Pro-Life Newsline

A recent Chicago Tribune headline (4/22/08) read, “New HPV test puts cancer screening in ‘state of flux’.” The article explained that a new HPV test may be more effective than the Pap smear in screening for cervical cancer. However, this HPV test detects HPV infections that often clear on their own. Thus, further testing is needed to determine whether the first test should raise any concern.

Of course, Merck’s heavily marketed HPV vaccine Gardasil should prevent all this testing, right? Not at all! The vaccine is only effective against HPV strains that have been associated with about 70% of cervical cancers so women still need the Pap smear, and now the HPV test, to see if other HPV infections might be present that have not been prevented by the vaccine.

When you think about it, why bother with a vaccine that is nowhere close to 100% effective and does not reduce the need regular testing? Besides, taking those regular tests can detect any problem early enough that it can be treated long before it has the potential to cause cervical cancer. Beyond that, why take a vaccine that has been found to have some very undesirable and even dangerous side effects (even 11 deaths) when it will not reduce the need for other recommended ongoing tests? Even worse, the HPV vaccine amounts to using young girls as guinea pigs because the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine is unknown. If young girls receive the vaccine at the recommended age of 11, the vaccine may need a booster to be effective when they reach an age where sexual activity is more likely. Of course, that raises another important question. Why take a vaccine that is only potentially useful when sexual morality is violated?

That topic led to a survey that found “most moms balk at HPV vaccine for young girls” as reported in the May 5, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times. Of course, given the Sun-Times editorial board’s conviction to promote “safe” sex, they jumped on this news in a May 6th editorial to push parents to get their 11-year-old daughters vaccinated before it’s too late.

Before you decide to follow the Sun-Times recommendation, you may want to learn more about the side effects of Gardasil by checking the following articles:

FDA Knew It: Cervical Cancer Not Caused by HPV Virus
US Death Toll from HPV Vaccine Jumps to 11 with 3779 Adverse Reactions Reported

Get even more inforation at the IRLC web site (www.illinoisrighttolife.org) by selecting “Pro-Life Issues” and then selecting “Vaccines”. The best course is to practice moral behavior, save sex for marriage, and decline to enrich the drug companies and doctors by foregoing risky vaccines and ongoing tests that never end.

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Teens are going to ...

The April 30 Chicago Sun-Times carried an editorial entitled "Abstain from taking abstinence-only funds". My response to the Sun-Times editor appears below, but is unlikely to appear in the Sun-Times:

Editor:

Teens are going to drink alcohol. Most parents want their children to have accurate information to avoid blacking out , in addition to hearing about abstaining from alcohol.

Teens are going to use drugs. Most parents want their children to have accurate information to avoid killing themselves , in addition to hearing about abstaining from drugs.

Most parents would disagree with the above statements so why would they agree with the Sun-Times editoral claim that "Teens are going to have sex. Most parents want their children to have accurate information to avoid pregnancy and STDs ... in addition to hearing about abstinence, surveys show."

Who took the surveys that showed this preference? I am sure the survey wording failed to clarify what "comprehensive" sex education would do as an alternative, namely, teach that casual sex is always OK as long as it is "safe". When parents learn about the contents of "comprehensive" sex education, they prefer abstinence education by a wide margin.

The editorial also claimed (about abstinence education) "study after study shows the programs don't work." Only two recent studies with this conclusion gained any publicity in the last two years. Both of these studies have been challenged as unreliable because they were not conducted in anything close to a scientific manner. Instead, they were done to confirm a preconceived and incorrect answer that abstinence does not work. Many other studies have demonstrated that abstinence works very effectively.

The editor's call for Illinois to "abstain from taking abstinence-only funds" would do a serious disservice to Illinois teenagers. They deserve to know the truth that "safe" sex is not safe, but abstinence works every time it is tried. Giving a mixed message about sex is like saying, "you should study hard, but it is perfectly OK if you end up with D's." Teens need to be given some expectations to live up to! They deserve better than "safe" sex!

Bill Beckman

Comment (on above article -- received from Christine on Illinois Review):
I agree with the comparison between drug education and sex education. They have a zero tolerance stance toward drugs, drinking or smoking and expect kids to abstain. While I would never want my kid to smoke, I would rather they smoke than have unmarried sex. And chances are you can "experiment" with smoking or pot and suffer no permanent ill effects. And frankly I drank (at family gatherings and such) as a child with no harm done. That can't be said for sex. Even if you escape any STDs or pregnancy, you will always carry the emotional burden of having casually given something away that can never be taken back.

Below are links to supporting information:

Mathematica Study (published in April 2007) criticized as flawed:
Mathematica Abstinence Study Uses Fuzzy Math
CWA Says Study Debunking Abstinence is Flawed
Opponents are Wrong: Abstinence Education Has Not Failed

Rep. Henry Waxman’s Report on Abstinence Education Found Inaccurate and Misleading

Study: 83% Of Parents Say Its Important For Their Child To Save Sex Till Marriage

HHS Report: “Comprehensive” Sex Ed Ineffective, Offensive

Study Shows Abstinence Education Reduces Teenage Sexual Behavior
Drop in US Teen Sexual Activity Rates Linked to Abstinence Programs
Research on Abstinence Education (Heritage Foundation)

Sex Education Will Be an Issue This November (Fran Eaton)

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, April 25, 2008

New hard hitting radio messages from IRLC

Illinois Right to Life Committee is again preparing some truthful but hard hitting radio messages. The first messages will appear starting May 12th on WVON 1690 AM. WVON is an African-American talk radio station. Our message is timely with another new effort to inform the Black community about the genocide in their midst. As Penny Pullen reports this week “Human Life Alliance has published a pamphlet targeted to the African-American community and to all those whose hearts weep for the genocidal consequences of commercialized abortion, Planned Parenthood-style.” That 12-page booklet can be ordered via the organization’s Internet website at www.humanlife.org, turning to the Resources page and choosing “Did You Know?”

Selected eye-opening facts revealed in that brochure include the observation that “Between 1882 and 1963, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the United States. That number is surpassed within three days by abortion.” Another startling fact is that more than 47% of African-American pregnancies end in induced abortion.

Here are two of the new IRLC radio messages. The first is called “Genocide” as follows:

The most dangerous place for a black baby in Cook County is in his mother’s womb.

More black Americans are killed by abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

African Americans comprise 13% of the population, yet African American women have 35% of abortions. Their abortion rate is four times the rate for white women. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, nearly 17 million black babies have been aborted, reducing the potential black population by almost one third.

When Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, set up her “Negro Project,” she was quoted as saying, "We don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Since almost 80% of its facilities are in minority neighborhoods, it’s safe to say their plans haven’t changed. Isn’t it time to protect our babies and their mothers and stop the genocide!

The second is called “Breast Cancer and Black Women” as follows:

Abortion is the single most avoidable risk factor for breast cancer. A British researcher described legal abortion as the best predictor of breast cancer trends.

Minority women constitute only 13% of the population, but account for 35% of abortions and a 20% higher death rate from breast cancer.

A black woman in the US has a 10% risk of contracting breast cancer during her lifetime, but black women under 40 who had an abortion have a 50% increased risk. The risk jumped to 370% for black women over 50 who had aborted.

Women are not being told the truth about abortion and breast cancer in order to protect the abortion industry from lawsuits and preserve the legal status of abortion. It is time to stop the cover-up. Women deserve better. They deserve to know the truth.

Listen for these and other messages on WVON 1690 AM during the weeks of May 12th, May 26th, and June 9th.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, April 18, 2008

Censorship based on the unspoken subject of abortion

Why did Senator Barbara Boxer block a U.S. Senate resolution welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States? Apparently for Senator Boxer, the phrase “witnessing to the value of each and every human life” is offensive. Does it challenge her pro-abortion position? How insecure is the Senator about her support for abortion? As applied to Pope Benedict, the phrase is simply a statement of fact.

I suppose one could understand a negative reaction if a phrase such as “strongly opposes abortion” or “condemns abortion under any circumstances” was included. The “offending” phrase as written did not even include specific reference to unborn human life. Obviously, Senator Boxer does not agree that each and every human life has value.

In any case Boxer blocked the Senate resolution until that phrase was removed from the statement, “Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life.” She apparently will concede credit to the Pope for speaking out for the weak and vulnerable, as long as they are not identified.

The actions of Senator Boxer reflect crass pettiness in defense of her pro-abortion position. Labeling the phrase as “objectionable language” and “political Language” is simply cover for playing abortion politics without mentioning abortion.

Speculation exists that Pope Benedict had another impact relating to the subject of abortion without it being named. Star Parker was scheduled to speak at the University of St. Thomas on April 21st about the harmful impact of abortion on the black community, but her appearance was rejected by the Vice President of Student Affairs Jane Canney.

The justification given was concern about the sponsoring organization (Young America’s Foundation) because of negative reaction on campus to a previous speaker sponsored by that organization. Later, a university spokesman claimed that they might be willing to consider a future speaker sponsored by Young America’s Foundation. However, when the reporter asked about Parker, the spokesman stated, “We're past the issue of Parker, given the time factor. That issue is moot.”

Upon Pope Benedict’s arrival in the United States, university officials announced that Star Parker would be speaking on April 21st after all. What stimulated that change of heart? We’ll never know whether negative publicity or the Pope’s arrival embarrassed St. Thomas into allowing a Pro-Life speaker on their liberal, claiming-to-be-Catholic campus, but they have now accepted Parker’s originally scheduled appearance.

It is nice to see that Pope Benedict is having an unspoken impact on abortion proponents, forcing them to feel concerned about the merits of their position.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, April 11, 2008

Finally -- free speech wins without going to court

There are many notable situations were free speech rights of Pro-Life activists have been denied for demonstrations, displays, advertising, prayer vigils, events, etc. Often, defense of these violated free speech rights in court produces success in reaffirming the right to continue these forms of communication with the public as a means to educate them on life issues.

Of course, such court decisions usually come years after denial of the free speech rights first occurred. This lost time amounts to a significant loss of free speech rights even when final vindication does occur in court. When a few years go by without the means to communicate a Pro-Life message by whatever means was denied, many people miss a chance to ever receive the message that might have made a big difference in a life or death decision they had to make later.

Fortunately, one recent case of free speech denied did not go to court. Ronald Brock was threatened with arrest and impoundment of his Truth Truck on April 8th by Olathe, Kansas Police Sgt. David Haldeman. Brock was told that he would be charged with “promoting obscenity” if he remained in Olathe, for images displayed on his vehicle that depicted aborted babies and victims of the Jewish Holocaust of World War II. Even though Brock believed the order was unlawful and a violation of his Constitutional Rights, he immediately left Olathe to avoid arrest and vehicle impoundment.

The next day Olathe Chief of Police Janet Thiessen issued a personal apology to Ronald Brock. Officer Haldeman was placed on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation into the incident. Operation Rescue President Troy Newman received an e-mail from Chief Thiessen informing him that an apology had been made and that her officers would be receiving additional training so incidents like this would not happen again.

Chief Thiessen told Newman, “I have personally expressed my regret to Mr. Brock, and apologized on behalf of the Olathe Police Department. At times, the line between what is protected free speech and what may be considered obscene can be difficult to distinguish, but it is my responsibility to ensure all Olathe officers clearly understand the law as it is written and correctly apply that law. Based on yesterday’s incident, we have begun providing additional training to all sworn officers to help avoid future incidents of a similar nature.”

Such immediate response to resolve a violation of free speech rights is a refreshing and welcome reprieve from the usual need to conduct a legal battle to defend free speech rights. Unfortunately, the Olathe result is a stark contrast to the situation in Rockford, IL where Pro-Life advocates placed a sign in November 2005. There were no issues until March 2006 when the sign was vandalized on a regular basis and covered with spray-painted obscenities.

Even though a local Rockford bus driver was photographed getting out of her bus and defacing the sign, city officials eventually refused to allow Pro-Life advocates to continue the sign, saying it was too controversial. A city employee removed parts of the sign without notice.

Two years later, the legal battle continues. The Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit asking the Court to declare the actions of Rockford officials unconstitutional as well as to issue an injunction stopping the city from preventing the display of the Pro-Life message. How long will free speech be denied in Rockford? Congratulations to all those city officials and police officers who do respect the First Amendment and free speech rights.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, April 4, 2008

Pro-choice or pro-abortion? continued

I received a response to my LifeNews article regarding “pro-choice versus pro-abortion.” The author provided the following feedback:

I just wanted to say that I do believe there is a difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". I think "pro-choice" means that you would not have an abortion yourself and you do not believe it is okay to have one, but you feel it is something for each person to decide. (Still a wrong position!) These people also would not assist or encourage anyone to have one.

I responded as follows: Thanks for your feedback. If I accept that definition, how do I solve these two problems?

1) Barack Obama claims to be pro-choice (based on your definition of pro-abortion, he obviously does not qualify to call himself pro-choice but he did it anyway -- therefore, I would content that by accepting a distinction between the two terms, we give pro-aborts cover. Barack claimed "no one is pro-abortion"

2) if the people who are pro-choice under your definition "do not believe it is OK to have one" then are they not taking an immoral position by supporting each person's right to decide? If we consider something evil, how can we allow someone else to make that choice. Can we hold the position: "I would not rob a bank myself and I do not believe it is OK to rob one, but I feel it is something for each person to decide. Still, I would not encourage or assist anyone to rob a bank."?

Unless they truly consider abortion justified in at least some cases (rape, incest, fetal deformity, etc), it is not logical (or moral) to claim they are pro-choice under your definition. They just do not believe they will experience one of those cases, but if they did, more than likely their pro-choice label would turn into a pro-abortion action.

Another likely reason some people may call themselves pro-choice is because they have a relative they know had an abortion and they want to justify their relative's decision. By accepting that abortion as justified, they fail to help that relative confront the pain of the abortion so they can overcome their hidden, or not so hidden, post abortion trauma.

Of course, my insistence on moral clarity raises a related issue. It moves us toward the problem of those who say they are pro-life but make exceptions for rape and incest. Are they really pro-life?

In my view the main problem with accepting use of the term pro-choice to mean anything other than pro-abortion is that it allows deceptive thinking to continue. Some people who use the term may think as you describe, but too many just use the term as a more acceptable way to communicate their truly pro-abortion position, as many politicians are now doing.

We have enough of a problem to convince "pro-life" people who make exceptions for rape and incest that they need to drop those exceptions to be truly pro-life. We do not need to give more semantic cover by accepting the deceptive "pro-choice" term as having any legitimate meaning when its primary purpose is to give cover to pro-abortionists, the reason they invented the term in the first place.

If you have further insights on something I am overlooking, I would be interested in getting your feedback again.

In a reply, the author noted, “I agree that the term is used to "spin" the issue. I think people who claim to be pro-life and yet vote for those that are not, are also pro-abortion. I think we agree that all who do not completely support life (no exceptions for rape and incest, etc.) are pro-abortion. I appreciate your clarity and I am glad you are speaking about this. How would Obama feel about slavery? Would he be pro-choice on that one?”

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Pro-choice or pro-abortion?

A Robert Novak article published in the March 31st Chicago Sun-Times describes a Pennsylvania campaign event last weelend where Barack Obama answered a question about abortion by stating, “Nobody is pro-abortion.” Novak points out how Obama, “After quickly explaining why ‘I am pro-choice,’ he adjourned the event.”

Other politicians have tried to use this same cover of “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion”. Even though he did not make the statement on April 1st, it should have no more credibility than an April Fool’s joke because everyone knows that the term “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”. Historical evidence shows that pro-abortion strategists coined the term to remove the dreaded “abortion” word from the debate.

But Obama gave absolute evidence last weekend just how pro-abortion he really is. While explaining his position about education to prevent HIV/AIDS, he stated, “But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.”

Is that a pro-abortion statement? Since Obama views the baby as both a mistake and punishment, he obviously supports aborting it. How much stronger statement can one make? I cannot confirm whether this statement occurred earlier at the same event Novak reported on or at another one, but the two statements were both made last weekend.

Even if one unwisely accepted the concept that someone could actually be pro-choice and not be pro-abortion, Obama has demonstrated that this distinction could not possibly apply to him. He sees abortion as the solution for a mistake and a means to remove a punishment. He ignores the humanity of the unborn child and thus devalues all human life by suggesting that abortion be available as just another form of birth control. He would counsel his own daughter to abort his grandchild!

Pray for Obama’s daughters that they be enlightened to avoid the serious mistake of abortion, far worse than having an inconvenient pregnancy. Of course, if their parents were serious about teaching the value of chastity, rather than sending a mixed message of so-called safe sex, maybe the Obama daughters would see the value of respecting their sexuality and saving themselves for their husbands.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, March 28, 2008

Ignoring a major contributing cause doesn’t help find solutions

Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times carried reports on March 26th regarding a study presented in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. What got their attention was a study about the long-term impact of premature birth. The Sun-Times summarized key findings as “children born early have higher death rates in childhood and are more likely to be childless in adulthood.” The Tribune summary was even more ominous, stating “Infants born prematurely are much more likely to die during childhood and, if they survive, much less likely to have children of their own in adulthood.”

The death rate for the earliest preemies (22-27 weeks) was 5.3 times higher than average for 1-6 year old boys and 7 times higher for 7-13 year old boys. Again for boys who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 14% have had children compared to 50% of boys born at full term.

The most premature girls had a 9.7 times higher than average death rate from 1-6 years of age, but no increased risk from 7-13 years old. For girls who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 25% have had children compared to 68% of girls born at full term.

Even so, both articles stated, “Most preemies grow up to have good health and normal reproduction.” Another area of analysis was educational achievement. Fewer preemies had completed high school and more full term children had taken graduate education.

The data used for the study was obtained from “Norway’s extensive registry of births and medical care” using statistics for over 1.16 million singleton births from 1967 to 1988 and following them through 2002. Therefore, by the end of the study’s timeframe, the study group ranged in age from 14-35 years old. For educational achievement, the study analyzed only those born from 1967 to 1976.

The study raises a number of questions. Given the disparities between female deaths in the 1-6 age range compared to the 7-13 age range, and compared to boys deaths in both categories, can the results be considered statistically sound or merely anomalies? Given that a significant portion of the study group has not reached typical childbearing age, how reliable are the differences found in reproductive outcomes? Given that in vitro fertilization was not achieved until 1978 and only single births were studied here, is it reliable to assume that the outcomes identified by this study can be applied to the explosion of preemies generated by wider use of in vitro fertilization, leading to many preemies from multiple births?

Of course, a variety of experts were quoted on the potential implications of the study. Dr. Geeta Swamy of Duke University Medical Center, and lead author of the study, observed, “Are we improving their survival at the expense of significant problems down the road?” Might that be a hint that Dr. Swamy would consider abortion, or even infanticide, a better choice?

The Tribune article noted that “one in eight U.S. infants is now born prematurely” while “researchers are unsure why the rate is so high, but contributing factors include the growing incidence of assisted reproduction, which often produces twins or triplets, which are more likely to be born prematurely.” Another statistic raised by Dr. Wanda Barfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “In the U.S. premature birth rates among black mothers are higher than among white mothers.”

The unmentioned factor that is ignored in regard to premature birth is its correlation to abortion. Since black mothers have an abortion rate four times that of white mothers, they will certainly have more premature births in later pregnancies. Since abortion became more prevalent after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, premature births have risen because more mothers have abortion in their medical background.

The Sun-Times article quotes Dr. Alan Fleischman of the March of Dimes stating, “In the United States, there is an epidemic of preterm birth, and prevention is absolutely critical.” How will prevention be even remotely possible when a major contributing cause (abortion) is totally ignored as being a factor? Of course, the March of Dimes views “selective reduction” (aborting “excess fetuses” produced by in vitro fertilization) as prevention! How long will it be before the March of Dimes joins Princeton professor Peter Singer in advocating infanticide as prevention for the epidemic of preterm babies?

Illinois Right to Life News for Thursday, March 20, 2008

Death with dignity?

The slide toward euthanasia continues in Oregon. The assisted suicide law requires annual reports to the public, but the accuracy of the information is questioned because those who might abuse the rules are responsible for reporting the results.

Commenting on rhetoric versus reality regarding assisted suicide, Wesley Smith wrote, “We are told by backers that assisted suicide should be restricted to cases of unbearable suffering. Yet, current legislation in California and Vermont to legalize assisted suicide contains no such requirement; nor does the law in Oregon, where doctors who assist suicides report that most patients do not seek death because of pain, but because they fear being a burden, can no longer engage in enjoyable activities, and/or fear losing dignity.”

Even suspect data supports the point made by Wesley Smith that most patients do not seek death because of pain. The report states, “As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity (86%). During 2007, more participants were concerned about inadequate pain control (33%) than in previous years (26%).” Note that last point is suspect because the report does not state if any patient actually had inadequate pain control.

More people received lethal drugs from doctors to kill themselves than in any previous year under Oregon's first-in-the-nation law legalizing assisted suicide, euphemistically called the Death With Dignity Act. During 2007, 85 prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the provisions of the Death With Dignity Act compared to 65 during 2006. Of these, 46 patients took the medications, 26 died of their underlying disease, and 13 were alive at the end of 2007.

Since the Oregon assisted suicide law took effect 10 years ago, 341 patients have killed themselves, at least according to the records submitted to the state. How many more have died under questionable circumstances that never got reported because if the facts became known, they would point to obvious violations of the law?

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 12, 2008

CDC reports 25% of teenage girls have one or more STDs

The media made a big splash about STDs among teenage girls when a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report became public on March 11th. The headlines read, “One in 4 teenage girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease.” The data for this study came from information collected from 838 teenagers who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003 and 2004. We are assured that these 838 teens are “a nationally representative sample.”

Is it realistic to accept this premise? How many concerned parents would allow their teenage daughter to participate in an intrusive government program seeking all kinds of information about their daughter’s health, including her sexual activity. I certainly would not have allowed such participation. I can only conclude that the so-called representative sample was actually drawn from teenagers who had much less parental supervision than normal. Surveys have shown that these teens are much more likely to experiment with sexual activity than those who have strong families and supportive parents.

How can conclusions be reached about what is happening currently from data that was collected in 2003-2004? Proponents of so-called comprehensive sex education are claiming that this study proves abstinence education does not work. Since abstinence education funding increased gradually under the Bush administration, few of the teens in a survey from 2003-2004 would have any significant contact with Federally funded abstinence education. Given that, to be effective, education in any subject needs repetition, it is not logical to blame abstinence education for results produced from that timeframe, already suspect with a question mark about how representative the sample of participants really is.

Jill Stanek points out that Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute affiliate indicates only one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence. If 75% of the instruction used Planned Parenthood’s preferred alternative to abstinence education, how can abstinence education be blamed for the prevalence of STDs? I suspect that if the study results are analyzed by state, the states that are now rejecting Federal abstinence funds have higher STD rates than the states that are using Federal abstinence funding. For the current fiscal year, tragically, so far 17 states have rejected Federal funding for abstinence education.

The encouragement of casual sexual activity, including use of pornography, contained in so-called comprehensive sex education contributes to the tragic increase in sexual activity leading to increased occurrence of STDs among teenage girls. With the expanded access to the Plan B morning-after pill without a prescription, more teenagers are vulnerable to STDs because they are that much less likely to see a physician where they might get tested for STDs. Since that change in access occurred after 2004, current STD rates could be getting worse.

The problem of STDs among teenage girls is certainly serious, though it might be overstated if participants were not really a representative sample. In any case, abstinence education is not contributing to the problem. Abstinence works every time to prevent STDs.

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 5, 2008

About abortion and alcohol

I received an email from Cindy that demanded a response. She raised a concern about our cause, stating, “This whole ‘pro-life’ word really bothers me. It makes it sound like everybody else is ‘pro-death.’” Cindy maintains that she needs to have the right to abortion in case of rape, even though she considers it “terrible” that some women “may get abortions willy-nilly as a form of birth control.” Cindy then suggests that we join her “in speaking up against how so many people promote and glorify drug use.” Her definition of drug use includes all alcoholic beverages. Here is my response:

Cindy:

Thank you for your feedback.

You make the argument that the government should not interfere with your choice to have an abortion. Given your criticism of legal alcoholic beverages, including "Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.", do you propose that we return to prohibition, or do you think that everyone should be able to make their own choice regarding use of alcoholic beverages? How about their decisions to drive a car after consuming a bit too much? Since many people consider use of alcoholic beverages normal social behavior, don't they have the right to make that choice?

To be consistent with your argument against Pro-Life efforts to end abortion, why do you think that you have a right to criticize people who use alcoholic beverages? Don't they have a right to make their own moral decisions? Jesus turned water into wine. If it was a moral evil or as dangerous to human beings as you indicate (when used in moderation, of course), then that would seem to make Jesus a hypocrite. He actually encouraged the use of alcoholic beverages by providing more wine when the wine ran out at a wedding. He did not condemn the use of alcoholic beverages.

Given these facts, it seems that your campaign to end the use of alcoholic beverages completely is far more controversial than our effort to ban abortion. We believe that just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it right.

If Mary, the mother of Jesus, had the choice of abortion, she could have ended her inconvenient and embarrassing pregnancy that was leading Joseph to his decision to divorce her quietly. Jesus was not a blob of tissue, but was acknowledged very early in Mary's pregnancy as both God and man by Elizabeth when Mary went to visit her right after learning from the angel that she had conceived the Savior. Abortion cannot be justified, because it destroys innocent human life.

What do rape victims want? Have they been heard?

Are you aware of the "ad hoc committe of women pregnant by sexual assault" (http://www.afterabortion.info/news/WPSApetition.htm)? These women are petitioning for a voice in the debate. The petition from the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA) asks federal and state legislators to "hold public hearings at which we and other women who have become pregnant through sexual assault will be invited to discuss our unique needs and concerns."

WPSA was formed after the publication of Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, a book of personal testimonies collected from women who have experienced a sexual assault pregnancy. The group says that pregnant sexual assault victims have been either ignored or misrepresented by politicians and the media because of the polarizing effects of the national abortion debate.

"In most cases, it is only in the context of highly divisive debates over abortion that we are discussed," the petition reads. "In virtually every case, the people who claim to be defending our interests have never taken the time to actually listen to us to learn about our true circumstances, needs, and concerns."

Kathleen DeZeeuw, who became pregnant after being raped as a teen and gave birth to a son, Patrick, wrote in Victims and Victors that she feels "personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."

WPSA members say that because women who have actually been pregnant following sexual assault have never been given a forum to describe their real experiences, public policies fail to offer pregnant sexual assault victims the care and support they need. Instead, public funding for abortions following rape or incest may give women, their family members, and health care providers the false impression that abortion is proven to be helpful in these circumstances.

Scientific research on the matter is scarce. According to David Reardon, Ph.D, an editor of Victims and Victors and author of numerous studies on post-abortion complications, there are actually no published studies that have demonstrated any therapeutic benefits of abortion, either in general or in the specific case of pregnancies resulting from sexual assault.

"Those who favor abortions have simply assumed that abortion will produce benefits," Reardon said. "But the women who have actually been in these circumstances who have come forward are more likely to report that their abortions deepened and aggravated the psychological trauma they had already experienced as sexual assault victims. Abortion is not a cure-all."

Purpose of laws and controlling our bodies

Do you follow the law and use your seatbelt when you drive a car? Don't you realize that the government is controlling your body? How about anti-smoking laws? Again, the government is controlling your body? Do you think prostitution should be legalized? If not, you are allowing the government to control women's bodies. Why would the government not allow people to make their own choices in these and many other cases? Because they consider these actions dangerous and are trying to protect human life. There are many laws dealing with alcoholic beverages as well, though some may not be enforced as well as they should be.

If people should always be able make their own moral decisions without government interference, why are any of these laws on the books? I am sure that some poor people have a moral reason to steal so they can eat. Should we drop the laws against stealing while we are at it?

Are you aware that liberal groups are pushing for legalization of prostitution? They have succeeded in Germany. Now when a woman on unemployment in Germany has trouble finding a job, she may be pushed to take a job as a prostitute because it is legal, gainful employment. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control women's bodies!

I am sure you have heard about the one child policy in China. That policy has resulted in forced abortions and forced sterilizations and many other abuses. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control women's bodies!

Did you know that Planned Parenthood has praised that policy of the Chinese government. They have even suggested that the government in our nation should limit the number of children women can have. They are actually working toward a vaccine to prevent pregnancy. Once that is accepted as just another childhood vaccine following in the footsteps of Gardasil, the government could control the use of the reversal drug to decide when and who gets pregnant. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control women's bodies!

Current Impact of Planned Parenthood

You belittle "All the talk about Planned Parenthood 'luring young people into unhealthy sexual behavior', etc." and state "it all boils down to people’s morals and how they were raised." Do you consider it a problem if the morals instilled by the parents are challenged and ridiculed at school? Maybe you should take a look at the materials that Planned Parenthood includes in "comprehensive sex education". Most parents who review these materials consider them pornographic. Information was recently publicized that Planned Parenthood's web site for teens (www.teenwire.com) encourages teenage use of pornography. Based on their sex ed programs, their web site, and quotes from Planned Parenthood leadership over the years, the evidence is clear that Planned Parenthood promotes and encourages casual sex at any age as long as it is "consensual." How about this quote: "Teachers and parents should help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt." That is just the tip of the iceberg in evidence of Planned Parenthood's agenda.

You express concern because "so many people promote and glorify drug use." We are expressing concern because Planned Parenthood is violating parents' rights to teach their own morals to their children by promoting and glorifying casual sex.

Dangers of drug use

I agree with your concerns about the promotion and glorifying of drug use. Are you aware that the Democrats in Illinois have a bill to legalize "medical" use of marijuana? Similar bills have already become law in some states, including California. A review of the results reveals that unethical doctors make it easy for anyone to get access to marijuana for "medical" purposes. Are you working to prevent this bill from becoming law in Illinois?

Tragedies such as the recent snowmobile accident that killed news reporter Randy Salerno confirm that you have valid concerns. The evidence suggests that Wisconsin laws against driving snowmobiles under the influence of alcohol are being ignored, and there is no serious effort to stop the abuse of these laws by tavern owners and snowmobile drivers. I think such laws should be enforced, and I agree with efforts to increase penalties for drunk drivers on the road as well. When traffic accidents occur, often we learn that the enforcement has failed us because the driver had previous convictions, but was not prevented from continuing to drink and drive.

Consistent argument?

However, if I would accept your premise that the government has no right to control my body, then what's the problem? You said, "Again, I know there will be some who use abortion as a form of birth control so they can sleep all over the place. That is not good. But that is how some people are, and hopefully they will change and develop better morals. But it is not up to the government to decide what they do with their body." If I am to be consistent, then allowing some deaths from snowmobile accidents is just the cost of keeping the government from controlling my body when I want to drink, similar to your contention that babies killed by abortion are the cost of making sure you can control your body in case of rape, not the government, regardless of how many babies die given "some who may get abortions willy-nilly as a form of birth control."

Of course, since I have already said that I think the laws against alcohol abuse should be enforced, I am not being inconsistent when I also seek laws to protect the lives of unborn children from abortion. Should the child who is conceived in rape receive the death penalty for the crime of his/her father? Even the rapist will not receive the death penalty. How can it be acceptable to execute the child?

I think you need to re-evaluate your position on the role of law and government in our society. You cannot expect to expand regulation of, or even ban, alcoholic beverages based on the danger they pose to the abusers and others while maintaining the government has no right to provide protection for the unborn child because you want the right to decide if a child should live or die while a resident of your womb. That unborn child has at least as many human rights as the victims of traffic and snowmobile accidents that are caused by alcohol, whether these rights are currently recognized by the government or not.

Ironically, if the unborn child in your womb was killed against your will, the law in many states recognizes the personhood of the child and is able to charge the person responsible with homicide. Thus, if your unborn child is killed by a drunk driver in Illinois, the personhood of the child is recognized, but if you want to abort this same child because he is inconvenient, he is not a person under current law. This illogical and unjust exception for abortion must be removed from the law so the human rights and personhood of the unborn child are consistently protected.

Regards,

Bill Beckman

P.S. You make the point that alcoholic beverages are very dangerous to women. Your statement was "SIGNIFICANTLY raises the risk of breast cancer in women." Below is information that seems to challenge the accuracy of your claim on this point. On the other hand, there are a large number of scientific studies that show the significant increase in breast cancer risk caused by abortion. The minimum increased risk is 30% and it goes up rapidly when other risk factors are also present. Check the Coalition on Abortion / Breast Cancer (http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/) for details.

Medical Reports on Alcohol and Breast Cancer

Folate, Alcohol & Breast Cancer Risk
A study of 17,000 women has found that women who consume about three drinks per day but take 200 micrograms of folate or folic acid (Vitamin B9) per day have a lower risk of breast cancer than do alcohol abstainers.

Folate, Alcohol, and Breast Cancer
Women who drink alcohol and have a high folate intake are not at increased risk of breast cancer compared to those who abstain from alcohol, according to an exhaustive review of the research evidence.

Breast Cancer and Folic Acid
Folic acid appears to offset the risk of breast cancer from alcohol among women who drink in moderation.

Moderate Drinking and Breast Cancer
Moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages appears to have little effect on women’s risk for breast cancer according to research at the Centre for Alcohol Research at the National Institute for Public Health in Denmark.

Alcohol and Breast Cancer
New data from the ongoing Framingham study indicate that alcohol consumption does not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Alcohol and breast cancer in the elderly
By the age of 80, breast cancer will affect 8.8 of every 100 women. One drink a day raises the risk about one percentage point.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Oppose so-called reproductive and justice access

When the Illinois Legislature is in session, given its pro-abortion leadership, it is not surprising to learn that bad bills are being filed and given committee approval. In recent years almost all of these bills have eventually been stopped in the Illinois Senate. The opposition has usually consisted of a combination of Pro-Life Republicans and downstate Democrats, who are often Pro-Life.

One very outrageous bill that is scheduled for a hearing in the House Human Services Committee on February 27th is House Bill 5615, known as the Reproductive and Justice Access Act. Enactment of House Bill 5615 would ensure the following:

1) The government WILL NOT be allowed any regulation of abortion (parental notification, ban on partial birth abortion, etc.);

2) Medicaid funding WILL BE used for abortions;

3) Illinois’ Health Care Right of Conscience WILL cease to exist – employers will have statutory reasons to fire workers morally opposed to abortion or contraception;

4) Comprehensive sex education for every student in Illinois public schools, K - 12, WILL BE MANDATED!

These provisions are outrageous because they are a radical imposition of government to promote abortion and "safe sex." HB 5615 is effectively a combination of the so-called “freedom of choice” act that would enshrine Roe v. Wade into statute, including a complete ban on any reasonable regulation of abortion, and the bills offered in recent years to replace the state requirement for abstinence education with “comprehensive” sex education.

It is critical that your voice be heard on this very dangerous bill. You can make a difference by calling your state representative and state senator. You might also fax or email them a letter expressing your concerns. Be sure to ask them to oppose HB 5615 and to vote against it.

You can find your legislators under Action Needed on this Illinois Right to Life web site. If you need help, call us at 312-422-9300.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Estrogen pollution crisis being ignored

Have you become aware of the latest environmental threat? Most likely, you have not, because this one is not politically correct. While the focus has been placed on issues such as over-population (totally untrue), global warming (evidence in dispute), and other popular crises, the estrogen from birth control pills has been deforming fish and polluting our water. Where are the crisis headlines? Where are the public hearings and calls for action?

Why is everything so quiet when it comes to negative impacts of contraceptives? The UK Environment Agency confirmed the contraceptive pill as a pollutant back in 2002. The Agency warned then that fish stocks in British rivers were showing signs of gender ambiguity as a result of high levels of estrogen in the water. A survey of 1,500 fish at 50 river sites found more than a third of males also displayed female characteristics.

In 2005, University of Colorado scientists, sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, found that of 123 fish caught in Boulder Creek downstream from the Boulder sewage treatment plant, 101 were female, 12 were male, and 10 had both male and female characteristics. More recently, in June 2007, scientists from the University of Pittsburgh investigated the fish populations in the Allegheny River near storm sewer outflow pipes and discovered the same deformations. The region is dependent on the Allegheny system for drinking water. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that other study results have shown ambiguous gender in 85% of the catfish caught on the Allegheny, Monongahela and Ohio rivers.

Most recently, a study by Dr. Karen Kidd, of the University of New Brunswick and the Canadian Rivers Institute, confirmed that estrogen from birth control pills entering the water system through sewage adversely affects fish populations. The researchers added estrogen to an experimental lake at a level commonly found in the treated wastewater from cities with about 200,000 people. They discovered that exposed male fish became feminized, producing a protein normally found in females. Chronic exposure to estrogen led to the near extinction of the lake's fathead minnow population, as well as significant declines in larger fish, such as pearl dace and lake trout. Kidd observed, “What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish - a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term.”

Fish are not the only creatures threatened by estrogen pollution. At a conference on breast cancer in Toronto in 1998, author and cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love said, “Pollutants are metabolized in our bodies as estrogen. And it is lifetime exposure to estrogen that has increased world cancer rates by 26% since 1980.... We live in a toxic soup of chemicals.”

Further recognition of the cancer-causing effects of estrogen occurred in 2005. A July 29th press release issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives as carcinogenic. The IARC placed them into their Group 1 classification, the highest classification of carcinogenicity, used only “when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.”

Studies are also showing significant evidence for a link between environmental estrogens, and estrogen-like chemical pollutants, and the earlier onset of puberty in girls. The phenomenon of early-onset puberty in American girls is so pervasive, that the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society urged changing the definition of abnormal development. Ten years ago, breast development at age 8 was considered abnormally early, but a study in 1997 said that among 17,000 girls in North Carolina, almost half of blacks and 15% of whites had begun breast development by age 8. Studies from the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have shown similar results.

With this significant evidence of the growing pollutant impact of estrogen from contraceptives on both fish and humans, where is the outcry of concern? It seems that contraceptives are so politically correct that neither environmentalists nor cancer researchers are willing to raise concerns about the increased risks caused by estrogen pollution.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, February 15, 2008

Not recognizing the consequences

A February 11th Chicago Tribune article covered a Kansas grand jury that is investigating late-term abortionist George Tiller for possible violations of Kansas abortion law. The article mentioned a “Jane Doe” who expressed how much Tiller’s services were needed for circumstances like hers where a discovery of serious fetal disability is not made until late in the pregnancy. Mothers such as “Jane Doe” are convinced they could not handle a seriously disabled infant, even for a short time. They often express concern that they could not watch their baby suffer. They still believe that George Tiller helped them by killing their baby late in the pregnancy to avoid this “problem.”

Based on testimony of mothers who chose the deadly option offered by George Tiller compared to those who allowed their disabled baby to come into this world naturally, the contrast in what they experience is meaningful in evaluating who made the best decision.

Just the headlines of articles about families where the parents chose to support their disabled child under whatever circumstances occurred tell a heartwarming story with titles like “35 minutes to live, feel love” and “Tribute Video to Short Life of Handicapped Baby Inspires and Touches Tens of Thousands” and “When What Seems Broken is Perfect: The Mother of a Disabled Child Tells her Story.” These testimonies tell of babies who lived from just 35 minutes to as long as 99 days. In each case their short lives had a great impact on the parents, families, and even extended families.

Eliot Mooney was born with an undeveloped lung, a heart with a hole in it, and DNA that placed faulty information into each and every cell of his body. He would live for only 99 days. They made a video about his short life. The video, called “Ninety-nine Balloons”, concludes: “Not a pulpit, not a slick presentation, not a best-selling book, but a six-pound boy with Trisomy 18. God showed great pleasure to take a lowly thing in the eyes of the world and show truth…And so today we celebrate. Eliot you are well, and although we miss you more than we can express, we are only separated by our time left on earth. See you soon son. Mom and dad.”

Annie Smyth was born full-term with trisomy 13. Her mother wrote, “During her 80 days, our little Annie taught us our greatest lessons in life. Through her life, we experience the deepest sorrow and the most intense love. She taught us the true meaning and purpose of life and we are forever changed as a family. Our children have learned that if they are ever in need, their family will love them, protect them and do anything to support them, just like we did for Annie. They developed an incredible empathy for the disabled and the vulnerable.”

Zeke Weatherford was confirmed to have full trisomy 13. Jessica Weatherford decided the best gift she could give to her unborn son was to love him until his death, even if the only fullness of his life would be in the soft cushion of her womb. Present at Zeke’s birth were Jessica's twin sister, Jacquelyn; her father; her mother-in-law, her minister, aunts, grandparents, and friends. Zeke was with them all for 35 minutes before he died.

Perinatal hospices are becoming more common to provide the necessary support for parents who recognize and treasure the humanity of their babies, even under these adverse circumstances.

Now consider testimony of mothers who still claim they are grateful they decided to allow George Tiller to abort their children. Here are three revealing quotes from a May 31, 2005 article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, entitled "A Late Decision, a Lasting Anguish":

1) "I don't know what I would have done had [Dr. Tiller] not been available to me," said Katie Plazio, a financial analyst from New Jersey. "That's selfish, I know. I feel selfish."

2) "Since her abortion, Plazio has suffered such severe panic attacks that she can't drive even as far as the high school to watch her daughter cheerlead. She has gained 60 pounds as she battles depression. The abortion she sought to preserve her mental health has left her deeply shaken; doctors say she suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome." She aborted a down's syndrome baby at Tiller's clinic, and still maintains that “her mental health would be even worse had she tried to raise a profoundly disabled son — or had she given him up for adoption.”

3) Despite her family's support, Crocker, who lives in Texas, has struggled with doubt and depression. "I did the unthinkable," she said. "I ended my baby's life. Sometimes I think, oh God, what if I was wrong?"

And these mothers, and their doctors, may have been wrong. There are more cases than the medical profession is willing to admit where the mother refuses the pressure to abort and at birth is blessed with a fully healthy baby despite the diagnosis that indicated severe disabilities were found. If the death penalty should be banned because of the possibility the prisoner could be innocent, then abortion for disabled babies should be banned because of the possibility the diagnosis could be wrong.

Comparing the contrasts in these examples between those mothers who took their disabled babies to term and those who allowed Tiller to kill their babies "to prevent them from suffering", it seems evident to me who made the wiser decisions and obtained the long term benefits.

Even though they still claim to be “grateful” that Tiller was there for them, the mothers who aborted appear to be very uncertain about their decisions, even years later. They would not suffer from such conflicted feelings if they gave their babies a chance at life. Did Tiller really help them, or are they kidding themselves in an attempt to justify a decision that they are forced to live with? If Tiller had not been available, would they have found the same joys experienced by the families who valued their disabled babies? Very possibly – what a loss for them by trying to outsmart God!

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, February 8, 2008

Planned Parenthood closes three locations, two in Illinois

Only a short time into 2008 and there is already good news that Planned Parenthood is contracting again after their deceptive expansion into Aurora, Illinois. The February 6, 2008 STOPP Report indicates closure of three Planned Parenthood facilities recently. Two of these facilities were located in Illinois and the third was in Idaho. The three clinic locations include an express clinic in Nampa, Idaho, an express clinic in Naperville, Illinois, and a non-express clinic in Lincoln, Illinois. The Naperville “express” location closed on January 19th. The Lincoln clinic closed on January 26th.

Planned Parenthood’s web site stated that Lincoln was closed for lack of funds. Even a pro-abortion governor and legislature could not send enough money to Planned Parenthood to keep the Lincoln location open.

Rhonda Robinson reported in an article published by Illinois Family Institute that the Lincoln clinic was housed in the Logan County Health Department. It served about 400 clients a year, but needed taxpayer money to stay open at all.

Commenting on the Planned Parenthood closing, Rhonda noted, “Contrast their plight with that of the Living Alternatives Pregnancy Resource Center in Lincoln who served 808 women in 2007, and relied solely on donations by individuals, churches and the Grace of God. Their Lincoln center opened in 1989, and has served over 7,248 women and children. Now is a good time to support this center and bring life and hope where there once was death.”

The national total of Planned Parenthood locations now stands at 852, of which 24 are located in Illinois. Pray that with the aid of 40 Days for Life from February 6th through March 16th that even more Planned Parenthood locations will be closed in coming months.

IRLC Home Page