Pro-Life Page

Thursday, February 28, 2013

CNSNews ^ | February 25, 2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey 

Posted on 2/25/2013 7:08:31 PM by jazusamo

( - While presenting an oral argument in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last fall, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department told a federal judge that the Obama administration believed it could force the judge’s own wife—a physician—to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice.

The assertion came in the case of Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, a challenge to the Obama administration’s regulation requiring health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Tyndale is a for-profit corporation that publishes Bibles, biblical commentaries and other religious works. Tyndale House Foundation, a religious non-profit organization, owns 96.5 percent of the corporation’s stock and receives 96.5 percent of its profits. The foundation’s mission is “to minister to the spiritual needs of people, primarily through grants to other religious charities.”

As a matter of religious principle, the foundation believes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.

The corporation self-insures, providing its employees with a generous health-care plan. But, in keeping with its religious faith, it does not in any way provide abortions. For this reason, Tyndale sued the Obama administration, arguing that the Obamacare regulation that would force it to provide abortion-inducing drugs and IUDs in its health-care plan violated its right to the free-exercise of religion.

“Consistent with the religious beliefs of Tyndale and its owners, Tyndale’s self-insured plan does not and has never covered abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices such as emergency contraception and intrauterine devices,” Tyndale said in its legal complaint, prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

When Tyndale sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the administration from enforcing the regulation on the company before the federal courts could determine the issue on its merits, Benjamin Berwick, a lawyer for the Civil Division of the Justice Department presented the administration's argument for why Tyndale should be forced to act against the religious faith of its owners. The oral argument over the preliminary injunction occurred Nov. 9 in Judge Walton’s court.

Berwick argued here--as the administration has argued in other cases where private businesses are challenging the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate--that once people form a corporation to conduct business they lose their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion insofar as their business is concerned.

In the face of this argument, Judge Walton asked an interesting question. His wife, a graduate of Georgetown Medical School, is a physician. She has incorporated her medical practice. Does that mean, according to the Obama administration’s argument, that the federal government can force her to act against her religious faith in the conduct of her medical practice?

Berwick effectively answered: Yes.

Here, from the official court transcript, is the verbatim exchange between this Obama administration lawyer and Judge Walton:

Benjamin Berwick: “Well, your honor, I think, I think there are two distinct ideas here: One is: Is the corporation itself religious such that it can exercise religion? And my, our argument is that it is not. Although again, we admit that it is a closer case than for a lot of other companies. And then the second question is, can the owners--is it a substantial burden on the owners when the requirement falls on the company that is a separate legal entity? I think for that question precisely what their beliefs are doesn't really matter. I mean, they allege that they're religious beliefs are being violated. We don't question that. And we don't question that that is the belief.

Judge Reggie Walton: But considering the closeness of the relationship that the individual owners have to the corporation to require them to fund what they believe amounts to the taking of a life, I don't know what could be more contrary to one's religious belief than that.

Berwick: Well, I don't think the fact this is a closely-held corporation is particularly relevant, your honor. I mean, Mars, for example--

Judge Walton: Well, I mean, my wife has a medical practice. She has a corporation, but she's the sole owner and sole stock owner. If she had strongly-held religious belief and she made that known that she operated her medical practice from that perspective, could she be required to pay for these types of items if she felt that that was causing her to violate her religious beliefs?

Berwick: Well, Your Honor, I think what it comes down to is whether there is a legal separation between the company and—

Judge Walton: It's a legal separation. I mean, she obviously has created the corporation to limit her potential individual liability, but she's the sole owner and everybody associates that medical practice with her as an individual. And if, you know, she was very active in her church and her church had these same type of strong religious-held beliefs, and members of the church and the community became aware of the fact that she is funding something that is totally contrary to what she professes as her belief, why should she have to do that?

Berwick: Well, your honor, again, I think it comes down to the fact that the corporation and the owner truly are separate. They are separate legal entities.

Judge Walton: So, she'd have to give up the limitation that conceivably would befall on her regarding liability in order to exercise her religion? So, she'd have to go as an individual proprietor with no corporation protection in order to assert her religious right? Isn't that as significant burden?

In a series of interviews conducted in 2007 by the Historical Society of the District of Columbia, Judge Walton reported that his wife was a doctor of medicine who had attended Georgetown Medical School.

Monday, February 11, 2013

GERMANTOWN, MD, February 8, 2013, ( – The news that a 29-year-old woman died of a late term abortion on Thursday has filled the pro-life community with waves of sorrow, outrage, and resilience.

“Never again,” said Students for Life of America (SFLA) in a press release.

“We pray for this young woman and her family and recommit ourselves to abolishing all abortion so that never again will a woman feel that killing the life within her is her only choice,” said SFLA President Kristan Hawkins.

“We are heartbroken at the news that another mother and child have fallen victim to the horrors of legal abortion in this country,” she said.

Human Life International called the young woman's death, during an abortion in her eighth month of pregnancy, “truly tragic” on its Facebook page.

“How many women and children are killed by abortionists like Carhart without our ever knowing, their deaths covered up by pro-abortion physicians?” asked Lila Rose of Live Action. “Those women who are lied to and misled about these 'procedures' deserve to know exactly what Big Abortion – and their abortion bosses like Carhart – seek to do to them.”

The death comes days after the debut of a new film at the Sundance Festival, After Tiller, that seeks to “humanize” those who, like Carhart, perform late-term abortions – a fact Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League noted.

The death also came the same day that Scheidler's organization filed a legal complaint with the Illinois state government over the death of 24-year-old Tonya Reaves from a legal abortion last July. Thecomplaint, filed by Illinois Department of Professional Regulation by Thomas Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, said Planned Parenthood's decision to allow Reaves to hemorrhage for five-and-a-half hours, then deposit her at a local hospital without telling officials of a possible uterine perforation violated state law and amounted to the “abandonment of a patient.”

Pro-life leaders say they refuse to abandon Reaves, or the newest victim of the abortion industry.

“The state of Maryland has to shut down Carhart's killing business,” said Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. He encouraged “every person who cares about” this woman's death “to spread the word immediately about this tragedy, to awaken the consciences of our neighbors. This includes pastors speaking out about the harm abortion does, and it includes all of us telling the stories of those harmed and killed by abortion.”

“We need to redouble our efforts to mobilize people in the pro-life cause,” he said. “If this latest tragedy isn't enough evidence that the time to end abortion is now, then what is?”

“No longer will we allow these women to remain unknown to the American public,” Father Pavone said. “The silence ends today.”

Fr. Pavone was on hand as Dr. Alveda King read a litany of names of women who had died from legal abortion, led by Reaves, at the National Memorial Service for the Preborn and their Mothers and Fathers in Constitution Hall, just before this year's March for Life.

Pro-life leaders are planing a prayer vigil and memorial outside Carhart's clinic next Monday at 9 a.m.

“Please pray that this tragedy will be a turning point in abortion and that the barbaric practice of 3rd trimester abortions will end (along with all abortions),” said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser at Operation Rescue, who broke the story of the latest adult abortion casualty. “We also won't rest until Carhart is brought to justice through the legal system.”

Tuesday, January 22, 2013


Alabama Supreme Court: ‘Unborn Children Are Persons With Rights’

January 16, 2013


( – The Alabama Supreme Court ruled in a case on Friday that “unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law.”

The case involved two women who had been charged  under a “chemical endangerment” law because they had ingested illegal drugs – one, cocaine, and the second, methamphetamine  -- while pregnant.

One woman’s baby tested positive for cocaine when born; the other baby was born prematurely and died shortly thereafter due to “acute methamphetamine intoxication.”

They women appealed their convictions, with their lawyers making numerous arguments but one in particular: that the word “child” did not apply to an unborn child or a fetus.  The Court said otherwise.

In its concluding remarks, the Alabama Supreme Court said:  “The decision of this Court today is in keeping with the widespread legal recognition that unborn children are persons with rights that should be protected by law. Today, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of the dictates of Roe.”

“Furthermore, the decision in the present cases is consistent with the Declaration of Rights in the Alabama Constitution, which states that ‘all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” said the Court.

After the ruling on Jan. 11, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said, “The court has ratified our argument that the public policy of our state is to protect life, both born and unborn."

"It is a tremendous victory that the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed the value of all life, including those of unborn children whose lives are among the most vulnerable of all," he said.


Tuesday, January 22, 2013





By: Gary Bauer
1/22/2013 10:07 AM

Forty years after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, abortion has become, in one sense, a normal part of many women’s lives: nearly one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her lifetime. And of those who abort, half will have at least one more abortion.

But in another sense, abortion is still very abnormal. Despite that more than one million abortions are committed each year, most Americans don’t consider abortion to be a “normal” part of healthcare. And most don’t consider it moral or natural.

The abortion-rights movement has spent the last 40 years trying to “normalize” abortion, and it is only now acknowledging the failure of those efforts.

But don’t take my word for it. Abortion rights leaders are making my case. “In general, the pro-choice movement leaves people with the feeling that we don’t see these things as complex because the answer is almost always, ‘Well it’s a woman’s decision,’” Francis Kissling, formerly head of Catholic for a Free Choice, recently told Time magazine.

“When people hear us say ‘abortion is just another medical procedure,’ they react with shock. Abortion is not like having your tooth pulled or having your appendix out. It involves the termination of an early form of human life. That deserves some gravitas.”

This is a startling admission coming from one of the abortion-rights movement’s most high-profile leaders.

For decades, abortion advocates have labored to portray abortion as normal. They lobbied Hollywood script writers to have abortion depicted sympathetically on TV shows.

They constructed websites with names like “I’” and introduced “I Had an Abortion” T-shirts that encouraged women to, as one abortion activist put it, “own-up” to their abortions. The abortion industry continues to do all it can to mainstream abortion into medical school training, even to the point of forcing medical professionals to perform them.

Most recently, abortion advocates worked alongside pro-abortion Democrats to remove the word “rare” from the Democratic Party’s platform calling for abortion to be “safe” and “legal.” The notion that abortion should be rare stigmatizes the procedure, they claimed.

But “normalization” belies the experiences of millions of women—especially those who suffer physical and emotional trauma post-abortion.

Hundreds of state laws have been enacted that remind people that abortion is anything but normal. Some require ultrasounds before an abortion, while others mandate that abortionists inform women of the risks of abortion. Still others require that women seeking abortions be told that the procedure involves the killing of a whole, separate, unique living human being.

There are laws that outlaw abortions after unborn babies can feel pain, laws that require that women wait 24 or 48 hours before an abortion and laws that require abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Abortion advocates claim pro-life laws humiliate, degrade and shame women. But they mainly act as a prick to the consciences of those considering abortion. They are a reminder that abortion is serious business and that the decision to abort should not be taken lightly.

Most Americans get it. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that only 13 percent of Americans believe abortion is “morally acceptable.” That includes just 10 percent of women and just 17 percent of Democrats.

Amazingly, just 17 percent of respondents who think Roe should not be overturned also believe abortion is “morally acceptable.” That means that the overwhelming majority of Americans who support abortion-on-demand also believe abortion is immoral.

A 2009 poll by The Polling Company found that of adults who knew a woman who had had an abortion, 55 percent said her abortion was a negative experience, while just 33 percent said it was positive. A majority of respondents (53 percent) said abortion is almost always a bad thing for women; 13 percent said it is almost always a good thing.

The increasingly obvious humanity of the unborn child has had an effect on medical professionals. The number of doctors willing to train in and perform abortions has dropped by half in recent years, as medical professionals increasingly refuse to be a part of the marginalized specialty.

There are signs that the abortion industry is starting to understand its problem. Planned Parenthood has a new messaging campaign that moves away from the language of choice, because, as Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards put it, abortion is “a complicated topic and one in which labels don’t reflect the complexity.”

Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens even conceded that the word “’choice’…sounds frivolous.” These concessions are no doubt a result of recent polls showing more Americans identifying as “pro-life” than as “pro-choice.”

Not surprisingly, even as the abortion movement talks about adopting new euphemisms, it’s making clear that it will not alter its hardline stance against efforts to reduce abortion. Laguens told BuzzFeed that Planned Parenthood won’t adopt language about making abortion “rare” because it sounds too judgmental.

Incidentally, Planned Parenthood recently announced that it performed 334,000 abortions in 2011, up from recent years. That’s one abortion every 94 seconds, and that’s more than $150 million in revenue from abortions.

The abortion industry can try to improve its “messaging” all it wants. But unless abortion advocates change their devotion to abortion-on-demand, the only message Americans will receive is that the abortion industry is only really interested in improving its bottom line at the expense of the most defenseless among us.

Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.


Wednesday, January 9, 2013




In two weeks, America will mark the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to abortion and legalizing most abortions.

Much will be written about the consequences of that decision. While both sides of the debate will insist they are winning, abortion rights advocates will have a difficult time claiming any kind of victory. As the cover of the new Time magazine declares, “40 Years Ago, Abortion Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory With Roe v. Wade. They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.”

Opinion polls show that a larger share of the country identifies with the “pro-life” position than at any time since Roe. Abortions have fallen by one third since their peak twenty years ago. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that both the number and rate of abortions dropped five percent in 2009, the largest decrease in a decade.

An important reason why “pro-life” is winning is the mounting evidence revealing the humanity of the unborn child. Taken together, developments in science belie the pro-choice assertion that an unborn child is nothing more than a clump of cells.

Read more at:



Friday, December 28, 2012

The Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe are still deeply divisive and have not been accepted by a deep consensus of the American people because they allow the killing of millions of children in the womb. Because the issue is one of life and death, it will not go away until either the Supreme Court or the American people through a constitutional amendment get it right. Abortion is such a grave and immoral injustice, on such a massive scale, that it can never be accepted completely by the American people.

From It's Past Time for the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade |

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Centers for Disease Control released new national abortion figures this week and the mainstream media has essentially ignored the fact that the number of women dying from legal abortions has doubled.

from Report: Number of Women Dying From Legal Abortions Doubles |

Friday, June 22, 2012

Students for Life of America commissioned a new poll of young voters that finds they do not like the pro-abortion record of President Barack Obama and also don’t favor his HHS mandate that forces religious groups to pay for abortion-causing drugs and birth control. Students for Life of America commissioned one of the first-wide scale quantitative studies of 18-24 year olds in the 2012 election season — important because of the impact young voters made in 2008 in propelling Obama to office.

from Poll: Young Voters Oppose Obama Abortion Record, HHS Mandate |

Thursday, September 27, 2012

In a new column at the New York Times, former CNN and NBC anchor Campbell Brown exposes the political arm of the Planned Parenthood abortion business as essentially a subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

from Ex-CNN Anchor Exposes Planned Parenthood as Democratic Shill |