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

Teens are going to ...

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

Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Beckman

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

Below are links to supporting information:

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

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

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

HHS Report: “Comprehensive” Sex Ed Ineffective, Offensive

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

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

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

New hard hitting radio messages from IRLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship based on the unspoken subject of abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally -- free speech wins without going to court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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