Pro-Life Page

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 12/11/13 1:03 PM

Planned Parenthood annual report has been released and the staggering numbers continue to show Planned Parenthood is merely an abortion business.

The report indicates a high percentage of pregnant women are going to Planned Parenthood get abortions while a handful get prenatal support or adoption referrals. The report shows 149 abortions for every adoption referral Planned Parenthood makes.

Responding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s release of its facility and service numbers for 2012, Rita Diller, national director of American Life League’s STOPP International project, said that the new numbers “once again show a business in decline.” The numbers reflect “patient care provided by Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers from 10/01/11 – 9/20/12.”

These are the figures she provided LifeNews:

PPFA reported a substantial drop in its clinic numbers between December 2012 and December 2013. At the end of 2012, it had 750 centers, while it reports “more than 700″ at the end of 2013. Its affiliate numbers are down as well, dropping from 73 to 69 over the last year. Affiliates are entities that operate Planned Parenthood centers within a set geographical area.

Planned Parenthood reported a 6.7 percent decrease worldwide in customers for its “sexual and reproductive healthcare and education.” In the U.S., it reported seeing 10,000 fewer unduplicated customers than in 2011.

One of the most glaring numbers was the steep decline in prenatal services-a 31.97 percent decline from the prior year.

In addition, Planned Parenthood’s highly touted cancer screening services dropped 14.22 percent from the 2011 numbers.

Even its abortion business showed a slight decline, reaching the lowest level in four years. PPFA reports that it committed 327,166 abortions for 2012-a 2.0 percent decrease from the year before.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League and founder of STOPP International, said, “The one notable rise was in its contraception business, where it reports 3.7 million services as opposed to 3.4 million in 2011-an increase of 8.7 percent.”

“However, our meta-analysis on Planned Parenthood released in 2013 indicated that Planned Parenthood may be inflating its numbers in contraceptive clients served,” added Sedlak. “In addition, this service number includes an increase in sales of so-called Emergency Contraceptive kits whose effectiveness has come into question in the last few weeks.”

Sedlak concluded: “Planned Parenthood continues to demonstrate by its numbers that it is being rejected by the American public and becoming ever more dependent upon tax-dollar subsidies. It is truly time for all taxpayer funding to be removed from Planned Parenthood.”

Monday, December 9, 2013

BY PATRICK B. CRAINE

ROME, December 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Unborn babies who fall prey to abortion are victims of a “throwaway culture” based on a vision that “embodies a practical atheism,” Pope Francis said Saturday.

He made the comments during an audience with the Rome-based Dignitatis Humanae Institute, a think tank dedicated to promoting an authentic vision of human dignity in the public square.

The Pope lamented that today a “throwaway culture” risks becoming “the dominant mentality.”

“The victims of such a culture are precisely the weakest and most fragile human beings – the unborn, the poorest people, sick elderly people, gravely disabled people... who are in danger of being ‘thrown out,’ expelled from a machine that must be efficient at all costs,” he said, according to atranslation published by Zenit.

“This false model of man and society embodies a practical atheism, de facto negating the Word of God that says: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,’” he added.

The papal audience marked the fifth anniversary of the Institute, which launched in 2008 and boasts an advisory board of eleven Cardinals. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino serves as honorary president and Cardinal Raymond Burke acts as president of the advisory board.

The organization takes a strong pro-life stand. In October, it called on the Church to excommunicate Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion. To let them remain in the fold, they said, would be “false charity.”

In his address, the Pope praised the Institute and similar initiatives that “aim to help people, communities and institutions to rediscover the ethical and social importance of the principle of human dignity, which is the root of liberty and justice.”

“The Church’s social doctrine, with its integral vision of man, as a personal and social being, is our ‘compass,’” he said. “Here there is a fruit that is of particular significance to the long journal of the People of God in modern and contemporary history: there is the defense of religious liberty, of life in all its phases, of the right to work and to decent work, of the family, of education...”

He said awareness campaigns and formation programs are necessary, especially for politicians, to help people “think according to the Gospel and the Church’s social doctrine.”

He also called for dialogue with people of good will who “share – if not the faith – a similar vision of man and society and its ethical consequences.”

Friday, December 6, 2013

December 5, 2013 (LiveActionNews) - While many are curled up inside, hiding from today’s freezing temperatures in many parts of the nation, the senior class of St. John’s Catholic High Schoolin Beloit, KS, and many others nationwide, will be outside standing for the unborn, in a peaceful protest of abortion.

The class from St. John’s, who we first told you about in October, will be at the South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, KS today. Katie Greenwood, who is the student leader of this effort, working with her religion teacher, Andrew Niewald, reports that since the original story on their labor of love, the response from the public has been overwhelming.

Schools across the nation have pledged their support and will join them in their own regions. Katie knows of schools in Colorado, Nebraska S. Carolina, and Rhode Island, among others. Locally, Sacred Heart Catholic School in Salina, KS and Kapaun High School in Wichita will join St. John’s today. The high in Wichita is forecast to be about 26, but there no plans to back away from their almost-three hour drive to stand outdoors and stand for the unborn who never see the light of day.

And the students will have another pro-life champion with them at the Friday protest and rally. Congressman Tim Huelskamp, who represents the district in which St. John’s is located, contacted Katie soon after the story first appeared and pledged his support–and his appearance at the rally. Huelskamp will speak to the youth in attendance. Katie will also address the crowd. Operation Rescue has also said it will send representatives to join the Friday protest and youth rally.

Predictably, the publicity has brought varied responses, some negative, but much positive. At the core, the issue of the value of life is at the forefront. Across the nation, stories have been published about this small high school (40 total, 10 seniors), and on Tuesday, St. John’s seniors were interviewed on a Catholic radio show in Hays, KS.

Katie’s heart beats for the beating hearts of the unborn, whose lives are stolen.

My class knows the horrors of abortion, and we want other people to join in our fight. How can our country ignore the plight of the unborn if the next generation is screaming for the public to recognize this ongoing genocide? Honestly, how can you ignore thousands of teenagers, begging for the life of the innocent to be spared.

It’s because of the shared passion for the unborn that Katie has no doubt this work will continue, even though she and the senior class will leave the school next year.

I know a couple of students in the grade below me would be readily willing to take on this endeavor, and then they know students below them. The teachers at St. John’s, especially Andrew Niewald, will definitely keep promoting this venture.

To find out more about Catholic School Life Rally 2013, you may like their Facebook page, linkedhere. We will have a follow up for you with a report on what will be the first event for St. John’s Catholic High School in small Beloit, Kansas.

The school is asking that those who participate take pictures and send them tochoolliferally@aol.com.

Susan was born in Bethlehem to an unwed mother and rescued by Catholic nuns who took her to an orphanage in Bethlehem, which still helps single moms and rescues babies. Today she's an outspoken advocate for LIFE and speaks and writes about pro-life issues nationwide.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

By Cheryl Wetzstein

The Washington Times

Pro-life groups, which are eager to end research that destroys human embryos, are taking heart that funding decisions in two of the nation’s most socially liberal states are going their way.

“Money talks,” said Gene Tarne, author of papers for the Charlotte Lozier Institute that find that the bulk of stem cell funding grants in California and Maryland are moving toward “ethical” research that doesn’t use human embryos.

The shift looks like a sea change from when state funding strongly favored research from embryonic stem cells over “adult” stem cells, which are taken from the placenta, umbilical cord and some mature tissues and do not kill human embryos.

However, the hunt for cures for diseases, along with federal and private funding for embryonic stem cell research, virtually guarantees that embryonic stem cell research and the moral battles over it are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

The World Stem Cell Summit this week in San Diego promises to share updates on a “complete 360 view of the stem-cell field” and says no type of research should be excluded.

“The patient community is not so concerned about the source of the cell — it is all about developing effective treatments,” said Bernard Siegel, executive director of Genetics Policy Institute in Florida, which hosts the summit.

The summit will honor South Dakota philanthropist T. Denny Sanford for his $100 million investment in a California stem cell research center. All kinds of stem cell research projects are expected to be funded at the Sanford Stem Cell Clinical Center at the University of California at San Diego.

Meanwhile, a Kansas stem cell research center that, by law, won’t use stem cells culled from human embryos also is taking off.

“This is the beginning,” Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said Nov. 23, when the Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center held its inaugural conference. “We are catching it right as the field is really starting to burgeon,” he said, according to the Kansas Health Institute News Service.

The center — approved in April by the Kansas Legislature and Mr. Brownback — is “a visionary move” to “support science that can actually lead to a lot of new therapies and potentially change the face of medicine,” said Dr. Buddhadeb Dawn, director of the center, which is housed at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

Excluding embryonic stem cell research is not an impediment, Dr. Dawn said.

“Adult stem cells are the ones that have been shown to be effective for patient treatment,” he said.

The hunt for cures

Stem cells excite scientists because they are regenerative — self-renewing — and have the potential to be grown into any type of cell. This has led many people to believe stem cell therapies one day will cure or treat many conditions, including blindness, cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease and spinal cord injuries.

The dispute in stem cell research is over cells taken from human embryos, the stage of human development that follows fertilization.

Some scientists view stem cells taken from human embryos as superior, “master cells” with vast potential for cures and therapies. But pro-life groups and their allies denounce such research because the stem cell extraction process destroys the “person” in embryonic form.

In 2001, President George W. Bush decided to restrict federal funding to existing embryonic stem cell lines. His opponents in California responded by promoting and winning a voter initiative to provide $3 billion over 10 years to stem cell research, especially the kind that uses human embryos.

In 2007, the newly created California Institute for Regenerative Medicine kept its promise and spent $121 million on human embryonic stem cell research. Of 100 grants the institute issued in its first year, not one went to a project that used adult stem cells, Mr. Tarne said in his July 2012 report for the Lozier institute.

By 2012, though, the institute’s funding had shifted course — it gave 15 grants, worth about $50 million, to non-embryonic research projects and six grants, worth $19 million, to embryonic research projects.

Mr. Tarne found a similar pattern in Maryland, another state with an active stem cell research community.

In 2007, the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission funded 11 projects that used human embryos and four that used adult stem cells. This year, though, the Maryland commission funded only one embryonic stem cell project and 28 non-embryonic projects.

Maryland’s grants can be seen as “an important bellwether” for the research choices, as the state is home to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, a leading site for stem cell research, Mr. Tarne said.

The two states’ growing preferences for “ethical” stem cell projects reflect the scientific community’s belief that “the best hope for rapid medical advances lies with morally unproblematic alternatives,” said Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List.

“It’s a matter of starting to recognize that where all the ‘return’ is — especially if we’re talking about helping a patient — is in adult stem cells,” said David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council and a member of the advisory board for the Kansas adult stem cell research center.

“It validates what we have been saying for years, which is ‘the ethical is the successful’ and that’s where we should put all our resources,” said Mr. Prentice, a researcher in cell biology who will discuss the stem cell issue at a Family Research Council event Dec. 11.

All cells pursued

Alan Trounson, the outgoing president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, rejected the idea that the agency was shifting its position on stem-cell science.

The institute has “quite a lot of projects” on embryonic stem cells and their derivatives, as well as some using adult stem cells, he told The Washington Times.

“It just takes time for some stem cell types to sort of evolve into usefulness, clinically,” Mr. Trounson said. “So we are on a natural evolution, if you like, using the best cells.”

“It is no longer about the type of cell,” said Mr. Siegel, founder and chairman of the ninth annual World Stem Cell Summit, which expects to draw 1,000 scientists and others associated with stem cell research to San Diego from Wednesday through Friday.

“Each cell type has different uses for different purposes,” said Mr. Siegel, referring to embryonic, adult and induced pluripotent stem cells, in which adult stem cells are reprogrammed to act like desired cells.

Some cells are better to understand the root causes of disease, some might be ready for cell transplant and others may be used as tools for drug discovery, Mr. Siegel said.

“We need them all,” he said.

In Maryland, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission declined to comment on the Lozier report. The commission held its sixth annual research symposium Tuesday at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Several of its presentations were on induced pluripotent stem cell technologies.

Separately, the National Institutes of Health remains a major player in all kinds of stem cell research: In fiscal 2012, it issued $146.5 million for embryonic stem cell research and $504 million for non-embryonic projects; both were record-breaking amounts for the agency.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

BY BEN JOHNSON

ATLANTA, GA, December 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More babies are alive today thanks to state laws restricting abortion and the closure of abortion facilities, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC released its annual report on abortion on Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. In all, U.S. abortionists performed 765,651 abortions in 2010 in the states tthat report abortion numbers – a moderate decrease from 2009, the report stated.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, released the day after Thanksgiving, says “the availability of abortion providers” and “state regulations” lowered the abortion rate nationwide.

The official document listed regulations on abortion, such as waiting periods and notification laws, as among the first items responsible for the reduction.

"Multiple factors are known to influence the incidence of abortion,” the report states. These include “the availability of abortion providers” and “state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers.”

“I think the CDC is finally recognizing that common sense safety laws that are aimed at protecting women from shoddy or unscrupulous abortion practices are having the effect of closing substandard clinics and decreasing the numbers of abortions,” Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser at Operation Rescue, told LifeSiteNews.com.

If true, abortion numbers should nosedive in the next few years. BusinessWeek reports that 73 abortion facilities have closed their doors since 2011.

“The absence of an abortion clinic gives women time to think through their situations and seek other alternatives to...running down to the local abortion clinic,” Sullenger told LifeSiteNews.

A surge of new laws enacted since 2010 gave women information they needed to make an informed choice and time enough to make their decision, according to the legislators that introduced them.

Although rigorous data are hard to find, anecdotal evidence suggests that as the laws multiplied, abortions have ratcheted down.

Arizona provides a textbook example. In 2009 the state enacted the “Abortion Consent Act,” which requires a notarized parental signature before a minor may have an abortion, as well as giving women medically accurate information 24 hours before the procedure.

When the law took effect – after a protracted court battle – the number of abortion providers reduced by 30 percent, and the abortion rate dropped 32 percent in one month, according to the Associated Press.

Neighboring Texas has a similar history. The New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2011 that a Texas law requiring abortions at 16 weeks or later to be performed in an ambulatory surgical centerreduced the number of abortions performed at or after 16 weeks by 88 percent. Texans had a total of 2,000 fewer abortions.

“As the numbers from 2012 and 2013 come in, we can expect to be a dramatic decrease in the number of abortions nationwide, since this is when the flood of pro-life legislation as a result of conservative gains in the 2010 midterm elections goes into effect,” Sullenger told LifeSiteNews.

In 2011, the nation passed a record-setting 83 pro-life laws restricting abortion and setting more stringent requirements for abortionists, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The second highest number of pro-life laws passed in 2012, as governments enacted 43 new statutes.

The full impact of these laws may not been seen for some time, as the abortion industry and the legal Left – often Planned Parenthood in collaboration with the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights – has filed legal challenges against virtually every landmark piece of legislation passed in the last two years, from requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals to enforcing the FDA prescribed standards for the use of RU-486.

The CDC states that other factors also affect the abortion rate, including a wider acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, “shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population,” economic changes,” and women's “access to health-care services, including contraception."

But Sullenger told LifeSiteNews that the report's citation of pro-life laws point out “tools that we can use to close clinics, spare women from unsafe abortions, and save lives. It also helps raise awareness of abortion abuses and is helping to influence people to become pro-life.”

“Eventually, we believe that this can help create a climate where abortion can be abolished altogether,” she said.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

By Anna Franzonello

November 25, 2013 9:42 PM

The holiday season is upon us. Almost inevitably that means that as Americans turn their attention to family and friends, significant rules, regulations, and reports will be released in the hope that they will go largely unnoticed and generally uncommentedupon. If recent history is any indicator, this year’s holiday “data dump” will include the annual report for the nation’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood.

As we wait for Planned Parenthood to release its latest income and other figures, here are five things that happened between October 1, 2011, and September 30, 2012 (the “services” year it is expected to report for), that Planned Parenthood is unlikely to include in any report:

1. Tonya Reaves, a 24-year-old mother with a young son, bled to death after her uterus was lacerated during an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic on Chicago’s Michigan Avenue. Tonya’s autopsy report confirmed that her future was cut tragically short by an injury she sustained at the hands of a Planned Parenthood abortionist on July 20, 2012. Other reports suggest that the Planned Parenthood clinic’s delay in seeking emergency care directly contributed to Tonya’s death.

2. Nurses leave Planned Parenthood in Delaware because of the abortion clinic’s deplorable safety conditions including “meat-market-style, assembly-line abortions.” In her testimony before the Delaware senate, Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, a registered nurse for over 26 years and a former employee at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, described serious health hazards that she reported to Planned Parenthood officials, but which were never addressed. This failure ultimately led to her resignation on August 8, 2012. “I reported that most of the Planned Parenthood staff members did not wear protective gear or utilize universal blood and body fluid precautions; consents for sedation and procedures were sometimes obtained late as staff was rushed and hurried . . . lab work not being performed correctly thus the lab value results were incorrect; patients given sedation were found outside walking down Market Street dazed and confused; staff medical credentials were not verified; the emergency medications and equipment had expired; the narcotics were not being regulated; HIPPA privacy not being practiced; an intern who had been instructed by her instructor only to observe was pressured into providing abortion care; Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Timothy Liveright once left sedated patients in order to handle a mechanical issue with his private airplane; and more.”

Nurse Mitchell-Werbich also testified, “It is likely that many women in Delaware may have to deal with future babies who have severe anemia, jaundice, brain damage, heart failure or even death. The sad thing is that these women may not even realize the fact that Planned Parenthood could be at fault for these medical tragedies even years after they had their abortions at Planned Parenthood.”

Joyce Vasikonis, a registered nurse practicing in “woman’s health” for 37 years, also resigned from Planned Parenthood’s Delaware clinic in August 2012. Nurse Vasikonis testified before the Delaware senate that: “It would take me the entire afternoon to discuss all the deficiencies I discovered at Planned Parenthood of Delaware during the ten months I worked there.” She continued, “What I found was that the culture at the Planned Parenthood of Delaware was focused on maximizing profits and the bottom line; not quality health care for women.”

3. Another “whistleblower” lawsuit against Planned Parenthood alleging financial scandals and dangerous practices was unsealed. Schemes designed to overbill taxpayer-funded programs, intentionally tricking low-income women into paying for services already fully covered by government funds (and accounting for the double-payment as a “donation” in its books), and encouraging women to lie about abortion complications are some of the serious allegations in a lawsuit brought against Planned Parenthood of the Heartland that was unsealed in July 2012. Sue Thayer’s claims of the organization’s having a profit-over-anything attitude — including the law and women’s health and safety — are corroborated by the growing mountain of allegations from former Planned Parenthood employees.

4. Clinics dropped ties with Planned Parenthood over its mandate that all affiliates must perform abortions by January 2013. A former Planned Parenthood affiliate that operated five clinics in upstate New York announced in late 2012 that it had dropped its affiliation with the national chain over Planned Parenthood’s abortion mandate because, as its CEO explained, “There’s no need for us to be duplicating services that are already adequately and well provided locally.”

Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood clinics (in Missouri) also disaffiliated with Planned Parenthood on October 1, 2011. At least coincidentally, that date aligns with an unexplained change in the way Planned Parenthood reported its service information. Ordinarily, Planned Parenthood reported its services for a calendar year. However, in its 2011–12 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood’s “2011″ figures were actually for October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. This means that three months — one quarter of a year — were repeated from what Planned Parenthood had already disclosed in its 2009–10 Annual Report.

Whether it was done for this reason or not, by restructuring its service year, Planned Parenthood’s “2011″ report did not take into account the three months in 2011 after the non-abortion providing affiliate, Tri-Rivers Planned Parenthood, dropped its affiliation. As a result, abortion appeared as a lower percentage of both Planned Parenthood’s patients and its services than it actually was.

Planned Parenthood’s next annual report data will also be an incomplete account of the current abortion-centric nature of Planned Parenthood. Figures ending in September 2012 will not only include the now-unaffiliated New York clinics, but will still include several previously non-abortion-providing affiliates that are, presumably, now complying with the mandate.

5. Planned Parenthood bullied the Komen Foundation into lowering its standards in order to preserve Planned Parenthood’s public image. In her book, Planned Bullyhood, Karen Handel, former senior vice president of public policy at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, gives an insider’s account of the events surrounding the controversial split and subsequent reconciliation of the Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood.
“When the news of Komen’s decision broke, it was portrayed as though Komen was ‘cutting off’ Planned Parenthood — that Komen was making them go cold turkey and, in the process, leaving women stranded without breast health services.” Handel writes. “Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s CEO, even said she was ’surprised.’ None of this was true; yet that’s how it was reported. Komen was never ‘cutting off’ the Planned Parenthood grants. That was nothing more than Planned Parenthood propaganda, and the media played along. Komen ensured that funding for all existing grants through the contract period would be provided, and Komen would even continue certain other grants, despite the new guidelines. Planned Parenthood knew all of this.”

Media coverage in early 2012 largely failed to mention an important fact in the “controversy.” Planned Parenthood no longer qualified for grants because it failed to meet the respected breast-cancer-research foundation’s newly established grant standards — standards designed to better and more directly serve women and achieve the Komen Foundation’s goal of beating breast cancer.

Notably, Planned Parenthood’s last annual report showed that its “breast health services” dramatically declined in the period leading up to the Komen Foundation controversy. On average, it seems that Planned Parenthood was performing 9,000 fewer breast health services per month — over 100,000 services less for the reported year. However, as noted above, that comparison contains an overlap with its 2010 figures. Therefore, how low Planned Parenthood’s breast health services actually sank in 2011 is indeterminable.

In addition to the absence of the events described above, history tells us that whenever Planned Parenthood releases its annual report we can expect higher revenue, a reduced overall client base, and an increase in the number of abortions it performed.

— Anna Franzonello is staff counsel at Americans United for Life.

Monday, November 25, 2013

CAMERON MCWHIRTER

Nov. 24, 2013 7:35 p.m. ET

The battleground over abortion is shifting to Tennessee, where campaigns are heating up on a referendum that is a year away.

The referendum, pushed by anti-abortion groups for years, would add an amendment to the state constitution stating, "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." The amendment would apply to all abortions, including those stemming from "circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey supports a state amendment pushed by anti-abortion groups.Associated Press

Anti-abortion groups launched their campaign to generate support for the referendum this month with a $250,000 fundraiser headlined by Tennessee Republican Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and a church concert by the Duggars, an Arkansas couple who have a reality television program about raising their 19 children. The state's Baptist Convention also passed a resolution urging members to "work vigorously" to pass the amendment, which will be on the Nov. 4, 2014, ballot.

The amendment—which is supported by many Republicans and Democrats in the GOP-dominated legislature—is an attempt to make Tennessee's constitution neutral on abortion, supporters say. It would give the legislature the authority to pass "common sense" limitations on abortion and "protect women's rights," said state Sen. Jim Tracy, a Republican who co-sponsored the amendment.

Mr. Ramsey called the campaign launch a "pre-emptive strike" against opponents of the amendment, led by Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups say the amendment will open the door to passage of laws severely limiting access to abortions.

"Their ultimate goal in Tennessee is to be able to pass any restriction or regulation on abortion that they want to," said Jeff Teague, president of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee Inc.

Planned Parenthood and other opponents of the amendment are mounting their own campaign. "We are preparing to aggressively mobilize voters to vote no," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. The amendment would lead to laws placing "rigorous burdens" on women trying to get an abortion, she said.

Tennessee is one of 11 states that currently provide state constitutional protections for abortion rights, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. In Tennessee, the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution accords women abortion rights in a 2000 decision that said several state laws restricting abortion—including two-day waiting periods after counseling before abortions can be performed—violated women's privacy rights.

If the referendum passes, the court's ruling would be negated.

The state, with 6.5 million people, has seven abortion clinics, all of them in or around Memphis, Nashville and Knoxville, according to Mr. Teague.

Anti-abortion activists have been pressing the legislature since 2001 to change the state constitution to explicitly deny that it protects abortion rights. An amendment resolution finally won overwhelming support in the last two legislatures, meeting the requirements of state law to make it on the state ballot next fall. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, who will be up for re-election next year, supports it.

The Tennessee referendum could also be a milestone in the debate around the nation. Abortion opponents scored a legal victory last week when the U.S. Supreme Court let stand for now a Texas law requiring doctors who perform abortions to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion takes place. If no hospital gives them privileges, they can't perform abortions. A federal judge struck down the Texas law but an appellate court ruled the law could take effect while the case is being appealed. The Supreme Court agreed.

But anti-abortion groups have also been defeated in recent years on high-profile referendums to place strict restrictions on abortion.

Voters in Albuquerque, N.M., last week rejected a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Last fall, Florida voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have prohibited use of public funds for most abortions unless required by federal law.

Write to Cameron McWhirter at cameron.mcwhirter@wsj.com

Friday, November 22, 2013

BY SARAH TORRE

Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:05 EST

Analysis

November 21, 2013 (Heritage) - Obamacare will entangle taxpayer funds in abortion coverage offered on state and federal exchanges and could force many Americans to unwittingly pay a surcharge for elective abortion.

This system could potentially place many Americans in an unwanted and unnecessary dilemma, forced to choose between violating their values by directly subsidizing abortion coverage or forfeiting the health care coverage that most closely meets their families’ unique needs.

Federal Dollars Will Be Available for Health Plans That Cover Elective Abortion

Obamacare requires that all individuals obtain health insurance by January 1, 2014, either through their employers or elsewhere, that meets minimum federal benefits requirements. Millions of Americans will look to state and federally run health insurance exchanges to purchase such qualified health plans and avoid federal fines.

For the first time, the federal government will provide an “affordability tax credit” to millions of low- and middle-income individuals and families to help subsidize the purchase of health plans on the exchanges.[1] These federal tax credits could facilitate the purchase of overall health plans for millions of Americans who did not have such coverage previously. Many of these plans could cover elective abortion.

Majority of States Will Allow Abortion Coverage

Obamacare allows health insurers selling plans on exchanges to cover abortion. In response, some states have passed “opt-out” laws, barring insurers participating in their exchanges from offering health plans that include coverage of elective abortion. However, 27 states and the District of Columbia have taken no final action to prevent insurers from covering elective abortion.[2]

Not every plan offered on those exchanges of those 27 states and D.C. will necessarily include such coverage, and Obamacare states that at least one of the plans in each exchange must exclude elective abortion coverage by 2017. The decision to include coverage is ultimately left to the insurer.[3] But federally subsidized tax credits will remain available even for the plans that do cover elective abortion, potentially sending taxpayer funds to pay for health coverage that includes elective abortion.

An All-but-Invisible Abortion Surcharge

Individuals and families who live in states that allow abortion coverage in their exchanges could find themselves paying directly for elective abortions through a separate premium, possibly without their knowledge.

Every individual enrolled in a plan that is eligible for federal tax credits and includes coverage of abortion will be forced to pay an additional abortion premium of at least $12 per year with private dollars. Obamacare mandates that insurance companies then “segregate” any federal affordability tax credits it receives from the individual premiums used to pay for abortions. The law provides no opt-out for individuals or families who may want to buy a particular plan that fits their health needs but does not include abortion coverage.

Limiting Transparency and Restricting Consumer Choice

It is possible that many individuals and families who would otherwise object to paying for abortion coverage may not even be aware of the surcharge on their insurance. Obamacare regulations allow insurers to disclose the existence and amount of the abortion surcharge only at the time of enrollment, and that warning may be as little as a single sentence in a massive plan document.[4] The rules also prohibit issuers from itemizing the additional charge for abortion coverage on premium bills.

For those living in the 27 states without opt-out laws, individuals and families wishing to avoid health plans with abortion coverage could have few or no options in their state’s exchanges. In general, they could either:

Enroll in a health plan that includes abortion coverage. Many individuals and families enrolled in such plans will be forced to pay an additional abortion surcharge, with limited disclosure of the additional payment’s existence.
Enroll in an exchange plan or private plan that does not include abortion coverage—if one is available. Some individuals may be able to enroll in exchange plans in which the issuers have chosen not to cover elective abortion. Individuals and families could ostensibly also enroll in private coverage in an exchange that does not include abortion. But there is no guarantee that those abortion-free plans will provide overall benefits comparable to the plans that include abortion coverage.
Enroll in the federally run multi-state plan that will not include abortion coverage. One of the multi-state plans sponsored by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is required to exclude abortion coverage. However, OPM is required to offer those plans in only 60 percent of state exchanges in 2014, eventually offering coverage in every state by 2017.[5] There is no guarantee that this option will be available in every state during the first few years of Obamacare implementation or remain an attractive option thereafter.

State and Federal Remedies

State and federal governments can still act. The 27 states (and the District of Columbia) currently without “opt-out” laws should pass legislation prohibiting insurers from offering coverage of elective abortion on the state’s exchange.

At the federal level, Congress can enact broad protections against taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion coverage. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7) would assure that no funds authorized or appropriated by federal law could be used to pay for abortion or health benefits plans that cover abortion. Congress could also demand transparency in Obamacare exchange plans. The Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 3279) would require issuers that include elective abortion coverage on exchange plans to prominently display in marketing and enrollment materials the existence of such coverage and the existence of a separate abortion surcharge.

Protecting Life and Conscience in Health Care

To truly protect taxpayers, individuals, and families, Obamacare must be repealed. Americans deserve health care reform that increases access, decreases costs, and allows individuals and families to choose health care that meets their needs without violating their beliefs or subsidizing life-ending drugs and procedures.[6]

[1]Brian Blase and Paul L. Winfree, “Obamacare and Health Subsidies: Expanding Perverse Incentives for Employers and Employees,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3112, January 20, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-health-subsidies-expanding-perverse-incentives-for-employers-and-employees.

[2]Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Update on Abortion Coverage Limitations: States Take Action,” September 11, 2013, http://www.lozierinstitute.org/abortion-coverage-limitations/ (accessed October 23, 2013).

[3]An e-mail communication from unidentified federal officials to the Roll Call newspaper on July 22, 2013, indicated that it was the intention of the Obama Administration to “ensure” that each exchange include at least one insurance plan that does cover elective abortion. Obamacare does not require the inclusion of such a plan, and other provisions of the law make plain that insurers enjoy rights of conscience with respect to the provision of induced abortions. See, for example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, Public Law 112–74, Division F, Section 507 (d), known as the Hyde–Weldon amendment, which outlaws discrimination by federal officials against, among others, insurance plans that do not “provide coverage of” abortions. Rebecca Adams, “The Question of Abortion Coverage in Health Exchanges,” Roll Call, July 22, 2013,http://www.rollcall.com/news/the_question_of_abortion_coverage_in_health_exchanges-226547-1.html?pg=2 (accessed October 3, 2013).

[4]42 U.S. Code § 18023(E)(3)(A). According to the statute: “A qualified health plan that provides for coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [elective abortions beyond those allowed for coverage under the Hyde amendment] shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage.”

[5]Robert E. Moffit, “Obamacare and the Hidden Public Option: Crowding Out Private Coverage,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3101, January 18, 2011,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-the-hidden-public-option-crowding-out-private-coverage.

[6]Nina Owcharenko, “Saving the American Dream: A Blueprint for Putting Patients First,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3628, June 6, 2012,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/saving-the-american-dream-a-blueprint-for-putting-patients-first.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

BY BEN JOHNSON

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Sources tell LifeSiteNews.com that several Senate Democrats, some of them facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014, may consider signing on to a national bill to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks. And pro-life groups in six states are demanding the senators take a public stand – or face the consequences.

Some of the group of six senators campaigned as “pro-life Democrats.” While others, facing a pro-life electorate and a rising backlash against the president's health care reforms, may seek political cover by supporting the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed the House in June and was introduced in the Senate this month.

LifeSiteNews.com contacted all six Senators: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. None responded after a period of several days.

But while the six have not yet taken a public position on the bill, state pro-life organizations believe some of them could be persuaded to co-sponsor or vote for pro-life protections. Here is how they break down:

Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia

Manchin, who campaigned as a pro-life Democrat, is considered a likely yes vote. Wanda Franz, president of West Virginia for Life, says that sources told her Manchin is not linclined to co-sponsor the bill, but Franz believes he would vote for the bill if it comes to the floor for a vote.

“As far as I'm concerned, that's a problem,” Franz told LifeSiteNews.com “That is not pro-life leadership, and we expect pro-life leadership from him.”

Manchin has seen his popularity slip by 20 percent since 2011, according to the Democrat-leaning firm Public Policy Polling.

Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas

Two-term Senator Mark Pryor is considered vulnerable in his bid for a third term in 2014. Polls show the incumbent in a dead heat, or slightly trailing, Republican Congressman Tom Cotton.

“Senator Pryor is in a very difficult campaign for re-election and Arkansans will certainly be watching his vote on this important issue, which not only protects unborn children from an excruciatingly painful death by abortion but educates the public of the humanity of the child,” Arkansas Right to Life Executive Director Rose Mimms told LifeSiteNews.

She confirmed that Pryor's office said he has not yet taken a position on the bill.

Pryor's voting record – 66 percent pro-life in this Congress – “gave the pro-life movement in Arkansas a reason for hope, but it never materialized into any significant support for the protection of the unborn.”

“I do not feel that he will support S. 1670,” she said.

That could pose a problem for him. A February poll showed 60 percent of Arkansas residents supported banning abortion after 12 weeks.

Whatever his position on the bill, Mimms said it will not be his biggest liability next fall.

“Senator Pryor's vote on ObamaCare is the pro-abortion, pro-rationing anti-life vote that will be hardest for him to overcome in this election,” she said. “Regardless of his first pro-life or the ones that have followed, he voted in support of government funding of abortion on demand, and rationing of life-saving treatment in the ACA. That is one anti-life vote that he will be held accountable for the most in the 2014 election.”

Joe Donnelly, D-Indiana

Joe Donnelly scored a surprise victory in 2012 after Republican candidate Richard Mourdock made a comment about abortion and rape. Since Donnelly told Hoosier voters he, too, was pro-life, Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter told LifeSiteNews.com that they were “highly disappointed that Sen. Donnelly's name was missing” from the list of co-sponsors 20 week ban.

“Hoosiers are eager to see Sen. Donnelly stand up for 20-week preborn babies capable of feeling pain during horrific late-term abortions,” Fichter said. “We urge him to do so immediately.” The state has already passed a law protecting babies capable of feeling pain.

“Co-sponsoring should be an easy decision,” Fichter said. “Explaining to his constituents the absence of his name on the list of co-sponsors won't be so easy.”

“If Senator Donnelly is unwilling to support the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, he will have to answer to his constituents,” he said.

Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana

The incumbent is seeking a fourth term in the Senate, but polls show Landrieu trailing Bill Cassidy and tied with Elbert Guillory. Observers say supporting the bill – which is already state law in Louisiana – would bolster her chances.

“It is imperative for the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that Senator Landrieu not only vote for the legislation, but co-sponsor as well,” Benjamin Clapper, executive director of the Louisiana Right to Life Federation, told LifeSiteNews.com. “Since Louisiana is a pro-life state, it would only make sense for our senior Senator to work for the passage of this common-sense legislation.”

“Unfortunately, since her re-election, Senator Landrieu has voted against the pro-life cause at every instance,” Clapper said. “Her record does not make us too optimistic.”

The group held a series of press conferences outside Landrieu's offices in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Lake Charles on November 7, demanding that she take a public position on the bill.

“We still hold a hope that that Senator Landrieu will listen to the desires of her constituents and help us protect babies from feeling pain,” Clapper told LifeSiteNews.

Kay Hagan, D-North Carolina

Kay Hagan is considered among the most vulnerable Democratic Senators in 2014. In September, Hagan led state House Speaker Thom Tillis by 15 points. Despite the aid of a Democratic SuperPAC, Public Policy Polling (PPP) now shows her in a statistical dead heat with both Tillis and Greg Bannon.

Last Thursday the Susan B. Anthony List, the North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition issued a statement asking her to align her vote with the views of her mostly pro-life constituents.

Family Policy Council President John L. Rustin said, “North Carolina citizens want to know where Senator Hagan comes down on this most pressing issue that impacts the weakest and most vulnerable among us.” A recent Elon University poll shows a plurality of state voters support restrictions that would make abortion more difficult to obtain.

In the past Hagan has called herself “a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose,” making her support doubtful. But with her poll numbers slipping and Americans for Prosperity buying $1.5 million in negative ads, she may have a change of heart.

Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania

Bob Casey's father, the late Governor Robert P. Casey, was not simply a pro-life Democrat; he wasthe pro-life Democrat. Bill Clinton barred Robert Casey from delivering a pro-life speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. That year, he told the DNC platform committee that, at a minimum, abortions should be restricted to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

But Pennsylvania's pro-life movement says, despite his name and pedigree, Senator Bob Casey Jr. has sometimes been aloof since his election in 2006.

“It took two years to get a meeting with him,” said Helen Gohsler of the Pennsylvanians for Human Life chapter in Scranton, Casey's hometown.

While he has supported restrictions for abortion, such as parental notification, Casey has yet to declare a position on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Gohsler told LifeSiteNews she wanted Casey to speak up, “just to get his rationale for what he will or will not support.”

Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation Executive Director Michael Ciccocioppo and Legislative Director Maria Vitale Gallagher did not respond to LSN requests for comment.

Senate contact information:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

By Betsy Woodruff

Multiple individual plans available on the D.C. health-insurance exchange specifically cover elective abortion but not hearing aids, routine foot-care, and routine eye-care. One such plan, Healthy Blue PPO $1500, has a summary on the D.C. exchange’s website titled “Excluded Services & Other Covered Services.” It says enrollees can receive coverage for abortions performed for non-medical reasons, but not for a number of other services that could seem medically necessary. The plan also excludes coverage for some other procedures, including cosmetic surgery, bariatric surgery, and infertility treatment.

Per Anna Higgins of the Family Research Council, in D.C. Aetna plans and multi-state plans run by the Office of Personnel Management and offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield specifically don’t offer elective abortion coverage. All the other plans offered in the District do cover elective abortion. When she wrote about the issue in October for TownHall, representatives from the D.C. exchange told her that plans were required to cover abortion because it was an “essential benefit.” That’s incorrect, however, and the exchange later retracted the statement. The Affordable Care Act specifically states that abortion is not an essential benefit, so not all plans cover the procedure.

Over the last few weeks, many congressional Democrats offered heated criticism of plans that don’t cover comprehensive coverage of all health services, arguing that the millions of Americans whose coverage is being canceled shouldn’t be allowed to stay on “junk plans.”

A number of other plans in D.C. that cover elective abortion don’t cover things such as hearing aids, routine foot-care, and routine eye-care. For instance, CD BChoice HSA Br 6000 includes elective-abortion coverage but excludes coverage for hearing aids, infertility treatment, and routine foot-care. And the Kaiser Permanente KP DC Bronze 4500/50/HSA/Dental/PedDental covers elective abortion but not routine foot-care, hearing aids, and infertility treatment. The KP DC 5000/30%/HSA/Dental/PedDental also covers elective abortion but not hearing aids, routine foot-care, and infertility care.