion advocates have begun using local governments to violate the free speech rights of pregnancy care centers. NARAL's first success was an ordinance adopted by Baltimore, MD that requires pregnancy care centers to post signs on their doors stating that they don't provide abortions or birth control referrals. That requirement is more than outrageous, like requiring a real estate agency who sells houses to post a sign that they do not rent apartments, but Austin, TX soon joined this outrage under NARAL's guidance. However, Montgomery County in Maryland took this outrage a step further. Under their law, pregnancy centers would be required to tell potential clients that they should go elsewhere for medical advice by posting a disclaimer, if they don't have medical professionals on staff, that would refer their clients to a center with licensed medical professionals. In effect, the law forces anyone offering information about pregnancy to face steep fines if they don't post signs saying the county believes women should consult someone else. Fortunately, Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit against Montgomery County to oppose this law on behalf of a Silver Spring pregnancy resource center. Mark Rienzi, lead counsel for Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center, observed, "There is no abortion exception to the First Amendment." He continued, "The government cannot create special speech rules just because people want to talk about pregnancy choices. And it certainly cannot target pro-life speakers for special sign requirements and fines while leaving speech by abortion clinics entirely unregulated. This new regulation violates every core principle of free speech law." The good news is that we can be confident that pregnancy care centers are effective since NARAL is taking such radical steps to oppose them. The bad news is that local govenments have members who are so ignorant of the basic freedoms of U.S. citizens that they can be persuaded to accept the agenda of NARAL to promote abortion by using the force of govenment to attack its competition. Pray that this lawsuit is effective in preserving free speech rights. NARAL's push for such restrictive laws is just the latest evidence that "choice" is the last thing on their mind when they push abortion. They are trying desperately to prevent women from getting information to make an informed choice because they know they can only victimize most women if they have not fully thought through the implications and consequences of abortion. Pregnancy care centers offer women real choices, and NARAL calls that "misleading and intimidating women." Who wants to intimidate women?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 -- 40 Days for Life planned for Chicago in Sept-Oct, 2010 Today I participated in a planning meeting for another 40 Days for Life in Chicago from Sept 22 through Oct 31, 2010. An informational kick-off meeting will be held on the evening of June 17th for those who want to consider getting involved with this public action seeking to end abortion through prayer and fasting, onsite vigil, and neighborhood outreach. Please save the date! Four excellent speakers are planned to provide insight on the framework and benefits of 40 Days for Life. Are you willing to spend an hour or two to help save a life? Would you be willing to consider helping to arrange vigil coverage for a day? Plan to attend the June 17th meeting (at St. Mary of the Angels, 1850 N. Hermitage Ave., Chicago, IL 60622) to learn more about this opportunity to save and change lives. Food will be provided at 6:30pm with the meeting to begin at 7:00pm. You can help make a difference this fall when this great opportunity to save lives takes place in Chicago. This 40 Days fo Life vigil will be the third annual held at Family Planning Associates Albany Center, located at 5086 N Elston Ave, Chicago, IL 60630. Albany performs late-term abortions up to at least 23 weeks. Many babies lives have been saved during previous 40 Days for Life vigils at this location. Plan to get involved to help save lives at this notorious abortion facility.
Monday, May 17, 2010 -- More states act in defense of human life Even the "lamestream" media is taking notice. AP issued a report on 5/16/10 entitled "Pro-life groups find useful tool in Obamacare." The article points out, "Since Obama signed the (health care) legislation into law March 23, Arizona and Tennessee have enacted laws restricting abortion coverage by health plans in new insurance markets, called exchanges." The AP article continues, "In Florida, Mississippi and Missouri, lawmakers have passed bans and sent them to their governors. Most of the states allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Three other states may act this year - Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma." Of the three states with the bills awaiting action from the governor, only Florida appears in danger of a veto that might be upheld so there will soon be at least four and possibly as many as eight states who will have taken action to prevent government funding of abortion through the insurance exchanges. Many more states are expected to take action in 2011 when their legislatures next come back into session. Americans United for Life (AUL) is offering assistance to states by providing model language for these bills. AUL reports that there are 29 states where lawmakers or public policy groups have expressed serious interest in this legislative approach to reduce the potential for government funding of abortion under ObamaCare. West Virginia has become the 20th state to enact some approach for giving women the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion. Many of these laws will be held up by court challenges, as has occurred with Oklahoma's recently passed ultrasound law. Even that unfortunate situation puts the subjects of ultrasound and abortion in the news and casts a negative impression on the abortion advocates who claim to support choice, but want to deny information to women.
Friday, May 14, 2010 -- More criticism of the birth control pill New developments since May 10th, when I commented on the ill effects of the birth control pill as its reaches its 50th anniversary, are worthy of repetition. Rachel Welch wrote an article for CNN entitled “It’s sex o’clock in America” where she observes about the birth control pill "I've seen how it has altered American society -- for better or worse." Though Welch attempts to express something positive about the pill, her overall message seems to suggest that she sees the impact on society more for the worse than for the better. Her observations about her first pregnancy go beyond a criticism of the pill to make a judgment against abortion when she states, "I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman." Welch's real concerns about the pill's negative effects on family life seem much more focused than the views expressed by Glamour editor Geraldine Sealey in a recent Salon column entitled "Why I Hate the Pill" where she still wants to maintain her liberal lifestyle without suffering the pill's negative impacts on her health. Even so, Sealey says that she’d “like to try the Fertility Awareness Method” -- Natural Family Planning (NFP). Sealey's interest in NFP reminds me of the January 2010 comments from an unexpected source in support of more access to information about NFP. In a Canadian article exploring how women are increasingly turning away from hormonal contraception, Laura Wershler, executive director for Sexual Health Access Alberta (formerly known as Planned Parenthood Alberta), bemoans the lack of information about natural family planning, stating "What I see in our communities is an absolute failure to move beyond the idea that hormonal birth control is the be-all and end-all. What's happening is we're not developing support programs and advocacy for women looking for non-hormonal methods." Eric Scheidler brings together many negative aspects about the birth control pill in his recent article entitled "The Pill Takes a Beating." Might the pill be in trouble when sex symbols, sexual freedom advocates, and Planned Parenthood employees express concerns about it? Well, maybe if more than one person in each of those categories began speaking out, the tide would begin turning.
Thursday, May 13, 2010 -- Recent stem cell research news, but the media ignores it Dr. David Prentice is currently a Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at Family Research Council and follows stem cell research efforts around the world. His background includes almost 20 years as a college professor, first at Indiana University School of Medicine and then at Indiana State University. Even as the "lamestream" media ignores the progress being made with ethical sources of stem cells, such as from adults and from cord blood, Dr. Prentice is reporting on it. Over the last week Dr. Prentice has reported on many new advances using these ethical sources of stem cells. I have compiled a list of these articles as follows: Adult
Stem Cells Deep in the Heart of Texas (5/7/10) On May 11th I referenced the multiple sclerosis (MS) advance using the patients' own stem cells, but raised a question about whether adult and cord blood stem cell research has been blocked by politics in the USA. Though not a definitive answer to that question, I did encounter statistics about the scope of human treatments using hematopoietic stem cell transplants. That survey found that worldwide in 2006 a total of 50,417 transplants were performed using these adult stem cells. Of that total, 57% used the patient’s own adult stem cells, and 43% used donor adult stem cells. Almost half (48%) took place in Europe, followed by the Americas (36%), Asia (14%), and the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa (2%). That last statistic about location does suggest that the USA is lagging on human treatments using adult stem cells compared to Europe, especially since the 36% includes South America as well as the USA, and a number of adult stem cell successes have occurred in South American nations.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 -- The force of government pushing abortion With the denials still flying about government funding of abortion in the health care bill, even with overwhelming evidence that this health care monstrosity will both fund and encourage abortion, a revealing admission from none other than a Catholic bishop points toward the threat to the rights of both mothers and babies implicit in government-controlled health care. Bishop Victor Galeone, who has been a priest for nearly fifty years and the bishop of St. Augustine Florida for the past nine, recently revealed that he owes his life to his mother, who resisted pressure by a government social worker to abort him during the Great Depression. Thus, even with abortion being illegal in 1935, the pressure to "save" government money was a motive to intimidate a mother into accepting an abortion she did not want. Fortunately for Bishop Galeone, his mother and father both rejected these threats and chose life for their baby. How much greater will be the pressure with abortion now "legal" and with government oversight on the amounts spent on medical costs. Since abortion is always less expensive than childbirth, any mother who is considered "irresponsible" will likely be pressured to have an abortion. Who gets to define what "irresponsible" consists of? Watch out if you are too poor, have too many children already, are found to be a "right-wing fanatic" or even labelled a "racist" or a "terrorist" because you oppose political correctness. ObamaCare administrators will be ready to cut medical costs by demanding that you get an abortion.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 -- Are stem cell successes in USA slowed by politics? Can research projects using adult stem cells get funding in the USA when the Federal government wants to focus on new funding for research with embryonic stem cells that require the killing of human embryos? I do not know if government funding for adult and cord blood stem cell research has been blocked by politics (as was done to stymie abstinence education), but why is it that most news about progress with adult stem cells comes from beyond our borders? Most recently, a groundbreaking new study was published that provides more good news for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with adult stem cells. Researchers at the University of Bristol (in England) used patients’ own adult stem cells to treat their MS. Patients reported to the hospital and had bone marrow adult stem cells removed, the cells were filtered, and then given back to the patients intravenously. The patients went home before the end of the day. In this Phase I clinical trial, six patients with MS were treated with their own bone marrow adult stem cells and their progress followed for one year. The treatment appeared to stabilize the patients’ condition and showed some benefits. The approach by the Bristol team is all the more interesting because there was no pre-conditioning with chemotherapy, thus reducing the potential risks to the patients. Dr. Richard Burt at Northwestern University has published several studies
showing good success using adult stem cells to “reboot Of course, you are not likely to find coverage of these adult stem cell successes in the "lamestream" media (borrowing a term from Sarah Palin), especially those from beyond our borders. Do not hold your breath to wait for any coverage about the University of Bristol results. I do recall seeing a television story a few years ago about Burt's work at Northwestern, but that coverage avoided even using the phrase "stem cells." This omission was apparently intended to avoid giving any positive press to adult stem cells, since no credit could be given to embryonic stem cells.
Monday, May 10, 2010 -- Is the birth control pill something to celebrate? The birth control pill was first approved by the FDA on May 9, 1960. Some people are celebrating its 50th anniversary. Has the birth control pill really helped women or families or anyone? Can anyone really believe that a drug that constantly tells the woman's body that she is pregnant when she is not, in an attempt to prevent ovulation, is worth the risks? It is certainly not natural! The United Nations has classified the birth control pill as a carcinogen. Many women experience serious side effects from using this drug. Some women decide to abandon use of birth control pills because of these unpleasant and dangerous side effects. Has the birth contol pill lived up to its promises? It was supposed to improve marriages, reduce unwanted pregnancies, improve women's health, etc. Instead, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, unwanted pregnancies and births to single mothers have exploded, and women's health has been threatened by both the immediate and long-term side effects of birth control pills. If women want a reliable way to delay childbearing, they should try abstinence before marriage and natural family planning within marriage. Neither of these approaches carries negative side effects.
Friday, May 7, 2010 -- Gardasil now being pushed for boys -- just say NO! The front page of today's Chicago Tribune includes an article about marketing the HPV shot for boys. The FDA has now given Merck approval to push the Gardasil vaccine for young boys as well as girls. Gardasil is intended to prevent certain strains of HPV that are linked to genital warts and future cervical cancer in women. The connection to cancers in men is even weaker. The potential dangerous side effects of Gardasil raise serious questions about the risks versus rewards of this vaccine. With such limited prevention capabilities, even some risk seems to be too much for anyone to justify inflicting this vaccine on their children. The fact that Gardasil is attempting to offer protection against a sexually transmitted disease is another reason to just say NO for both boys and girls.
Thursday, May 6, 2010 -- Is making abortion mandatory their agenda? Yesterday, I assessed the agenda of abortion advocates, noting that "the only choice they accept is abortion, so they are actually anti-choice." Does that statement seem too strong to you? Do you really believe that they truly want women to have the "right to choose"? If so, then two recent cases might encourage you to reconsider taking such a trusting perspective. Abortion advocates are calling for an international boycott of the popular Cancun vacation destination to pressure the local Mexican government to abort a baby conceived in incest, carried by an 11-year-old girl named Amalia. Is this young girl demanding her "right to choose" abortion with international supporters standing up for her "rights"? Well, reports indicate Amalia explained she understands “a life is growing in her womb" and does not want an abortion. Local news reports indicate the girl's mother would not have approved of the abortion anyway. Apparently, neither the choice of this pregnant girl or her mother makes any difference to abortion advocates who want to use an international boycott to pressure her into abortion against her will. Can an 11-year-old girl be allowed to make a choice about her pregnancy? You can be sure that any 11-year-old girl who enters an abortion clinic anywhere in the USA without her parents' knowledge will be deemed capable of making her own decision to obtain an abortion. Even in states with parental involvement laws, the abortion provider will do their very best to overcome those laws and get that child the abortion she wants. Oh, but if she wants to let the baby live, she must not be competent to make her own decision! In Amalia's case, she is currently in the custody of state protective services and has responded well to psychological tests showing she understands she has a unique human being she can give birth to or kill in an abortion. None of this is good enough for abortion advocates whose agenda drives them to make Amalia a pawn in an international battle over "reproductive rights." Can the same thing happen in the USA? Unfortunately, it appears to be so. A case worker from the Philadelphia Department of Human Services stands accused of pressuring a teenager to get a late-term abortion. The Philadelphia Daily News apparently was the first to document the case in which social workers took a teen for an abortion even though the teen had been looking forward to having the little boy and even had picked out a name. Further, the teen's mother had opposed the abortion, as had the foster mother with whom the teen was staying. Thus, at least some social workers in the USA push abortion as the preferred solution and can make their pressure more effective because abortion is legal. In the state of Quintana Roo Mexico, where most abortions are illegal and human life still gets more respect even in the difficult cases, the pressure for abortion can take on international proportions. Ironically, even Quintana Roo allows abortion for rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother during the first 90 days of the pregnancy, but that is not sufficient for abortion advocates. It does appear that mandatory abortion for the difficult cases is what abortion advocates really want. Then we can start talking about who gets to define "difficult" to establish the scope of such mandatory abortions. Difficult cases must include at least: rape, incest, too young, too poor, and too many children. The Mexican case establishes the first three reasons and the Philadelphia case covers the last three. How many more reasons will abortion advocates want to add to this list?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 -- Making abortion rare is not on their agenda Abortion advocates rely on slogans, since the facts and logic are not on their side. They claim slogans such as "pro-choice" and "right to choose" and "safe, legal and rare" and more. These slogans are not as effective as they once were. More people are figuring out that the only choice they accept is abortion, so they are actually anti-choice. The slogan "safe, legal and rare" has its own difficulties. If something is safe and legal, why does it need to be rare? For that matter, is there any real evidence that abortion advocates want abortion to be rare? Recent events and statements seem to suggest that "rare" is even less accurate than "choice" in representing the real agenda of abortion advocates. For Planned Parenthood actions speak louder than words. While claiming they are trying so hard to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions, they keep building new mega-abortion fortresses around the nation. Their latest announcement reveals plans for a massive new abortion facility in St. Paul, Minnesota's capital city. This new expansion follows mega-centers in Houston, Portland, Denver, and Aurora, IL. Planned Parenthood is also working to expand abortion to more of their existing facilities. In March RU 486 abortions became available in Springfield, IL. Recently, Operation Rescue discovered that a dozen small Planned Parenthood offices in Iowa were committing these dangerous RU 486 abortions with only an Internet connection to an abortionist who never actually examines the patient. This procedure violates both FDA protocol for RU 486 and the physician requirement of Iowa abortion law. Of course, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers always oppose informed consent laws that might offer some protection for women seeking abortions. In their view, such laws attempt to intimidate women who know what they want and violate the free speech rights of abortion providers. Do you agree that the ultrasound image of a baby in the womb is intimidation? Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wrote a mixed message column about this legislative push to allow women to learn more about their babies by viewing an ultrasound so they can better understand the implications of the abortion procedure "before they take the leap that can't be undone." Parker rejects the arguments of abortion providers against such laws because she "can't rationalize ignorance or denial as preferable options for women in need of sound counseling." Parker suggests that such laws are a valid path "for a nation that wants to make abortion rare." The opposition of abortion providers and advocates demonstrates once again that their agenda does not include making abortion rare. As the public recognizes this disconnect, hopefully they will be motivated to demand even more protection from abortion providers for women who are so often victimized by them.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 -- Abortion advocates study proves they lied again During the health care debate abortion advocates claimed that the Pitts/Stupak amendment to prevent government funding of abortion "changed the status quo" by preventing insurance companies from covering abortion. They either stated or strongly implied that most women with health insurance used it to pay for their abortions. I cited statistics from Michigan to show such a claim was unlikely to square with reality. Now we learn that the Guttmacher Institute performed a study that surveyed 9,493 women who had abortions from April 2008 through May 2009. The just published results show that only 12% of the women surveyed used health insurance to pay for their abortion. How did women pay for their abortions? Most women paid for abortion out of pocket, covering about 57% of all abortions. About 13% received help from a non-profit pro-abortion group that pays for poor women's abortions, while 20% got their abortions covered under Medicaid, given that some states allow state tax dollars to pay for abortions. The smallest category was abortions covered by health insurance at just 12%. [Total percentages go over 100% due to rounding.] The timing of their tabulations are not clear, but based on the timeframe for gathering the data, it seems very likely that their own data confirmed they were lying for political gain when they attacked the Pitts/Stupak amendment. They certainly followed that path when they claimed that allowing the morning-after pill to be sold over-the-counter would reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions by 50% while their own study already showed no reduction at all.
Monday, May 3, 2010 -- When the "experts" are proven wrong The politically correct "experts" are still claiming they can only make medical advances by focusing on embryonic stem cell research. These "experts" will be out in force at this week's Biotechnology Industry Organization annual meeting at McCormick Place. Even former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore will be speaking at this event. It is surprising they are letting George W. Bush anywhere near this convention since he has been accused of "blocking science" by refusing to allow Federal funds to pay for any research that required the killing of human embryos. Maybe the lack of progress over the last 15 months because of concerns about whether projects that did get funded under Bush would be allowed to continue has forced some "experts" to change their opinion of Bush, while they have waited for President Obama's team at the National Institutes of Health to develop new guidelines that are "open" to science, since "the agency's paperwork took time." In any case, today's
Chicago Tribune article about this convention carried the usual dire warnings
about why adult stem cells are not sufficient, even while experimental treatments on real
human patients using adult stem cells continue to show exceptional
results. Those results are quite a contrast with the Tribune article's
statement that "recent results suggest adult cells die sooner and may be less useful
than hoped." In fact, recent research
has found the key to growing unlimited amounts of adult stem cells While the "experts" want to focus on their vision of future success to be achieved from the dead end of embryonic stem cell research, other medical "experts" have no vision for success of human life overcoming adversity. When a pregnancy presents a challenge, the only solution offered by these "experts" is abortion. A heartwarming recent case where such negative "experts" were ignored comes from England with the success of a tiny mother to have a baby. At 14 months of age, this baby boy is almost as big as his mother, 30 inches tall compared to her 36 inch height. If the "experts" could ever get it through their heads that human life should always be respected, whether early embryo or developing baby in the womb, so they recognize that killing is never a means to progress, we might actually see the medical advances they keep promising. As usual, after all the hype, the last paragraph of the Tribune article gives the truth about embryonic stem cell research: "no one should expect rapid results." Banging your head against the false promises of embryonic stem cell research has certainly not delivered rapid results, and never will.
|