Monday, Jan 31, 2011  --  ObamaCare declared unconstitutional by Federal judge

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and, therefore, the entire health care law as well.  Vinson's ruling comes in the legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act initiated by the state of Florida and joined so far by 25 other states.

Virginia filed their own court challenge to defend a state law that would allow Virginia citizens to ignore the Federal mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson had already ruled in that case to strike down a portion of the law by accepting Virginia's contention that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

As with the Virginia case, the Obama administration says it will appeal this decision to the U.S. Appeals Court based in Atlanta, Georgia.  This latest ruling increases the already-high probability that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose to hear the legal challenges to the health care law.

Friday, Jan 28, 2011  --  Law targeting pregnancy centers found unconstitutional

A very timely ruling was issued today.  Judge Garbis in Baltimore granted summary judgment, finding the Baltimore anti-pregnancy center law is viewpoint-based and unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  Garbis is expected to enter a permanent injunction against the law next week.

Given that similar laws are currently proposed in Washington state and New York City, this ruling may have a significant impact.  Pro-Life advocates who have been working overtime to oppose those laws appreciate this judicial support for their opposition to these intrusive laws.  Such laws are being pushed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood in a desperate attempt to overcome those who offer real choice and cost them abortion business in a big way.

Thursday, Jan 27, 2011  --  New area for using adult stem cells: breast reconstruction

David Prentice, affilated with Family Research Council, reviews the science journals and reports on new breakthroughs using adult stem cells.  Sometimes, these research results have used laboratory animals, but quite often they cite positive results from experimental treatments offered to human patients.  Most often, none of these results seem to appear in the lamestream media.

Most recently, Japanese universities are establishing an institute to use adult stem cells for breast reconstruction.  There is already an ongoing approved clinical trial in Europe for breast cancer patients to use adipose-derived stem cells for breast reconstruction, and interim results have been very promising.

Given the attention given to the breast cancer issue and events to generate funds for breast cancer research, one might think breast reconstruction using adult stem cells would be a hot topic.  Apparently not!  The lamestream apparently does not consider the story fit to print unless it relates to unethical embryonic stem cells.  They will be kept waiting because treatments for human patients using embryonic stem cells are not going to show benefits anytime soon, if ever.

Wednesday, Jan 26, 2011  --  Assisted suicide concerns confirmed again in Oregon

Another year of assisted suicide statistics from Oregon confirm concerns about the abusive impact this law has on vulnerable patients.  Of those patients who took their lives after receiving the deadly prescription, only one out of 65 patients who took their lives in 2010 was referred for psychiatric or psychological evaluation prior to their suicide.

This lack of assessment for depression indicates that patients may be pushed into suicide without proper mental health care beforehand.  Questionnaire responses from the patients who took their own lives during 2010 indicate most were concerned about issues such as loss of autonomy, decreasing ability to participate in activities, and loss of dignity.  Such responses suggest their mental state was much more the issue than any pain caused by their underlying condition.

Records reveal that 96 prescriptions were issued in 2010, but only 59 of those patients used them.  37 patients decided to hold off with 20 of those dying from their underlying illness, and 17 still waiting to decide. Six of the 65 who took their lives had received the deadly prescription in a prior year, but used it in 2010.

This new form of "choice" has many parallels to making the "choice" of abortion.  Making the fatal choice is often based on lack of support from family members and "experts" who should be offering help rather than encouraging assisted suicide or abortion as a "solution."

Tuesday, Jan 25, 2011  --  Forcing college students to pay for abortions as health care

Students for Life of America has done a survey of 200 major universities and found that 89 of them include abortion coverage in their school-sponsored health insurance.  Even worse, 41 of these 89 colleges require their students to automatically enroll and pay for this student health insurance that covers abortions.

Another impact of having abortion coverage in student health insurance plans is the result that tax funds are paying for abortions in the case of students who received need-based Federal Pell grants based on tuition and fees that include the health insurance charges.

Students should not be forced to help fund the abortions of other students, and taxpayers should not be forced to assist with payment for abortions even indirectly through grants the help cover these health insurance costs.  Get details about specific colleges here.

Monday, Jan 24, 2011  --  Washington, D.C. March for Life bigger than ever?

Reports from participants suggest the March for Life held today in Washington, D.C. could be the biggest ever, or at least match last year's 400,000.   The lamestream media does not consider this event newsworthy, because it does not comply with their immoral agenda, so they ignore it.  That is another strike against their credibility for reporting the news.

Chicago area sent: 8 buses sponsored by the Archdiocese Respect Life Office, 3 sponsored by St. John Cantius, 2 sponsored by Illiana Right to Life, and multiple buses from the Diocese of Joliet.  Other Illinois dioceses also sent buses to Washington, D.C.  If this level of participation was any indication of the national trend, the March for Life likely exceeded previous records.

The time required for all the people to march past the Supreme Court building keeps increasing as the numbers have jumped so much in recent years, from 225,000 in 2008 to 375,000 in 2009, 400,000 in 2010, and now at least that many or more in 2011.

The first March for Life was organized in 1974.  Attendance levels went up gradually, and sometimes dipped, over the years from 1974-2007.   Only in the last few year has attendance really taken off to the levels that we are now seeing.  Participation from the younger generation is growing rapidly.  If you have not yet attended in person, plan to get there in 2012.

Friday, Jan 21, 2011  --  Chinese leader denies forced abortions exist there

Abortion advocacy is built on lies such as it is safe with no consequences.  This claim ignores impacts such as infertility, mental health impacts, and so many more.  Apparently, population control and China's one-child policy is built on lies as well.

Chinese President Hu Jintao insisted that China’s forced abortion policy does not exist, in response  to a statement urging the end of China’s forced abortion policy given by Foreign Affairs chairwoman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).  She stated, “I was astonished when he insisted that such a policy does not exist.”

Population Research Institute founder Steven Mosher said that he was “not surprised” by Hu’s words, which he called a “bald-faced lie.”  Mosher is fully aware of the grim reality of China's ongoing forced abortion policy.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Mosher noted, “I was in China a few months ago and met with women who were actually fleeing forced abortion.  I know for a fact if they had been caught by the authorities, they would have immediately been taken in and given a lethal injection into the uterus, which would have resulted in ... their delivering a dead baby within 48 to 72 hours.”

Every day in China, Mosher said, women are coerced into abortions - authorities “actually physically take women in by force and strap them down or hold them down on tables while their wombs are emptied out.” This, he says, is no mystery to the powers that be, who have established population “quotas” for each village, and punish lower-level officials if the quotas are exceeded by “illegal” pregnancies.

“This is not just an accidental consequence of a few out-of-control officials.  This is the way the program is designed by the state family planning commission to actually work,” said Mosher. “Hu Jintao surely knows this because he has endorsed the one-child policy in speeches, and the government of China at all levels knows it, because this is one of their major, ongoing, political campaigns.”

Thursday, Jan 20, 2011  --  House sees bills introduced to ban abortion funding

Soon after completing action on the repeal of ObamaCare, The U.S. House is moving toward consideration of bills to block any Federal funding of abortion.  The “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3) would establish a permanent government-wide ban on federal funding of abortion.  The co-sponsors of H.R. 3 are US Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus.

H.R. 3 would replace the need for annual funding prohibitions or “riders” like the Hyde Amendment, which are always one Congress away from expiring.  The bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon conscience clause, which prohibits hospitals and health care workers from being forced to perform abortions, while giving its enforcement more substance.

The “Protect Life Act”, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), would amend the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare) to include a statutory ban on using government funds for abortion within health care reform.  

These bills represent two strategies to eliminate abortion funding from ObamaCare, one with wider scope than the other.  Negotiation with the Senate will be needed to get something to pass there.  Will the President then veto the bill, revealing the truth that abortion is funded in the version of ObamaCare that passed in 2010?

Wednesday, Jan 19, 2011  --  House votes to repeal ObamaCare; 27 states file lawsuits

After ObamaCare was forced through Congress last year when "pro-life" Democrats gave in to a meaningless "compromise" that failed to prevent abortion funding under this massive bill, voters had their say in November.  Today, the new Congress with 63 more Republicans voted to repeal ObamaCare.   With all 242 Republicans and 3 Democrats voting for repeal, the vote was 245-189.

The lamestream media described this vote as "symbolic" and implied that it was meaningless.  However, this vote identifies who is willing to respond to voter concerns about the huge expansion of government power established by ObamaCare. 

Why is it that Senator Harry Reid has vowed to deny a vote on a repeal bill in the Senate?  Even though the Democrats have a majority and can vote down repeal, Reid does not want to put them on record as against repeal, because he knows the voters will remember in 2012.

Meanwhile, the number of states challenging ObamaCare in court as unconstitutional has risen to 27.  This scope of objections to an act of Congress by the states is unprecedented, but you would hardly notice it is happening, given the censureship imposed by the lamestream media.  Don't you think they should regularly publish a scorecard showing the number of states challenging the law?

Tuesday, Jan 18, 2011  --  How to make abortion rare

Operation Rescue, based in Wichita, Kansas, recently made the following observation about what reduces the number of women who "choose" abortion:

When women do not have abortion businesses actively marketing abortions to them in their neighborhoods, they tend to reconsider abortion and instead make life-affirming decisions for their babies. We experienced this living in the now abortion-free community of Wichita, Kansas, where local pregnancy centers inform us that business is up, few women opt for abortion, and requests for adoption have quadrupled since the closure of the city's last abortion clinic.

When abortion is not conveniently available, many of the 64% of women who say they were pressured or even forced into abortion will have a much better chance of avoiding one.   Adoption becomes an option that gets more serious consideration.  Life is certainly better when the last abortion provider leaves town, especially for babies.

In contrast, Planned Parenthood is trying to expand its abortion facilities through such medically irresponsible methods as telemed abortion, where the mother never sees a doctor.  When RU-486 does not work as advertised, Planned Parenthood's advice is to go to the emergency room for treatment.  How convenient a means this is to claim they experience no complications with RU-486 abortions -- just pass the complications to someone else! 

Monday, Jan 17, 2011  --  NARAL ranks states on abortion: "F" is a badge of honor

Congratulations to these states for receiving an "F" from NARAL on their state laws regulating abortion: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia.  Unfortunately, Illinois receives a "B-" from NARAL, and has an abortion rate of 20.5 per 1000 women ages 15-44.

Ironically, while expressing concern about state laws that "restrict" abortion, abortion advocates also claim that these laws have no impact on abortion rates.   If the laws have no effect, why are they so concerned about preventing or revoking these laws?  Americans United for Life has ranked states based on the scope of their Pro-Life laws.  Those rankings can be found here.

I decided to do a side-by-side comparison of the NARAL rankings of state laws with the abortion rates by state.  The average abortion rate per 1000 women ages 15-44 for states receiving an "A" rating from NARAL was 21.8 while the average rate for states with an "F" rating was 10.6, less than half.  Apparently, laws "restricting" abortion have a significant impact to reduce abortions.

Additionally, within each grouping of states (the "A" versus the "F") there were some states with abortion rates similar to those with the opposite ranking. The NARAL "A" states of Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have abortion rates nearly 50% below the 21.8 average.  The NARAL "F" states of Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia have abortion rates 50% or more above the 10.6 average.

Considering the racial composition of the aforementioned states and recognizing the higher abortion rates known to exist among minority populations appears to provide an explanation for these differences.  One might conclude that state laws to regulate abortion have a positive effect in reducing abortion across all variations of racial composition.  That is why NARAL works so avidly to oppose laws regulating abortion.

Friday, Jan 14, 2011  --  Abby Johnson's insights from seeing both sides of the fence

Abby Johnson's book unPLANNED reveals important facts about abortion providers and especially about Planned Parenthood, where she invested eight years before recognizing the deception of their message and approach.  Here are some of these important insights:

The long-term problem-solving perspective of Pro-Lifers versus the short-term view of Planned Parenthood:  "I was beginning to grasp what seemed to me a stark contrast betweeen the Coalition for Life's mind-set of life-nurturing, long-range solutions versus Planned Parenthood's more immediate focus on solving short-term crises." (page 185)

Abby was told to increase revenue by increasing abortions, including the statement, "nonprofit is a tax status, not a business status."  (page 114)

Planned Parenthood's claimed objective of reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions is a deception:  "I was now convinced that it was an abortion machine in the business of killing unborn babies and meeting revenue goals."  (page 130)

Planned Parenthood had a map of their USA facilities with one color for abortion locations and another if not.  Their goal is to turn all non-abortion locations into abortion providers.  (webcast)

RU-486 abortions are very dangerous:  It took Abby two weeks to get back to work and eight weeks to recover after an RU-486 abortion that she described as "sheer agony" where "nothing went as advertised." (pages 47-48)

When the Bryan office of Planned Parenthood expanded the days they offered RU-486 abortions, they did not have women see a doctor at all.  (webcast)

Contraception fails:  Abby got pregnant twice while using contraception, the second time as a "well-educated" Planned Parenthood volunteer.  (pages 44-46)

Abortion not a good solution after rape:  "We closed our clinic for half a day, and the trainer (from a rape crisis center) offered our staff great insights into the perspectives and needs of women who'd been brutalized in this way.  She was a huge proponent of adoption and discussed how giving a child to a waiting, loving family often brought deep healing to women who'd been raped."  (page 101; another case described on page 60)

Thursday, Jan 13, 2011  --  Further evidence questioning the merits of "brain death" 

A special report authored by Mercedes Arzu Wilson and published by Life Decisions International presents many historical facts about the history of the questionable biological concept of "brain death" that is heavily relied on to obtain donated vital organs for transplant. 

This report includes information regarding a number of meetings and conferences that have been held to evaluate the merits of "brain death."  It is not reassuring that many advocates in favor of "brain death" at these meetings have a serious conflict of interest because of their own involvement in the organ transplant industry.

Even more unsettling are quotes clearly indicating that professionals who support "brain death" fully recognize that patients declared "brain dead" are not truly dead.  Wilson wrote, "In fact, moments before the conference began one of the presenters admitted to me that 'brain dead' donors are alive, but since their 'quality of life' is so poor it is better for their organs to be used to save someone else's life."

Consistent with that observation, proponents of organ transplantation Dr. Franklin G. Miller and Dr. Robert D. Truog published an article in the Hastings Center Report of December 2, 2008, "Rethinking the Ethics of Vital Organ Donation," admitting that "brain dead" donors are alive and all restrictions should be removed in order to obtain more organs for transplantation.

Do you still feel comfortable declaring your intent to be an organ donor?  IRLC recommends against any blanket declaration to be an organ donor as is the case with the Illiinois Organ Donor Registry.  To have more options, including a declaration not to be an organ donor, either complete the IRLC Organ Donation Declaration to place with your existing Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, or complete the IRLC Patient Self-Protection Document that includes the Organ Donation Declaration.

Wednesday, Jan 12, 2011  --  Persecuted for suggesting abortion affects mental health 

Even though the testimonies are everywhere that abortion can have negative impacts on mental health, abortion advocates still deny any connection at all.  Since abortion is all about making money fast, such negative information must be censured to ensure future profits.

With abortion advocates now common in government positions, such censorship can obtain enforcement through the power of government bureaucrats.  In England, where health care is provided by the government, if you are a mental health worker who suggests abortion affects mental health, you may lose your job.

Margaret Forrester, who works for Central North West London Mental Health Trust, had a private conversation with colleagues about the mental health problems faced by women who have had abortions.  She expressed concern that women are not being given adequate information on the dangers of abortion to their long-term mental health, and she showed her co-workers a booklet on post-abortion syndrome that featured the personal testimonies of women who have suffered from it.

After this conversation, Forrester was called into a meeting with her manager, questioned about her views, and suspended from her job.  At a disciplinary hearing on December 22, Forrester was told that she could continue to work only if she never spoke of her beliefs about abortion again.  She was told never to “give materials like this to colleagues at work.”

Since Forrester maintains she did nothing wrong, another disciplinary hearing has been scheduled, and she thinks it is likely she will be fired.  [01/27/11 note:   Reason has prevailed for now with Forrester's job being restored.]  Might we expect similar enforcement against such viewpoints here once ObamaCare kicks in, if it is not successfully repealed? 

The Obama administration has appointed an overwhelming number of abortion advocates who would be controlling all aspects of ObamaCare.  Just recently, the Institute of Medicine Committee on Preventive Services for Women has twice shut out Pro-Life organizations from making official comments about whether abortion and/or birth control should be declared preventative under the implementation of ObamaCare.   If they are declared preventative, the Federal government could force insurance companies to cover abortions or birth control under ObamaCare.

Tuesday, Jan 11, 2011  --  Guttmacher reports abortion rate breaks its downward trend

The Guttmacher Institute just released its latest analysis of national abortion statistics.  They found that the 2008 abortion rate was 19.6 per 1000 women between the ages of 15 – 44, with the annual total of abortions reaching 1,212,400 (an increase of 6,000 abortions from 2005 when the rate was 19.4 abortions per 1000 women).

As usual, this former affiliate of Planned Parenthood immediately concluded that more access to birth control was needed to prevent increasing abortions.  That conclusion ignores certain key facts.  Even abortion advocates had observed back in 2008 that abortions were increasing because of the downturn in the economy hurting people financially.  Might that alone account for the increase that has now been determined two years later? 

However, Americans United for Life pinpoints two other important factors that generated upward pressure on the abortion rate.  As the largest abortion provider in the nation Planned Parenthood's abortion total increased from 305,310 in 2007 to 324,008 in 2008.   That is 18,698 more abortions, which is over 3 times the national increase of 6,000 abortions. 

What was Planned Parenthood doing to increase their abortions?  They were opening new mega abortion facilities (e.g. in Aurora IL) and expanding the number of locations that commit RU-486 abortions.  With this greater availability of abortions, would not an increase be expected?  That certainly happened in Illinois.  As I just recently reported, the Illinois counties near the Aurora facility experienced significant increases in abortions, while abortions went down in other areas of Illinois. 

It appears reasonable to conclude that abortions are continuing to fall except in regions where Planned Parenthood, and possibly other abortion providers, are increasing the availability of abortions with expanded facilities and greater use of RU-486, sometimes even without the need to see a doctor in person (e.g. telemed abortions in Iowa).

Monday, Jan 10, 2011  --  Abby Johnson's book shares the reality of Planned Parenthood

I just began reading Abby Johnson's book, unPLANNED.  The book covers her experience on the other side of the abortion debate as a volunteer and then employee of Planned Parenthood.  I have not quite finished the book yet, but it is very difficult to put it down.

Abby was promoted to become director of Planned Parenthood's Bryan, Texas office, at which abortions are committed.  She was recognized as 2008 employee of the year just a few months before things began to change her perspective.

Abby was convinced from her first encounter with Planned Parenthood (at a volunteer recruitment table at her college) that they work to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions.  Since she did not like abortion, this goal of reducing abortion was one of the key reasons she liked her work there.  She also tolerated abortion because she accepted the claim that without Planned Parenthood women would be denied a safe "medical procedure" and be forced instead into dangerous "back alley" abortions.

Reality began to hit for Abby when the Houston affiliate to which Bryan is connected ran into financial shortfalls and began pressing hard for an increase in abortion business.  Abby was given a target to double the abortions committed at the Bryan office.  Her objections to this new goal, which Abby thought violated the mission of Planned Parenthood, led to a reprimand of this recent employee of the year.

Seeing an actual abortion of a 13-week baby, when asked for the first time to hold the ultrasound probe, became the next step leading to Abby's conversion from "pro-choice" to Pro-Life.  This brief summary leaves out many twists and turns and important encounters that helped Abby ultimately recognize that she had been deceived.

You can order Abby's book, unPLANNED,  to learn many more important aspects of this miraculous story of the conversion of a seriously committed Planned Parenthood staff member to the Pro-Life cause.  For a limited time, unPLANNED is available at Ignatius Press’ website at 35% off.   You can learn more here by viewing the replay of a webcast that features Abby speaking about the experiences covered in her book.  You can read the first chapter of unPLANNED here.

Friday, Jan 7, 2011  --  New York City abortion rate is double the national average

The latest abortion statistics for New York City were just released for 2009.   These figures reveal that 41% of New York City pregnancies end in abortion.  With the national average around 20%, the New York City abortion rate is over double the national average.

How has New York City achieved this shocking result?  Might a mandate of "comprehensive" sex education in schools, publicly-funded "free" birth control for everyone, mandated medical training on abortion in city colleges, and over 200 abortion facilities contribute to this tragic loss of life?

Even this death rate is not enough for abortion providers and their allies on the New York City Council.  They want to pass an ordinance to place very restrictive regulations on pregnancy care centers in an attempt to put them out of business.   Then the abortion providers can add to their death totals even those babies who currently escape with the aid of pregnancy care centers.

Thursday, Jan 6, 2011  --  On again, off again "death panels" are off again

Authors of health care "reform" have been trying to include provisions for doctors to instruct Medicare patients, during their annual “voluntary” exams, to establish advance directives listing the kind of treatment they wish to receive or not receive if they are unable to make their own medical decisions.  With the concern that patients will feel pressured into making decisions that they would not make on their own, this provision became described as "death panels." 

Proponents of health care "reform" first tried to include "death panels" in the health care bill itself, but the pressure was too great so the language was stripped from the final 2000-page bill.  Last month, it was discovered that those same provisions were included in regulations being established for Medicare by the Department of Health and Human Services, to be effective in January 2011 under the new law.

However, once people learned about this latest move, the pressure again got to great so the "death panel" regulation has again been removed before it could take effect.   Some political commentators suggest that proponents of the health care law were unwilling to give advocates of its repeal this issue in the new Congress, when the issues surrounding health care reform will again be debated, with a new majority in the House of Representatives ready to repeal the law.

Wednesday, Jan 5, 2011  --  Organize a petition drive for Choose Life license plates

The new legislative session does not begin in Illinois until January 12th, though you would hardly know it with all the activity in Springfield, but that's another story.   Once the new session does actually begin, it is time to introduce a new bill to establish Choose Life specialty plates in Illinois.

Illinois legislators have been denied a chance to vote on Choose Life plates in the past, but many other new specialty plates have been approved in recent years, most by nearly unanimous votes.  During the 2009-10 legislative session, they have approved another 11 specialty plates.  When these plates join the over 80 specialty plates already available, Illinois will have over 90 specialty plates to choose from, with no Choose Life plate among them.

To generate more persuasion for reluctant legislative leaders who are willing to deny our free speech rights, you are encouraged to sign a petition supporting Choose Life plates.  Better yet, could you organize a petition drive at your church or other community organization?

You can find everything you need at the Illinois Choose Life website here, including the petition sheet form, petition drive suggestions, a brief presentation, a one-page promotional letter, and a two-page August 2010 update letter from Jim Finnegan, IL Choose Life president.  All of these documents are ready to print or download.

Help us reach the goal of at least 25,000 signatures in support of Choose Life specialty license plates.  When completing the petition, be sure to provide your email address and also check the box indicating your intent to purchase the Choose Life plate when it becomes available.

Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011  --  IL 2009 abortion stats reveal Aurora Planned Parenthood impact

With the release of the Illinois abortion statistics for 2009, we can now see two full years of statistics after the opening of the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress in Aurora, IL.  The sad, but not unexpected, news is the tremendous increase in abortions among residents of those counties in proximity to the Aurora Planned Parenthood.

Compared to 2007 totals, abortions by county of residence increased over the following two years by 98% in Kendall, 61% in Will, 39% in Kane, 36% in DeKalb, 13% in Cook, and 10% in DuPage.  One can only presume that many of these abortions were committed at Planned Parenthood in Aurora, since it became a much closer destination for women in these counties. 

Two adjacent counties bucked this trend with abortion reductions of 10% in McHenry and 7% in Lake. Abortions in 2009 for all age categories below 30-years-of-age fell compared with 2008.  Many of the remaining counties in Illinois saw reductions in abortion.  Overall, abortions in Illinois fell from 47,717 in 2008 to 46,077 in 2009.  However, this total is still higher than the 2007 total of 45,298. 

Monday, Jan 3, 2011  --  Reality says one thing while Planned Parenthood says another

News is coming out of Spain about a study that reveals the opposite of the politically-correct party line.  The study finds that Spain's abortion rate doubled despite substantial increases in the use of contraceptives over a recent 10 year period.  The claim of abortion advocates is that increased use of contraception will reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

The study was published in the January 2011 issue of the journal Contraception.   It reports that over a period from 1997 to 2007 the number of women using contraceptives increased from 49.1% to 79.9%.  Yet the study noted that in the same timeframe Spain’s abortion rate more than doubled from 5.52 per 1,000 women to 11.49.

LifeSiteNews reports, “The researchers, who had aimed to gather information about contraceptive use in order to reduce the number of abortions, were clearly puzzled by the results.  They write that the findings were 'interesting and paradoxical,' and suggest that the rise in abortion rate may be due to 'inadequate or inconsistent use' of contraceptives.”  The study's conclusion states, “The factors responsible for the increased rate of elective abortion need further investigation.”

It seems that the Spanish study's authors accept the unproven claim that contraceptive use leads to reduced abortion rates, so they cannot accept real world results that contradict that premise.  Maybe they could overcome their biases if they actually considered what Planned Parenthood rolls out to encourage contraceptive use.

LifeNews reports that Planned Parenthood’s web site has announced the imminent launch of a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture. The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex — from birth.  And it recommends telling teenagers about masturbation, oral sex and “where to go for help to prepare to be sexually active.”

That certainly sounds like a recipe to generate more unwanted pregnancies, not less.   Then Planned Parenthood can achieve their business plan to generate more profits from increased abortion rates.  Maybe the Spanish researchers should ask to see Planned Parenthood's business plan.  Then they would learn that decreasing abortions is not part of the program hidden under the label of "comprehensive sex education."