by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 2/6/15 3:5PM

by Bryan Kemper | LifeNews.com | 2/5/15 5:19 PM 

A so-called "emergency contraceptive" that has been central to recent court battles due to its mandated coverage by the Obama administration works most often by causing an abortion, according to a review of medical data published this month in the journal The Linacre Quarterly.

After studying the most recent scientific and medical evidence on levonorgestrel emergency contraception, which goes by the brand name Plan B, the researchers concluded that the women who take it do not get pregnant because it "quite often" causes an abortion if taken before ovulation.

Plan B was first approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999. After passage of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare," the Health and Human Services Administration required most employers to cover Plan B and other FDA-approved emergency contraceptives in their employee's health insurance plans.

This "birth control mandate" led to numerous court battles involving religious groups and businesses, some of whom only objected to coverage of certain emergency contraceptives due to their potential to behave like an abortifacient drug.

In one of those cases involving Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain owned by an Evangelical family, the Supreme Court ruled last Summer that closely-held companies with a religious objection do not have to cover the drug.

The cases involving religious nonprofits, such as Christian colleges and social service groups, have continued. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in a challenge to the mandate by EWTN Global Catholic Network, a television and radio ministry founded by a nun.

During the cases that only involved coverage of emergency contraceptives, some supporters have claimed that the science indisputably shows that Plan B never causes an abortion, even though scientists continue to debate how the pill actually works.

Plan B is to prevent a pregnancy after having sex with no other form of birth control. (It is not the same as RU-486, which both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge is an abortifacient.)

The authors address eight different claims regarding how Plan B is presumed to work. Examining the most recent research on Plan B, the authors conclude that those claims have no basis for support.

The authors also note that some claim Plan B does not cause an abortion by first redefining the term "abortion." An abortion, they claim, can only occur after implantation, rather than at conception, when life begins.

In 2012, when there was much debate over Plan B and Obamacare, for instance, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics released a statement saying that Plan B does not inhibit implantation. Some liberal news sites reported on that statement under headlines like, "Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded," and "Morning-After Pills Don't Cause Abortion, Studies Say."

Plus, at the time of this publication, the WebMD page for Plan B states that the drug does not cause an abortion, but then redefines abortion as stopping "development of a fetus once the fertilized egg implants in the uterus."

The Linacre Quarterly is the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and explores ethical issues with a medical dimension. The report was written to guide Catholic hospitals on the use of Plan B for rape victims.

The effect of Plan B depends upon the menstrual cycle of the patient, they concluded. If Plan B is given within two days before ovulation, Plan B "has significant potential to work via the death of the embryo."

If Plan B is taken after ovulation, it could have opposite the intended effect. Plan B "in the postovulatory period may be increasing a woman's risk of becoming clinically pregnant."

Based upon these findings, the authors conclude that current Catholic hospital rape protocols "appear to be faulty and should be revised."

"Since the most recent medical data clearly note that [Plan B] does not effectively stop ovulation and has high potential to work via abortion when given prior to ovulation, these protocols would no longer be in compliance with Catholic teaching," they wrote.

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, agreed with the report's conclusions.

"Catholic bishops have been assured, by Plan B proponents, that the drug does not cause an abortion," she said. "We now know this is not true. There is a grave risk that preborn human lives are being killed by Plan B, and Catholic hospitals need to immediately halt dispensing these drugs and review their policies."

The authors of the report are Chris Kahlenborn of The Polycarp Research Institute, Rebecca Peck of the Florida State University College of Medicine, and Walter Severs of the College of Medicine at Penn State University.

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 2/3/15 1:33 PM

Members of the British parliament today voted to make Britain the first country in the world to allow scientists to create

three­parent genetically­engineered embryos, sometimes called “designer babies.” In the process, the babies the babies, born from

genetically modified embryos, would have DNA from a mother, a father and from a female donor. The British parliament voted 382 to 128

in favor of the technique and Prime Minister David Cameron allowed a free vote on the issue and voted for it. Conservative lawmaker Fiona Bruce

said the measure would lead to “designer babies.” “Where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here. The answer has to be that we say this

is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross,” she said during the debate. Dr. Peter Saunders, a pro­life physician

from Britain and a leading campaigner against three­parent embryos, says members of Parliament were worried Britain would appear scientifically backwards

if it did not approve the plan. “Last week forty scientists from 14 countries urged the British legislature to approve the new laws allowing mitochondrial DNA transfer,”

he said. “The stance of scientists creates huge pressure for MPs who risk being labelled ‘ignorant’ or uncaring for objecting. But the question is not nearly as simple as it

looks on first appearance. These new regulations are dangerous. No other country has officially legalised the techniques and no one can predict what the consequences for

future children will be.” “These techniques are highly experimental, unproven, known to be very unsafe (bear in mind that children’s lives will be the experiment), ineffective,

costly, a waste of public money, insufficiently understood, unnecessary (only potentially helping 10­20 families a year) and will require large numbers of eggs to proceed, even for

just a few families,” Saunders continued. “Genuine concerns about this new mitochondrial technology have been swept aside in Britain in the headlong rush to push the scientific

boundaries.” Public opinion in England runs counter to the idea. The Department of Health is brazenly claiming widespread public support for the measure – despite its own consultation

showing a majority (62%) actually oppose the plans. In addition a ComRes poll conducted in August 2014 found that only 18% of people support a change in the law to permit the creation

of three­parent children through genetic modification. Click here to sign up for daily pro­life news alerts from LifeNews.com In the technique, a donor egg’s nucleus is removed and replaced

with the nucleus of a woman with mitochondrial disease. That genetically­engineered egg is then fertilized with sperm creating an embryo that has genetic material from three persons, the

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the donor, and nuclear DNA contributed by the parents. LifeNews blogger Rebecca Taylor, who works in the scientific field, talked more about the potential problems.

“And while it sounds like a nice thing to be able to help women who have mitochondrial disease to have healthy children (a woman with a mutation in her mtDNA cannot help but pass on that mutation

because we inherit our mitochondria from our mother), there is a laundry list of ethical issues that finally seem to be gaining traction,” she explained. She lamented the fact that mitochondrial replacement

has more in common with SCNT, better known as cloning, than it does IVF. “In both cloning and MR, the nucleus of a donor egg is removed and replaced with another. In cloning, the egg is made to think it has

been fertilized. In MR, the egg is fertilized,” Taylor explained. “We know that SCNT in animals has had some serious problems. Cloning trials in agricultural animals in New Zealand were halted because an unacceptable

number of the cloned animals and their gestating mothers had to be euthanized.” This isn’t just a concern in England. In 2014, in the United States, an FDA Advisory Committee held a hearing examining mitochondrial

disease prevention with the creation of three­parent embryos.

by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 2/2/15 5:16 PM

In the book, The Abortion Resource Handbook, pro­abortion author, K Kaufmann, encourages teenagers not to tell their parents about their abortion experiences. She writes, “However sad or angry you feel right now, keep in mind that not involving a parent is often a sign of maturity – that you are able to make and take responsibility for your own decisions. Keeping the pregnancy and abortion a secret may even turn out to be a positive experience.

For many young women, it may be one of the first times they make an important or life­changing decision on their own, and they may feel more confident and better about themselves as a result.” Well, she’s definitely right about one thing; abortion is a life­changing decision but it will not make a teen feel better about herself. In fact, studies show that teenagers who’ve had abortions are ten­times more likely to commit suicide than teens who haven’t.

As LifeNews previously reported, it is critical that teenagers who’ve had abortions receive the care they need afterwards and parents can’t provide that if they don’t know about it.

Furthermore, girls who obtain “secret” abortions often do so because they are forced by older men who impregnated them, and then return to abusive situations.

Psychologist Dr. Vincent Rue has talked about what happens when teens hide abortions from their parents: “When an adolescent elects abortion without parental consultation, she must inevitably return to her family context. However, she returns with a secret that shames and emotionally strains her coping abilities. She must employ increased deception to protect her secret and to protect herself from her perceived fears of being found out and condemned by her parents and siblings.”

News stories frequently reveal yet another teen who has been sexually abused by a person in authority—a coach, teacher, or someone else. Daily, teens are taken to abortion clinics without the consent or even the knowledge of their parents.  Ultimately, though, teenagers shouldn’t be making the decision to have an abortion without the consent of a parent in the first place.

This is why pro­life advocates believe in implementing parental consent laws,which require abortionists to either notify or obtain consent of a parent or guardian before a minor girl has an abortion. Unfortunately, however, most abortion activists oppose parental involvement laws even though 71% of American’s support it.

This is most likely because they are more concerned with the money they make from selling abortion than the health and wellbeing of the teenager involved. Thankfully, according to a recent report from National Right to Life, 30 states in the U.S. have parental consent laws that require abortionists to. Studies also show that parental consent laws make positive impacts on teenagers because they reduce the rates of abortion, birth, and pregnancy.

by Carol Tobias | LifeNews.com | 1/30/15 12:23 PM

One of the great humanitarian achievements of the Right to Life movement was the exposé of partial­birth abortion

by National Right to Life. Our massive public education campaigns and our innovative laws to ban partial­birth abortion

moved millions of Americans to take a second look at abortion, and millions of them switched to the pro­life side. One of

those who was shocked by partial­birth abortion wrote the majority decision in upholding the national ban on that procedure

that we passed in 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy had a record of indecision on abortion. But the

majority decision he wrote in the PBA case showed a man appalled by the brutality of partial­birth abortion, in which an innocent unborn

baby is induced to delivery and then killed by stabbing her in the head just as she emerges from the womb. Kennedy provided the decisive

vote to ban this practice, which remains banned throughout the United States today. But Kennedy didn’t only write about partial­birth abortion.

He compared it to another abortion method that is so brutal it is truly hard to write about: Dismemberment Abortions. Imagine a society in which it

is perfectly legal to take an unborn baby, who often is developed enough to feel the most excruciating pain, and then to coldly and purposefully pull

that child apart – dismembering her – body part by body part; arms, legs, torso, and head.

And along with passing the Pain­Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act, we are

determined this year to bring the tragic issue of Dismemberment Abortions to the public’s attention, beginning with passage of the Unborn Child Protection from

Dismemberment Abortion Act, which has already been introduced in the Kansas legislature. Your support for National Right to Life exposed the brutality of partial­birth abortion. You got it banned.

Your support moved a nation to switch in polls to majority pro­life. Now your support is needed to educate about and ban the unspeakable evil of killing unborn babies by tearing them limb from limb.

by Cheryl Sullenger | LifeNews.com | 1/29/15 12:07

PM A coalition of pro­life groups in San Antonio has obtained a court order blocking Planned Parenthood

from opening their new 22,000 square foot facility in San Antonio until issues can be resolved regarding proper

zoning, building safety standards, traffic safety and neighborhood buffering. Knowing that Planned Parenthood’s

current abortion facility, located at 104 Babcock Road in San Antonio, cannot meet minimum safety standards contained

in the 2013 abortion law, the abortion business has scrambled to build a new facility that will be in compliance once all the

provisions of the law once it goes into effect. According to Stop Planned Parenthood SA Coalition (SPPSA), Planned Parenthood has

used deception in an attempt to fast­track the opening of their new building, which is expected to have the capacity to do 2,800 surgical

abortions per year. However, despite apparent rush to get the new building up and running, their expected opening date in January, 2015,

has come and gone with no hard open date in sight, thanks to the pro­life efforts. At issue is the building’s location next to a residential

neighborhood and a potential zoning conflict at the new facility, which is located at 2140 Babcock Road, just down the street from their

current substandard clinic. Seeking to block the clinic’s opening, pro­life activists filed suit against the City of San Antonio and Planned Parenthood

South Texas and obtained a temporary restraining order against the City that prevents them from issuing the permits that could allow the abortion

clinic to open. (Franco v. Sanchez, et al, Case number 2015CI00039) Click here to sign up for daily pro­life news alerts from LifeNews.com “The legal team

supporting the Stop Planned Parenthood effort has successfully secured a court order preventing the city from issuing a certificate of occupancy and from approving

a special use permit for now,” stated a SPPSA press release. “The city department in charge of issuing permits for building constructions has issued conflicting opinions

on whether a major ambulatory surgical center can be provided a zoning permit as a C1 business, usually issued to mom and pop businesses. The new Planned Parenthood

site is zoned C1, while similar medical centers in San Antonio are zoned C3.” Other coalition initiatives have successfully slowed construction. At least two venders, including

an electrical contractor and a cement supplier, have canceled their contracts to work on the building, creating delays as Planned Parenthood searched for new contractors. In addition,

the pro­life groups are conducting regular rallies, sidewalk activities, and press conferences to inform the community about the problems with the new abortion clinic and to build public

support for stopping Planned Parenthood’s attempted abortion expansion. They have been speaking out at city council meetings as well as contacting the Mayor and other city officials

in opposition to Planned Parenthood’s fast­track process. “This isn’t the first time that abortion clinics have attempted to relocate into areas that are not zoned for their kind of

business or in inappropriate areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. We continue to oppose these attempts in several cities, including Las Cruces, New Mexico, and Huntsville,

Alabama,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and co­author of the book, Abortion Free, which details tactics to close abortion clinics similar to those in use by the San Antonio

pro­life groups. “We applaud the efforts of the Stop Planned Parenthood SA Coalition, because every day that facility remains closed is another day that Planned Parenthood abortionists cannot

take innocent lives there.” Once the facility regulations in HB2 clear the courts and are allowed to take effect, Planned Parenthood’s old clinic will be forced to close. If San Antonio pro­life groups

have their way, Planned Parenthood will have no place to go. If the abortion clinic is allowed to open, pro­life activists are concerned that it will attempt to aggressively market abortions to women

all over Texas, making San Antonio an “abortion tourism” destination that will increase abortion numbers that have fallen dramatically since parts of HB2 have gone into effect. Take Action! Please

help with this important effort by sending a respectful message to San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor to express opposition to Planned Parenthood relocating their abortion business near a residential

neighborhood that is not zoned for ambulatory surgical centers.

To lean more visit BloodMoneySA.com. Contact: San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor Mayor’s Comment Line: 210­207­2280 E­Mail: Mayor.IvyTaylor@sanantonio.gov 

by Mike Schouten | LifeNews.com | 1/28/15 10:59 AM

In a landmark decision already twenty­seven years old today, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada’s

then­existing abortion regulations were unconstitutional. While many Canadians grieve the subsequent loss of a

full quarter of their generation through abortion, others celebrate this day with exuberance, calling Canadians

to protect their unfettered access to abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. But in striking down the abortion

law in 1988, did the Court recognize a constitutional right to abortion? Did they settle the issue once and for all?

And if so, why do anti­abortion zealots continue to push for laws that restrict a woman’s right to choose? The answers

to these questions may be unwelcome by some but the facts surrounding what has become known as the Morgentaler

Decision are far different than what some Canadians choose to believe. Even the leader of the Liberal Party, the man who

aspires to become the Prime Minister of Canada, is guilty of misinterpreting the law when he attempts to defend his decision

to bind the consciences of Liberal members. So then, what did the Court really say? Abortion defenders enjoy referencing Justice

Bertha Wilson – the first woman appointed to Canada’s Supreme Court. Unfortunately they all too often choose selective quotes

that completely misrepresent what Justice Wilson wrote. It should be noted that Justice Wilson’s opinion was not shared with

the other six judges – she wrote alone – and the other judges were all more “conservative” in their three written opinions; they

contemplated an even more restrictive regime than Wilson. Click here to sign up for daily pro­life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Justice Wilson stated, “A developmental view of the foetus… supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy

and a restrictive approach in the later stages…The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection

becomes “compelling” I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature… It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second

trimester.” Justice Wilson, arguably the most iconic feminist judge in the history of our country, would be labeled an “anti­choice extremist” by the

more adamant of today’s pro­choice movement. Justice Wilson was 27 Years Ago Today, Canada Allowed Unlimited Abortions Up to Birth

for Any Reason abundantly clear – abortion should not be legal throughout all the stages of fetal development as it is today. In fact, she was comfortably

open to a gestational ban between 12 and 18 weeks, similar to most European countries. And as the informative morgentalerdecision.ca website points

out, Wilson also stated that it should be the Legislature, not the courts, to decide at precisely which stage abortion should be restricted. The Court

at that time struck down the abortion restrictions, signalling Parliament to draft a new law. While Parliament did try once, that attempt failed in

1991 and the existing legal vacuum that remains is now a twenty­seven year old sacred cow. While countries around the world continue to

grapple with abortion laws and the protection of fetal rights, Canada refuses to do so. In fact, Britain just passed a motion by a 181­1

margin calling for sex­selective abortion to be made illegal and are now fast­tracking a bill through their Parliament to do just that.

To our eternal shame, Canada’s Parliament was too cowardly to even contemplate such a motion. Anti­abortionists believe that abortion

unjustifiably takes the life of a member of the human family; for this reason they continue to promote viable options for women and

legislation protecting fetal rights. It would be good for Canadians to understand exactly what the Supreme Court ruled in the Morgentaler decision.

The Court did not grant a constitutional right to abortion. It understood well that unrestricted abortion throughout the entire pregnancy was a

violation of the rights of a fetus. 27 years later, it’s time for Parliament to do what the Court had always intended.