Pro-Life Page

Tuesday, November 11, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/10/14 4:56 PM
 
A new report sheds light on dozens of cases in England where mother are suing the government-run and
taxpayer-funded NHS health service after abortions they had failed to kill their unborn babies. The mothers
have won huge payouts — sometimes bringing in tens of thousands of dollars — after abortion procedures
went wrong. In some cases the abortions were supposedly done on babies with disabilities and the
mothers in question went on to have healthy babies after the failed abortions. The moms
who sued received cash for pain during birth and discomfort of pregnancy since
they went through with birth after the failed abortion. However, detractors are
blasting the lawsuits — saying the moms in question should feel blessed to be the mother of a healthy baby who didn’t die.
 
From the story:
 
Last night the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, hit out at the move, saying: ‘A
healthy child is an occasion for thanksgiving rather than for taking the NHS to the cleaners and
using up precious funds which could otherwise be more usefully employed.’
 
And TV presenter and mother-of-two Kirstie Allsopp, who has urged women to have children
while they are still young, said she understood that people who had suffered a serious medical
malpractice or had a disabled child needed support, but added: ‘It seems to me that to be able
to sue the NHS after the birth of a healthy baby is simply not something the majority of people
would agree with.
 
‘The NHS hasn’t got an infinite amount of money. I think parents in that position should think
twice.’
Monday, November 10, 2014
by Matthew Clark | LifeNews.com | 11/7/14 5:04 PM
 
 
The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear a major ObamaCare case that could deal a
crippling blow to President Obama’s prized pro-abortion health care law.
As the Wall Street Journal reports:
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review whether
consumers can receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act for insurance
purchased through a federal exchange, taking up a key
piece of the Obama administration’s healthcare law.
The move puts before the high court one of several cases over the subsidies. The justices
accepted a challenge from Virginia that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in
Richmond, Va., had rejected. The Fourth Circuit in July found in favor of an Internal Revenue
Service rule extending tax credits to lower-income Americans who purchase coverage through
the federal insurance exchange.
 
As my ACLJ colleague David French explained earlier this year:
ObamaCare as passed by Congress stated quite clearly that IRS tax credits (better known as
ObamaCare “subsidies”) are available to subsidize insurance policies purchased through state
ObamaCare exchanges. It does not state that subsidies are available for insurance purchased
through the federal exchange.
After 36 states refused to create state exchanges, an action that had the effect of limiting the
law’s individual insurance mandate and employer mandate, the IRS decided to simply make
up a new regulation – without any statutory authority – that extended subsidies to insurance
purchased on the federal exchange and thereby dramatically expanded the individual and
employer mandates.
 
Here’s how the IRS rule expanded ObamaCare:
“This broader [IRS] interpretation has major ramifications. By making credits more widely
available, the IRS Rule gives the individual and employer mandates—key provisions of the
ACA—broader effect than they would have if credits were limited to state-established
Exchanges. The individual mandate requires individuals to maintain “minimum essential
coverage” and, in general, enforces that requirement with a penalty. See 26 U.S.C. §
5000A(a)-(b). The penalty does not apply, however, to individuals for whom the annual cost of
the cheapest available coverage, less any tax credits, would exceed eight percent of their
projected household income. See id. § 5000A(e)(1)(A)-(B). By some estimates, credits will
determine on which side of the eight-percent threshold millions of individuals fall. See Br. of
Economic Scholars in Support of Appellees 18. Thus, by making tax credits available in the 36
states with federal Exchanges, the IRS Rule significantly increases the number of people who
must purchase health insurance or face a penalty.”
 
Put simply, if Congress had intended for subsidies to be made available through federal
exchanges, it should have said so.
 
He’s exactly right, and now the Supreme Court is going to take a very careful look.
The fact is if the subsidies don’t stand – the major funding mechanism that made it even remotely possible
for many families to comply with the individual mandate – then ObamaCare would likely collapse on itself.
We’ve always said ObamaCare was flawed and couldn’t sustain itself.
With a newly elected pro-life Senate, a major challenge to ObamaCare subsidies at the Supreme Court,
and the news that these subsidies are directly paying for abortion, the President’s prized pro-abortion
reconfiguration of America’s health care landscape may be in serious jeopardy.
 
Friday, November 7, 2014

By Lisa Bourne | Thu Nov 6, 2014 - 4:17 pm EST | LifeSiteNews.com|

Bolstered by a grassroots pro-life effort, Tennessee voters passed a constitutional amendment in Tuesday’s election that will allow the state to better protect its pregnant mothers and cease it from being the third-largest out-of-state abortion destination in the nation.

Amendment 1 passed with the support of nearly 53 percent of the state’s electorate despite supporters being outspent by abortion proponents by more than two to one,according to the Yes on Amendment 1 campaign’s webpage.   

"We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory," Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life and a coordinator for Yes on 1, said in a statement provided to LifeSiteNews. "Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard."

The Yes on 1 campaign raised and spent $1.5 million in contrast to at least $4 million reported by Planned Parenthood's "NO" campaign, Harris said, and 16 abortion facilities in Tennessee and across the country contributed a total of $3.5 million in a combined effort to defeat the pro-life amendment.

A 2000 Tennessee Supreme Court decision struck down regulations in the state, including a two-day waiting period, a requirement that a mother be fully informed about abortion, and a requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital.

The state’s high court, which had deemed the existing law “overly burdensome” to women, left Tennessee to be a target for out-of-state abortions.

Tennessee’s eight surrounding states have laws requiring informed consent, waiting periods, and state health regulation of abortion facilities, drawing people to Tennessee for unregulated abortion. It is third in the nation for percentage of out-of-state abortions, with, for example, almost one-fourth of all abortions committed in Tennessee during 2010 being performed on mothers from out-of-state.

Amendment 1 allows Tennessee lawmakers to resume abortion regulations for their state.

The amendment reads:

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

State lawmakers are looking for abortion legislation to introduce in the next session,according to NBC affiliate WBIR, including clinic regulation and waiting periods, but it would be limited in scope and certainly not eliminate abortion in Tennessee.

Harris credits Amendment 1’s passage to a statewide grassroots campaign that relied heavily on volunteers and smaller financial contributions from individuals, churches, and pro-life organizations. 

"We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities," he said in the statement to LifeSiteNews. 

The effort paid off, he said, especially in rural areas of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both Amendment and the 2000 State Supreme Court ruling.

Harris gave special credit to clergy and religious leaders throughout Tennessee who made support for the amendment a priority.  

"In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood's abortion-profiteering,” Harris said. “We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee's designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life."

Abortion legislation passed in the next session is expected to go into effect July 1.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
By Abby Johnson | Wed Nov 5, 2014 - 11:40 am EST | LifesiteNews.com 
 
I recently spoke at an amazing pro-life conference in Washington State. After my talk, I had a
woman come up to me and tell me that I should really tone down my message. She said that
she is sure that my message will offend people. She said that I should try to find “common
language” with those who support abortion.
Okay, let’s explore that.
 
"Women's health"? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
“Common language” sounds nice, but when you actually look at the differences behind that
language, you see it just isn’t possible. Here are eight reasons why finding a "common
language" with pro-aborts is impossible:
 
1. When I say, “I want women to have access to authentic female healthcare,” I mean that I
want women to have access to healthcare that supports their natural femininity. I mean that I
want women to have access to healthcare that doesn’t include the use of contraception and
abortion.
Maybe it’s time to worry less about delivering watered down
messages and speak truth in love without compromise.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to have access to authentic female
healthcare,” they mean that they believe women should have easy (and free) access to pills
that suppress their fertility. They mean that they believe that taking the lives of unborn
children is part of healthcare.
 
2. When I say, “I want women to have control over their bodies,” I mean that I want women
to know and embrace their fertility. I want women to value their bodies, not simply be seen as
a sex object. I want women and men to understand the dignity of their sexuality. I want
women to understand that the most beautiful thing a woman’s body does is to grow other
human beings.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to have control over their bodies,” that is a
rallying cry for abortion. They mean that women should be able to control and kill the
separate human being in their body. They mean that they want women to hate their fertility,
to see it as enslavement, and in response to that, to “fix” their unbroken fertility with pills and
other invasive methods of birth control.
 
3. When I say, “I want women to be safe,” I mean that women deserve better than abortion. I
mean that I want women to stay away from abortion because it is not safe for them. I want
women to understand the physical and emotional consequences related to abortion.
Follow Abby Johnson on Facebook
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to be safe,” they mean that they want
women to have unlimited access to abortion services without any additional barriers…even if
those barriers are there to protect women.
 
4. When I say, “I want women to choose what’s best for them,” I mean that I want women to
make choices that don’t involving harming themselves or killing another human being. I want
women to know that there are other choices besides abortion…choices they can live with and
have no regret.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to choose what’s best for them,” they
almost always mean abortion. Abortion supporters have attempted to normalize abortion in a
way that makes it seem “okay” to take the life of another human being. They aren’t interested
in a woman actually making a choice. They are interested in women having abortions.
 
5. When I say, “I want us to take care of children,” I mean that we should take care of all
children…born and unborn. I mean that we should all stand up for those in our foster care
systems. I mean that we should sacrifice our luxuries for children and their mothers.
When an abortion supporter says, “I want us to take care of children,” they mean that we
should only care for those who are already born. And what they really mean is that it is only
the pro-life movement’s responsibility to care for children in foster care. They mean that it’s
only our responsibility to provide for women and their children. They mean that they are not
willing to sacrifice their own luxuries, but we are to sacrifice ours.
 
6. When I say, “I stand for equal rights,” I mean equal rights for all persons…from the
moment of conception until natural death. I mean that I believe in the equal human dignity of
all persons, no matter the “contribution” they make to society.
When an abortion supporter says, “I stand for equal rights,” they mean that they only stand
for the rights of those who are contributors to society. They are quick to marginalize the most
vulnerable among us: the unborn, the elderly and the differently-abled.
 
7. When I say, “I am for choice,” I mean that I am for choices that don’t involve killing a
human being. I mean that I support women making wise choices before they get pregnant. I
am for women choosing to make adoption plans, choosing to be single parents, choosing to
marry the father of their child and raising that child together, choosing to still pursue a career
and education after having a child, choosing to ask their parents and support system for help
when raising their child.
When an abortion supporter says, “I am for choice,” they really only mean the choice of
abortion. Period.
 
8. When I say, “I want women to feel empowered,” I mean that I want women to embrace
their bodies, their fertility and their children. I want women to know that they don’t have to
choose between their baby and their education…that they don’t have to choose between their
baby and a career…that they don’t have to choose between their baby and a man. I want
women to know that there are hundreds of people who will support them in their decision to
parent or place their child for adoption. I want them to know that abortion strips you of your
power. I want them to know that empowerment does not come from pitting a woman against
her child.
 
When an abortion supporter says, “I want women to feel empowered,” they mean that women
are too weak to be moms and complete their education. They mean that you have to choose
between being a mom and having a successful career. They mean that they actually have no
idea what empowerment really is.
Abby, how can you possibly say these things? How can you possibly know what abortion
supporters mean when they say these things?? Well, because I have said these things on both
sides of this issue. I know the meaning behind these phrases as an abortion supporter,
because I was one for eight years.
I speak on this issue because I get it. I get how people are blinded by language. And honestly, I
get how people are blinded by our desire to “meet in the middle.” But when you look at the
reality of abortion, there is no middle ground. You either support the killing of the unborn or
you don’t. There is no grey area.
How do we convert people? How do we help them see that the meaning behind our language
is totally different?
 
Well, we just speak charitable truth. We love people. And sometimes that truth and love
offends. We have to be okay with that.
Maybe it’s time to worry less about delivering watered down messages and speak truth in love
without compromise. Maybe we should worry less about offending those who are far away
from the truth. Maybe we should worry more about being compassionate, loving and planting
seeds of truth…even if it’s a hard truth.
I say it’s time to stop apologizing for delivering our message of truth. I will never be sorry for
speaking the truth in love.
 
Wednesday, November 5, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 11/5/14 12:12 AM

Tennessee voters have given the Volunteer State a chance t enact the kind of pro-life laws that have dropped abortions to historic lows in state after state across the nation.

They approved Amendment 1 to help ensure nothing int he state constitution could be used to secure an unlimited right to abortion. With 86%of the vote counter, Amendment 1 won with a 54-46 percent margin.

The amendment is necessary because the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in 2000 that the state constitution allows unlimited abortions. It is necessary, pro-life advocates say, to be able to pass laws to limit and reduce abortions. The ruling claimed the Tennessee Constitution contains a fundamental abortion right even broader than Roe v. Wade or the federal constitution and it resulted in the striking down of numerous pro-life Tennessee laws that were helping women and limiting abortions.

Subsequently the 2000 ruling was also used as precedent to strike state law requiring the inspection, regulation and licensure of abortion facilities in Tennessee, he explained. All of those pro-life protections — which have reduced abortions in some states by as much as 50 percent — could be restored now that the amendment has been approved

Brain Harris, the Tennessee Right to Life president, told LifeNews previously that the 2000 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist made it so “common sense protections were immediately stripped from state law books including informed consent for women considering abortion, a 48 hour waiting period and a requirement that second and third trimester abortions be performed in regulated hospitals rather than out-patient abortion facilities.”

“We are grateful to God and to the good people of Tennessee for this victory,” Harris said.  “Despite millions of abortion dollars flooding our airwaves with deceptive ads, the people of Tennessee saw through the falsehoods and made their voices heard.”

Harris told LifeNews that Yes on 1 coordinated a statewide grassroots campaign heavy on volunteers and smaller financial contributions from individuals, churches and pro-life organizations.

“We recognized that we would never have the financial resources of the abortion industry so began planning long ago to build a team of advocates who could educate and organize their local communities,” Harris said. “That effort paid off, especially in rural regions of the state where volunteers raised funds and awareness of both the amendment and the 2000 court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v Sundquist, a decision which claimed a fundamental right to abortion.”

Harris also gave special credit to clergy and religious leaders throughout the state who made support for the Amendment a priority.

“In the end this could be characterized as pastors and pulpits in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s abortion-profiteering.  We owe a debt of gratitude to men and women of faith who refused to accept Tennessee’s designation as an abortion destination and who actively used their influence to promote the protection of innocent human life.”

The text of the amendment returns authority for abortion regulation to the people of Tennessee and their state legislators and reads as follows: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014

by Shawn Carney | LifeNews.com | 11/3/14 10:26 AM

As this 40 Days for Life campaign comes to an end, we have reports of 546 babies saved from abortion – that we know of!

And keep in mind that these aren’t just numbers. That’s 546 individual human beings … and their moms … and their dads … and grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins. Each time a mother says “yes” to life, the impact is profound.

God worked through so many faithful people during this campaign and that work goes on far beyond Day 40. We close with a beautiful witness to what God can do, which should inspire us to consider one question: Could this happen in your town?

VACAVILLE, CALIFORNIA

“God has heard our prayers,” said Noelle in Vacaville. “He has seen our faithfulness and He has plans for our community that we never dreamed of.”

As the Vacaville team was planning this 40 Days for Life campaign, they spotted a sign in front of the office building at 600 Nut Tree Road – that’s where Planned Parenthood is located.

It was a simple real estate sign: “Space for lease.”

So on a whim, they made two calls. One was to the leasing agent. The other was to the director of a pregnancy help center. It would be a blessing, they thought, if assistance could be much closer to Planned Parenthood – and in fact, under the very same roof!

“Never did we think anything would materialize,” recalled Noelle. “It would simply be too good to be true. But, as we know, we must never underestimate the power of God.”

To make a long story short, the pregnancy center’s board of directors signed a lease, and will move into 600 Nut Tree Road – yes, the same building that Planned Parenthood is in.

And not just the same building. They will be right across the hall from Planned Parenthood!

“This means that abortion-minded women – women who feel as if they have no other choice than to end their child’s life – will be presented with real choices and life-affirming options as they walk down the hall to their abortion appointments,” she said.

“Can you imagine the lives that will be saved? The women that will be empowered, loved and supported?”

Volunteers have prayed through 100-degree heat … high winds … heavy rains. At times, they became discouraged, and wondered, “Is this really working?” And, being human, they wondered if God was listening.

“God most certainly has been listening and He had plans greater than anything we could have ever imagined,” Noelle said. “Some might say it’s just a case of good timing, just a coincidence. But we call it divine intervention. It is with awe and gratitude that we give thanks to God for His mercy, His glory and His power.”

Amen!
Monday, November 3, 2014

by Josh Shepherd | LifeNews.com | 10/31/14 4:38 PM

Dr. Brent Boles, an OB-GYN who volunteers as a spokesman for the Yes on Amendment 1 effort in Tennessee, wants to keep the issue of life at the forefront as citizens go to the polls on November 4. 

The pro-life amendment to the state constitution, called a “modest” proposal by some observers, would allow the Tennessee State Legislature to consider laws regulating abortion within the state — legislative action currently barred by a decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court.

In a phone interview he rattles off medical terms and statistics rapid-fire, as one might expect after more than two decades practicing medicine.

 

Bound4LIFE: It sounds like you are in a vehicle. Where are you traveling from?

Brent Boles, MD: I just participated in a press conference, where we stood in front of an unlicensed, unregulated abortion clinic in Nashville.

They recently had to call an ambulance because a woman had a respiratory arrest during an abortion, and they were totally unequipped to deal with it. Unfortunately, the clinic threw us off the property while we were still speaking to the media.

Right now, abortion clinics in Tennessee are exempt from any kind of licensure or inspection requirements. Women who are walking into an abortion clinic in Tennessee have no guarantee, no protection from the state, that the place they are entering is safe, clean, staffed by qualified individuals, and ready to handle an emergency. And they’re not.

Even nail salons have to be inspected to meet health standards. A woman who goes and gets a manicure in Tennessee is going to a facility that does more to answer to the state Department of Health than abortion clinics do.

This is not just about reducing the number of abortions, to save unborn children from losing their lives. This is about protecting the women of Tennessee, protecting their health and safety. It’s why the Yes on 1 team just released an ad featuring a 911 call from that very abortion clinic.

 

Bound4LIFE: How do you respond to critics who call this an extreme amendment?

Dr. Boles: My view is that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision 14 years ago was radical and extreme. In 2000, Planned Parenthood sued the State of Tennessee and ultimately won.

The court’s decision overturned three laws: one regarding informed consent, one requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, and one requiring advanced-stage abortions to be performed in a hospital where complications could be handled more safely.

These are all patient safety issues, about providing truthful, accurate information to women. Amendment 1 is designed to correct the mistakes that court decision made. When those who oppose it call us “radical” and “extreme,” saying that this takes away women’s rights, they are not telling the truth.

In fact, one video produced by the other side was just named “the most dishonest TV ad of the 2014 election season.” The script itself is misleading, but worse than that it conceals that the woman featured, named Tracey George, is Chairman of the Board for Planned Parenthood of Middle & East Tennessee.

 

Bound4LIFE: As a medical doctor, why are you involved in the Amendment 1 effort?

Dr. Boles: The longer I practice medicine, the more often I meet women whose lives have really been broken by the realization of what they’ve done once they’ve had an abortion.

It has always troubled me that abortion has been institutionalized as a legitimate industry in this country. The abortion industry does not tell women certain established medical statistics:

  • A woman who’s had an abortion is 2.7 times more likely to later commit suicide.
  • A teenage girl who’s had an abortion is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide.
  • Of those who have late-term abortions, 60% of those women will later have PTSD.

Most places do not have complete, accurate informed consent. If the ideal situation, according to the talking heads of this country, is for women to make informed choices — then give them the information.

Let them decide instead of hiding the truth from them. There’s a reason why Tennessee has twice the number of abortions per capita that Kentucky does: it’s easier and more profitable to be an abortionist here.

Bound4LIFE: How has prayer played a role in the effort for Amendment 1?

Dr. Boles: Some months ago, I recruited a group of six friends for a focused prayer effort. For the seven of us, each took one day of the week to fast and pray specifically about this amendment.

Many local churches are hungry for information and they want their people to know about Amendment 1. Whether non-denominational, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ or Catholic, the response has been very positive among churches.

They don’t see this only as an issue of what the State Legislature should or should not do: they see it as a Kingdom issue.

I’ve seen the power of prayer in my medical practice. Not long ago, a clinic refused to provide an abortion to a woman who later became my patient. She soon learned her stepfather was praying for exactly that to happen. Today, she has a healthy baby boy.

Bound4LIFE: You’ve mentioned personal encounters with patients as a reason for your pro-life views. What of the medical science on the question of when life begins?

Boles: The science on this issue is crystal clear. From the moment of conception, that pre-born person is a unique individual with unique DNA, that never existed before and will never exist again. Barring accidents of nature or illness or the intervention of man, a baby will be born.

Humanity is there from the beginning. A person’s size, level of development or abilities are not what gives them worth. It’s not like you’re another species until the moment you’re born, take your first breath and cry for the first time. You are human from the moment of conception.

Bound4LIFE: What would you encourage pro-life advocates in other states to do?

Boles: If they’re watching this play out, they should be praying. Some folks involved are considering last-minute radio and television ads, so people could support that which is important — but prayer is more important.

Read the text of Tennessee’s proposed Amendment 1
Friday, October 31, 2014
by Karen Malec | LifeNews.com | 10/30/14 2:00 PM
 
A second scientific review in 2014 has strongly urged physicians to warn patients about the abortion-breast
cancer (ABC) link before an abortion and argued the evidence for a cause-effect relationship is substantial.
[1,2] A. Patrick Schneider and his colleagues authored the latest review entitled, “The breast cancer
epidemic: 10 facts,” for the journal, The Linacre Quarterly.[1]
There are multiple, serious, health risks[3,4] associated with using the birth control pill and combined
hormone replacement therapy (CHRT), both of which contain estrogen and progestin, although the former
contains a larger dose. The authors of both reviews urged physicians to warn patients about the harms of
taking either these drugs.
Schneider’s team said, “…having more than
one risk factor compounds the risk of breast
cancer via synergistic mechanisms,” meaning
the risk increase the woman incurs is greater
than the sum of the risks for each of her risk
factors. They explained:
 
“The strength of the breast cancer
epidemiological evidence substantiates the
necessity that all females receive full and
accurate informed consent before they are
provided hormones, induced abortion, or
both. This informed consent is especially
imperative for a girl (and parent/guardian) or
a young woman, who is in the pre-FFTP (first
full term pregnancy) breast cancer ‘susceptibility window.’[1,2] As a family history of breast cancer, of which
the child may be unaware, increases the risk for the girl considering an abortion, the presence of a parent
may provide clinical information critical to accurate informed consent.”
 
The ‘susceptibility window’ is the period between the onset of menstruation and first full term pregnancy
(FFTP) when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible. The worst time to be
exposed to a cancer-causing agent is during the susceptibility window.
After citing the World Health Organization’s warning about the Pill and CHRT as Group 1 carcinogens for
cancers of the breast, liver and cervix,[10,11] and how some physicians use a carcinogen (the pill) to treat
benign conditions (i.e. acne, irregular menstrual periods, menstrual pain). The authors declared:
“The prescribing of a known carcinogen to a child for any non-lethal disease is problematic. Such a
practice without the provision of full and accurate informed consent for the girl, and at least one parent or
guardian, is medically, legally, and ethically indefensible.”
Schneider’s team cited “evidence of an emerging breast cancer pandemic.” Noting the words of Harvard’s
Professor Brian MacMahon, the “founder of modern epidemiology,” who said “many of the prevalent forms
of human cancer are preventable,” and citing his landmark research[12], they listed other ways women
raise their risk: delay (or avoidance) childbearing, reduced duration (or avoidance) of breastfeeding.
It’s despicable that U.S. cancer groups and Planned Parenthood continue to deceive women about the
ABC link and downplay the breast cancer risk associated with the Pill.
 
Thursday, October 30, 2014
by Shawn Carney | LifeNews.com | 10/29/14 9:39 AM
 
We never know how God will plant seeds. That hit me during a recent visit to the 40 Days for Life campaign in
Syracuse, New York.We just need to answer His call and be there!
It’s starting to get cold in Syracuse … but that hasn’t stopped the leaders there, as they have seen 50 moms choose
life at the last moment during all of their campaigns so far.
 
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
There have been two babies spared from abortion in Syracuse during this campaign – at a vigil that’s taking place in
front of the first-ever Planned Parenthood abortion facility. “This is the mother ship for Planned Parenthood and we
are not going away anytime soon,” said Shannon, the local coordinator.
The fruit in Syracuse has gone beyond the sidewalk and birthed two new ministries in the region … all because of
volunteers who were inspired to do more after participating in 40 Days for Life.
One ministry, Ten Good Men, challenges men to stand up to the culture with prayer and leadership. The other, St.
Joseph’s Home, is a newly-opened maternity home for homeless moms that was started by the volunteer directly to
the left of me in this photo: (Displayed on website) 
The other women are the 40 Days for Life leaders who continue to pray at the place where Planned Parenthood
began to build the largest abortion chain in America. What an inspiration to see how God has used these faithful
women! They are an example to all of us.
 
CANTON, OHIO
One of the qualities you need to bring to the vigil is perseverance. There can be long hours on the sidewalk. The
people inside the abortion center just wish you’d go home. People passing by may say things. But often, they just
ignore you.
“One woman did take our information,” said Linda, the local leader in Canton, “but none of the others would even
look our way.”
Of course, there are some that do pay attention – but not always in a positive manner. A driver offered a rude
gesture and screamed, “You are a religious zealot!” Linda’s response? “I thanked him.”
Another volunteer said a man pulled up, rolled down his window, and wagged his finger at him – “like school teachers
used to do” – and yelled out, “Shame on you! Go home! You have no idea what you are doing! Shame on you!”
Thankfully, there are positive signs as well. “Two men brought us coffee and I got a fist bump from a young man with
earphones on,” Linda said. “He had a big smile and a head nod.”
As the campaign enters its final days, Linda expressed her appreciation. “All of you that are praying and fasting at
home please know your prayers are what is keeping the campaign going. If you are able and have not taken time to
pray at Planned Parenthood, please consider helping by being a visible sign to the community.”
 
Wednesday, October 29, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 10/28/14 1:02 PM

In another legal victory against the HHS mandate, a court has ruled a Catholic college doesn’t have to obey the mandate, which compels it to pay for abortion-causing drugs for its employees.

A federal court issued a decision Tuesday in Ave Maria School of Law v. Sebelius that stops enforcement of the  Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against Ave Maria School of Law, a Catholic law school.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowmantold LifeNews: “Faith-based educational institutions should be free to live and operate according to the faith they teach and espouse. The court was right to uphold the religious freedom of institutions that value the sanctity of life. If the government can force Ave Maria School of Law to violate its faith in order to exist, then the government can do the same or worse to others.”

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the administration’s mandate that religious employers provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.

Facing millions of dollars of fines that would have taken effect this weekend, Ave Maria University stood up against the government and won an injunction this morning protecting its right to stay true to its beliefs. This is the first order enjoining the government’s latest attempt to coerce religious organizations via an “augmented rule” that it issued last August.

“After dozens of court rulings, the government still doesn’t seem to get that it can’t force faith institutions to violate their beliefs,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Fortunately, the courts continue to see through the government’s attempts to disguise the Mandate’s religious coercion. We congratulate Ave Maria for its courage, even under the threat of crippling fines.”

Ave Maria’s renewed lawsuit was filed last August in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. To date, approximately 90% of the courts addressing the contraception mandate—including the Supreme Court in three separate lawsuits—have protected religious ministries.

“Our school believes in living out our religious convictions,” said Ave Maria School of Law President and Dean Eugene R. Milhizer, who writes and speaks nationally on the issue of religious freedom, the abortion pill mandate, and the Catholic Church. “The First Amendment protects Americans from mandates that require us to act against our deeply held religious convictions. But the mandate leaves us with no real choice: we must either comply and abandon our religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be fined for our faith.”

Ave Maria School of Law was founded in 1999 to provide a legal education that is publicly faithful to the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church. The school’s sincere religious beliefs forbid it from facilitating the provision of abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, or sterilization through health insurance coverage it offers to its employees.

“The question is whether the government can pick and choose what faith is, who the faithful are, and when and where they can exercise that faith,” added Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “The cost of religious freedom for Americans and organizations across the country that face this mandate is severe. The potential for massive fines and lawsuits could shut down religious educational institutions as well as private employers with similar religious convictions.”

The lawsuit,  Ave Maria School of Law v. Sebelius, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, argues that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Roger Gannam, one of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Freedom, is local counsel in the case.

Pages