Skip to main content

Pro-Life Page

Friday, September 19, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 9/18/14 11:43 AM

A coalition of pro-life groups and members of Congress gathered today on Capitol Hill to demand a Senate vote on a House bill that would stop the massive taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamaca.

The call for a vote comes on the heels of a new nonpartisan GAO report showing Obamacare is the biggest expansion of abortion funding since Roe v. Wade.

Despite a promise President Obama made to lawmakers and the American public in a special joint session of Congress on healthcare reform that, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion,” a new report released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows well over 1,000 health care plans under Obamacare pay for abortions with taxpayer money.

“The American people don’t like being lied to!” Congressman Chris Smith told media gathered for the press conference.

The House of Representatives has passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7), which would apply the traditional Hyde Amendment policy to all federal programs, including the Obamacare premium-subsidy program. But pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to schedule a vote on it.

“Congress should change ObamaCare to provide transparency and remove abortion funding so when individuals buy exchange plans beginning November 15th, they can actually make an informed decision,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council. “There have been many broken promises associated with ObamaCare. This is one broken promise that we cannot let go. The Senate must pass H.R. 7/S. 946 the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).”

National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson says it is “no surprise” that Obamacare funds abortions and he called on pro-life voters to hold lawmakers accountable in November.

“Those really responsible for this scandal are the lawmakers, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Udall of Colorado, who voted against the pro-life amendment that would have prevented this massive federal funding of abortion-covering plans, as well as those who voted to enact the bill after the amendment was rejected, such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas,” he said.

The GAO report focused mainly on determining the prevalence of elective abortion coverage in health plans sold on the exchanges, in the 27 states plus D.C. that currently do not have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage. The GAO found that on these 28 exchanges, 1,036 plans cover elective abortion while 1,062 do not. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that between 2015 and 2024, $726 billion will flow from the federal Treasury in direct subsidies for Obamacare health plans.

The Obamacare law was enacted in early 2010 despite objections from pro-life forces that it contained provisions that would result in massive federal subsidies to help scores of millions of Americans buy health plans that cover elective abortion. However, President Obama repeatedly insisted that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

Johnson said these massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment says that no federal funds “shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” but the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the Obamacare law. Attempts to include Hyde-like language in the Obamacare law were initially successful in the House but were ultimately blocked by President Obama and his allies in Congress.

According to Johnson, the author of so-called “compromise” language that paved the way for enactment of the law, then-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), said in 2009 that “you have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds.”

He said the Nelson “two check” system, previously given great credence by some journalistic “factcheckers,” turns out to be not merely a flimsy gimmick, but a vanished mirage. Although the GAO confirmed that the law requires “issuers to collect from each enrollee in a QHP [Qualified Health Plan] covering non-excepted [elective] abortion services a separate payment for coverage of these services,” the Obama Administration is not enforcing such a requirement. Not a single one of the 18 insurance companies that are selling abortion-covering plans, and that responded to the GAO, actually were collecting a separate payment from enrollees for elective abortion coverage.

According to National Right to Life, despite assurances that there would be plans available in each state that do not fund elective abortions, the GAO found that in five states – Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont – every insurance plan currently sold on the exchange covers elective abortion. In addition, abortion-covering plans dominated the exchanges in California (96% cover elective abortion, 86 plans out of 90), Massachusetts (98%, 109 plans of 111), New York (95%, 405 plans of 426), and Oregon (90%, 92 plans of 102).

Thursday, September 18, 2014
by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 9/17/14 1:35 PM
 
In July 2014, a Virginia Department of Health inspection report obtained by The Family Foundation of Virginia
uncovered violations of federal drug laws by the Charlottesville Medical Center for Women. The facility
performs 12% of Virginia abortions, making them the third largest abortion business in the state after Planned
Parenthood and facilities owned by Dr. Steven Brigham, whose infamous for abortion malpractice across the
East Coast.
According to The Family Foundation press release, the
facility has been administering narcotics without proper
licensing for two years and failed to document if patients
were allergic to any drugs, and failed to take vital signs
prior to abortions.
The facility also doesn’t have any staff members certified
in Advanced Life Support, which is an American Heart
Association standard for the use of IV sedation. The
reason for the requirement is to protect women from injury
or death who experience unexpected adverse reactions to narcotics.
Victoria Cobb, President of The Family Foundation, said the following about the violation:
“Ask any doctor and they will tell you that allowing their DEA license to expire for a week would be
ridiculous but to allow it to be expired for two years and continue distributing Schedule II narcotics drugs
is not just disturbing, it’s a blatant violation of federal law. This facility and this doctor have apparently
been administering a Schedule II narcotic, the same Schedule of drug as OxyCotin, Cocaine and
Methamphetamines, without a license.
They’ve kept no records of the amount of these drugs they’ve purchased, used, distributed or “disposed
of” by other means. The report states that they have unlicensed staff members transporting drugs with
no inventory records. But sadly we know the abortion industry receives preferential treatment where any
other medical practice or doctor would be held accountable. In any other instance, people would go to
jail or face substantial fines, but instead this abortion center and doctor get a pass and licensure simply
by promising to do better. It’s absurd.”
The doctor who works at the Charlottesville Medical Center also performs abortions at three other facilities in
the state. This should be disconcerting and initiate an inspection for violations at the other clinics in Virginia
where he works.
Cobb concluded: “The abortion industry continues to fail to live up to its own rhetoric,” While the $1 billion
industry claims to put safety first, inspection reports have found over 400 health and safety violations,
violations of state and federal law, and widespread contempt for the health and safety of women in Virginia.
This center’s apparent disregard for federal and state drug laws, for the health and safety of the women who
enter its doors, is beyond appalling. Our question is, did the Department of Health, when it became aware of
the multiple violations of federal and state drug laws, report the doctor and the facility to any enforcement
agency? In fact, did anyone do anything at all other than help cover it up?”
Tuesday, September 16, 2014

By JENNIFER HABERKORN and BURGESS EVERETT | 9/15/14 11:00 PM EDT Updated: 9/16/14 1:44 PM EDT |Politico|
 

There are widespread instances of Obamacare insurance plans violating the rigid rules surrounding whether customers can use federal health care subsidies on insurance policies that cover abortion procedures, according to a Government Accountability Office investigation.

The report, commissioned by House Republican leadership and obtained by POLITICO on Monday night, found that 15 insurers in a sample of 18 are selling Obamacare plans that do not segregate funds to cover abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or the mother’s life) from their Obamacare subsidies.

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurers collect separate payments from customers for abortion coverage so that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies do not cover abortions. Adoption of the complex payment scheme — which essentially requires customers to send two separate payments to their insurers — was pivotal to getting the health law through Congress. Anti-abortion Democrats brokered the arrangement shortly before the law passed, threatening to vote against it without the restrictive language.

The report’s release is likely to elicit new election-year attacks on congressional Democrats from anti-abortion groups and Republicans who warned that Obamacare would allow for taxpayer subsidized abortions.

Among a sample of 18 insurers, “all but three issuers indicated that the [abortion coverage] benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions,” the GAO wrote in its report.

The vast majority of people who bought coverage on the exchanges did so with subsidies. According to government figures, 87 percent of the 5.4 million people who bought a plan on HealthCare.gov in the last enrollment period did so with at least some subsidy .

There is no data provided on how many plans have paid for abortions so far.

The GAO report found that in Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, all insurance plans offered on the exchanges cover abortions above and beyond the exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s life. The health law required the Office of Personnel Management to ensure there was at least one insurance policy in each state that did not cover abortion except in the restricted circumstances.

The Obama administration, in a response to a draft copy of the report, defended its actions.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Tuesday that it regularly communicated the technical details of abortion coverage to health insurance companies. The agency said that it would provide additional clarifying information in the coming days.

“CMS will work with stakeholders, including states and issuers, so they fully understand and comply with the federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions,” spokesman Ben Wakana said.

A Health and Human Services Department official confirmed that the law requires issuers to collect separate payments, but said that the law doesn’t specify how that needs to be done.

Critics of the dual payment track have long questioned the structure of the arrangement, saying that it was essentially inoperable. If a plan wants to cover abortion, it has to estimate the cost of coverage — no less than $1 per enrollee, per month — and collect that money from customers in a separate way than via their tax subsidies. Then, the pots of money have to remain separate.

Nationally, 1,062 plans in 28 states only cover abortion in the cases of rape, incest or to preserve the mother’s life, and 1,036 plans cover abortion services in a wider variety of circumstances, the GAO said.

 

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

by Stacie Kuhns | LifeNews.com | 9/15/14 6:33 PM

A news story has been making the rounds about a ridiculous elementary school regulation against students’ use of lip balm. A fifth-grader named Grace Karaffa requested some Chapstick while on the playground and was denied.

Eleven year-old Grace started a petition to allow Stuarts Draft Elementary School students to use the product and gained 236 signatures before testifying to the school board.

She explained, “I was told I couldn’t use it. Then later that day, they started to bleed so I asked for Chapstick again and I was told that it was against the school policy for elementary kids to have Chapstick.”

The assistant superintendent of administration for Augusta County Public Schools informed reporters that Chapstick is considered an over-the-counter medication by the school board. In Augusta County Public Schools, Chapstick may only be administered by a school nurse and only if a physician has prescribed its use.

This may seem like a somewhat silly story about bureaucracy gone too far. However, it is outrageous and infuriating when you consider that a child may need a physician’s note to apply Chapstick — but, in 26 states and Washington, D.C., teenagers and pre-teens don’t even need parental permission to obtain an abortion.

An 11 year-old girl has to apply to her school district’s board to be able to use Chapstick on her chapped lips. Yet in some states, if an 11 year old girl wants a life-altering and potentially life-threatening surgical procedure, nobody has to know. In many other states, parents, guardians or even just a sibling or “mental health professional,” need only be informed of this child’s decision.

I’m not a parent, and I’m certainly not a lawmaker, doctor or an abortionist. But I’ve been an 11-year-old before, and I’ve known many in my life. I can say with perfect conviction and scientific backing: grave consequences result when 11 year-olds are allowed to make irreversible decisions which will affect the course of their lives forever. In fact, recent studies reveal their minds aren’t even yet fully formed to understand the long-term implications of their choices.

When the conscience of a nation has turned so absolutely upside-down that something helpful is forbidden, but something absolutely harmful is accepted without a second thought, the only solution is an appeal to the Creator of the human conscience — the One who wrote His law on the hearts of men.

Monday, September 15, 2014
by Brad Mattes | LifeNews.com | 9/12/14 1:32 PM
 
Pro-abortion activists fight for abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason—no exceptions. Their
fundamental argument centers on women’s health.
But stunning research shows this concern is all smoke and mirrors.
Pro-abortion activists have long tried to claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. For years they’ve touted
manipulated numbers, trying in vain to bolster this myth. We’ve always known those statistics were bogus,
and a study by Dr. Priscilla Coleman and Dr. David Reardon reveals abortion is much more dangerous to
women than giving birth. And the results are sadly even more devastating to women’s health than even I
had anticipated.
First, let me vouch for the authors of this research. I know
them both to be solid individuals with a reputation for
thoroughness. I met Dr. Coleman in Santiago, Chile
where we lectured at their largest university. We again
shared an academic podium in Quito, Ecuador the
following year.
Second, allow me to explain why this study is so
important. It’s compelling because of its unmatched
scope:
The study includes a large number of women—nearly one-half-million—experiencing first-time pregnancies.
The medical records are profoundly reliable because the data was compiled from Danish government sources including
fertility records of births and stillbirths, the national abortion registry and cause of death registry.
The study covers an extensive ten-year time period, providing comprehensive long-term data.
It analyzes both early and late-term abortion compared to childbirth.
In other words, this isn’t a biased study with a relatively small sample size produced to cater to pro-abortion
activists—or any side for that matter. This research was conducted at the national level, over the course of a
decade, providing substantial credibility, a comprehensive level of detail, as well as earning publication in
respected medical journals. The reliability has been substantiated, which is why the results are even more
troubling.
When it comes to which is safer—abortion or childbirth—the results speak loudly and clearly:
During the first six months after an early abortion (12 weeks or less), a woman has double the risk of death compared to
giving birth.
During the first year following a late abortion (after 12 weeks) a woman has over three times the risk of death compared
to giving birth.
Pro-abortion activists prey on the fear of Americans by perpetuating the myth that if Roe v. Wade is reversed,
women will suffer horrific back-alley abortions and tragic deaths. The reality is that under legalized abortion,
women are being killed on a much larger scale.
Remember when we heard the news that Planned Parenthood is responsible for 24-year-old Tonya Reaves’
death following a botched abortion. Reports showed that a devastating five-and-a-half hours passed between
the time of her abortion and her transport to a local hospital.
There’s no record that a 911 call was placed by Planned Parenthood. The autopsy report indicated that her
injuries were survivable if she had received proper emergency care in a timely manner. The only difference
between her death and a back-alley abortion death is that Ms. Reaves’ abortion was sanctioned by the US
Supreme Court, giving her a false sense of security that the procedure was safe.
Now Tonya’s one-year-old son will grow up without a mother. Sadly, there have been additional victims after
Tonya’s death. And don’t forget the Gosnell “house of horrors.”
Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities continue to lure young women under the false premise that
they perform “women’s healthcare services.” Abortion isn’t healthcare. It’s killing. In fact, they’re an industry
of death—killing unborn babies and exposing their mothers to a staggering increased risk of death. Let’s not
let this grave injustice continue. Share this with those you know and take a stand. You now have
compelling proof that abortion is not safer than childbirth. Help us warn unsuspecting women.
 
Friday, September 12, 2014
by Mallory Quigley | LifeNews.com | 9/11/14 5:42 PM
 
Today the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) was victorious in its legal battle against
Ohio’s “false statement” law, which previously allowed a politically-appointed government panel to determine
true or false political speech. Judge Timothy Black ruled in favor of SBA List in the case of Susan B. Anthony
List v. Ohio Elections Commission, striking down the Ohio law as unconstitutional, and leaving the SBA List
and others free to engage in the public square without fear of prosecution.
“After four years and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, today we finally have a victory for free speech,” said
SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.
Judge Black quoted this statement from the SBA List
oral arguments in his decision: “[We are not] arguing
for a right to lie. We’re arguing that we have a right not
to have the truth of our political statements be judged
by the Government.”
Previously the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that the SBA List had standing to continue its First
Amendment challenge to the Ohio law. Similar laws
exist in 15 other states.
“This summer more than twenty groups from across
the political spectrum submitted amicus briefs to the
U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SBA List. The ACLU,
the Cato Institute, and even President Obama’s own
Solicitor General supported our fight for the right to criticize elected officials,” continued Dannenfelser.
“Today’s decision allows us to freely communicate the truth with voters – that elected representatives who
voted for the Affordable Care Act voted for taxpayer-funded abortion. It is beyond dispute that, because
Congress and the White House failed to include the Stupak amendment, ObamaCare contains multiple
abortion-funding provisions. This reality will continue to be a key part of our message to voters in the 2014
midterm elections and beyond.”
The case was spurred by SBA List’s 2010 attempt to put up billboards exposing that former Rep. Steve
Driehaus (D-OH) supported taxpayer-funded abortion by voting for the Affordable Care Act. Last week, the
Susan B. Anthony List launched a similar billboard campaign in Louisiana to expose Senator Mary Landrieu
for her vote for taxpayer funded abortion. Like Driehaus, Senator Landrieu voted for the Affordable Care Act.
Thursday, September 11, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | San Francisco, CA | LifeNews.com | 9/10/14 11:25 AM

San Francisco, California is closer to becoming the most pro-abortion city in the nation. That’s because the city is about to go on record opposing a ban on sex-selection abortions.

Why would banning abortions done simply because the unborn baby is a girl be a problem? City officials opposing the ban make the claim that somehow it is racist.

From the San Francisco Examiner story:

San Francisco would become the first jurisdiction in the country to go on record opposing sex-selective abortion bans if a resolution stating they perpetuate racial stereotypes, being introduced by Supervisor David Chiu today, is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Sex-selective abortion bans prohibit terminating a pregnancy on the basis of sex, and doctors who perform such abortions can face fines, jail time or lawsuits. The bans “encourage racial profiling of women by some medical providers,” according to Chiu’s resolution, and can lead to women being denied services.

“Lawmakers across the country have successfully advocated for sex-selective abortion bans by perpetuating false and harmful racial stereotypes that such laws are necessary to stop an influx of Asian immigrants from spreading this practice, and that Asian American communities do not value the lives of women,” states the resolution, which Chiu will announce at City Hall today.

So the excuse for justifying the sexist practice of banning sex-selection? Because Asian cultures tend to be the ones where the sex-selection abortion practice is most prevalent, banning it targets Asian-Americans.

Wesley Smith, a pro-life attorney who lives in California, commented on the logical absurdity.

“One would think that liberals–so opposed to real (and imagined) discrimination–would oppose abortion based on sexism. Nope,” he says. “San Francisco–where else?–could go on record opposingprotecting female (mostly) fetuses from being aborted because they are the wrong gender.”

“I wonder if pro abortion types would oppose banning eugenic gay-selection abortion if a test could detect the sexual orientation of a gestating fetus,” he concludes.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014
 
by Joe Ortwerth | LifeNews.com | 9/9/14 10:56 AM
 
The right to life of many future preborn children in Missouri will be determined this week when the Missouri
Legislature meets in the State Capitol for its annual veto session. Legislative leaders will be seeking to
override Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of legislation to extend the waiting period for an abortion from 24 to 72
hours.
This is one of the most significant life-saving measures the Missouri General Assembly has adopted in quite
some time, and it is critical that this bill be enacted over the Governor’s objections.
Should this bill (House Bill 1307) become law,
many women will be saved from making hasty
uninformed decisions to abort their children,
decisions they will so often tearfully regret for the
rest of their lives. Many women will be given
additional time to stand up to the pressure of
others urging them to destroy the life of their
unborn child. Many preborn children will see the
light of day because their mothers had sufficient
time to reflect on the consequences of abortion to
them and the child in their womb.
Under current Missouri law, abortion clinics are
prohibited from performing abortions on women until 24 hours after they have first visited the abortion facility.
At that time, women meet with a “counselor” who must provide them with information supplied by the state
detailing the abortion procedure and alternatives they may wish to consider. Women are given a packet
developed by the Department of Health and Senior Services which they are able to take home and review as
they evaluate their options.
That packet includes information about the humanity of the unborn child, including illustrations of the
development of the child at various stages of gestation. The women must be offered the opportunity to view
an ultrasound of the child, and to hear the heartbeat of the child if it is audible. The packet explains the
nature of various abortion procedures, and the risks to the woman’s physical and mental health.
The woman is given information regarding alternatives to abortion including adoption, and is supplied with the
names and addresses of pregnancy resource centers which will support her decision to carry her child to
term. She is provided information about government programs which will assist her with prenatal and
newborn care.
The purpose of House Bill 1307 is to ensure that the woman has adequate time to consider and reflect on the
substantial amount of information she has been provided. The additional 48 hours also helps guarantee that
the decision the woman is making is truly her own, and not the result of coercion from other parties who
would benefit from the “termination” of her pregnancy. Women are often under intense pressure from
boyfriends, parents, and even grandparents to “solve the problem” through a quick abortion. Sexual
predators and perpetrators of statutory rape are anxious to remove the evidence of their crime.
The proposal to extend the abortion waiting period was initiated by Senator David Sater of Cassville. The bill
ultimately adopted by the General Assembly was sponsored by Representatives Kevin Elmer of Nixa and
Keith Frederick of Rolla. The legislation received enthusiastic support in both chambers of the Legislature,
with the House approving it by a vote of 111-39, and the Senate by a vote of 22-9.
It would appear that there is sufficient support to override Governor Nixon’s veto. However, this can by no
means be presumed. If even one supportive senator is absent because of illness or a family emergency, the
veto override would fail. We ask that you be praying that all pro-life legislators are present and accounted for
at the time of the vote on the override.
The motion to override the Governor’s veto may happen as early as tomorrow–Wednesday, September
10th. It is urgent that you take the time immediately to call your state senator and state representative to
urge their vote for House Bill 1307, the 72-hour waiting period bill. Please do not set this aside to another
time.
Please call or e-mail your legislators right now.
You will find the contact information for your state senator at this link:
Your State Senator
You will find the contact info for your state representative at this link:
Your State Representative
This is a momentous hour for the pro-life cause not only in Missouri, but in our nation as well. Should this bill
be enacted, Missouri would be the third state in the nation with a 72-hour waiting period for abortion. It is
highly likely that the law will withstand any legal challenges. It is also likely that other states would follow
Missouri’s lead, and enact similar lifesaving measures.
This pro-life bill is a major threat to the abortion industry. So much so that pro-abortion forces have mobilized
a concentrated lobbying effort to sustain the Governor’s vetoes. Pro-abortion leaders are sending buses of
abortion advocates to the State Capitol. The effort is sponsored by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the
National Organization for Women, and PROMO, the state’s leading homosexual rights organization.
Please be praying for a favorable outcome to the vote on House Bill 1307. And please make a call to the
offices of your state legislator right now!
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 9/9/14 10:32 AM
 
The Obama administration has renewed its attempt to force a Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the
Poor, to comply with the HHS abortion mandate. The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth
control and drugs that may cause abortions.
The Obama administration announced today it will continue its legal battle against the Little Sisters of the
Poor, a religious order of nuns dedicated to serving the neediest elderly in society. This comes despite the fact
that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and another company in their bid to stop the HHS
mandate.
The government is still trying to force
the nuns to either violate their deeply
held religious convictions or pay
crippling fines to the IRS.
“Religious ministries in these cases
serve tens of thousands of
Americans, helping the poor and
homeless and healing the sick. The
Little Sisters of the Poor alone serve
more than ten thousand of the elderly
poor. These charities want to continue
following their faith. They want to focus on ministry—such as sharing their faith and serving the poor—without
worrying about the threat of massive IRS penalties,” said Adele Keim, Counsel at the Becket Fund for
Religious Liberty, which represents the Little Sisters.
Keim told LifeNews: “The government has already exempted millions of Americans from this requirement for
commercial or secular reasons, so it should certainly protect the Little Sisters for religious reasons.”
Keim said today’s developments at a federal appeals court in Denver are the latest stage in the government’s
attempt to force the Little Sisters and other charities serving the needy to comply with the HHS Mandate.
Although the Supreme Court previously required the Little Sisters to do nothing more than notify the
government of their religious objection, the government issued new regulations last month in an attempt to
circumvent the Supreme Court’s order.
The pro-life attorney explained to LifeNews that today’s action confirms the Obama administration
is continuing its fight to use the Little Sisters’ health plan–provided by Christian Brothers Services–to provide
potentially life-terminating drugs and devices in violation of their religious beliefs. The new regulations
provide that the nuns’ approval can be written on a different form, and be routed through the government to
Christian Brothers and any other plan administrators.
“Merely offering the Little Sisters a different way to violate their religion does not ease their conscience,” said
Keim. “Adding another layer of paperwork is a solution that only a bureaucrat could love. The federal
government has many ways to deliver contraceptives. There’s no reason it should force nuns to do that for
them; the First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act offer two very good reasons why it
shouldn’t.”
The Little Sisters’ brief concerning the new rule will be filed later this evening. To date, approximately 90% of
the courts addressing the contraception mandate—including the Supreme Court in three separate lawsuits—
have protected religious ministries.
Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com
The Little Sisters of the Poor are an international Roman Catholic Congregation of women Religious founded
in 1839 by St. Jeanne Jugan. They operate homes in 31 countries, where they provide loving care for over
13,000 needy elderly persons. Thirty of these homes are located in the United States.
“Like all of the Little Sisters, I have vowed to God and the Roman Catholic Church that I will treat all life as
valuable, and I have dedicated my life to that work,” explained Sister Loraine Marie, Superior for one of the
three U.S. provinces in the Congregation. “We cannot violate our vows by participating in the government’s
program to provide access to abortion inducing drugs.”
The Little Sisters will face IRS fines unless they violate their religion by hiring an insurer to provide their
employees with contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.
“The Sisters should obviously be exempted as ‘religious employers,’ but the government has refused to
expand its definition,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead
counsel for the Little Sisters. “These women just want to take care of the elderly poor without being forced
to violate the faith that animates their work. The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like it
always has—and not to pay the IRS.
Monday, September 8, 2014
by Rebecca Downs | LifeNews.com | 9/5/14 2:21 PM
 
In a recent post, “Choosing to be Open to Life: Open and Waiting,” part of her blog, Do Small Things with
Love, Nancy Bandzuch writes specifically about her two children, ages 7 and 2, and how she and her
husband came to be foster parents. Perhaps the greatest point of all made in her piece is how she relates
her experiences with parenting to being open and waiting, as the title suggests, as well as patient and
trusting.
Nancy begins her post by saying that her “openness wasn’t so.” As many others of us surely have, Nancy
had a pretty set plan when it came to children. She and her husband would wait two years after getting
married before having their first child, and then have another one two years later. They wanted to have five
kids before being done at 35.
But, Nancy became pregnant with their first
child, LB, six months after being married:
By God’s grace, we conceived our
daughter LB after six months of marriage.
I did not know then that this was a merciful
gift. At the time, I was angry and worried
about things not going according to my
plan! I liked my job, we didn’t have enough
money, we were working full time and
finishing degrees – surely this was not the
right time for a child!!!
With how fussy and how much LB cried,
Nancy quit her job. And then a year later,
they decided to try again for another child. Although their efforts were to no avail, Nancy was told that nothing
was wrong. As she continued to try for children, she finally got pregnant five years later. Tragically, the
pregnancy turned out to be ectopic and Nancy describes a recovery that was quick physically, but “an
emotional recovery [which] was a long, grueling process.”
Although Nancy and her husband decided against adoption after meeting with an adoption worker, they did
decide on fostering:
But, that meeting was how we found it. The other worker in the room was a licensing representative for the
adoption and fostering sides of the agency. Fostering. How can I explain what it is to bare your lives to the
government in order to become an agent of the state, all for the hope of loving a child who will then be torn
from your arms? Who does this? Many, many families. We did. We do. I feel deeply that this is a calling,
and it is not for every family. But, in that space of feeling the failure of my own fertility, God asked us to
reach out and help. We were called to look beyond our own hurt and bind the wounds of another.
Nancy describes the process of becoming foster parents, and how after they had taken in a four week old
baby, Nancy found out she was pregnant again. Strangely enough, Nancy had already discontinued hormone
treatments months prior.
Nancy speaks great lengths about what being open and waiting has meant to her, and specifically ties it to
her Catholic faith and God’s plan for her. She also relates to being a foster mother to the abortion issue:
For me, fostering is more than a way to help, it is a pro-life stance. We have heard the cries, “who will take
care of these children if they’re born?” Well, I will. My husband will. The parents of foster children have
chosen to give life in what is often times a difficult, stress-filled environment. That foster child could have
been aborted.
Praise God, they were not. But, that difficulty and stress may cause the parents to be unable to care for
their children, either temporarily or permanently. That’s why we stand in the gap. Because I will put my
life, my heart, my home, and my money where my mouth is. Choose life. There are people like me out in
this world, not only praying for you, but feeding that child, clothing that child, loving that child until they can
either get back to you or find a permanent, loving home, which might also be my home.
Nancy does indeed make a good point about those who accuse pro-lifers of not doing enough for supposedly
unwanted children who come into the world. They too are blessings! Nancy herself mentions that “it is not for
every family.” She and her husband decided against adoption themselves. But that does not mean that
somebody will not be the right foster or adoptive parent of a child who may have been aborted due to being
regarded as an inconvenience or whose parents, perhaps even through no fault of their own, could not raise
their children. As Nancy proudly shares, she and her family are the face of those who will be the one to care
for such children.
While Nancy may not have always planned on fostering children, it was issues with her fertility which allowed
her to find such a calling. Many women and couples face issues with fertility, in having children too soon or
too late, too many or too few, or none at all. God has a plan though, as we can see from Nancy’s story, none
of which ever has to be abortion.