Tuesday, Aug 31, 2010  --  Show this video to your pro-choice friends

Pro-life prodigy Lia Mills, whose Youtube orations have amassed nearly a million views, has set out to prove the humanity of the unborn in a new video, part of an ongoing campaign to promote the message of life. 

If the unborn are not human, the 13-year-old Toronto-native explains in her ten-minute address, then abortion is simply a matter of personal preference.   But, she says, "if the unborn are human, then they have value and rights."  I think you will find that she makes her case.

Monday, Aug 30, 2010  --  Pastor Hoye's sidewalk counseling vindicated on appeal

When Oakland California passed a bubble zone ordinance, Pro-Life African-American pastor Walter Hoye, who had been effectively sidewalk counseling, was arrested under that ordinance.  Unlike in Chicago where two recent arrests under the 2009 Chicago bubble zone ordinance were dismissed, Pastor Hoye was convicted in a jury trial even though video evidence showed that he had not violated the Oakland ordinance.

Fortunately, Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) appealed that conviction.  The appellate court has now overturned this unjust conviction based on failure to properly instruct the jury on the application of the ordinance.  LLDF has also filed a lawsuit against the ordinance itself as a violation of First Amendment rights.  That case will be heard in October.

Friday, Aug 27, 2010  --  IL AG sides with ACLU instead of defending parental notice

The ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 in state court, making the outlandish claim that it violated the Illinois Constitution.  This action was taken after all Federal hurdles to allow the law to take effect had been cleared. 

After the Illinois judge ruled in favor of the law, Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office allowed the judge to offer the ACLU an open-ended injunction to prevent the law from taking effect until all appeals were completed. 

Recently, the Thomas More Society filed a motion that the Illinois Supreme Court take the case directly to shorten the appeal process.  The Attorney General has again sided with the ACLU by opposing this motion.  For an officer of the State of Illinois whose role is to defend its laws, this action to circumvent the will of the Legislature and the people of Illinois by siding with opponents of the law, who represent the interests of abortion providers, is a dereliction of duty and an outrage.

Thursday, Aug 26, 2010  --  Tribune prints a Pro-Life editorial by Steve Chapman

I have found very little coverage of Pro-Life topics in the Chicago Tribune in recent months, not even inaccurate coverage.  Since there is news on Pro-Life topics almost every day, it seems that the Tribune editors have decided to censure the topic(s).

Thus, it came as a pleasant surprise to read a column by Steve Chapman entitled "Inconvenient facts about stem cell research".   Of course, the title is ambiguous on which side of the argument Steve would be taking, but it became clear very soon that those inconvenient facts were the serious ethical issues regarding embryonic stem cell research.  Hats off to Steve Chapman!

Wednesday, Aug 25, 2010  --  Fall 2010 40 Days for Life will be the largest yet

Registrations are in and the upcoming 40 Days for Life will be the largest campaign to date with 238 sites in six countries participating in simultaneous campaigns from September 22 to October 31.   There will be 223 locations in 46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia participating, along with 9 locations in Canada, and six in Australia and Europe.

Illinois will see some repeat and some new locations this time.  For details, go here.

Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010  --  Obama stem cell research executive order violates current law

Yesterday, U.S. district court Judge Royce Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction against Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Judge Lamberth's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by stem cell researchers who said the Obama executive order and subsequent funding from the National Institutes of Health violated the Dickey Amendment.

The judge noted that imposition of an injunction required that those challenging the government's funding demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their arguments, so they succeeded in making that case.  A more detailed analysis can be found here.

Monday, Aug 23, 2010  --  Changing laws to prevent euthanasia seems unlikely

Below is my response to the daughter who is trying to save her mother from death by euthanasia, as requested by her sister and facilitated by hospice:

The current legal situation was created by laws passed in 1990 to 1991 in most states. That is when laws creating advance directives were passed. The two documents established were the living will and the durable power of attorney for health care.

There was controversy at that time about the implications of these laws. Most Pro-Life organizations opposed these laws because of the issue of defining nourishment through a feeding tube as medical treatment, and other concerns. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church leadership ultimately supported these laws so the bill sponsors were able to obtain the votes to enact the laws.

Now we see the abuse of this provision expanding further and further. Was your mother eating by mouth or was she using a feeding tube? If she was eating by mouth, that shows just how far this abuse has already gone. Can she express herself that she is hungry and wants to eat?

Some hospices are getting taken over by people with the "right to die" agenda. They are destroying the original mission of hospice which was never to hasten death nor artificially extend life. In one similar case to your mother's, the guardian tried one hospice that refused to remove the feeding tube so they moved on to another hospice where they were willing to do the dirty deed.

It turns out that the default language adopted for the living will and the durable power of attorney for health care in most states was provided by the "right to die" movement. That is why the wording of those default documents is so dangerous, especially with regard to issues such as denying nourishment. Those documents can be interpreted as stating that the patient wants to be denied nourishment "because they do not want their life to be artificially prolonged."

Since Pro-Life organizations recognized the implications of the laws passed in 1991, a number of organizations, including Illinois Right to Life Committee (IRLC), created life-affirming versions of the durable power of attorney for health care, and warned that no one should sign a living will. IRLC is still conveying that message today.

We just updated our version of the durable power of attorney for health care (called the Patient Self-Protection Document) again to cover the issue of organ donation. At the same time, I added a statement emphasizing the importance of selecting an agent who has a truly life-affirming viewpoint. Having an agent who thinks like your sister destroys any protection offered by even a well-written durable power of attorney for health care.

In today's culture changing the laws is very unlikely. Trying to share the word of warning about living wills and directing people to life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care documents is about all that we can do.  The prediction that euthanasia would follow legalized abortion has become true.

Friday, Aug 20, 2010  --  The practice of euthanasia by omission gets more blatant

I learned about the following tragic situation by email this week from a woman who finds herself helpless to save her mother after her sister, who has guardian power, decided all nourishment should be stopped.  Her first email stated: 

My mother is 92 years old, has dementia and suffered a stroke in January which left her with both physical and speech impediments.  However, she is still able to respond to me, answer my questions, smile, squeeze my hand, and speak some words.  She is not in any outward pain.  My sister, her guardian, decided last week to remove all nourishment from my mother.  I believe that this is ethically and morally wrong - do you have any suggestions on what I can do to stop this action?  I know that time is critical.  Thanks

I referred her to the Thomas More Society for help, but legal steps work too slowly in such cases where urgent intervention is needed, assuming there is any willingness to agree that denying nourishment is actually a problem.   Today, I received this update:

Bill, I visited my mother today.  She laughs with me, talks to me in her garbled way and holds my hand tight.  This is so unfair to her.  She actually seems more alert, since they stopped feeding her.  Not sure if that is her will to live.  I said to her you are a strong women - she responded, "Oh, I am not so sure about that."  Most of the time she only speaks in slurred speech from the stroke that they never treated, in the spirit of hospice.  These words came out clear as day.... I don't understand why our laws don't protect people against this.   The Thomas More Society contacted an attorney in Will County.  We have been in contact; I really hope that something can be done, but it has been 12 days without nourishment.  This is so difficult to watch.  I think that there is a place for hospice, but it has hurt my mom more than helped her.  Thank for your help.  I appreciate it.

Thursday, Aug 19, 2010  --  Choose Life effort continues but without a core team member

Renewed efforts to obtain optional Choose Life license plates in Illinois have just begun.  Look for details at Illinois Choose Life.  Tragically, Joe Walsh, who has been heavily involved in this effort from the beginning in 2002, will not be available after his untimely death yesterday.   Condolences can be sent to Joe's wife, Carol, at 718 Meadow Lane, Libertyville, IL 60048.

Wednesday, Aug 18, 2010  --  Future premature birth risk after abortion admitted

Abortion advocates keep claiming that the dangers from abortion are almost non-existant.  Thus, they accuse pregnancy care centers of misleading women when they provide information about the higher risk of premature birth in future pregnancies or mental risks from post abortion trauma.

Who actually has scientific evidence on their side?  Has there been a departure from the silence?  Dr. Jay Iams, a professor and vice chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Ohio State University, wrote a report in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology on caring for women prior to pre-term birth.   In this report Iams writes, "Contrary to common belief, population-based studies have found that elective pregnancy terminations in the first and second trimesters are associated with a very small but apparently real increase in the risk of subsequent spontaneous pre-term birth."

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) observed that Dr. Iams writes "contrary to common belief" because "the association is systematically ignored or severely downplayed by the established authorities in our country.  It is not mentioned under complications of induced abortion in any ACOG literature we know of.  It is not generally taught.  It is denied by default."

Given such a cover-up, it becomes exciting news when such an admission appears in a major medical journal.  Still, AAPLOG takes issue with Iams calling the increased risk "very small."  AAPLOG noted, "There are currently 114 studies in the literature all showing a statistically significant association between induced abortion and subsequent pre-term birth.  And just about none to the contrary."  Typically, these studies reveal about a 35% increased risk for pre-term birth after one abortion and at least a 90% increased risk after two.

Tuesday, Aug 17, 2010  --  The Chicago bubble zone fails again for Planned Parenthood

Just two weeks after dismissal of charges against the first person arrested under the Chicago bubble zone law, the same result has occurred in the second case.  Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society represented David Avignone, an MBA student at Loyola University Chicago, who was arrested on July 8 while standing outside Planned Parenthood’s Near North Side clinic.

“We are pleased that for the second time, the City of Chicago has dismissed the false charges of disorderly conduct against a man who was properly and legally exercising his First Amendment rights on the public way,” said Breen.

Friday, Aug 13, 2010  --  Another unscientific, politically-driven FDA approval

Tragically for women, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) today approved HRA Pharma’s “ella” for sale and distribution in the United States, as a new drug billed to be an advanced form of "emergency contraception." 

The FDA ignored serious issues about the drug’s safety and lack of sufficient testing.  They acted based on political expediency rather than science to approve ella, which is little more than a chemical abortion drug similar to RU-486.  By allowing ella to be marketed to the public as contraception, the FDA is allowing women to be deceived about the abortifacient action of ella.

Thursday, Aug 12, 2010  --  First Amendment rights restored in Washington, D.C.

Public property in Washington, D.C. became private property at the whim of Planned Parenthood, but when challenged by Pro-Lifers who had been praying and sidewalk counseling on that public sidewalk for years, the attempt fell apart.  The District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General has concluded that the location is, in fact, public property and is available for use by the public.   Planned Parenthood's fence and "no trespassing" sign will not prevail.

Wednesday, Aug 11, 2010  --  Planned Parenthood picks up more corporate supporters

It always baffles me how businesses can support organizations that are responsible for reducing their potential future customers.  Any consumer business that supports Planned Parenthood seems very short-sighted to me, but they keep doing it.   Here is the latest information.

Life Decisions Intl keeps track of these illogical donations and encourages boycotts of those businesses.  They have achieved many successes in ending corporate donations to Planned Parenthood, but new companies keep joining the ranks, and some obstinently refuse to stop facilitating the elimination of their future customers through abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Tuesday, Aug 10, 2010  --  To hot to handle even for Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood has been identified in multiple states for overbilling the government for birth control services, violating state laws on mandated reporting and parental notification, and offering customers inaccurate medical information to sell them abortions.  Apparently, there are still cases where local affiliates create too much trouble even to remain within this unethical Planned Parenthood business model.

Based on a Bay Citizen report last week, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG) will lose its affiliation with Planned Parenthood Federation of America for "not meeting our standards for administrative and fiscal management."

The potential risks must be really significant to eject an affiliate that operates seven clinics in the  California market where "comprehensive" sex education is in full operation and potential customers for Planned Parenthood's services are in great supply.

PPGG says it will continue operations at each of its seven locations so Planned Parenthood Federation of America will lose presence in the region for at least some time.  PPGG has a history of outrageous advertising aimed at promoting contraception to teens and attacking its opposition.

Monday, Aug 9, 2010  --  IVF in U.S. facilitates sex selection when banned overseas

In vitro fertilization (IVF) for sex selection has become a booming business in the U.S.  One provider is proud of having customers come from 147 different countries.  Sex selection is banned in some of those countries and not available in others.  This practice shows how IVF turns children into property to be customized at the whim of the owner, rather than human beings due dignity and respect.

Friday, Aug 6, 2010  --  Ducking for cover from medical regulators

How many cases of abortion providers violating standard medical practices and regulations are needed to establish how dangerous these so-called doctors are to women?  Abortion practitioners Shelley Sella and Susan C. Robinson have dumped their Kansas medical licenses, placing them outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts.

After the murder of notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, these two abortionists moved to New Mexico to continue as late-term abortion practitioners there.  They can now escape any consequences of their violations of Kansas restrictions on late-term abortions.  Their decision came after the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts said it would discipline another Kansas practitioner for violations.

Crossing state lines provides cover for dangerous abortion providers.   Another case came to light just a few weeks ago.   Why can't state medical boards cooperate more effectively to protect the public from shoddy medical services?

Thursday, Aug 5, 2010  --  A very bad day for defense of human life

There are currently just not enough Pro-Life U.S. Senators.  In the end Elena Kagan, a very radical, anti-life Supreme Court nominee, was confirmed by a vote of 63-37.  Kagan's background suggests she will be a strong advocate for abortion, including government funding.  She is also likely to support euthanasia and assisted suicide, and be willing to deny conscience rights.  

Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010  --  Bubble zone law charges dismissed, but no news coverage

Last year at the urging of abortion providers, the Chicago City Council passed a bubble zone ordinance to "prevent intimidation of women seeking abortions" because of "aggressive protestors" who often come to Chicago abortion facilities.  The first arrest under the ordinance occurred over nine months later on July 3, 2010.

However, yesterday the charges on which that arrest was based were dismissed because the actions of Joseph Holland did not violate the ordinance.  He was standing in place and praying near the door to Planned Parenthood at 1200 N. LaSalle.  A deathscort considered his position to be reserved for her so she demanded that he move.  When Joe just continued to pray, Planned Parenthood called the police and Joe was arrested.

The ordinance creates an eight-foot bubble zone around anyone approaching within 50 feet of the entrance of a medical facility unless that person gives permission to interact with someone who moves into the zone.  Unfortunately for the deathscort and the arresting officer, the door does not receive a bubble zone under the ordinance.

Does this dismissal of charges from the very first arrest under a controversial new Chicago ordinance seem newsworthy?  Apparently, the major Chicago newspapers and television news organizations do not think so.  This dismissal of charges received no coverage in the Chicago media.

Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010  --  Virginia lawsuit against health care law to proceed

Virginia passed a law to prevent its citizens from being required to purchase health care coverage under the provisions of the Federal health care bill.   After President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli immediately filed a lawsuit to defend Virginia's law.   That lawsuit was joined by additional states.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a motion to dismiss the Virginia lawsuit.  U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled today that the lawsuit filed by the state of Virginia against the health care law can go forward.  He denied the motion filed by DHHS.

"While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate -- and tax -- a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce," Hudson wrote. "Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side's position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action."

Monday, Aug 2, 2010  --  Another highly promising adult stem cell treatment advance

Do you think it would be significant if adult stem cells could be used to regenerate a limb joint?  Well, so far it has only been done with rabbits.   Researchers fabricated an anatomically correct 3-dimensional bioscaffold infused with the protein growth factor TGFß3, and implanted the scaffolds into rabbits that had their forelimb thigh joint removed.

Four weeks later, rabbits that received the protein-laden scaffolds were able to resume normal movements, like rabbits with normal functional joints.  This research was published in The Lancet by Prof. Jeremy J. Mao and his team at Columbia University Medical Center, along with colleagues from the University of Missouri and Clemson University.

The published results actually show two new findings: regenerating a limb joint for the first time, with the animals resuming normal function with the new joint, and also the regenerated limb joint being created from the animal’s own endogenous stem cells, not stem cells that are harvested and manipulated outside the host’s body.

That part about "endogenous stem cells" means that the rabbit's body supplied the stem cells in response to the protein growth factor TGFß3 without any outside intervention to prepare stem cells and then implant them.  Might that approach suggest that a new barrier has been broken in ways to encourage adult stem cells to perform with less outside intervention?

Friday, July 30, 2010  --  Is this decision based on science or politics?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just approved the application by cloning company Geron to undertake the first trial involving the use of embryonic stem cells in humans.  The FDA had placed a hold on this trial in August 2009 after evidence showed Geron's GRNOPC1 encountered safety issues when used in animal studies.  

Geron's own data showed higher frequency of small cysts within the injury site in the spinal cord of animals injected with the embryonic cells.  Without any convincing evidence to address those concerns, the FDA has now removed the hold and told Geron they can move forward. 

Is this a payoff for political support?  What is the scientific basis for the FDA to approve this trial? Dr. David Prentice, former biology professor at Indiana State University who is now a fellow at the Family Research Council, noted "It's unfortunate that the FDA has released Geron from the safety hold on their embryonic stem cell trial.  Even many pro-embryonic stem cell scientists have expressed reservations about Geron's trial, that it is not proven even in rats.  The concern for many of us is that Geron is endangering patient's health and very lives, to make a political point and increase their stock price."

Last August, Evan Snyder, a neuroscientist who heads up the stem cell research center at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in San Diego, warned the research may not be ready for humans.  He suggested that Geron should have done experiments involving larger animals before seeking FDA permission to use the controversial embryonic stem cells in humans.

Thursday, July 29, 2010  --  Is this a setup for the courts to fund abortion in health care?

The recently-passed health care bill included Federal funding for new high risk health insurance programs to be created by the states.  After National Right to Life Committee's research discovered that abortion funding had been authorized in three states under this new program, this evidence established that abortion funding was included under the health care bill, as had been stated by both Pro-Life and abortion advocates upon passage of the bill.

This situation became a political issue for the Obama administration, given their continued attempt to deny that government funding of abortion was expanded by passage of the health care bill.  Thus, in response to the facts about inclusion of abortion coverage in the high risk programs created by Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued a new regulation today that it says prohibits the high risk health insurance pools from covering elective abortions with Federal taxpayer funds.

For the moment, it would appear the expanded abortion funding has been prevented.  Abortion advocates are upset, as they complain how this new DHHS regulation is not consistent with the provisions in the health care bill that do not prohibit funding of abortion.

How long will abortion funding be prevented and abortion advocates remain upset?  Since the regulation is not supported by the wording of the law, how long will it take to bring a legal case to challenge the regulation and find a judge who will overturn the regulation, opening Federal funds for abortion?  It should not take any longer than it take to find a high risk client who "needs" an abortion in one of the state programs where funding abortion is now blocked.

Is there any evidence to suggest this chain of events is likely to occur?   Well, before passage of the Hyde Amendment in the mid-1970s, a similar court ruling established Federal funding of abortion under Roe v. Wade.  Why should we not expect the same result now?

Wednesday, July 28, 2010  --  Enforcing an invented law to satisfy Planned Parenthood

Last year Chicago created the "bubble zone" ordinance to "protect" customers of abortion facilites from those who pray and sidewalk counsel there.  At most locations, the law has had very little impact, but at Planned Parenthood, 1200 N. LaSalle, police seem to continue trying to enforce whatever version of the law they enact in their minds on any given day.

Sometimes, the police have claimed that standing within 8-10 feet of the entrance to Planned Parenthood violates the ordinance.  Since the ordinance prohibits an approach within an 8-foot bubble zone around people unless they consent once they are within 50 feet of the entrance, the entrance is not given such protection.  However, on July 3rd police either gave the entrance that protection or considered standing in place an approach.  Check the video of the incident.

Yesterday, Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen entered a "not guilty" plea in court on behalf of Joseph Holland, who was charged with disorderly conduct for standing in place to pray near the PP entrance.  This case appears to be a good test of what the bubble zone ordinance really means, and whether that meaning is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010  --  Making a clear declaration about organ donation

Most people may not be aware that the Illinois Organ Donor Registry (that you are asked to join each time you renew your driver's license) only records those who say "yes", and that "yes" is not revocable by your relatives and does not offer any option to limit which organs are to be donated.

To provide a more complete set of options regarding organ donation, IRLC has developed the organ donor declaration as an addition to the Patient Self-Protection Document, our life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care.  This addition allows you to make clear designations that are simply not possible with the Illinois Organ Donor Registry.

If you already have completed a Patient Self-Protection Document, you can complete the organ donor declaration as a separate document and attach it to your Patient Self-Protection Document.

Monday, July 26, 2010  --  Abortion advocates out to destroy the competition

Abortion advocates at NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been attempting for years to entrap and destroy pregnancy care centers.  Such actions are testimony to the effectiveness of pregnancy care centers in reducing abortion and cutting the profits of abortion providers.

First, NARAL encouraged abortion advocates to act like customers of pregnanacy care centers, and then testify to how they were badly treated there.  When that strategy failed, they tried to get local governments to require pregnancy care centers to post signs declaring that they do not provide abortions or birth control.   That process is very slow and has already generated bad publicity.

Next they approached YellowPages.com and SuperPages.com, asking them to remove "misleading CPC ads from their sites."  Those providers rejected such appeals.  Now abortion advocates have gotten their supporters in Congress to introduce a bill that would restrict the speech of pregnancy care centers by using the FTC to regulate the advertising they do.  Thus, the advocates of choice just cannot tolerate giving women a real choice.

Isn't it ironic that the masters of deception are accusing pregnancy care centers of deceptive practices?  Abortion advocates consider it "scientific fact" that fetuses are not babies, hearts do not start beating until at least 8 weeks into the pregnancy (actually by 3 weeks), abortions never cause psychological issues or have adverse impacts on later pregnancies, and that pregnancy care centers "scare women into not having abortions." 

Since true science disputes all of these claims, who is guilty of deception?  Who rushes and scares women into decisions that they later regret?   Many women testify that abortion was a bad decision and that they were not given enough information to make an informed decision. 

Where are the women who could make such complaints about pregnancy care centers?  They do not exist beyond the abortion advocates themselves.  Rather, the women who were helped by pregnancy care centers are going to Congress to educate members on the truth.

Friday, July 23, 2010  --  Recognizing Lydia Tyler at "Pray for Our Nation" in Oak Forest

Today a prayer vigil called "Pray for Our Nation" was held at the Shrine of Our lady of Sorrows in Oak Forest, Illinois.  This vigil focused on the need to respect life of both the unborn and the infirm of any age, especially the elderly who are more frequently in danger of subtle forms of euthanasia.

I spoke about the case of Lydia Tyler, a 94-year-old woman who lived at Brighton Gardens in Orland Park until her hastened death on May 28, 2010.  The treatment of Lydia proves that the "culture of death" has no real concern about patient rights or controlling pain.  Lydia had no significant pain and said no to pain control drugs, but these were forced on her anyway.

With God's help, can we wake up enough people to recognize what is happening in our nation and take action to demand that the killing be stopped?   Lydia's case points out just how urgent this matter has become.  Her death was easily hastened in a state where neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia have been legalized.

Thursday, July 22, 2010  --  Legal abortions or not?  Either way, they are not safe!

Dr. Steven Chase Brigham (a physician whose medical license has been revoked, relinquished, or temporarily suspended in five states) owns a chain of 15 abortion facilities with locations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia.  

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the Pennsylvania Department of Health has ordered Dr. Brigham to shut down four of his abortion facilities in that state.  Deputy Secretary of Health Robert Torres has banned Brigham, and any corporation he controls, from operating abortion clinics in Pennsylvania because of his persistent infractions against state medical regulations.

The next thing we learn is that Brigham has managed to keep two of them in operation by transferring ownership to another entity.  His facilities in Erie and State College are now barred from performing abortions, though they are permitted to remain open for other services.  The facilities in Allentown and Pittsburgh will continue to commit abortions under the new ownership.

Do you think abortions are now safer in Allentown and Pittsburgh?  How about at Brigham's facilities in New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia?  Women continue to be victimized by abortion providers like Brigham who ignore laws that every other medical facility is expected to comply with.  Based on the efforts of Operation Rescue, it appears that virtually every abortionist can be found in violation of medical standards.    

Wednesday, July 21, 2010  --  Conscience rights lost beyond just the medical professions

An Austin, Texas area bus driver was fired after he declined to drive a woman to an abortion clinic, citing a violation of his Christian beliefs.  With help from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), this bus driver has filed a lawsuit against the rural transportation system that fired him. 

How many more circumstances will soon become disputes over consiceince right?  What about construction workers who are asked to build Planned Parenthood's mega-abortion centers?  How about school counselors being required to drive young women students to abortion clinics?  If legal abortion is established as a government-funded medical procedure, the number of jobs affected where employees want to exercise conscience rights will continue to expand. 

Then we will be at the mercy of judges to decide if religious freedom is quashed by the "right to abortion."  Which way do you think any judge appointed by President Obama will rule on that question?

Tuesday, July 20, 2010  --  "Trusted health care provider" misleading customers?

Another video record, this time from Indiana, reveals that Planned Parenthood staff have a terribly inaccurate handle on the basic biology of fetal development, or they are intentionally deceiving their customers to sell abortions.  I think we can figure out which one it is.  For those who are not convinced, former PP employee Abby Johnson provides the inside story to confirm the evidence.

Lila Rose, UCLA student and president of Live Action, says the new footage places Planned Parenthood well outside the medical mainstream.  "Planned Parenthood's counseling is based on its abortion-first mentality rather than the medical facts that women need," observes Rose.  "Planned Parenthood gives vulnerable women misinformation to sell them the abortion." 

Indiana informed consent state law requires that women receive accurate medical information before undergoing an abortion.  But this Indiana law is not the first to be ignored by PP.  Previously, videos by Lila Rose revealed how PP violated both the parental consent and mandated reporting laws.

Back in April similar evidence was obtained from a visit to a Planned Parenthood abortion business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Would anyone think the information presented to pregnant women at the PP locations in Illinois is more accurate?  Illinois does not even have the laws to protect women that exist in Indiana and Wiconsin have, but does that make any difference to PP?  Could things be even worse in unregulated Illlinois?

Monday, July 19, 2010  --  Abortion funding flip-flop, but abortion advocates protest

The ongoing debate about abortion funding under the health care bill found new evidence last week.  National Right to Life Committee uncovered information showing a new Pennsylvania high risk health insurance plan was set to cover elective abortions.  Further evidence they obtained showed a similar high risk health insurance pool in New Mexico would also fund elective abortions using Federal funding.  Next, Maryland was found to have similar abortion coverage.

Under this scrutiny revealing the definitive evidence of abortion funding using Federal funds, which the Obama administration had claimed was not allowed under national health care, steps were taken to ensure that abortion coverage under the high risk pool provisions of the national health care program would be limited to cases when the mother's life is in danger, or rape and incest. 

Immediately, abortion advocates criticized the actions of the Obama administration, observing there were no provisions in the law to prevent Federal funding of abortions and women in the high risk pool needed this coverage.   

As Family Research Council reported, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood sent out a panicked alert to supporters trying to protect the money allocated for abortions in the high-risk insurance pools.  When the National Right to Life Committee followed the paper trail and pointed out that the Obama administration was secretly forcing taxpayers to finance its abortion agenda under the health care law, officials at Health and Human Services (HHS) argued that the President's Executive Order wouldn't allow it.  Planned Parenthood immediately fired back, insisting that a meaningless Order couldn't trump the actual legislation.  "This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country."  Like us, they know that there's absolutely no stopping HHS from funding abortion, because the language banning it never made it into the final bill.

NARAL Pro-Choice America also protested the loss of abortion funding in these already authorized state programs applied for under the high-risk pool provisions of the bill.  Will the rules be changed again when no Pro-Life organization is looking at exactly what is happening? 

Friday, July 16, 2010  --  Profound message found in the video "We NEED to Talk"

This evening I attended a screening of the new video "We NEED to Talk" from The Byrd Group.  The video offers a powerful message for young women, as well as for their mothers and fathers.   This message is achieved through the "heartfelt and intimate moments shared by ten phenomenal women from the south side of Chicago."

As accurately stated by the video announcement, "Young girls will recognize that their actions come with consequences.  Fathers will see that their presence is not only needed, but desired; and women who have spent their lives hiding in the arms of unworthy men will discover the meaning of true love."

What are some of the key concepts revealed?  Without a covenant marriage, men have less respect for women after sex, because those men were given something they did not deserve or respect.  Often young women are looking for affirmation from their father, which at least one woman concluded was why she was always going with older men.  True love must wait for covenant marriage, and birth control does not protect you.

This video is especially powerful for African-American families, but has an important message for everyone. To learn more about this powerful video, check out The Byrd Group web site. 

Thursday, July 15, 2010  --  More protection for women from abortionists (in NE)

There seems to be some difference in perspective about the meaning and scope of a judicial ruling that enjoined a Nebraska law scheduled to take effect today.   This Nebraska law requires abortion providers to comply with tighter informed consent requirements that help women understand the “physical, psychological, emotional, demographic or situational” risk factors associated with an abortion.

Most news sources stated that U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp's ruling has halted implementation of the new law.  However, the Elliot Institute, originator of the model law that has its first successful enactment in the state of Nebraska, sees a different result in the details of the ruling.

Elliot Insttiute reported, "In a preliminary ruling issued yesterday, the Federal district court ruled that neither the effective date of the bill nor the law itself could be enjoined, clearing the way for the law to go into effect July 15."   They continued, "District Judge Laurie Smith Camp also rejected Planned Parenthood's motion to strike the legislature's finding of fact that was included in the law, which states that 'the existing standard of care for pre-abortion screening and counseling is not always adequate to protect the health needs of women.'"

Elliot Institure explains that while the court did grant a preliminary injunction to protect Planned Parenthood and its employees from any criminal penalties, fines, or loss of license in the event they fail to provide the standard of care required by the law, this does not effect women's ability to sue for negligent screening or psychological damages while the injunction is in effect.

As experience with this law proceeds, other states may begin to adopt similar laws that will offer some better protection for women against abortion providers, including the first protection against psychological damage from abortion.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010  --  CDC confirms: among teens, "everyone is NOT doing it"

Here's another case where reality falls well outside of political correctness.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a new study last month showing that most teens are virgins.  In the 2006-2008 period, 58% of never-married teen girls and 57% of never-married teen boys between the ages of 15 and 19 reported that they had never had sexual intercourse. 

The reason most often cited for abstaining was that pre-marital sex is "against religion or morals."  No wonder Planned Parenthood is so desperately pushing to get "comprehensive" sex education into more schools.   They are losing too many potential customers to abstinence, despite their claim that everyone is doing it and the pervasive sexual overtones in today's entertainment media.

The number of "sexually experienced" teens peaked in 1988 at 51%.  The steady decline in sexually active teens coincides with the popularity and availability of abstinence education in the 1990s and into the 2000s.  Don't expect to hear about this situation on the news.  They must maintain the politically correct line that abstinence education does not work.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010  --  The politically incorrect science of fetal pain

Even though biology and medical practice demonstrate that babies in the womb can feel pain, even  at early stages of development, politically correct science wants to deny this reality because it is inconvenient for abortion advocates. 

Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into the concept of fetal pain.   He published his first reports in the 1980s, and he has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at "eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier."

The latest attempt to deny this evidence of fetal pain comes with new research published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom.  Their report says an unborn baby can't feel pain until the later parts of pregnancy, at about 24 weeks.

Jeanne Monahan, the director of Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity, criticized the study as seriously flawed.  She noted, "A number of experts in the field of fetal development, who were not consulted for this report, previously have refuted the idea that the cortex needs to be fully developed for an unborn baby to feel pain."

Monday, July 12, 2010  --  Plans to ration existing care options and inhibit innovation

Last week President Obama used a recess appointment to name rationing advocate Donald Berwick to become the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the office that  oversees government health care programs.  Since no committee hearing on Berwick's appointment had even been scheduled, the recess appointment was used to avoid holding Senate hearings that would reveal Berwick's enthusiastic support of health care rationing.

In a June 2009 interview with the journal Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” In an article in the May/June 2008 issue of Health Affairs, he called for “rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest” so as to “reduce per capita costs.”

Berwick has praised the British health care system as worthy of emulation.   Recent British statistics  reveal that 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to British hospitals.  Though the government’s official target for diagnostic testing was a wait of no more than 18 weeks, in reality only 30-50% of patients are treated within 18 weeks for most specialties, while the figure is only 20% for trauma and orthopedics patients.  Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients on the waiting list become too sick to proceed.

Beyond denial of critical care to people in serious need, Berwick wants to inhibit innovation in medicine.  Lamenting that “[t]oday’s individual health care processes are designed to respond to the acute needs of individual patients,” Berwick wrote that instead government should “approach new technologies and capital investments with skepticism and require that a strong burden of proof of value lie with the proponent.”

Friday, July 9, 2010  --  Current cases show free speech still wins the day in USA courts

Yesterday, I reported on the tragic cases of two women jailed in Canada for their presence at abortion facilities to offer women a real choice.  Today, two reports confirm that 1st Amendment rights still mean something in the USA.

The Pro-Life Action League's Face the Truth Tour began today, but the very first stop in West Chicago was in jeopardy.  West Chicago officials had notified the Thomas More Society yesterday that the Truth Tour, which involves people holding abortion signage at busy intersections in various municipalities, would not be permitted to take place due to a new ordinance requiring would-be demonstrators to apply for a permit at least 90 days prior to a demonstration.

This new West Chicago ordinance also allows denial of a permit based on the city administrator's determination whether he believes a demonstration will negatively affect public "comfort, morals, and welfare."  Thomas More Society attorneys identified various constitutional deficiencies to West Chicago's attorneys, but prepared Federal court papers to secure an injunction to allow the protest to proceed.   However, the filing never occurred because West Chicago attorneys agreed to allow the protest and to take a fresh look at the West Chicago demonstration ordinance.

Last year, 9 members of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust were arrested and jailed overnight for displaying Pro-Life signs and handing out literature on a public sidewalk outside a high school in Birmingham, Alabama.  With help from Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF), a Federal district court in Alabama approved a consent order today ensuring that police in Birmingham will not interfere with their First Amendment rights when Survivors return to Birmingham later this month.

As they addressed this issue, LLDF lawyers learned that Birmingham had a "demonstration" ordinance that required groups as small as two persons to obtain permits before engaging in various free speech activity.  LLDF is now challenging this ordinance with the intent to overturn it.

Thursday, July 8, 2010  --  Sidewalk counsel at a Canadian abortion facility; go to jail

Canada has two brave women who refuse to abandon women who feel abortion is their only choice.  Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons come to abortion facilities to provide sidewalk counseling to offer women a real choice.   Unfortunately, they are often locked in jail for offering this service.

Pray that these women be released and allowed to reach out to women who are coming for abortions.  Abortion advocates have no interest in offering real choices, as they prevent these two women from offering those choices by keeping them in jail.

Pray that we can maintain our freedom of speech in the USA to continue offering real choices to women here.  In most cases so far, freedom of speech has survived violations once taken to court.  Even bubble zones have not been able to significantly hamper sidewalk counseling efforts.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010  --  Carson & Barnes Circus is coming on August 16th

Arrangements are finally falling into place!  IRLC Family Fun Night will continue, even though Kiddieland is no more.  For 2010, IRLC will be sponsoring two performances (5pm and 8pm) of Carson & Barnes Circus on August 16th at Maryknoll Park in Glen Ellyn, IL.

Mark your calendar.  Get details here.   Organize your group of family and friends.  Order your tickets by mail or phone.  Plan to enjoy the Carson & Barnes Circus where you will be close to the action from any seat.  The circus offers an exciting experience for adults and children alike, and provides a great opportunity for sharing good times with both old and new Pro-Life friends and their families from all over Chicagoland and beyond.

Make the circus a great summer memory before the children return to school.  If you get tickets to the 5pm circus performance, consider making this a whole day adventure. Watch the setup up of a five-story Big Top the size of a football field from 8am to 10am, with an elephant show included (free). Then enjoy the park district’s splash park for little ones, miniature golf, and have a picnic. During the hour before circus time, try some of the circus activities available prior to the show (add’l fees) including: Inflatable Bounce Room, Inflatable Slide, Pony Rides, Train Ride, Elephant Rides, Camel Rides, Face Painting (Intermission only), Petting/Feeding Zoo.

Friday, July 2, 2010  --  Peanuts for pregnancy help vs. billions for abortion providers

Quietly just before a major holiday weekend, the White House has announced the creation of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund.   According to a press statement from the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the Health and Human Services Department has established this new $25 million program under the health care bill.

While $25 million may seem like a significant amount of money, how does it compare to the $11 billion that was provided for "community health centers" that is expected in many cases to be headed to Planned Parenthood?  For that matter, many other billions are allocated for birth control, "comprehensive" sex education, and other provisions designed to allocate money directed to Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates.

Exactly how many pregnant women can $25 million actually help?  How far do you think such funding would go to provide "scholastic assistance for pregnant and parenting teens, assistance for child care and housing, and other programs designed to help prospective young mothers"?

The White House claims this program reflects an attempt to find the "common ground" on abortion.  "It was only a year ago that President Obama gave a seminal speech at Notre Dame urging our nation to find common ground on the issue of abortion and unintended pregnancies," the White House statement said.

Apparently, even if you agree that common ground is possible when thousands of babies are killed by abortion each day, this attempt at common ground can only be seen as lip service given the huge imbalance in funding between this program and those programs directed toward abortion providers.

Thursday, July 1, 2010  --  Connecting the dots: Living wills and euthanasia

Yesterday I mentioned living wills in the context of ambiguous wording that allows food and water to be considered as an "unwanted medical treatment."   The danger of living wills merits further analysis since they are so commonly suggested to patients entering hospitals.

From the origin of living wills around 1990, Illinois Right to Life has always warned of their dangerous provisions.  We are glad to be in good company regarding such concerns.  The International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide states "The living will -- sometimes called a 'directive' or a 'declaration' -- is downright dangerous.  It actually gives power over your life and death to an unknown physician."

Judie Brown of American Life League has also proclaimed major concerns about living wills.  She recently wrote an article entitiled "The Living Will is Not About Living".  She quotes descriptions of the living will as a "death warrant" or "passport to death".

Judie also notes the push toward palliative care measures for the express purpose of excusing the ill out of life—in other words, causing their death, stating, "As we know, terminal sedation is allegedly designed to relieve pain, but '[a]n essential component of TS is also the withdrawal of all treatment, including even food and water, so that death occurs as soon as possible.'"

Continued attempts to distort the meaning of language as a means to push the "right to die" agenda has the living will as one of its early and ongoing tools.  These dangers are only becoming more prevalent as time moves on.  Never sign a living will, or revoke it if you already have!

Wednesday, June 30, 2010  --  "Unwanted medical treatment" or euthanasia

Recent news has clearly demonstrated the shift in thinking toward rapid denial of life-sustaining treatment, even food and water, reflecting the relationship between living wills (or power of attorney for health care with similar wording) and the push toward euthanasia. 

The concept of denying food and water as an unwanted medical treatment has been proclaimed in the text of most living wills and many power of attorney for health care documents.  Such text might read, “I do not want my life to be prolonged nor do I want life-sustaining treatment to be provided or continued if my agent believes the burdens of the treatment outweigh the expected benefits.”  This thinking is very dangerous to your life if you need treatment to overcome a serious injury or disease.  Consider some recent cases in the news.

90-year-old Don Holley recently died at St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco after he suffered a stroke.  When a physician explained to his neighbor, who had power-of-attorney privileges, that Don’s condition was not good, the neighbor agreed.  Soon after the doctors had Don on a morphine drip, removed nutrition and hydration, assured the neighbor that Don would be dead in two days and, of course, he died.

In Utah, Gary Coleman’s living will and durable power of attorney stated that he be kept on life support for 15 days prior to making a final decision about continuing his treatment.  After he sustained a head injury, even that provision did not prevent Coleman’s former wife, who had power to make the decision, from having treatment disconnected within a day of his hospitalization, leading to his quick death. 

A spokesman for the Utah Medical Association said, “A family member's wishes have more weight than what's written in a living will.”  This cavalier attitude led Matthew Hoffman of LifeSiteNews to comment, “A person on life support, even for a few hours, is vulnerable to being dismissed as a ‘vegetable’ and his life terminated on the most flimsy criteria.”

A German case involves a woman who had been comatose since a cerebral hemorrhage in 2002. This woman’s daughter claimed her mother had previously expressed a desire not to have her life artificially prolonged and asked nursing home staff to discontinue her mother’s “artificial diet” through a feeding tube.  When the nursing home refused, the daughter cut the feeding tube and was charged with attempted manslaughter. 

A ruling in this case by the German Federal Court of Justice in late June has legalized direct euthanasia, ruling that it was not unlawful since the comatose woman had previously given consent.  “The expressed wishes of the patient ... justified not only the end of treatment via the withholding of further nourishment but also the active step of ending or preventing the treatment she no longer wanted,” the court said.  Did anyone ask to see this "consent" in writing?

The only protection against this push toward euthanasia is to find a friend or relative to appoint as your agent who truly has your best interests at heart, and who is aware of these trends and ready to oppose them.  You can better empower your agent by using a life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care, such as the IRLC Patient Self-Protection Document. 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010  --  Pro-Life witness on the street, right here in Chicago

Corrina Gura from the Pro-Life Action League has some very good news about recent successful witness for life at Chicago abortion facilities.  Last Friday she was blessed to be able to help a mother who was being pressured into an unwanted late-term abortion.  With guidance from these on-site witnesses for life at the FPA Albany facility at Elston & Cicero, this mother was able to get the medical assistance she needed to reverse the abortion process that had been started with insertion of laminaria (seaweed sticks) into her cervix to dilate it for the abortion.

This mother had a change of heart when, from the moment they shoved the first stick into her, she knew she was doing the wrong thing.  However, the abortion provider had told her the process was irreversible.  That claim was completely inaccurate.  With the aid of a pregnancy care center and a referral to the emergency room of a local Catholic Hospital, her pregnancy was restored to normal.

Passage last year of the Chicago bubble zone ordinance raised many concerns about interference that would prevent such help for women from being effective.   In practice, the bubble zone has had very limited effect, with the exception of Planned Parenthood at 1200 N. LaSalle.  Confusion about the provisions of the bubble zone ordinance by police at that location seem to be the origin of most of the difficulties that have occurred. 

It is becoming clear that the police are being mislead by Planned Parenthood staff.  As Corrina observed, "They give the officers their version of what they wish the law said; then they ask the police to enforce their imaginary law." 

That strategy appears to be backfiring as the police tire of getting calls about pointless complaints and misled about provisions of the ordinance they are being asked to enforce.  Determined Pro-Lifers are maintaining prayer vigils and still witnessing to women, giving help to those who want to have a real choice.

Monday, June 28, 2010  --  Planned Parenthood's definition of basic human needs

In discussing end of life issues, one topic covered is establishing what are basic human needs that cannot ethically be denied to a person.  These consist of: food, water, air, warmth, and movement.  None of them can be considered a medical treatment because they are basic human care without which anyone would soon die.

Would you like to know Planned Parenthood's definition of basic human needs?  They have proclaimed them as "food, sleep, and sex" in an advertisement found twice (both north and south) on June 24th at the CTA's Loyola University Red Line station.  The ad states:     

Food     Sleep     Sex
It's simple.  These are the basic human needs.  Sexual health is just as important as food or sleep.  At Planned Parenthood, we ensure convenient, quality, affordable reproductive health care.  (followed by PP phone number and address)

As Jim Rogers, who saw the ad states, "It's obvious why these two ads are displayed at this particular location.  PP is making a big pitch for the Loyola University student body."  Such crass marketing certainly reflects the real agenda of Planned Parenthood: make as much money as possible by promoting casual sex, with abortion as the ultimate high profit goal.

Friday, June 25, 2010  --  How often does contraception act as an abortifacient?

We are now being told that the drug called Ella (or ellaOne) is just a longer-acting "morning-after pill" than Plan B, with the usual assurances that both drugs are contraceptives.  Of course, that assurance is helped immensely by the unscientific redefinition of the beginning of pregnancy as implantation of the embryo.  Even so, Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, interfering with the lining of the uterus so an embryo, if already implanted, will not survive, so it is clearly abortifacient. 

For those who accept the biological and scientific recognition that pregnancy begins at conception, both Ella and Plan B can act as abortifacients when they prevent the young embryo from implanting in the uterus.  However, a 5/17/10 article by William May entitiled "Does contraception prevent abortion?" challenges this abortifacient effect.

I am not familiar with the background of William May, but it appears that he has been easily swayed to change his own position about the abortifacient effect of contraceptives without sufficient evidence.  I have not reviewed the first reference he cites [National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 2007), “Is Plan B Abortificient: A Critical Look at Scientific Evidence”].

However, if that article supports a conclusion that the Plan B morning-after pill has no abortifacient effect, such a conclusion is certainly not supported by William May's second reference, "Hormone Contraceptives and Clarifications."  In this article, Plan B is fully accepted as being abortifacient.  It is also highly ironic that even the manufacturer of Plan B, on their web site, admits that it can act to prevent implantation of the embryo.

"Hormone Contraceptives and Clarifications" recognizes that other standard contraceptives are controversial with regard to the issue of whether they have a potential abortifacient effect.  The article mentions how newer contraceptives are more likely to have such an effect compared to the original formulations.  Because the article does recognize that the debate continues, it makes the statement quoted by William May: "At the current time we feel that each individual physician should evaluate the available information, and then follow the leading of his/her conscience in this matter."

Such a statement certainly does not support the conclusion, implied by William May, that contraceptives have no abortifacient effect when he posits that the article "seriously questions whether this claim is true and shows that there are good reasons to think that it is not."  Of course, this wording itself is still very conditional with phrases like "seriously questions" and "good reasons to think" which are certainly not sufficient as definitive support for a statement that "contraceptives have no abortifacient effect."

Another irony is that William May's major point is to counter the claim that contraceptives prevent abortions, which he does reasonably well.  Thus, even if it was true that contraceptives have no abortifacient effect, William May is still coming out against them as a solution that has any merit, and that is without even dealing with the negative health consequences they have for women.

Thursday, June 24, 2010  --  Stem cell success versus funding stem cell futility

Why are many of the reports of success with adult stem cells coming from other nations?  Are such efforts getting adequate funding in the USA, or has the focus been switched to the highly questionable area of embryonic stem cell research?

Italian scientists report that they have restored sight to patients blinded by chemical burns <>using the patient’s own stem cells.   The team treated 112 patients blinded in one or both eyes, some of whom had been blind for years.  Adult stem cells were taken from the edge of a patient’s eye and cultured on fibrous tissue, then the cell layers transplanted onto the damaged eyes.  

The adult stem cells produced healthy corneas and functioning eyes.  Some patients regained sight within two months, while for others with deeper injuries the process took a year before vision was restored.  Patients were followed up to ten years after the transplant.  After a single transplant, 69% of patients regained vision.  Including cases where a second transplant occurred, total success was achieved for 77% of the patients, with partial vision restored for 13% of the patients.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is making American taxpayers fund research using more lines of embryonic stem cells, even though they have never helped any human patients since they cause tumors in animal research.  On June 21st, NIH Director Francis Collins approved eight more embryonic stem cell lines for Federal funding.

With this latest approval, the total number of human embryonic stem cells lines approved for Federal taxpayer funding has reached 75 stem cell lines since President Barack Obama overturned President George W. Bush's executive order prohibiting taxpayer funding of new embryonic stem cell research because it involves the destruction of human life.

Currently, adult stem cell research has helped patients dealing with more than 100 different diseases and conditions.  Dr. David Prentice, former Indiana State University biology professor who is now an advisor at the Family Research Council, observed, "Of course, the total number of patients helped by embryonic stem cells is still zero, while adult stem cells are being used to treat over 50,000 patients a year." 

Wednesday, June 23, 2010  --  Abortions to end at another 40 Days for Life location

Five abortion facilities have closed where 40 Days for Life vigils have been held.  News has just been received that abortions will no longer be performed at another facility where previous 40 Days for Life vigils have been conducted.  June 26th will be the last day for abortions at the "National Women’s Health" abortion center in Raleigh, North Carolina.

The Raleigh News & Observer newspaper reports, "One of four Triangle abortion clinics will no longer do procedures after Saturday, but it’s unclear whether it will close or simply stop offering abortions."  Pray that this facility completely closes and that many more abortion facilities, including those in Illinois, will soon be closing as well.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010  --  New abortion risk revealed, plus two others again confirmed

Have you received information about any recent studies dealing with abortion risks?  Not likely!  Covering such information would not be politically correct so it is not considered newsworthy.  Might there be a connection between abortion and auto-immune diseases in women?

According to a new report by Dr. Ralph P. Miech of Brown University, "The consistently rising incidence of auto-immune diseases in women over the past four decades may be attributed to the increase in the utilization of abortion."  Fetal microchimerism - the transfer of fetal cells into the bloodstream of the mother, where they may be grafted onto bone marrow or other tissues - is the key link between abortion and autoimmune disease, says Miech. 

The researcher pointed out that as the placenta is destroyed during a surgical abortion, there is an increased fetal-to-maternal transfer of fetal cells.   These fetal cells may persist in the mother’s body for decades.   "Activation of hibernating fetal microchimeric cells," Dr. Miech writes, has "been postulated to result in the initiation of an autoimmune disease."

Shortly after that report, two new studies were released on the same day.   A study from McGill University in Montreal has found a strong link between a past abortion and premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.  A study from researchers in Sri Lanka finds women who had abortions more than triple their breast cancer risk compared with women who carry their pregnancy to term.

Both of these studies confirm many previous studies that support those same conclusions.  Even so, abortion advocates suggest that presenting such information to women amounts to "scare tactics" and discount such conclusions as "unscientific."  It seems that any result that puts a negative light on abortion is always "unscientific" as far as they are concerned.

Monday, June 21, 2010  --  Psychological impact on children conceived from donor sperm

Illinois recently enacted a controversial law allowing adopted children easier access to their original birth certificates so they could learn more about their background.  Given the emphasis placed on how important it was for adoptees to learn more about their identity, what might be expected for children who were conceived using donor sperm?

A study recently released by the Commission on Parenthood's Future reveals some disturbing evidence about the negative psychological impact that children face when conceived from donor sperm.  The study compared results for three groups of children: those conceived with donor sperm, adopted children, and those with both biological parents.

In most categories, children conceived from donor sperm had twice as many concerns as adopted children.  Children with both biological parents had less concerns than either of those groups.  For example, 25% of donor-conceived children strongly agreed that no one really understood them, compared to about 12% of adopted children and roughly 8% of those raised by their biological parents.  About 50% of donor-conceived children agreed that when they saw friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it made them feel sad.  Only 20% of adopted children said that.

Concepion from donor sperm was problematic in a number of contexts.   Over 50% of the donor offspring agreed that it hurt to hear other people talk about their genealogical background.  Almost 50% said they were bothered that money was exchanged in order to conceive them, while 10% thought of themselves as a "freak of nature" because of the artificial circumstances of their conception and 13% said they felt like a "lab experiment."

Some of these concerns would seem to apply with children conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), even with their biological parents.  Apparently, bypassing the natural means of conception presents serious concerns to many of the children so conceived.  These concerns seem to coincide with other issues regarding IVF, including moral issues raised by the Catholic Church.

Friday, June 18, 2010  --  Absolutely no concern for women's health

Operation Rescue has noted, "We have yet to find an abortionist or an abortion mill that totally complies with the law."  So far, their actions have led to the closing of at least 30 abortion facilities based on violations of a whole laundry list of laws.  Operation Rescue's findings are strong evidence that making abortion legal does nothing to make it safe.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons has taken this insult to women's health to a new level.  Dr. K. J. Fabisiak was scheduled to appear before their disciplinary committee because of allegations against him from 25 patients.  He was accused of having “failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and is incompetent in his care and treatment of Patient ‘A’, Patient ‘B’ and 23 patients.”

This hearing was cancelled after Fabisiak agreed to restrict his practice, and the allegations were withdrawn.  Under these restrictions he will practice only at the prescribed family planning clinics in Ottawa or Toronto or at a setting approved by the College.  In other words, he has been forbidden from practicing everywhere except in abortion facilities.

Might one conclude that the so-called right to abortion comes with some serious risks to the life and health of women?  In the USA abortion facilities are not subject to most of the regulations that apply to medical facilities.  This under-regulation reflects the same casual attitude about women's health reflected by this Canadian decision.

Another example of this preference for abortion access without regard to women's health are yesterday's votes by the FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs. This panel approved the early abortion drug Ella.  I mentioned some of the health concerns earlier this week.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, noted, "The drug sponsor couldn't provide information on whether Ella can cause birth defects, or what happens to women who are pregnant who take it. And yet the committee strongly recommended not giving a woman a pregnancy test.  In Europe, Ella is contra-indicated (not to be used) in pregnancies.  But the FDA committee voted not to test women to detect if they're pregnant.  They are telling doctors to be willfully blind when giving the drug."

Can we conclude that the FDA panel members think it is perfectly fine for women to abort babies without even knowing that possibility exists?  Well, this lack of concern for women's health, or even providing informed consent, has been consistent from RU-486 to Plan B, and now to Ella.

Thursday, June 17, 2010  --  If you believed the claims about ObamaCare, think again

Family Research Council (FRC) reports on the most recent findings about the reality of ObamaCare versus the claims made that if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it.  FRC wrote:

President Obama said that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it. He just didn't say for how long. Unfortunately for most Americans, the days of controlling their medical care are numbered. Scott Gottlieb of the New York Post analyzed some of the draft regulations that had "leaked" from HHS in his column, and what he found was a major break from the President's biggest promise: "If people like their insurance, they'll be able to keep it."

On the contrary, Gottlieb writes, more than half of all policies will have to change over the next three years. The problem with ObamaCare isn't what the law says -- but what it doesn't say. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is using those "gray areas" to wrestle more control away from patients and take giant steps toward her vision of socialized medicine. Although Congress passed the reforms, her Department is in charge of implementing them.

And unfortunately, most of the big ticket items -- including the government's role in the private market -- were left to the discretion of Secretary Sebelius, an unelected, pro-abortion, Washington-based bureaucrat. She, more than anyone -- including the plan holders themselves -- will be responsible for defining medical care in America . Need proof? The bill, as Gottlieb points out, uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725 times!

Wednesday, June 16, 2010  --  FDA likely to inflict another dangerous drug on women

Yesterday the Food and Drug Administration declared a new abortion drug called Ella (also known as ellaOne and ulipristal) safe and effective for women.  What is the criteria for "safe and efffective"?   The FDA released review documents stating that Ella, made by French drugmaker HRA Pharma, appears to work "with no unexpected side effects."

Does it seem reassuring that Ella "appears" to have no "unexpected" side effects?  The report does identify "normal" side effects such as nausea, headache and abdominal pain as common.  How many unexpected side effects have not yet appeared because the drug is too new?  Might it be a carcinogen, or cause future fertility problems, or other adverse health impacts?   Abortion rights zealots do not care because "abortion rights" is their issue, not women's health.

The FDA does admit "Data on pregnancy outcomes after EC (emergency contraceptive) failure with ulipristal were too limited to draw any definitive conclusions regarding the effect of ulipristal on an established pregnancy or fetal development."   That statement means no one knows the damage to the baby that will be caused if it survives this attempt at extermination, or if the woman already has an established pregnancy but just does not know it yet.

Proclaimed as a longer acting "morning-after pill" (up to 5 days after sex), Ella blocks the hormone progesterone, interfering with the lining of the uterus so an embryo cannot implant or, if implanted, will not survive, so it is clearly abortifacient.  A public hearing will be held tomorrow where Obama administration officials will decide whether to market the drug in the United States.  

Even though Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, will testify against Ella at the hearing, do you think the outcome of this hearing is in doubt?  Could the abortion rights advocates in the current administration possibly be deterred by potential unexpected side effects from approving a drug, currently used in Europe, for women in the USA?  And, if Ella injures babies in utero, they can simply be aborted later, with even more profit for abortion providers. 

Tuesday, June 15, 2010  --  Secrets of success revealed

When people are praying in front of abortion facilities, how often are babies saved, but no one learns the effect their simple presence had on abortion-bound women?  Here are a few examples where those unknown results were later revealed:

Pro-Life leader Wynette Sills in Sacramento, California reported on May 4th:  At the Wright Street Clinic [this past week], a young lady pulled up and said, “I just want to tell you that last year I came to this clinic for an abortion, but because you were here praying I could not do it.  The baby’s father was really pressuring me to do it, so I came back again but I still could not do it.  Today I have a beautiful one year-old little girl.  Thank you for being here and doing what you do.”

Commenting on this beautiful news, a Pro-Life leader in Glendale, California, said, “I love these stories.  We’ve had a couple like this, too.  It always gives us hope.  Once a worker in the mill whispered to us, ‘Keep it up. Some women just sit in the office and just leave without getting the abortion, and you never know about it’.”

Another Pro-Life leader tells of hearing years ago about a young woman who went to an abortion mill and saw an elderly Catholic sister, in her habit, kneeling there in the snow and praying.  The woman decided to let her baby live.  She left without the sister knowing.  Later she said, “The sister probably went home that day and thought she didn’t accomplish anything; but, oh, she did—she saved my baby.”

One of the prayer participants in Columbia, Missouri tells of a woman in a parked car who said she wanted to talk.  This woman said that months ago [during the Fall 2009 40 Days for Life], she had her mind set on having an abortion.   But three times she arrived for her abortion appointment, and all three times there were people outside praying.  Three times, she turned around and went back home without going in.  Still, she made a fourth appointment.  There were people praying again this time, but she went in anyway.  But the Planned Parenthood staff said she was anemic, so they could not do the abortion.  She had never been anemic — ever — but it just seemed that this abortion was NOT meant to happen.   Then she said, “I want you to see the joy of my life — my three-week-old baby boy!” She pointed to her baby in the back seat.

Many Pro-Lifers have similar stories.  Sometimes grateful mothers drive up to Pro-Lifers outside abortion mills and happily let them hold their babies.  Of course, these revealed secrets of success represent the many more mothers who changed their minds, but never came back to reveal their change of heart.  Presence at abortion facilities is a spiritual battle for the hearts of mothers and fathers to give life to their babies.  Will you help witness for life?

Monday, June 14, 2010  --  Is abortion a factor in the autism epidemic?

Maybe they are at least partially right.  Maybe there are other factors besides vaccines that are contributing to the epidemic increase in cases of autism.  Might previous abortion be a factor in the increased risk of autism?   Is anyone researching this potential connection? 

Canadian researcher Brent Rooney recently shared some well hidden information with American Life League.  Such studies are not covered by the pro-abortion "lamestream" media.  Here are some little known results that ought to be getting more attention: 

In a 1999 article entitled “Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for autism,” the scientists used five variables.  The study was conducted with 78 individuals who had been diagnosed with autism.  Among the variables examined was the “termination” of a prior pregnancy (Page 447).   The scientists concluded, among other things, that the risk of autism in a future pregnancy among those who had a previous abortion was 23.6%.

In 2008, Norwegian researcher Dag Moster co-authored a study that found that an “extremely premature newborn (under 28 weeks' gestation) had 9.7 times the autism risk of [a] full-term newborn (at least 37 weeks' gestation).”  Research has already indicated that one of the negative effects of surgical abortion is that subsequent pregnancies are premature.

In an article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons dealing with informed consent, Brent Rooney and co-authors Byron Calhoun, M.D. and Lisa Roche, J.D. pointed out that even when an “adverse risk from a medical treatment is merely a potential or plausible one, the patient must be warned of it.”

As Judie Brown points out, “That certainly does not seem to be the case when the 'treatment' is a surgical abortion.”  None of the normal rules seem to apply when abortion is involved.  Nothing can be revealed, or even researched, that might put the "right to abortion" at risk.

Friday, June 11, 2010  --  Defending Down syndrome babies from extermination

Last year statistics became known that with the prevalence of prenatal testing, over 90% of Down syndrome babies are now aborted.  Since that time, one family with a daughter who has Down syndrome has taken visible steps to educate the public about the great contribution that these children make to both families and society.

Kurt Kondrich is a father who made a serious commitment after his daughter Chloe was born with Down Syndrome six years ago.  Kurt returned to college to earn a masters degree in Early Intervention.  After graduation, he retired from his law enforcement career to become Director of Community/Family Outreach for Early Intervention in the Pittsburgh area.

Kurt has established a blog to save Down syndrome babies and another blog for his daughter.  They are also getting support for this cause from Andy LaRoche of the Pittsburgh Pirates.  A video from Life Issues Institute tells this heartwarming story.

The truth about the potential of Down syndrome children, versus the worst case scenario often conveyed by doctors after prenatal testing reveals evidence of the condition, is a start in offering parents the support they need to make the right decision and choose life.

Thursday, June 10, 2010  --  Hastening death to obtain their inheritance

Whether for an inheritance, to eliminate inconvenience to relatives, or to reduce health care costs charged to the government or private insurance, senior citizens are becoming as much an endangered species as children in the womb. 

Do not count on government entities to provide any protection either.  Courts and public guardians may actually make matters worse in this age where "compassion" is defined as hastening death when quality of life is deemed by others to be too low.

The only protection is to find a friend or relative to appoint as your agent who truly has your best interests at heart, and also using a life-affirming durable power of attorney for health care, such as the IRLC Patient Self-Protection Document.  Read more...

Wednesday, June 9, 2010  --  Confronting the culture of death in Orland Park, IL

Last Saturday the monthly vigil at Orland Planned Parenthood Express occurred as scheduled from 10am to Noon.  Earlier rain and the threat of rain reduced attendance somewhat, but 17 Pro-Life citizens who came anyway were rewarded with no rain during the vigil.

Because of the annual observance of "The Pill Kills" Day sponsored by American Life League, I had created a few signs with the message "The Pill Kills People."  I was holding one of those signs when a young woman pulled into the parking lot and came over to confront me. 

She informed me that she was being responsible by taking the pill so she could successfully continue her education, and I was preventing women from obtaining their birth control pills by holding my sign.  Apparently, disagreeing with her definition of "responsible" behavior bothered her very much since she took the time to stop and talk about it.

She asked how the pill kills people.  I told her first it kills babies.  She rejected that concept.  Then I told her it kills women because it causes cancer and has been rated as a #1 carcinogen by the United Nations.  Her response was that life has many risks from the air we breathe to the food we eat so this risk was nothing to be concerned about.  I told her that this risk was preventable.

She decided it was time to leave so I did not get a chance to offer further advice such as: being responsible should mean saving yourself for marriage, not taking the birth control pill.  No one else took the time to stop, but vocal reactions from within the cars going by were greater than usual.

I had learned just last Friday that Couples for Christ was organizing an hour in front of Orland Planned Parenthood Express for "The Pill Kills" Day from 3:30pm to 4:30pm.  I returned with my "The Pill Kills People" signs to assist them.   It turned out that Planned Parenthood Express closes at 2pm on Saturday so they were not aware of this double vigil to confront the Planned Parenthood mentality of life, so accurately programmed into the woman who had stopped to talk to me earlier.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010  --  $125 million campaign rolled out to defend health care reform

Have you seen advertisements sponsored by the Federal government?   First, the beer commercial, then the car commercial, and then one promoting ObamaCare?  I don't think so!  But you may soon see such propaganda because, according to Politico.com, White House allies are rolling out a $125 million campaign to defend health care reform.

Andrew Grossman, a veteran Democratic operative, will head up to day-to-day operations for this aggressive campaign.  He is already raising money from unions, corporations, and foundations to fund this planned five-year effort.  Given all the current and former Democrat office holders expected to be directly involved in this campaign, it almost becomes a quasi-government agency.

Do you think they will find ways to funnel your tax dollars to pay for at least a portion of this campaign?  Any use of tax money would most likely be against the law.  Congress has enacted a number of statutes that restrict agencies' authority to spend funds for "publicity or propaganda" or for lobbying. 

Can you imagine what criticism the "lamestream" media would be generating if a Republican administration was rolling out a media campaign in support of one of their programs?  I learned years ago that Federal agencies are prohibited by law from advertising.  We were vacationing in Arkansas and took a tour of a beautiful cave with so many amazing formations.  We asked why we had not seen advertising for this cave while seeing ads for so many other caves.  We were told that they could not advertise this federally owned cave. 

But proponents of government-controlled health care will find a way around such restrictions to produce publicity and propaganda for a program that the public is currently rejecting with over 60% opposition.  They may not spend tax money directly, but most of this publicity campaign's donors are already beneficiaries of govenment dole helping to produce the huge deficits being generated by out-of-control Federal spending.

Monday, June 7, 2010  --  The pain of abortion can be healed

Katie Reidy has been a counselor at a pregnancy care center, but her experience revealed how many women were already suffering from the impact of previous abortions.  She became more involved in helping women who are seeking healing after abortion. 

Katie also gives presentations to help people understand the scope of this issue and where they can direct people to find help.  She noted that having a secret abortion in your past often leads to thoughts that people hate you because somehow they know you had an abortion.  This fear of condemnation further represses the pain.   These women desperately need to hear a message of reconciliation that can relieve their spiritual pain.

Project Rachel is an excellent starting point for women (and men) who need to seek healing from the negative impact of abortion on their lives.  In Chicago area Project Rachel can be reached at 312-337-1962.  To locate the closest Project Rachel contact person, call 888-456-HOPE.

Project Rachel uses five steps to overcome the pain of abortion as follows:

1)  reconciliation with the child who was aborted: name the child, ask forgiveness, write a letter to
2)  ask God for forgiveness, including the Sacrament of Reconciliation for Catholics
3)  forgiving those who were involved: parents, boyfriend, husband, etc.
4)  forgiving yourself -- this can be the hardest step
5)  having a Mass for the child (for Catholics)

After, or during, these five steps, which vary by person in the time needed, other auxiliary efforts can be made to facilitate healing.  Katie has developed a group program that runs 12 weeks which focuses on women of the New Testament.   That program also includes material from Pope John Paul II's Letter to Women and Theology of the Body.  Ask about it through Chicago Project Rachel at 312-337-1962.   Woman's Choice Services offers a group program that reflects on women of the Old Testament.  Ask about it at 630-261-9221.

Thursday, June 3, 2010  --  Support IRLC at no cost to you through Real Estate for life

Illinois Right to Life Committee has joined the program of Real Estate for Life that locates real estate agents who are willing to provide a referral fee in support of Pro-Life efforts.  Real estate agents are happy to get new business and so, when the transaction is completed, will give a portion of their fee to Real Estate For Life as a referral fee.  

Real Estate For Life will give 80% of that fee to IRLC if we were identified as the Pro-Life organization to be supported.  On a house with a value of $150,000, about $1000 would be  provided to support the work of IRLC - all without costing you a penny!  Whether you are buying or selling, Real Estate For Life is a great way to not only get a superb agent, but also to help IRLC promote a culture of life.

If you, or a friend or family member, is looking to buy or sell a house anywhere in the United States or Canada, you can call Real Estate For Life at 1-877-LIFE-US1 (877-543-3871).  Tell them you are a supporter of Illinois Right to Life Committee.  They will put you in touch with an expert agent having a proven track-record from a company such as Remax or Century21.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010  --  Rape and incest cannot justify abortion

I am currently reading the book Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault.   Near the end of the first section, the book's editor, researcher David Reardon, summarizes as follows:

It is irrational and dangerous for society to make the children conceived in rape the targets of social revenge.  These children have done no wrong, and abortion certainly does not undo their fathers' crimes nor mend their mothers' wounds.

Nowhere would the old proverb, "two wrongs don't make a right," seem more appropriate.  Even convicted rapists are not punished by execution.  Does it make sense that the innocent child should be condemned to death in the father's place?

Does it make sense to heap violence on top of violence, especially when the women's body and psyche are made the battleground for both attacks?    Does it make sense to encourage a victim of violence to find comfort in participating in another violent act?

The testimonies of rape victims contained in this book answer those questions.  Women who took the abortion route, usually under the advice or even pressure from others, regret their abortions years later, long after they have recovered from the trauma of rape.  Women who choose life for their children do not regret that decision, which allows them to experience the good that can be achieved from overcoming a bad situation.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010  --  More courts deny the scientific reality of human life

Recent court rulings from Sourth Korea and Mexico deny the scientific reality of the beginning of human life in favor of an anti-life agenda.  The South Korean Constitutional Court has ruled that frozen embryos are not living and thus may be experimented upon and destroyed at will.

The Korean court's decision claimed that before fourteen days of development, an embryo is not a human being.  "Although we acknowledge the basic rights of fetuses before birth, pre-embryos, which have been fertilized but within which the 'primitive streak' has not yet formed, cannot be regarded as humans," the court wrote.

The Supreme Court of Mexico has ruled that the abortifacient 'morning after pill' must be distributed by all hospitals in Mexico, public and private.  A Supreme Court Minister stated that officials who refuse to comply with the ruling may be removed from their positions, prosecuted, and imprisoned.

Even though doctors universally acknowledge that the 'morning after pill' can take the life of the zygote, which is a human life at the earliest stage, the Mexican court ruled on May 28th that it does not cause abortions, and therefore is compatible with the right-to-life amendments recently passed by the states of Mexico.

While there is no immediate evidence that the Korean and Mexican courts referenced the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in making their anti-life rulings, they are certainly following the same lack of sound science and reasoning in making their decisions that was first reflected in Roe v. Wade's denial of knowledge of the origin of human life.