humanlife.net Pro-life resources for HumanLife en-us Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:52 PDT Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:42:52 PDT http://backend.userland.com/rss092 info@familyed.info webmaster@familyed.info http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=374 by Wesley Smith A story just published in the UK's Guardian is a diary account of the euthanasia death of Mieneke Weide-Boelkes, a woman with brain cancer, written by her son Marc Weide, who made it public. As such, and because it is so awful, it seemed to me that frank comment was warranted. I sent it off to First Things, and they put it up on the site. But I want to reproduce my comments here, too. The story of Weide-Boelkes' euthanasia amply demonstrates the abandonment that assisted suicide/euthanasia consciousness generates in society, within medicine, and among families. And it proves clearly that the "protective guidelines" are utterly meaningless. It also demonstrates that once mercy killing is sanctioned, families become almost remote bystanders. To cases: One of the supposed requirements of Dutch euthanasia is that there can be no other way to alleviate suffering other than killing the patient. Yet, in this actual case, the woman who would soon be dead wants to die for fear of going bald during life-extending chemotherapy: From the story: The prognosis is she could live another year if she undergoes chemotherapy. But she won't. "I'm not going to go bald," she says. "I don't want people saying, 'How sad, that beautiful hair all gone.' Never." Despite the ability to extend Weide-Boelkes' life, and the driving motives of worries that she will not be pretty (and hence not worthy of being loved?), and fears about losing the ability to engage in enjoyable activities as the reasons for wanting euthanasia, the doctor agrees to kill. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=373 Detroit, MI - A District Court has issued a twelve-count warrant against WomanCare, a Detroit area abortion mill owned by Alberto Hodari, for illegal dumping of women's private medical records. Dr. Monica Migliorino Miller, Director of Citizens for a Pro-life Society, had exposed Hodari's illegal dumping practices earlier this year when she published a video of his abortion mill trash that contained the records along with the remains of aborted babies. Dr. Miller reported the incident to the authorities. Hodari will have to appear in court on behalf WomanCare. No arraignment date has been set. Hodari is a troubled abortionist who has been sued 23 times in the past 20 years and was responsible for the botched second-trimester abortion death of a 15-year old girl in 2004. He later shocked a collage campus audience when he told them that he seldom washes his hands between patients to prevent skin chaffing even though he knew that it increased risks to his patients. He also told the same group that he believes abortionists have a "license to lie." "Hodari joins an ever increasing list of abortionists who are facing criminal charges across the nation. This trend demonstrates that while abortionist believe and act as if they are above the law, states are beginning to see how dangerous these clinics are, and are beginning to crack down on them, with the help of pro-life whistleblowers," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "Abortionists tend to be among the most troubled and dangerous people who prey on the vulnerabilities of women. Prosecuting them is a noble public service." Other abortionists facing criminal prosecutions include Howard Pfupajena of California, who violently attacked a pro-life sidewalk counselor, Rapin Osathanondh of Massachusetts, who is charged with manslaughter for killing Laura Hope Smith during a botched abortion, and Bertha Bugarin of California, who faces 28 felonies for committing abortions without a medical license. Bugarin's associate, Laurence Riech was arrested and charged in February for continuing to do abortions even though his license was revoked after a second conviction of having sexually molested his patients. Two Florida abortion workers, Belkis Gonzales and Siomara Senises were both also charged with practicing medicine without licenses at a Miramar abortion mill. Late-term abortionist George R. Tiller of Kansas faces 19 charges of committing illegal late-term abortions. http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=372 WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 /Standard Newswire/ -- The Christian Medical Association, the nation's largest faith-based association of healthcare professionals, today lauded the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for officially proposing regulations to implement federal laws protecting the First Amendment rights of healthcare professionals and patients. CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens said, "These regulations are desperately needed to protect First Amendment rights and implement federal law in what is becoming a jungle of coercion in healthcare. Two of five of our members indicate they have been subjected to pressure and discrimination in the healthcare profession simply because they adhere to life- affirming, patient-protecting standards of medical ethics such as the Hippocratic Oath. "Clearly, unless we act now to protect the right of healthcare professionals to make standards-based ethical decisions, patients will be penalized with less access to healthcare. If current trends of coercion are allowed to continue, patients will not be able to find physicians who share their life-affirming values." "The recent all-out campaign by those who oppose conscience rights to muzzle these HHS regulations actually has served to highlight the need for the regulations. Their comments have demonstrated the poisonous, hostile and intolerant environment they have created for healthcare professionals who practice medicine according to life-honoring standards of ethics. "Personal testimonies from our members and others suggest healthcare professionals many healthcare professionals who experience pressure and discrimination for their life-affirming ethical decisions simply try to find another position, since they are unaware of existing legal protections." CMA Senior Vice President Dr. Gene Rudd, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist, noted, "Sometimes the discrimination and coercion because of life-affirming views is subtle, such as denying admission to medical students, training privileges to residents or promotions to graduate physicians. Other times a line is clearly and overtly drawn between either participating in unethical actions or losing their position or career. "The effect of this intolerant and discriminatory atmosphere is most disturbing at the student level. As first-year medical student Trevor Kitchens told us, 'I am currently very interested in OB/GYN, but I am afraid of the relationship between this field and abortion. My concern is that I will start a residence and would subsequently be required at some point to give a patient the option of abortion, which I would refuse. My fear is that taking this stand would cost me my residence position.' "Vital issues including abortion, assisted suicide, end of life decisions and other important ethical matters must not be matters of coercion but of conscience." Related links in this document: cmawashington.org cmda.org www.hhs.gov Comments by Healthcare Professionals on draft HHS regulations on conscience http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=371 Lead author refuses to release abortion data collected under federal grant Springfield, IL (August, 2008) - The credibility of a new report on the mental health effects of abortion from the American Psychological Association is tarnished by the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has violated the APA's own data sharing rules by consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has even evaded a request from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to deliver copies of data she collected under a federal grant. Because her study of emotional reactions two years after an abortion was federally funded, the data she collected is actually federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself from delivering the data writing, "It would be very difficult to pull this information together." However, a researcher familiar with Major's work, David Reardon of the Elliot Institute, has seen portions of Major's unpublished findings. Reardon, who has published over a dozen studies on abortion and mental health, believes Major is withholding the data to prevent her findings supporting a link between abortion and subsequent health problems from coming to light. "Brenda's last published study using this data set was released in 2000, after she moved to her present facility in 1995," said Reardon. "Immediately after that publication one of my colleagues requested a break down of details which had only been superficially summarized in one her tables. One of her grad students replied on her behalf with the additional summary statistics we had requested within 48 hours. So it clearly wasn't at all difficult for her team to access the data. Plus, with modern electronic data bases and multiple backup procedures in place at universities like hers, it is nearly impossible to lose such data." According to Reardon, Major has not responded to any further requests regarding the data since early in 2000. "I know of a number of experts in the field who have requested the data, even within the last six months. But she simply doesn't respond to their calls, emails, or letters," said Reardon. "This is very troubling on two counts. First, the APA's own ethics rule, 8.14, requires research psychologists to share their data for verification of findings. Secondly, she is the chair of the APA Abortion Task Force which is, at least in theory, supposed to bring full and clear light to this issue. But how can we trust the objectivity of a report prepared by a task force composed exclusively of pro-choice psychologists, especially when the chair and lead author has a history of withholding data and findings which may undermine her ideological preferences?" According to Reardon the additional details from Major's study released in 2000 actually revealed that a significant number of women interviewed by Major did attribute negative reactions to their abortions, but those findings have never been published. "There is no doubt that she has selectively reported her findings," said Reardon. "We have seen in the unpublished tables details about specific negative reactions which were obscured in her published report by combining them with three to eight other reactions to create watered down, composite scores. "In my view, it is irresponsible not to report the significant findings associated with individual symptoms. For example, she found that a number of women reported that they tried to cope with negative feelings about their abortions by drinking more or taking drugs. But she has never not fully shared the details on these reactions in any of her published studies, and by refusing to share her data for reanalysis by others, she has prevented anyone else from reporting these findings either." Reardon believes that the newly released APA Abortion Task Force report is also flawed by a pattern of wording and reporting which tends to obscure rather than clarify what researchers have found about the mental health effects associated with abortion. The primary conclusion of the report, as highlighted in the APA news release, is that "There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women…" According to Reardon, this nuanced statement is intended to convey a message that abortion has no mental health risks, but those familiar with the literature will see that it actually admits that there is compelling evidence that there are negative effects for: - women who have multiple abortions, which accounts for about half of all abortions; - women who abort a wanted pregnancy because of coercion or pressure to abort from third parties, which may account for about 20-60% of all abortions; - minors who have abortions; and - women with preexisting mental health problems in which case abortion may not "in and of itself" be the sole cause of mental health problems, but may instead trigger or aggravate preexisting problems. "Even the modifier that there is 'no credible evidence' of mental health risks in the ideal case of a low risk abortion patient is an admission that there is indeed some evidence that a single abortion can pose a risk to the mental health of a emotionally stable, adult woman," said Reardon. "In fact, the report itself identifies a whole host of studies providing such evidence, but it mutes a clear presentation of the findings of these studies by focusing on the limitations of each study's methodology, which all studies have, in order to justify ignoring their clear implications." While Reardon agrees that the body of the report includes admissions that abortion does negatively impact some women, he is deeply concerned that the summary introduction and conclusion and press releases all fail to emphasize five key points which are clear in the literature and even explicitly or implicitly stated within the 91-page Task Force report. The five points he believes should be made, without room for controversy are: 1. Some women suffer emotional harm from abortion. 2. Some women feel pressured into unwanted abortions. 3. There are well established risk factors identifying the women most likely to suffer negative psychological factors to abortion, including being pressured into an abortion, and that it is incumbent on therapists treating women considering an abortion, and abortion clinics, to screen for these risk factors and to give appropriate counseling in light of any identified risk factors. 4. A nationally funded longitudinal prospective study (such as recommended by Koop in 1989) of psychological factors related to reproductive health (including abortion) is long overdue and should be undertaken as soon as possible. 5. Therapists should be alert to unresolved issues associated with a past abortion and should sensitively give women the opportunity to discuss such issues and should provide appropriate care or referrals whenever such issues are raised. "By failing to call on therapists to be alert and sensitive to the negative emotional experiences women attribute to their abortions, the Task Force has allowed ideology to trump sensitivity," says Reardon. "Instead, they are ignoring the reality of how and why abortions take place and are instead focused on drawing conclusions regarding the safety of abortion for an emotionally stable, pro-choice, adult woman who is freely choosing a wanted abortion without any moral qualms. But that doesn't reflect the reality of most abortion situations." "The fact is that coerced abortions are more common than wanted abortions. Studies show that over 60% of American women are having abortions, often against their moral beliefs, because they feel pressured into it by third parties. These women need therapist and family members to be open to and responsive to their pain, not dismissive of it as an anomaly. Sadly, this is an ideological report that simply ignores the concerns and needs of those women for whom abortion has been a heartache rather than a triumph." APA's "Ethical Principles Of Psychologists And Code Of Conduct" regarding Sharing Research Data for Verification' Copy of HHS letter and Brenda Major's Response: pdf http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=370 By Samantha Singson NEW YORK, August, 2008 (C-FAM) - A group calling itself the "brain trust" met in secret recently to plot how to take advantage of conflict situations to advance the abortion and radical feminist agenda. A new group called the Global Justice Center (GJC) hosted the New York meeting on June 9 of this year. The Friday Fax was given the chance to listen to a recording of the inaugural meeting of the "brain trust", which details the GJC's plan to exploit ceasefire and peace talks to gain leverage in newly-formed governments. The GJC meeting brought together academics, lawyers, and practitioners with ties to such radical anti-life and anti-family groups as the George Soros' Open Society Institute, Equality Now, Center for Reproductive Rights, Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and Amnesty International. Jeremy Sarkin, the current UN Special Rapporteur for Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances was also at the meeting. Participants at the meeting lamented the lack of international political will to enforce "gender justice" around the world and agreed that "shock treatment" was needed to change "the entrenched political and cultural norms that perpetuate male-dominated decision-making bodies and constrain women." Janet Benshoof, former president of the Center for Reproductive Rights and current president and founder of the GJC, asserted that conflict situations could be used as an "access point" to change the culture and the players. Benshoof argued that the prime opportunities for advancing their cause lay in the "transitioning government structures which afford particular opportunity for repositioning women's role in public life and decision-making." Meeting participants deliberated on how human rights law precedents could be made in conflict situations to "reshape power structures," ensure gender equality, create "judicial entrepreneurs" and change norms. Some ideas included: increasing the number of women judges, increasing the number of female legislators by getting political parties to actively recruit women, and implementing affirmative action policies. One participant mused, "A lot of laws have not been interpreted or defined in a new country and you can assume that whatever you want the law to be, it is - unless it is proven otherwise. So of course we put the most progressive spin on it." Apart from getting involved in conflict situations, the group discussed other possible opportunities and entry points to change norms and advance the agenda. The group expressed hope in being able to take advantage of the new human rights bodies that are being created by the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Arab League. One member of the group boasted, "The more we say it, the more people get to believing it. We're changing the norm. First they laugh and then they start repeating it." The Global Justice Center started as a project of Women's Link Worldwide, which was founded by the pro-abortion advocacy group The Center for Reproductive Rights, an organization that seeks to create an international human right to abortion on demand through litigation. By the end of the day-long meeting, participants said they were looking forward to coming together again to discuss monitoring and implementation and "to think of creative mechanisms for enforcing laws." Future meetings of the "brain trust" have not yet been announced. Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=369 By Rai Rojas, director of Hispanic Outreach for National Right to Life "I realized that a vote was one of the most pro-life things I could do" (Editor's note. Rai Rojas's wonderful account asks us to think carefully about something we take for granted, with nary a second thought: the right to vote in the greatest representative democracy on the planet. As a naturalized citizen coming from a country run by an authoritarian regime, Rai would never, could never, make that mistake.) One of the proudest moments of my life was when on March 28, 2002, I was able to take the oath of citizenship at the Miami Beach Convention Center. The journey to get there had not been an easy one. I was born in Communist Cuba in 1961 and our small family arrived here in 1968. I was 7 years old, and after the unimaginable culture shock began to wear off, we started to assimilate as easily as a 7 year old child can. Flash forward to 1987. I'd become involved in the right to life movement, and I realized that a vote was one of the most pro-life things I could do. But my life was so busy it was not until after the disastrous 1992 presidential election, that I fully realized it was time for me to take an important step. I applied for citizenship three times during the Clinton administration, and three times my application was rejected. Frankly, the reason's given were always a bit absurd. I could write a book about what ensued, but after countless delays and bureaucratic snafus, I received a letter from the INS in late 2001 saying that I had passed the exam and that I would shortly be receiving notice of the date for naturalization. Every day I would rush to the mailbox waiting for the notice. Finally it came. Thirty four years after arriving in this great country, after three failed attempts, and after an almost 15-month process, I was to become a United States citizen. There were 3,000 people at the Miami Beach Convention Center on March 28, 2002 . The stage was in front of us with seats and a podium in front of a backdrop that consisted of a 50-foot American flag. Pro-life congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen came, as did Pro-life congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Following the two of them was pro-life Attorney General John Ashcroft. After welcoming us Mr. Ashcroft asked that we rise as the name of the country of our birth was called out. As he began the roll call of nations-- from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe--we stood as our country of birth was called out. All 3,000 of us then stood, faced the American flag on the stage, and said the Pledge of Allegiance. It was said with such force that it sounded more like a cheer than a pledge. Then Attorney General Ashcroft asked us to raise our right hands. A few minutes later he looked down at us and said, "Congratulations, my fellow Americans." A cantor from Israel, having just become an American Citizen, stood and sang the National Anthem. His voice rose above our heads and filled the massive convention center with the first few stanzas before we all joined in. We were asked to be seated to wait for our naturalization certificates. Within a few minutes the young people who had picked up our identification returned them in a large manila envelope with our names on it. Included were our beautiful naturalization certificate and a voter's registration card. Why share this with you now? For two reasons. First, I want to remind you what a blessing it is, what a privilege it is, to be able to vote. Second, I also want you to remember that we are facing an election unlike any we have seen before, the results of which will alter the course of history in a fundamental way. As pro-lifers it is our duty both to vote and to be ready to reach out to all voters. I am a proud American of Hispanic origin. I want you to know that Hispanics are instinctively, intuitively pro-life. There is a plentiful crop waiting to be harvested. All that is needed is enough workers. http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=368 by Steven Ertelt Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new study from Norway substantiates previous studies showing a link between abortion and mental health problems such as depression. This new research, conducted by Dr. Willy Pedersen, was recently published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The authors make the link clear in the conclusion of the abstract: "Young adult women who undergo induced abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression." Complete story Here http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=367 By Jonathan B. In an interview with Abortion In Washington, the manufacturer of the lucrative 'morning-after pill' known as Plan B did not deny that it has a secret deal with Planned Parenthood to provide them the drug at a massively discounted price of $4.25 per unit. This deal between Barr Labs and the nation's largest and most profitable abortion conglomerate has been reported in the Boston Globe and many other places. It was first made public from court documents in California in 2004. AIW is the first news source to confront Barr Labs directly with this evidence. This deep discount is highly controversial because PP sells this drug to clients at anywhere from $24-$38 per unit, and bills Medicaid $10.15, plus an $11.50 "dispensing fee", for a total of $21.65. All of this adds up to many millions of dollars of pure profit. Customers generally have no idea that they are being gouged with these enormous markups. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=366 by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor Olympia, WA (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll shows a plurality of voters favor a measure appearing on the November ballot in Washington that would make the state the second to legalize assisted suicide. Only Oregon currently allows the grisly practice and I-1000 would have Washington state follow suit. The latest statewide Elway Poll of Washington voters shows so many voters are undecided about where they stand on the measure that neither side has a majority. Some 39 percent of those polled said they favor the assisted suicide measure while 26 percent opposed it. The poll of 405 registered voters was taken July 27-31, with a margin of sampling error at 5 percentage points. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=365 AbortionRisks.org Includes World’s Most Extensive Bibliography on Abortion Complications Springfield, IL (Aug. 4, 2008) – If you're seeking information about post-abortion issues, or if you have information to share about your own post-abortion experience, your ministry, or your opinions, you need to check out the latest collaborative clearinghouse on abortion information, AbortionRisks.org. AbortionRisks.org is a Web 2.0 site designed to allow anyone in the world to find or contribute information related to post-abortion issues. Using the same software platform that underlies popular websites like Wikipedia, AbortionRisks.org allows registered users to add their own information and pages to the site, as well as to edit information that is already there. The site includes sections for: post-abortion ministries to add information about their work and their materials, links and notices about upcoming events; women and men who have been involved in an abortion to post their stories; users to add original articles, commentary, or information about new research; users to add information and links to other resources related to post-abortion healing research and healing; and users to simply discuss or comment on the articles and information posted on the website. AbortionRisks.org is also the home of the Thomas W. Strahan Memorial Library, the most extensive bibliography of published studies, books, and articles on the aftereffects of abortion, along with commentary highlighting the most important points in each citation. Tom Strahan was a lawyer and civil rights activist who was probably the world's leading expert on published studies on abortion. His bibliography was published in the form of a book, Detrimental Effects of Abortion, which is now a featured section of AbortionRisks.org and is available for reference by visitors and for updating by the contributing editors of the new website. Volunteer editors are also needed to (1) help improve site organization and (2) monitor the site for vandalism. The wiki structure makes it easy to protect pages, reverse vandalism, and to block vandals, but volunteers are needed to help with this. If you are interested in being a volunteer for site maintenance, or wish to contribute any material, just create a registered account at AbortionRisks.org. AbortionRisks.org is a service provided the Elliot Institute, a leader in research and education regarding post-abortion issues. http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=364 VICTORY! PLANNED PARENTHOOD TOLD TO STAY AWAY FROM CHILDREN AFTER HUNDREDS OF CALLS FROM ALL SUPPORTERS Vallejo, CA – Planned Parenthood was forced to stay away from a children's health and wellness event after American Life League supporters and local pro-life activists barraged event coordinators with phone calls and e-mails. "We're committed to fighting Planned Parenthood wherever they are," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League. "We want to send a clear signal – there will be zero tolerance when it comes to Planned Parenthood's campaign to sexualize children." The nation's largest abortion chain was scheduled to have a booth at the 'Vallejo Celebrates Youth' event geared toward grammar school children on Aug. 2. Children will learn about oral hygiene, literacy, and childhood obesity. They will no longer be learning about birth control, STDs and abortion. Planned Parenthood has made a concerted effort to reach children recently through pornographic publications and web sites. The abortion giant targets children at events like the one sponsored by the Greater Vallejo Recreational District, with sex-related materials and birth control. When American Life League heard of the events, the group contacted local activists and notified supporters. Within hours, hundreds of calls were placed to the GVRD who then decided to disinvite Planned Parenthood. "The California pro-lifers, especially Ana Jaime are to be commended for their courageous work," Sedlak said. "The Greater Vallejo Recreational District has done the right thing by keeping Planned Parenthood as far away from children as possible." http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=363 by Wesley J Smith First, I predicted it in Forced Exit. Then, it happened. And now, it has happened again: An very ill Oregon man has been denied treatment under Medicaid in Oregon to fight his prostate cancer--but has been told that the state will happily pay for his assisted suicide. From the story: Since the spread of his prostate cancer, 53-year-old Randy Stroup of Dexter, Ore., has been in a fight for his life. Uninsured and unable to pay for expensive chemotherapy, he applied to Oregon's state-run health plan for help. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=362 SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota, July/Christian Newswire/ -- Dr. Allen D. Unruh submits the following and is available for comment: On Monday, July 21, 2008, women in South Dakota showed up for their abortion appointments at 8:00 a.m. But there was a sign on the door that Planned Parenthood was closed. Monday is the day that Planned Parenthood usually schedules abortions at its Sioux Falls abortion clinic. On those Mondays, Planned Parenthood flies a doctor in from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to perform 15 to 20 abortions. On this Monday, no unborn babies died in South Dakota by an abortion. The reason Planned Parenthood suspended its abortion practice this week should be the most exciting news the Culture of Life has ever had. Monday was the first day Planned Parenthood had to comply with South Dakota's new Abortion Informed Consent Law. The Law became effective because of a decision of an en banc Court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, on June 27, 2008, which vacated an injunction. Now Planned Parenthood must comply with the requirements of the Law. Among other things, the new law requires the abortion doctor to advise the pregnant mother, in writing, that the abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Planned Parenthood's argument that the Statute violated the doctor's first amendment rights. Planned Parenthood is contending that the statement is one of "ideology." The Court held that the Statute made it clear the statement was a statement of biological fact, not one of ideology; and the evidence produced did not demonstrate it was anything other than an accurate statement of biological fact. The new Law also requires the abortion doctor to inform the pregnant mother that the pregnant mother and the second human being have an existing relationship that enjoys protection under the Constitution of the United States, and that the procedure terminates that relationship and the rights associated with it. The Law also requires disclosure of medical risks, including the risk of depression and "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." After the case was remanded back to the Federal District Court on June 27th, Planned Parenthood's lawyers attempted to convince the District Court Judge to enter a new injunction concerning the disclosures other than the "human being" disclosure. On Thursday, July 17th, the District Court refused to enter another injunction and the Law became effective on Monday, July 21st. When someone finally came to the Planned Parenthood office this last Monday, no abortion doctors arrived with them. No abortion doctor flew into South Dakota that day. The penalties for abortionist's non-compliance could include a prison sentence, loss of medical license, and civil liability. In South Dakota, a wrongful death case can be brought for the death of an unborn child at any age of gestation. Time will tell if an abortionist will take the medical and legal risk of completing abortions in South Dakota without compliance to the 8th Circuit decision. The new rules are that they must tell the truth. The immediate beneficiaries of this new law are the women and their children. The women will be better informed, and that information, for some, will most likely result in the women keeping their children. More children will live. But, perhaps the greatest beneficiary is our culture at large. In the lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota's Informed Consent Law, Dr. Bernard Nathanson testified that he was one of the original founders of the National Alliance to Repeal Abortion Laws (NARAL). He is probably the last living original founder. He testified that as part of their strategy, the NARAL founders decided that they had to deny what they knew to be true -- that an abortion killed a living human being. They decided to deceive the public (and the courts) by maintaining that what was "evacuated" in an abortion was "just some tissue." Dr. Nathanson has blown NARAL's cover. The Eighth Circuit has now shown a bright light on the truth. And the truth will, in the end, set us free. See also The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=361 by Tony Perkins Family Research Council:A year ago this week, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a Planned Parenthood audience that the first thing he would do as President is sign into law the mislabeled Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). As a new Insight paper from Vice President of Government Affairs Tom McClusky shows, if FOCA were to become law it would overturn hundreds of state laws that have put limits on abortion. Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups agree with Tom's assessment. The ACLU proclaims, "This [FOCA] bill prohibits such restrictions as parental notification and consent, as well as the requirement that all abortions be performed in a hospital, spousal consent, waiting periods ..." Recent polls show that most Americans agree there should be more restrictions on abortion and that tax dollars should not go to the life-ending procedure. However, the passage of FOCA would guarantee that more taxpayer dollars pay for abortions. Its sponsors, including Senators Obama, Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), argue that they want to make abortion rarer. However, when FOCA-like legislation was passed in Maryland that state saw its abortion rate skyrocket, just as the national abortion rate was dropping. Passage of FOCA would be a big payoff to the abortion industry at the deadly cost of citizens' rights. Read Tom McClusky: Focusing On FOCA: 'Freedom Of Choice Act' Would Harm Women And Remove Protections http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=360 One consequence of replacing the sanctity/equality of human life with the "quality of life" ethic would be the destruction of universal human rights. As just one example, Singer argues that infanticide is acceptable because babies are not persons. by Wesley J. Smith, CBC special consultant. Center for Bioethics and Culture Network: Singer is the Princeton bioethicist who first broke into the public's consciousness more than thirty years ago with Animal Liberation, a book in which he claimed that granting human beings special privileges based on being human is "speciesist"—discrimination against animals. Instead of society being human centric, he asserted that the lives and wellbeing of animals deserve "equal consideration" with those of humans. Singer's intent was (and is) to destroy human exceptionalism—the belief that human life matters morally simply because it is human—and replace it with a "quality of life" ethic in which being a "person" rather than a human is what matters morally. Personhood status would be earned by possessing minimal cognitive capacities such as being self aware over time. This means, Singer wrote in Practical Ethics, that "some members of other species are persons: some members of our own species are not." The latter category includes the unborn, infants, people with catastrophic cognitive impairments. One consequence of replacing the sanctity/equality of human life with the "quality of life" ethic would be the destruction of universal human rights. As just one example, Singer argues that infanticide is acceptable because babies are not persons. Thus, writing again in Practical Ethics, Singer stated that parents should be allowed to kill a baby with hemophilia if they believed that doing so "would lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life." Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=359 WASHINGTON, DC, (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Speaking at the 16th Annual World Congress on Anti-Aging Medicine & Regenerative Biomedical Technologies at the Gaylord National Resort in Washington, DC, on Friday, July 18, Florida-based cardiologist Dr. Zannos Grekos astounded over 200 physicians with a presentation on the impressive regenerative behavior of pre-engineered adult stem cells injected into patients with cardiomyopathy. The presentation by the lead cardiologist of Regenocyte(TM) Therapeutic ( www.regenocyte.com) included a report on the company's post-stem cell treatment results citing an average increase of 21 percent in cardiac ejection rates as well as measurable improvements in a patient's congestive heart failure class status. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=358 Where assisted suicide leads... A professional journal for pediatric nurses recently produced an article examining the ethics of infanticide using the Dutch Groningen Protocol. The Protocol allows the killing of infants in the Netherlands by doctors using a "quality of life" criteria to determine the value of the infant's life. The article appeared in the May-June 2008 edition of the Journal of Pediatric Nursing. Co-authors J. Catlin and Renee Novakovich evaluated the effects of the Protocol on medical ethics in the United States. Bioethics writer and critic Wesley J. Smith warns that academic approaches on life-and-death issues with terms like "complex" and "gray areas" and "difficult" allows for an underlying acceptance of the practice. Smith stated, "Beware! What we don't condemn, what we claim to be mere 'dilemmas,' we eventually are urged to allow. Infanticide is moving into the mainstream of bioethics and the medical intelligentsia." Dutch pediatricina Eduard Verhagen and a consortium of doctors at the Groningen University Medical Center developed the Groningen Protocol in 2004. It allows physicians doctors to make a judgment on the level of suffering of an infant and whether the child should be killed by lethal injection. http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=357 Human Life of Washington Congratulates AIW. by Mary E Abortion in Washington officially launched May 2005 when Jonathan put up our first simple post -- This blog has been created to publicize factual information relating to abortion in Washington State. It was July 18th, 2005, however, that we published our first full length post. From then on we posted information and commentary, analysis and investigative reporting on the abortion industry and their supporters. We also decided we want to cover pro-life events that were mostly ignored in the MSM. The Seattle Post Intelligencer, the Seattle Times and all three television stations on the west side of the mountains have refused to cover one of the most audacious and news worthy events in the debate over abortion since its legalization -- the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=356 By Richard John Neuhaus His closing address at the annual convention of the National Right to Life Committee held last week in Arlington, Virginia. Once again this year, the National Right to Life convention is partly a reunion of veterans from battles past and partly a youth rally of those recruited for the battles to come. And that is just what it should be. The pro-life movement that began in the 20th century laid the foundation for the pro-life movement of the 21st century. We have been at this a long time, and we are just getting started. All that has been and all that will be is prelude to, and anticipation of, an indomitable hope. All that has been and all that will be is premised upon the promise of Our Lord’s return in glory when, as we read in the Book of Revelation, “he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be sorrow nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.” And all things will be new. That is the horizon of hope that, from generation to generation, sustains the great human rights cause of our time and all times—the cause of life. We contend, and we contend relentlessly, for the dignity of the human person, of every human person, created in the image and likeness of God, destined from eternity for eternity—every human person, no matter how weak or how strong, no matter how young or how old, no matter how productive or how burdensome, no matter how welcome or how inconvenient. Nobody is a nobody; nobody is unwanted. All are wanted by God, and therefore to be respected, protected, and cherished by us. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until all the elderly who have run life’s course are protected against despair and abandonment, protected by the rule of law and the bonds of love. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, until every young woman is given the help she needs to recognize the problem of pregnancy as the gift of life. We shall not weary, we shall not rest, as we stand guard at the entrance gates and the exit gates of life, and at every step along way of life, bearing witness in word and deed to the dignity of the human person—of every human person. Against the encroaching shadows of the culture of death, against forces commanding immense power and wealth, against the perverse doctrine that a woman’s dignity depends upon her right to destroy her child, against what St. Paul calls the principalities and powers of the present time, this convention renews our resolve that we shall not weary, we shall not rest, until the culture of life is reflected in the rule of law and lived in the law of love. It has been a long journey, and there are still miles and miles to go. Some say it started with the notorious Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 when, by what Justice Byron White called an act of raw judicial power, the Supreme Court wiped from the books of all fifty states every law protecting the unborn child. But it goes back long before that. Some say it started with the agitation for “liberalized abortion law” in the 1960s when the novel doctrine was proposed that a woman cannot be fulfilled unless she has the right to destroy her child. But it goes back long before that. It goes back to the movements for eugenics and racial and ideological cleansing of the last century. Keep reading... http://humanlife.net/view_onenews.htm?nid=355 by Mary E. Not since the editorial board came out in support of partial birth abortion has the Seattle Times published such a wicked and shameful editorial. The editorial – Lift the Plan B Ban – is wicked because it willfully and haughtily lies to people about Plan B and misrepresents the pleas of the pharmacists who refuse to sell it. It is shameful because at a time when the public needs factual information about this drug in particular, how it came to be on the market, and the Constitutional issues surrounding the cause of the pharmacists we are given trite, shop worn propaganda about “women’s health”. Enough. There is no Plan B “ban”. Plan B and contraceptives are ubiquitous. They are in our schools. Advertisements for them litter the pages of glossy magazines. Our politicians, even those claiming “pro-life” credentials support their widespread distribution. The combined Planned Parenthood affiliates of Washington received about $20 million dollars from the state of Washington for the purchase and distribution of contraceptives in 2007. They are there for the asking. There are two maybe three pharmacists in the whole state who do not want to sell this product. Plan B is not a prescription drug. Plan B is sold over the counter. No trip to the doctor is necessary. No prescription is required. It was after the granting of OTC status that sales of Plan B went through the roof. Doesn't sound like a "ban" or a lack of "access" to me. Plan B is not health care. Plan B is an overdose of the steroid hormone progesterone. KEEP READING...