Pro-Life Newsline

These headlines suggest that word is getting out about the anti-family agenda and poor quality medical practices of Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately, these headlines only appeared on a limited basis in the mainstream media.

Another event that got little attention from the mainstream media was an important court ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The June 30th WorldNetDaily headline read, “Court affirms law calling unborn 'living human beings.'” That headline does not immediately reveal that this ruling was a big loss for Planned Parenthood in South Dakota.

The Eighth Circuit ruling lifts an injunction obtained by Planned Parenthood to prevent enforcement of a South Dakota law. That law requires abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood to tell women seeking abortions that they may face serious medical conditions and will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

If Planned Parenthood truly wanted to reduce abortions, why would they be against such an informed consent law? Obviously they oppose the law because it will cause them to lose some of their abortion business. They would rather have the blood money from abortions than provide women information so they can make an informed decision about getting an abortion.

Behind closed doors, they still tell women that it’s not a baby, but just a “blob of tissue,” even though ultrasound technology has demonstrated such a claim is a boldfaced lie. Since that lie helps sell abortions to young, vulnerable women who are uncertain about abortion, Planned Parenthood has no problem keeping them in the dark. What are the chances that Planned Parenthood will actually abide by the law?

Given their track record of ignoring any laws that get in the way of selling abortions, it seems the chances of Planned Parenthood complying with this law are slim and none. Hopefully, that will lead to more lawsuits against Planned Parenthood. Mentioning lawsuits brings to mind two other recent headlines that reveal the lack of quality health care provided by Planned Parenthood:

· Planned Parenthood Sued for $50 Million for Injuring Teen in Failed Abortion

· Planned Parenthood in Nebraska Settles Near-Death Botched Abortion Lawsuit

Anyone who wants true health care should avoid Planned Parenthood always and forever.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, June 27, 2008

Evidence of the culture of death overtaking hospice?

Attempts have been made to legalize assisted suicide in California, but so far they have failed, leaving Oregon as the only state to enter that brave new world. The latest news from California mentioned a bill promoting euthanasia. What is that about?

In fact, the bill in question seeks to require medical providers to provide information and referrals to hospice whenever a terminal diagnosis is made. From the introductory text of California bill AB 2747, it states:

This bill would provide that when a health care provider, as defined, makes a diagnosis that a patient has a terminal illness or makes a prognosis that a patient has less than one year to live, the health care provider shall, upon the patient's request, provide the patient with information and counseling regarding legal end-of-life options, as specified, and provide for the referral or transfer of a patient if the patient's health care provider does not wish to comply with the patient's choice of end-of-life options.

How was legalized euthanasia established in this bill? Under the definitions section of AB 2747, the following definition was included:

"Palliative sedation" means the use of sedative medications to relieve extreme suffering by making the patient unaware and unconscious, and in some cases, involves the withholding of artificial food and hydration. A patient’s death, however, is caused by his or her disease processes and his or her complications, and not from palliative sedation.

Apparently, making a declarative statement that denial of food and water is not the cause of death makes it reality, regardless of the actions taken to make the patient unconscious and then withhold food and water. Fortunately, defenders of life in California protested enough so the definition has been changed to:

"Palliative sedation" means the administration of sedative medication to the point of unconsciousness in a terminally ill patient. It is an intervention of last resort to reduce severe, refractory pain or other distressing clinical symptoms that do not respond to aggressive, symptom specific palliation. Palliative sedation is not intended to cause death or shorten life.

This definition obviously removes the most egregious aspects of the original wording that were attempting to slide a legalization of euthanasia into a definition of terms. However, the original definition reveals what the supporters of this bill to promote more use of hospice really wanted. They wanted to define a standard of care within hospice that considers hastening death as a valid medical treatment.

Whether they achieved that result this time or not, we now have the evidence of their agenda for hospice. This situation confirms the concerns about hospice that we have expressed before. While there are still hospices that follow the original mission of hospice (to avoid artificially extending life, but never hasten death), caution and serious questions are necessary to select a hospice that has not been overtaken by the culture of death.

Further, should it be a concern that this bill is another mandate telling medical providers how to care for their patients? Is it good public policy to help hospices market their services by mandating that medical providers must provide information and referrals? At the very least, this approach seems to raise the possibility of another area where demands will eventually be made on Pro-Life doctors to provide or refer for “medical care” to which they have moral objections, especially if legalized euthanasia ever gets included in such a bill.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Performing a valuable service?

The headline in the June 23rd Wall Street Journal reads "Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia." Now we have public admission from Planned Parenthood that they are targeting the "well-to-do" suburbs as they "follow the population" to find customers "who can afford to pay full price." Planned Parenthood leaders "aim to rally support with upbeat marketing" and attract new customers with locations "in shopping centers and malls." Steve Trombley, the top executive in Illinois, observed, "I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning."

I posted this observation on the Illinois Review blog and received a response that “Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service. They deserve to receive reasonable compensation for it.” Is Planned Parenthood receiving reasonable compensation? What valuable service do they provide?

U.S. Senators recently grilled Exxon executives for their excessive profits that calculated out at around 10%. For their last reporting year "non-profit" Planned Parenthood pocketed "profits" of 11% ($112 million on revenue of $1.017 billion).

Planned Parenthood executives are paid larger salaries than many other non-profit organizations pay. With comparable salaries to other non-profits, their "profits" could have been even greater than 11%.

Planned Parenthood's service is only valuable to themselves. Their own statistics prove that pregnancy rates and abortions rise when they open new offices.

Their "service" of encouraging casual sex with so-called "comprehensive sex education" does not reduce unplanned pregnancies or abortions, but it certainly increases demand for Planned Parenthood's services, thus expanding their revenue and their profits.

Can this agenda-driven, anti-science behemoth called Planned Parenthood be stopped before they enshrine their anti-choice approach of "comprehensive sex education" and government funded abortions into government policy and law? Call your U.S. Congressman and request that government funding of Planned Parenthood must end. Ask for support of H.R. 4133 as an initial step in this process.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, June 13, 2008

Why the continuing increase in low birth weight babies?

Studies have shown that the damage to women caused by abortion can lead to problems that cut future pregnancies short, leading to an increase in low birth weight babies. A report was issued on June 12th, entitled “Worrisome rise in underweight babies”. Of course, this report ignored any connection between abortion and low birth weight.

Use of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) was identified as a factor, because of the greater tendency for multiple births, known to produce low birth weight. IVF violates the right to life because it turns human life into a commodity to be manipulated. IVF leads to the death of many embryos. IVF providers offer Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) to determine which embryos have “serious genetic conditions” or other defects. All such embryos are allowed to die.

Once implanted, many more embryos die because of the greater risk of miscarriage. When more embryos are created than are needed for implantation, excess embryos might be allowed to die, or can be frozen or donated for research, where they will also die. When frozen embryos are retrieved for future IVF attempts, many of those embryos die. When more embryos develop in the womb than desired, “selective reduction” is pushed to reduce the risks from multiple births.

But I digress. The report on the increasing number of underweight babies broke down results by state. Is it surprising that the state identified with the highest rate for low birth weight babies was Mississippi? Mississippi seems unlikely to be a state with high use of IVF because IVF is very expensive, and statistics show Mississippi to be one of the poorest states. What about abortion? Mississippi has one of the lowest abortion rates, less than one third of the national average.

If neither of these factors helps to explain Mississippi’s high rate of low birth weight babies, what is the source of this problem in Mississippi? Another factor mentioned in the report was use of cesarean birth as a factor for low birth weight. I checked the state statistics and found that Mississippi has the highest cesarean rate in the nation (e.g. 31% in 2002).

Why are there so many cesarean births in a poor state? Are Medicaid clinic doctors using cesarean birth as a means to generate more income, while spending less time delivering babies, with the deliveries scheduled for their convenience? If so, the occurrence of more low birth weight babies is a result of the care decisions by doctors, not the actions or pregnancy decisions of the mothers.

The combination of potential factors (e.g. abortion and IVF rates, cesarean and poverty rates) makes it more difficult to evaluate causes of low birth weight babies in the general population. Since these factors can vary substantially from state to state, overall comparisons do not address the significantly different combinations of causal factors within each state. The report certainly does nothing to discount abortion as one important factor affecting the rising number of low birth weight babies.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, June 6, 2008

Agenda driven: ignoring the facts and denying choice

Contrary to the accusations made that defenders of life are agenda driven and un-scientific, abortion advocates are producing evidence that these accusations actually apply to them.

Fr Thomas Euteneuer reports on evidence from Nicaragua showing the exact opposite of one of the favorite claims abortion proponents use to justify legalizing abortion. They always focus on the claim that women are dying from illegal abortion. If only it was legal, these women would not be dying. There has never been any evidence to support this claim.

Now there is more clear evidence to show that the reverse is true. There are less women dying when abortion is illegal. A recent publication by Nicaragua's Ministry of Health noted that the overall maternal mortality rate decreased by 58% in the year since abortion has been made totally illegal. There were 21 maternal deaths for 2007 compared to 50 maternal deaths the year before.

Those are the results after just one year. What happens after a number of years? Well, Poland restricted abortion in 1993 and has seen a phenomenal increase in maternal well-being ever since. Maternal mortality, recorded at 15.2 per 100,000 live births in 1990, dropped to 7.3 per 100,000 by 1999.

Going for the long-term case, abortion-free Ireland has the lowest rate of maternal deaths in the world so abortion advocates were never able to use the maternal death argument there. Ireland experienced only 5 deaths for every 100,000 births, according to 2005 data compiled by the UN Population Division.

These statistics totally contradict the favorite argument for legalization of abortion, that legal abortion will reduce maternal mortality. It seems that abortion advocates have no problem denying reality to push their abortion agenda.

Of course, once abortion advocates achieve legalization of some abortions with their deceptive maternal mortality argument, they move on to declare abortion a fundamental right so women must have this choice. They drop the word abortion and rally around a “pro-choice” agenda.

The latest evidence of their deceptive defense of choice comes from the Planned Parenthood abortion fortress in Aurora, IL. A sidewalk counselor recently learned that when a customer entered Planned Parenthood with Pro-Life literature in her possession, Planned Parenthood employees took the literature away from her, even though she wanted it. This blatant act is certainly a violation of choice, actually an act of theft! Here is the evidence of their anti-choice agenda as reported by Matt Yonke at Families Against Planned Parenthood:

Sidewalk counselor Karen Koller reports she was speaking with a young lady who was going to Planned Parenthood for birth control, but was very interested in the literature Karen gave her. On her way out of Planned Parenthood, she stopped to ask Karen for some more literature. She needed more because Planned Parenthood employees had taken it away from her!

They forced her to give them the literature she had received from our sidewalk counselors. Karen said employees told the girl, "We need to take these" and when she said she wanted to keep them, she was told the pamphlets were "not allowed in here." The young lady was livid and, after getting more literature from Karen, told her she was never coming back to Planned Parenthood after their rudeness and, let's call a spade a spade, theft of her materials.

So much for defending “choice”, and it looks like Planned Parenthood has a customer relations problem! There must be an opportunity here to conceive a strategy to help them get more of their customer upset with their anti-choice attitude and policies. Can you imagine the headline, “Customers abandoning anti-choice Planned Parenthood”? Of course, such a headline would only appear in a Pro-Life publication, because the mainstream media would cover for them.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, June 3, 2008

New IRLC radio messages opposing Planned Parenthood

Illinois Right to Life Committee has prepared two new radio messages opposing the evil agenda of Planned Parenthood. These messages are called “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “Abstinence is the Right Choice.”

These two messages will be aired on WIND 560 AM along with messages on the topics of Natural Alternative to In Vitro Fertilization, The Deception of Choice, Focus on Successful Stem Cell Research, End of Life Choices? and Persistent Vegetative State and Living Wills.

Here is the text of the two radio messages regarding Planned Parenthood:

Defund Planned Parenthood

This is Mary Anne Hackett from Illinois Right to Life.

Do you want your taxes to be given to an organization that refuses to report sexual abuse of minor children and profits from their abortions?

Do you want your tax money to be given to an organization that is accused of defrauding the government by submitting inflated bills?

Should your tax money be give to an organization that accepts donations specifically targeted to kill black babies?

Would it bother you that this organization promotes pornography to teens and works hard to keep parents in the dark, while promoting sexual activity and performing abortions on their children?

That organization is Planned Parenthood! Last year Planned Parenthood reported revenue of over $1 billion, with $336 million of that amount coming from your tax dollars, mainly through Federal Medicaid and Title X programs.

Isn’t it time to end Planned Parenthood’s use of your tax money to promote their anti-family agenda? Call your congressman. For more information, call 312-422-9300.

Abstinence is Right Choice

This is Mary Anne Hackett from Illinois Right to Life

When we tell teens not to drink or take drugs, do we teach them safe drinking or drug use? Do we assume they will do it anyway and teach them how to avoid the consequences? We know that mixed messages would encourage more teens to do drugs or drink alcohol. We tell them the truth and stick to the message – “Don’t do it!”

Why should we treat teenage sex differently? The serious consequences of sexual activity are pregnancy, disease, and a broken heart. The mixed messages of comprehensive sex education can’t protect teens from the consequences of bad choices.

Teens who abstain are better students, do not get sexually transmitted diseases, or have untimely pregnancies. High expectations honor our teens. We need to tell the truth and stick to the message most parents want their teens to hear - “Don’t do it!”

Comprehensive sex education provides a mixed message that encourages sex. Abstinence education is the right choice for teens. Insist on abstinence education. For more information, call 312-422-9300.

Listen for these and other IRLC radio messages on WIND 560 AM beginning on June 9th.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 30, 2008

New IRLC radio messages on end of life concerns

Illinois Right to Life Committee is again preparing some truthful radio messages on end of life issues. These messages are called “End of Life Choices?” and “Persistent Vegetative State and Living Wills.”

These two messages on end of life issues will be aired on WIND 560 AM along with messages on the topics of Natural Alternative to In Vitro Fertilization, The Deception of Choice, Abstinence is the Right Choice, Defund Planned Parenthood, and Focus on Successful Stem Cell Research.

While the push for assisted suicide and euthanasia continues, especially on the west coast, the need to protect disabled and aging people from such false compassion gains importance. Here is the text of these two radio messages:

End of Life Choices?

This is Bill Beckman with Illinois Right to Life.

Have you heard the latest push for choice? Right-to-die advocates are pushing assisted suicide and euthanasia as “end-of-life choices.” Though they push for a right to die, the end result becomes much closer to a duty to die.

Depression is known to lead to thoughts of suicide, but rarely is an Oregon patient referred for psychological evaluation before receiving their prescription for lethal drugs.

Oregon claimed legalized assisted suicide was necessary because patients with uncontrolled pain needed a choice. Of the 341 people who have chosen assisted suicide in 10 years under this law, none indicated uncontrollable pain.

In contrast, 100% mentioned loss of autonomy. Doesn’t that suggest they viewed themselves as too much of a burden and felt obligated to end their lives? In addition to assisted suicide, Oregon’s suicide rate among the elderly has also increased.

Legalizing assisted suicide is a bad choice. For real choices, call 312-422-9300.

Persistent Vegetative State and living wills

This is Bill Beckman with Illinois Right to Life.

Last year studies of persistent vegetative state (or PVS) in Belgium and Britain revealed rates of misdiagnosis over 40%. These findings are consistent with frequent news reports about recovery of patients deemed beyond hope.

Terri Schiavo was not given the chance to recover. In 2005, she died after 13 days of starvation and dehydration.

Recent studies of patients in a vegetative state have discovered responses in their brains consistent with those of conscious volunteers. Other studies of people in minimally conscious states have found cells in relatively undamaged areas of their brains had begun self-healing, seeking out new ways to re-establish functional connections. Where there is life, there is hope.

A living will lets any doctor decide what health care to deny you. Signing one could be your death warrant. Instead, choose the Patient Self-Protection Document from Illinois Right to Life. Call 312-422-9300.

Listen for these and other IRLC radio messages on WIIND 560 AM beginning on June 9th.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Another victory for Choose Life plates

It has taken over seven years to accomplish, but the time has arrived. The Choose Life license plate has been approved in South Carolina. This success should be another indication of an ultimate victory for Choose Life plates in Illinois, where a positive court ruling is currently under review by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This delay comes thanks to an appeal by the State of Illinois of Federal Judge David Coar’s ruling that the Choose Life plates should be produced in Illinois.

South Carolina suffered the only court ruling that blocked issuance of Choose Life plates. The ruling, in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, rejected a state law authorizing Choose Life plates because the plates were discriminatory since it was not possible to display the opposing viewpoint. I’m sure there is pent up demand to have plates that say Choose Death!

When the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the lower court ruling, South Carolina citizens went back to the drawing board and requested that the legislature change the request process to an administrative process. Since anyone who complies with the administrative requirements qualifies to get a specialty plate, no discrimination can be claimed to block another plate.

Once that process was enacted into law, it still took time but approval has finally come for South Carolina’s Choose Life plate. The new plate is likely to go into production by fall 2008.

Actually, the ruling of discrimination planted the seed for proponents of Choose Life plates in states like Illinois to go to court based on that exact issue. Since the State of Illinois was issuing many other specialty plates, they were practicing discrimination against the Choose Life message. That was the basis of Judge Coar’s ruling. Similar rulings have occurred in California, New York, and Arizona. Hopefully, Illinois will be the first state to get Choose Life plates on the road on this basis. Efforts to establish Choose Life plates have been ongoing in Illinois since 2002.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, May 23, 2008

Agenda-driven actions that ignore reality

The campaign against abstinence education has been ferocious with accusations flying in all directions. The proposed solution is “safe sex” and it is packaged for indoctrinating children under the label “comprehensive sex education.” The premise given is that since everyone will be having sex, abstinence will fail, but training in use of condoms and other contraceptives will prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease.

Reports from Africa have provided statistics from Uganda compared to most other African nations. AIDS cases have been reduced significantly in Uganda with emphasis on abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage. Other African nations that push condoms have not reduced AIDS cases, and many have continued to experience further increases. In fact, African nations with the highest condom usage, often encouraged or coerced by the United Nations AIDS (UNAIDS) program, including Botswana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, are the nations with the highest HIV infection rates. Nations with less condom use and organized abstinence programs in their schools, such as Uganda, Senegal, and Kenya, have much lower HIV rates.

Does that deter the condom pushers? Of course not! They claim that more condoms are needed in the other African nations and are still trying to push condoms in Uganda.

A recent letter from Human Life International (HLI) presented another convincing case with a shocking comparison of results of "safe sex" with condoms versus abstinence and marital fidelity. HLI cites the case of two Asian countries with similar populations: Thailand ( pop. 63,753,000) and the Philippines (pop. 88,351,000). Both nations saw their first cases of AIDS appear in 1984. Both embarked on campaigns to combat the threat and spread of this deadly disease.

That’s where the similarity ends. The Philippine government educated its people and stressed the importance of chastity, fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage. Thailand, on the other hand, embraced “King Condom” and distributed massive numbers of condoms to its people, without any attempt to change people’s behavior.

Here are the results. As of 2007, there have been a total of 2,965 individuals infected with AIDS in the Philippines, over 23 years. In Thailand, the number is a shocking 1,106,000 infected with AIDS. In other words, one out of every 21,850 Phillipine citizens have become infected with AIDS while one of every 90 citizens of Thailand are infected. As a comparison, here in the U.S.A., one out of every 200 citizens contracts AIDS.

The next time you hear the charge that abstinence does not work, remember how well the condom works in Thailand versus abstinence in the Philippines -- proof that "safe sex" is not safe!

Is it possible to bring the agenda-driven condom pushers back to reality? Not likely!

The loss of human life in Myanmar is hard to imagine. Cyclone Nargis left at least 133,000 people dead or missing. The International Federation of the Red Cross estimates 2.5 million people are in desperate need of clean water, food, medicine and shelter with 500,000 of them being children.

In the face of these overwhelming needs, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is working to provide 220,000 condoms "to help needy survivors with no access to contraceptives." UNFPA aid advisor Chaiyos Kunanusont said 72,800 condoms had so far been delivered to "survivors struggling to maintain their family planning after the storm hit in early May."

For these millions left homeless and in desperate need of food, the idea of allocating limited distribution resources to pass out condoms must seem absurd; or might we say, insane? Even the reality of a disaster where lives are hanging in the balance will not deter these condom pushers from carrying out their agenda.

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, May 6, 2008

HPV cancer concern as profit generator

A recent Chicago Tribune headline (4/22/08) read, “New HPV test puts cancer screening in ‘state of flux’.” The article explained that a new HPV test may be more effective than the Pap smear in screening for cervical cancer. However, this HPV test detects HPV infections that often clear on their own. Thus, further testing is needed to determine whether the first test should raise any concern.

Of course, Merck’s heavily marketed HPV vaccine Gardasil should prevent all this testing, right? Not at all! The vaccine is only effective against HPV strains that have been associated with about 70% of cervical cancers so women still need the Pap smear, and now the HPV test, to see if other HPV infections might be present that have not been prevented by the vaccine.

When you think about it, why bother with a vaccine that is nowhere close to 100% effective and does not reduce the need regular testing? Besides, taking those regular tests can detect any problem early enough that it can be treated long before it has the potential to cause cervical cancer. Beyond that, why take a vaccine that has been found to have some very undesirable and even dangerous side effects (even 11 deaths) when it will not reduce the need for other recommended ongoing tests? Even worse, the HPV vaccine amounts to using young girls as guinea pigs because the long-term effectiveness of the vaccine is unknown. If young girls receive the vaccine at the recommended age of 11, the vaccine may need a booster to be effective when they reach an age where sexual activity is more likely. Of course, that raises another important question. Why take a vaccine that is only potentially useful when sexual morality is violated?

That topic led to a survey that found “most moms balk at HPV vaccine for young girls” as reported in the May 5, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times. Of course, given the Sun-Times editorial board’s conviction to promote “safe” sex, they jumped on this news in a May 6th editorial to push parents to get their 11-year-old daughters vaccinated before it’s too late.

Before you decide to follow the Sun-Times recommendation, you may want to learn more about the side effects of Gardasil by checking the following articles:

FDA Knew It: Cervical Cancer Not Caused by HPV Virus
US Death Toll from HPV Vaccine Jumps to 11 with 3779 Adverse Reactions Reported

Get even more inforation at the IRLC web site (www.illinoisrighttolife.org) by selecting “Pro-Life Issues” and then selecting “Vaccines”. The best course is to practice moral behavior, save sex for marriage, and decline to enrich the drug companies and doctors by foregoing risky vaccines and ongoing tests that never end.

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

Teens are going to ...

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

Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Beckman

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

Below are links to supporting information:

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

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

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

HHS Report: “Comprehensive” Sex Ed Ineffective, Offensive

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

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

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

New hard hitting radio messages from IRLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship based on the unspoken subject of abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally -- free speech wins without going to court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two years later, the legal battle continues. The Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit asking the Court to declare the actions of Rockford officials unconstitutional as well as to issue an injunction stopping the city from preventing the display of the Pro-Life message. How long will free speech be denied in Rockford? Congratulations to all those city officials and police officers who do respect the First Amendment and free speech rights.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, April 4, 2008

Pro-choice or pro-abortion? continued

I received a response to my LifeNews article regarding “pro-choice versus pro-abortion.” The author provided the following feedback:

I just wanted to say that I do believe there is a difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". I think "pro-choice" means that you would not have an abortion yourself and you do not believe it is okay to have one, but you feel it is something for each person to decide. (Still a wrong position!) These people also would not assist or encourage anyone to have one.

I responded as follows: Thanks for your feedback. If I accept that definition, how do I solve these two problems?

1) Barack Obama claims to be pro-choice (based on your definition of pro-abortion, he obviously does not qualify to call himself pro-choice but he did it anyway -- therefore, I would content that by accepting a distinction between the two terms, we give pro-aborts cover. Barack claimed "no one is pro-abortion"

2) if the people who are pro-choice under your definition "do not believe it is OK to have one" then are they not taking an immoral position by supporting each person's right to decide? If we consider something evil, how can we allow someone else to make that choice. Can we hold the position: "I would not rob a bank myself and I do not believe it is OK to rob one, but I feel it is something for each person to decide. Still, I would not encourage or assist anyone to rob a bank."?

Unless they truly consider abortion justified in at least some cases (rape, incest, fetal deformity, etc), it is not logical (or moral) to claim they are pro-choice under your definition. They just do not believe they will experience one of those cases, but if they did, more than likely their pro-choice label would turn into a pro-abortion action.

Another likely reason some people may call themselves pro-choice is because they have a relative they know had an abortion and they want to justify their relative's decision. By accepting that abortion as justified, they fail to help that relative confront the pain of the abortion so they can overcome their hidden, or not so hidden, post abortion trauma.

Of course, my insistence on moral clarity raises a related issue. It moves us toward the problem of those who say they are pro-life but make exceptions for rape and incest. Are they really pro-life?

In my view the main problem with accepting use of the term pro-choice to mean anything other than pro-abortion is that it allows deceptive thinking to continue. Some people who use the term may think as you describe, but too many just use the term as a more acceptable way to communicate their truly pro-abortion position, as many politicians are now doing.

We have enough of a problem to convince "pro-life" people who make exceptions for rape and incest that they need to drop those exceptions to be truly pro-life. We do not need to give more semantic cover by accepting the deceptive "pro-choice" term as having any legitimate meaning when its primary purpose is to give cover to pro-abortionists, the reason they invented the term in the first place.

If you have further insights on something I am overlooking, I would be interested in getting your feedback again.

In a reply, the author noted, “I agree that the term is used to "spin" the issue. I think people who claim to be pro-life and yet vote for those that are not, are also pro-abortion. I think we agree that all who do not completely support life (no exceptions for rape and incest, etc.) are pro-abortion. I appreciate your clarity and I am glad you are speaking about this. How would Obama feel about slavery? Would he be pro-choice on that one?”

Illinois Right to Life News for Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Pro-choice or pro-abortion?

A Robert Novak article published in the March 31st Chicago Sun-Times describes a Pennsylvania campaign event last weelend where Barack Obama answered a question about abortion by stating, “Nobody is pro-abortion.” Novak points out how Obama, “After quickly explaining why ‘I am pro-choice,’ he adjourned the event.”

Other politicians have tried to use this same cover of “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion”. Even though he did not make the statement on April 1st, it should have no more credibility than an April Fool’s joke because everyone knows that the term “pro-choice” means “pro-abortion”. Historical evidence shows that pro-abortion strategists coined the term to remove the dreaded “abortion” word from the debate.

But Obama gave absolute evidence last weekend just how pro-abortion he really is. While explaining his position about education to prevent HIV/AIDS, he stated, “But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.”

Is that a pro-abortion statement? Since Obama views the baby as both a mistake and punishment, he obviously supports aborting it. How much stronger statement can one make? I cannot confirm whether this statement occurred earlier at the same event Novak reported on or at another one, but the two statements were both made last weekend.

Even if one unwisely accepted the concept that someone could actually be pro-choice and not be pro-abortion, Obama has demonstrated that this distinction could not possibly apply to him. He sees abortion as the solution for a mistake and a means to remove a punishment. He ignores the humanity of the unborn child and thus devalues all human life by suggesting that abortion be available as just another form of birth control. He would counsel his own daughter to abort his grandchild!

Pray for Obama’s daughters that they be enlightened to avoid the serious mistake of abortion, far worse than having an inconvenient pregnancy. Of course, if their parents were serious about teaching the value of chastity, rather than sending a mixed message of so-called safe sex, maybe the Obama daughters would see the value of respecting their sexuality and saving themselves for their husbands.

Illinois Right to Life News for Friday, March 28, 2008

Ignoring a major contributing cause doesn’t help find solutions

Both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times carried reports on March 26th regarding a study presented in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. What got their attention was a study about the long-term impact of premature birth. The Sun-Times summarized key findings as “children born early have higher death rates in childhood and are more likely to be childless in adulthood.” The Tribune summary was even more ominous, stating “Infants born prematurely are much more likely to die during childhood and, if they survive, much less likely to have children of their own in adulthood.”

The death rate for the earliest preemies (22-27 weeks) was 5.3 times higher than average for 1-6 year old boys and 7 times higher for 7-13 year old boys. Again for boys who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 14% have had children compared to 50% of boys born at full term.

The most premature girls had a 9.7 times higher than average death rate from 1-6 years of age, but no increased risk from 7-13 years old. For girls who were the earliest preemies, within the timeframe of the study, only 25% have had children compared to 68% of girls born at full term.

Even so, both articles stated, “Most preemies grow up to have good health and normal reproduction.” Another area of analysis was educational achievement. Fewer preemies had completed high school and more full term children had taken graduate education.

The data used for the study was obtained from “Norway’s extensive registry of births and medical care” using statistics for over 1.16 million singleton births from 1967 to 1988 and following them through 2002. Therefore, by the end of the study’s timeframe, the study group ranged in age from 14-35 years old. For educational achievement, the study analyzed only those born from 1967 to 1976.

The study raises a number of questions. Given the disparities between female deaths in the 1-6 age range compared to the 7-13 age range, and compared to boys deaths in both categories, can the results be considered statistically sound or merely anomalies? Given that a significant portion of the study group has not reached typical childbearing age, how reliable are the differences found in reproductive outcomes? Given that in vitro fertilization was not achieved until 1978 and only single births were studied here, is it reliable to assume that the outcomes identified by this study can be applied to the explosion of preemies generated by wider use of in vitro fertilization, leading to many preemies from multiple births?

Of course, a variety of experts were quoted on the potential implications of the study. Dr. Geeta Swamy of Duke University Medical Center, and lead author of the study, observed, “Are we improving their survival at the expense of significant problems down the road?” Might that be a hint that Dr. Swamy would consider abortion, or even infanticide, a better choice?

The Tribune article noted that “one in eight U.S. infants is now born prematurely” while “researchers are unsure why the rate is so high, but contributing factors include the growing incidence of assisted reproduction, which often produces twins or triplets, which are more likely to be born prematurely.” Another statistic raised by Dr. Wanda Barfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “In the U.S. premature birth rates among black mothers are higher than among white mothers.”

The unmentioned factor that is ignored in regard to premature birth is its correlation to abortion. Since black mothers have an abortion rate four times that of white mothers, they will certainly have more premature births in later pregnancies. Since abortion became more prevalent after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, premature births have risen because more mothers have abortion in their medical background.

The Sun-Times article quotes Dr. Alan Fleischman of the March of Dimes stating, “In the United States, there is an epidemic of preterm birth, and prevention is absolutely critical.” How will prevention be even remotely possible when a major contributing cause (abortion) is totally ignored as being a factor? Of course, the March of Dimes views “selective reduction” (aborting “excess fetuses” produced by in vitro fertilization) as prevention! How long will it be before the March of Dimes joins Princeton professor Peter Singer in advocating infanticide as prevention for the epidemic of preterm babies?

Illinois Right to Life News for Thursday, March 20, 2008

Death with dignity?

The slide toward euthanasia continues in Oregon. The assisted suicide law requires annual reports to the public, but the accuracy of the information is questioned because those who might abuse the rules are responsible for reporting the results.

Commenting on rhetoric versus reality regarding assisted suicide, Wesley Smith wrote, “We are told by backers that assisted suicide should be restricted to cases of unbearable suffering. Yet, current legislation in California and Vermont to legalize assisted suicide contains no such requirement; nor does the law in Oregon, where doctors who assist suicides report that most patients do not seek death because of pain, but because they fear being a burden, can no longer engage in enjoyable activities, and/or fear losing dignity.”

Even suspect data supports the point made by Wesley Smith that most patients do not seek death because of pain. The report states, “As in previous years, the most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (100%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (86%), and loss of dignity (86%). During 2007, more participants were concerned about inadequate pain control (33%) than in previous years (26%).” Note that last point is suspect because the report does not state if any patient actually had inadequate pain control.

More people received lethal drugs from doctors to kill themselves than in any previous year under Oregon's first-in-the-nation law legalizing assisted suicide, euphemistically called the Death With Dignity Act. During 2007, 85 prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the provisions of the Death With Dignity Act compared to 65 during 2006. Of these, 46 patients took the medications, 26 died of their underlying disease, and 13 were alive at the end of 2007.

Since the Oregon assisted suicide law took effect 10 years ago, 341 patients have killed themselves, at least according to the records submitted to the state. How many more have died under questionable circumstances that never got reported because if the facts became known, they would point to obvious violations of the law?

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 12, 2008

CDC reports 25% of teenage girls have one or more STDs

The media made a big splash about STDs among teenage girls when a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report became public on March 11th. The headlines read, “One in 4 teenage girls has at least one sexually transmitted disease.” The data for this study came from information collected from 838 teenagers who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003 and 2004. We are assured that these 838 teens are “a nationally representative sample.”

Is it realistic to accept this premise? How many concerned parents would allow their teenage daughter to participate in an intrusive government program seeking all kinds of information about their daughter’s health, including her sexual activity. I certainly would not have allowed such participation. I can only conclude that the so-called representative sample was actually drawn from teenagers who had much less parental supervision than normal. Surveys have shown that these teens are much more likely to experiment with sexual activity than those who have strong families and supportive parents.

How can conclusions be reached about what is happening currently from data that was collected in 2003-2004? Proponents of so-called comprehensive sex education are claiming that this study proves abstinence education does not work. Since abstinence education funding increased gradually under the Bush administration, few of the teens in a survey from 2003-2004 would have any significant contact with Federally funded abstinence education. Given that, to be effective, education in any subject needs repetition, it is not logical to blame abstinence education for results produced from that timeframe, already suspect with a question mark about how representative the sample of participants really is.

Jill Stanek points out that Planned Parenthood’s own Guttmacher Institute affiliate indicates only one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence. If 75% of the instruction used Planned Parenthood’s preferred alternative to abstinence education, how can abstinence education be blamed for the prevalence of STDs? I suspect that if the study results are analyzed by state, the states that are now rejecting Federal abstinence funds have higher STD rates than the states that are using Federal abstinence funding. For the current fiscal year, tragically, so far 17 states have rejected Federal funding for abstinence education.

The encouragement of casual sexual activity, including use of pornography, contained in so-called comprehensive sex education contributes to the tragic increase in sexual activity leading to increased occurrence of STDs among teenage girls. With the expanded access to the Plan B morning-after pill without a prescription, more teenagers are vulnerable to STDs because they are that much less likely to see a physician where they might get tested for STDs. Since that change in access occurred after 2004, current STD rates could be getting worse.

The problem of STDs among teenage girls is certainly serious, though it might be overstated if participants were not really a representative sample. In any case, abstinence education is not contributing to the problem. Abstinence works every time to prevent STDs.

Illinois Right to Life News for Wednesday, March 5, 2008

About abortion and alcohol

I received an email from Cindy that demanded a response. She raised a concern about our cause, stating, “This whole ‘pro-life’ word really bothers me. It makes it sound like everybody else is ‘pro-death.’” Cindy maintains that she needs to have the right to abortion in case of rape, even though she considers it “terrible” that some women “may get abortions willy-nilly as a form of birth control.” Cindy then suggests that we join her “in speaking up against how so many people promote and glorify drug use.” Her definition of drug use includes all alcoholic beverages. Here is my response:

Cindy:

Thank you for your feedback.

You make the argument that the government should not interfere with your choice to have an abortion. Given your criticism of legal alcoholic beverages, including "Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.", do you propose that we return to prohibition, or do you think that everyone should be able to make their own choice regarding use of alcoholic beverages? How about their decisions to drive a car after consuming a bit too much? Since many people consider use of alcoholic beverages normal social behavior, don't they have the right to make that choice?

To be consistent with your argument against Pro-Life efforts to end abortion, why do you think that you have a right to criticize people who use alcoholic beverages? Don't they have a right to make their own moral decisions? Jesus turned water into wine. If it was a moral evil or as dangerous to human beings as you indicate (when used in moderation, of course), then that would seem to make Jesus a hypocrite. He actually encouraged the use of alcoholic beverages by providing more wine when the wine ran out at a wedding. He did not condemn the use of alcoholic beverages.

Given these facts, it seems that your campaign to end the use of alcoholic beverages completely is far more controversial than our effort to ban abortion. We believe that just because abortion is legal doesn’t make it right.

If Mary, the mother of Jesus, had the choice of abortion, she could have ended her inconvenient and embarrassing pregnancy that was leading Joseph to his decision to divorce her quietly. Jesus was not a blob of tissue, but was acknowledged very early in Mary's pregnancy as both God and man by Elizabeth when Mary went to visit her right after learning from the angel that she had conceived the Savior. Abortion cannot be justified, because it destroys innocent human life.

What do rape victims want? Have they been heard?

Are you aware of the "ad hoc committe of women pregnant by sexual assault" (http://www.afterabortion.info/news/WPSApetition.htm)? These women are petitioning for a voice in the debate. The petition from the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA) asks federal and state legislators to "hold public hearings at which we and other women who have become pregnant through sexual assault will be invited to discuss our unique needs and concerns."

WPSA was formed after the publication of Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault, a book of personal testimonies collected from women who have experienced a sexual assault pregnancy. The group says that pregnant sexual assault victims have been either ignored or misrepresented by politicians and the media because of the polarizing effects of the national abortion debate.

"In most cases, it is only in the context of highly divisive debates over abortion that we are discussed," the petition reads. "In virtually every case, the people who claim to be defending our interests have never taken the time to actually listen to us to learn about our true circumstances, needs, and concerns."

Kathleen DeZeeuw, who became pregnant after being raped as a teen and gave birth to a son, Patrick, wrote in Victims and Victors that she feels "personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."

WPSA members say that because women who have actually been pregnant following sexual assault have never been given a forum to describe their real experiences, public policies fail to offer pregnant sexual assault victims the care and support they need. Instead, public funding for abortions following rape or incest may give women, their family members, and health care providers the false impression that abortion is proven to be helpful in these circumstances.

Scientific research on the matter is scarce. According to David Reardon, Ph.D, an editor of Victims and Victors and author of numerous studies on post-abortion complications, there are actually no published studies that have demonstrated any therapeutic benefits of abortion, either in general or in the specific case of pregnancies resulting from sexual assault.

"Those who favor abortions have simply assumed that abortion will produce benefits," Reardon said. "But the women who have actually been in these circumstances who have come forward are more likely to report that their abortions deepened and aggravated the psychological trauma they had already experienced as sexual assault victims. Abortion is not a cure-all."

Purpose of laws and controlling our bodies

Do you follow the law and use your seatbelt when you drive a car? Don't you realize that the government is controlling your body? How about anti-smoking laws? Again, the government is controlling your body? Do you think prostitution should be legalized? If not, you are allowing the government to control women's bodies. Why would the government not allow people to make their own choices in these and many other cases? Because they consider these actions dangerous and are trying to protect human life. There are many laws dealing with alcoholic beverages as well, though some may not be enforced as well as they should be.

If people should always be able make their own moral decisions without government interference, why are any of these laws on the books? I am sure that some poor people have a moral reason to steal so they can eat. Should we drop the laws against stealing while we are at it?

Are you aware that liberal groups are pushing for legalization of prostitution? They have succeeded in Germany. Now when a woman on unemployment in Germany has trouble finding a job, she may be pushed to take a job as a prostitute because it is legal, gainful employment. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control women's bodies!

I am sure you have heard about the one child policy in China. That policy has resulted in forced abortions and forced sterilizations and many other abuses. Now, THAT is what I would call allowing the government to control women's bodies!

Did you know that Planned Parenthood has praised that policy of the Chinese government. They have even suggested that the government in our nation should limit the number of children women can have. They are actually working toward a vaccine to prevent pregnancy. Once that is accepted as just another childhood vaccine following in the footsteps of Gardasil, the gover