Pro-Life Page

Thursday, December 18, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/17/14 11:28 AM

In a horrible defeat for conscience rights for medical professionals, a British court today ruled that a pair of

midwives who didn’t want to be involved in assisting abortions must do so.

Midwives Mary Doogan and Connie Wood won a lower court decision last year but the UK’s Supreme

Court heard an appeal brought by the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which is supported by the proabortion

British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and the Royal College of Midwives.

The midwives, with more than 20 years’

experience, initially lost their cases against their

employers in the Outer House of the Court of

Session in Edinburgh in 2012. However that

decision was overturned in 2013 by the Court’s

Inner House, which judged the midwives were

legally allowed to refrain from delegating to,

supervising and supporting colleagues involved in

abortion care on their wards.

The dispute arose when Doogan’s and Wood’s

employers reorganized abortion services in 2007.

Midterm and lateterm abortions would be

performed on the labor ward rather than on the gynecology ward and the midwives were told they had to

oversee abortion procedures.

Central to Doogan’s and Wood’s defense was that previously they were not called on to delegate,

supervise or support staff engaged in the care of patients undergoing abortions.

But today the Supreme Court has rejected the opportunity to uphold the right of conscientious objection for

senior midwives who refuse to supervise abortions performed on a labour ward. Today’s decision issued in

the Supreme Court has been condemned by those who backed the Glasgow midwives’ fight for their right

to work in the NHS without being involved in abortions.

“We are both saddened and extremely disappointed with today’s verdict from the Supreme Court and can

only imagine the subsequent detrimental consequences that will result from today’s decision on staff of

conscience throughout the UK,” the midwives said after the decision.

They added: “Despite it having been recognised that the number of abortions on the labour ward at our

hospital is in fact a tiny percentage of the workload, which in turn could allow the accommodation of

conscientious objection with minimal effort, this judgment, with its constraints and narrow interpretation,

has resulted in the provision of a conscience clause which now in practice is meaningless for senior

midwives on a labour ward.”

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) which paid the midwives’ legal expenses

throughout the case has said that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies could be forced to leave the

profession.

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC said: “The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

acknowledges the great debt that the whole prolife community owes to Mary Doogan and Connie Wood

for fighting this battle over the past seven years. They have fought not only for their own careers, but for all

current and future members of the profession who uphold the right to life of everyone, from the time of

conception, without discrimination. We are bitterly disappointed for them.”

He told LifeNews: “Today’s decision sadly makes it likely that senior midwives who refuse to kill babies will

be forced to leave the profession. Junior midwives might still be able to work in labour wards where

abortions are performed but they will be restricted to ‘staff midwife’ status at best. They could easily be

placed in an impossible situation by proabortion superiors, and would be unable to receive promotion to a

more senior role without fear of being required to violate their consciences. This will affect anyone who

objects to abortion, of any religion or none. It will create a secondclass status in midwifery for those who

only deliver babies and don’t kill them.”

Tully continued: “Furthermore, the court has used the opportunity of this case to decide that the

conscience clause in the Abortion Act does not apply to General Practitioners and that hospital doctors

asked to prescribe abortion drugs will not be covered by the conscience clause. We anticipate that this will

lead to renewed efforts by health officials to force doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion

either to compromise their respect for human life or to leave the profession. SPUC will support and

encourage doctors to resist any such bullying approach.”

The prolife advocate concluded: “The proabortion lobby has long argued that conscientious objectors

should be required to refer women seeking legal abortion to other practitioners. Bodies such as the

Department of Health have qualified this by saying that this only applies when the statutory grounds for a

legal abortion apply, but the Supreme Court has said that any medical professional who refuses to provide

an abortion should arrange for a referral to someone else who will do so. This seems to go far beyond the

scope of the Abortion Act, and furthermore is not even an issue there was any need for the Court to decide

in this case.”

The Abortion Act of 1967 states that no one with a conscientious objection can be obliged to participate in

abortion procedures. “However, the hospital management insisted that a conscientious objection clause in

the 1967 Abortion Act applied only to active participation in a termination and did not cover the women’s

duties to delegate, supervise and support staff.

“The Court has nevertheless said that midwives and doctors with conscientious objections are obliged to

refer abortion patients to colleagues who don’t object to abortion. This goes further than the General

Medical Council, for instance, whose current guidance Personal Belief and Medical Practice says that

doctors should refer patients to another doctor, but does not require them to check their colleague’s proabortion

credentials,” Tully said.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/16/14 1:13 PM

Australia was rocked by a rare episode of terrorism on Tuesday, when a tense hostage siege in Sydney came to an end after police rescued hostages from a tenuous situation. As the world follows the fallout of the horrific event, stories of courage are emerging.

Tori Johnson, 34, and Katrina Dawson, 38 below right, were killed during the terrorist siege at Sydney’s Lindt cafe on Monday. Johnson, the cafe manager of two years, tried to wrestle the gun from the hostage-taker before he was shot. And Johnson was actually protecting two people — Dawson, 38, whose children are all under ten, was an attorney in Sydney’s central business district opposite the siege site and died of a heart attack.

Julie Taylor, 38, was getting coffee with Katrina Dawson in the Lindt cafe when Man Haron Monis launched his fatal attack.

One newspaper recounts what happened as she attempted to shield her pregnant friend.

“She had been getting coffee with pregnant Julie Taylor when Man Haron Monis entered the building – and later admirably shielded her friend from bullets,” the paper reported. “It was not clear whether Mrs Dawson was shot or what other injuries, if any, she sustained in the shocking incident.”

“Archbishop Anthony Fisher spoke at a prayer service later on Tuesday of how the two victims were ‘willing to lay down their lives so others might live,” it said.

Here’s more:

Taylor, who is recently married, was pictured fleeing the scene with two others 15 minutes before police opened fire, killing the gunman.

However she later learned that her friend Mrs Dawson, a 38-year-old mother of three, had died, reportedly from a heart attack in hospital.
Ms Taylor lives in east Sydney and is a successful barrister in corporate law at the law firm Eight Selborne. She completed a bachelor of civil law at Magdalen College, Oxford and has appeared before the High Court – one of the youngest women to do so.

She is currently in a stable condition in hospital.

During the siege, Ms Taylor was one of the first hostages chosen by Monis to outline his demands in a 44-second speech posted on YouTube.

“I’m Julie Taylor. I’m a barrister in Sydney. This is a message for Tony Abbott,” she said.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/15/14 11:44 AM

The RU 486 abortion pill has been responsible for killing dozens of people — including women in the

United States — and injuring thousands more. But the Supreme Court refused to take a case today to

protect women from it.

Contrary to Food and Drug Administration protocols, Planned Parenthood distributes abortioninducing

drugs to women, oftentimes without requiring an inperson visit, up until two weeks beyond the prescribed

49 days from their last menstrual cycle. Furthermore, the organization sends women home to complete the

chemical abortion themselves without a physician present.

Planned Parenthood’s instructions have directly led to the deaths of women from mifepristone, another

name for the RU 486 abortion pill. Planned Parenthood had been telling women to use the abortion drug

vaginally even though the FDA indicated oral use is safer for women. It wasn’t until four California women

all died within a week of using the abortion drug they received from Planned Parenthood abortion

businesses that it changed its policy to conform to the FDA protocol.

Knowing all that, the state of Arizona had

approved a bill designed to protect women’s

health from Planned Parenthood, the abortion

business that was violating FDA protocols and

putting women’s lives at risk by how it was

improperly dispensing the abortion drug. The

law bans dispensing the drug during the 7th9th

weeks of pregnancy, when women may die

form using it.

Previously, the The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling siding with the Planned Parenthood

abortion business in its legal battle to ignore FDA rules and subject women to dangerous abortions by

giving them the abortion drug outside the guidelines the FDA has put in place. Today, the Supreme Court

refused to hear the state’s appeal in order to uphold the prolife law.

The abortion drug is responsible for the deaths of dozens of women worldwide, including several in the

United States alone, and it has injured at least 1,100 women in the United States alone as of 2006 figures

from the Food and Drug Administration.

Planned Parenthood Arizona’s lawsuit was initially filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and it

challenges two prolife bills slated to take effect in 2011. The abortion business complains the bills would

make abortions tougher to get in Arizona and would prohibit nonphysicians from giving women the

abortion drug — something the FDA recommends be limited to a licensed doctor.

After its passage in the Arizona legislature, the prolife Center for Arizona Policy hailed the law.

“Passed in 2012, the purpose of this law is to ensure the abortion industry distributes the dangerous and

deadly abortion pill in line with FDA protocol. While the FDA protocol requires the pill to be distributed within

the first 49 days of a pregnancy, Planned Parenthood has dispensed the pill through 63 days of a

pregnancy,” it said.

“With all the evidence that shows the abortion pill presents serious risks to the lives of women, it should be

distributed with the utmost care. It is irresponsible for Planned Parenthood to persist in ignoring this

protocol for a pill that is responsible for at least 14 deaths in the United States,” it added.

The case is Humble v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14284.

Monday, December 15, 2014

by Randy O'Bannon, Ph.D. | LifeNews.com | 12/12/14 7:44 PM

What if you walked into the waiting room of any of the country’s abortion clinics and told the young mothers

waiting there in the lobby that there’s a new study indicating that the “procedure” they’re about to undergo

will, in the coming year, send thousands of women to the emergency room or back to the clinic to deal with

a complication or a “failed abortion”?

How many of them would say that makes them feel more comfortable with their decision? None, you would

suspect.

Yet if one actually reads a new study (as opposed to the press release) out of the University of California –

San Francisco (UCSF), that’s what is being acknowledged but cloaked. Instead of a true picture, you get a

UCSF release trumpeting the results as showing that the “Major Complication Rate After Abortion Is

Extremely Low” (UCSF Release, 12/8/14).

But a closer look at the data shows there is some

real stretching and spinning going on here, belying

the “extremely low” complication rate assertion. As

you read our analysis, be sure to focus in on what

the authors consider to be “minor” complications.

The UCSF study, “Incidence of Emergency

Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,”

is based on a recent study of California Medicaid

recipients. It appeared in the December 8, 2014,

edition of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

California is one of the states that pays for the abortions of women enrolled in Medicaid. The study looked

at the billing data from 50,273 MediCal patients who had 54,911 abortions in 20092010.

The authors do not give comparable state data from those years, but note that of the 181,730 abortions

performed in California in 2011, about 51% were covered by the state’s MediCal program. This study

looked at just those records of patients were treated under the feeforservice (vs. managed care) part of

the program. [1]

Nearly 8% (or between one in 12 and one in 13) of women showed up at the clinic or a local Emergency

Room (ER) seeking some service within six weeks of their abortions. Some of those were eliminated from

further study because billing records appeared to show that they came in for some service unrelated to the

abortion. (These were not specified, but this could be something like smashing a finger in the car door,

coming down with the flu, etc.)

But even pulling these out and other “complications not validated,” one is left with a substantial number of

women dealing with medical problems resulting from their “safe” abortions.

On the billing records of those women returning to the clinic or going to the ER, they found women

hemorrhaging, dealing with infections, uterine perforations – the sort of problems we’re supposed to think

were relics of the early days following the Roe v. Wade decision when abortionists were just learning their

craft.

A surprising number of these were related to the new chemical or “medication” abortion method that was

supposed to offer women a safer alternative to surgical abortion.

There were nearly four times as many surgical abortions (34,755 first trimester, 8,837 2nd trimester or

later) tracked by the study as there were chemical abortions. (11,319). Yet there were more identified

complications associated with the chemical method (588) than they were for the surgical ones (438 for first

trimester, 130 for 2nd or later) combined.

The complication rate for chemical abortions was 5.2%, versus complication rates of 1.3% for first trimester

suction aspiration abortions and 1.5% for second trimester or later methods. This would make chemical

abortions four times riskier than early surgical ones and more than three times less safe than a second or

third trimester procedure.

This is hardly the “advance” or “improvement” that women were promised when the government was

asked to approve RU486 more than a decade ago.

A number of these complications involved “incomplete” or “failed” abortions [2]. Most of these were

identified as “minor” complications by researchers (there were also “minor” hemorrhages, uterine

perforations, and infections).

UCSF originally found 535 repeat abortions within six weeks –165 “subsequent medication [chemical]

abortions,” and 370 “subsequent aspirations.

Theoretically, some of these could be new abortions, but much more likely is that these are chemical or

surgical procedures that were performed to complete the earlier incomplete or failed abortions.

These may not all have been counted as complications, or they may have fallen into the category of 658

“Other” or “Undetermined” complications. The latter seems likely, given that the “treatment” for 400 of

these (about 61%) was “uterine aspiration.”

The point which their own data makes abundantly clear is that these abortions far from being as

safe or successful as advertised.

Remarkably, the researchers attribute the high rate of complications (the majority of which they term

“minor” and “expected”) among women having chemical abortions to “aspirations performed presumptively

or to alleviate bleeding or cramping symptoms.”

In other words, bleeding or cramping was so bad that women came back to the clinic or went to the ER,

where doctors (noticeably including those from the clinic who would have seen ordinary abortion bleeding

before) decided emergency surgery was needed. Yet in most cases, UCSF wants us to believe, this was

just a “minor” or “expected” complication.

All told, the study found that 2.1%, or about one out of every 48 abortions, were connected to a

complication that was diagnosed or treated at some medical facility. Though perhaps lower than the

complication rates one might expect for essential lifesaving major surgery, this is hardly the risk free

“procedure” the abortion industry and lobby wants people to think it is. It is also higher than people might

expect for a “procedure” that abortionists have been working to perfect for over 40 years.

Remember this study was of a selected population in California. What if one applied these results

nationwide, based on the estimate there are now roughly 1.05 million abortions annual?

It would translate into more than 22,000 women visiting their local ER or returning to the clinic for medical

care each year. How many women in clinic waiting rooms today would be surprised to hear that number?

How many would be reassured of abortion’s safety?

An important consideration to keep in mind: This focuses on just the first six weeks, makes no effort to

track complications or injuries that might occur later on, such as infertility, subsequent premature birth, or

breast cancer, which can be heartbreaking, expensive, or even deadly. And we have not even begun to

consider the longterm psychosocial effects of abortion and the health consequences that flow from

subsequent depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, and documented higher rates of suicide.

The UCSF researchers admit that there may be critical data missing from their study. Some complications

might never have been recorded and there was no data at all on abortion’s maternal mortality, possibly the

most critical piece of information.

Also, by relying on MediCal codes, we could not assess whether any of the complications lead to deaths

or detect complications not documented by the billing codes. For instance it is possible that complications

seen or treated at the original abortion facility did not result in any MediCal reimbursements, thereby

undermining the complication rate.

This last sentence tell us that if a woman returned, distraught and bleeding, to the abortion clinic where she

first went for her abortion, and the clinic decided not to make waves and charge the state to complete the

abortion or repair the damage done by the first procedure, there would be no record of the complication.

In the light of recent operations like those of abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s, such a scenario does not seem

farfetched. If true, it would point to an even higher complication rate.

On the whole, by tracking and matching the billing records of clinics and hospitals, the study does

represent an improvement over surveys which simply relied on abortionists selfreporting. This is probably

one reason why the numbers were as high as they were, even with some still potentially serious holes in

the data.

One thing is clear. No matter the spin, no matter the “medical progress,” no matter the experience, the

special training, the new methods, abortion has not become “safe” or even appreciably safer. Women are

still being injured by abortion, and women are still dying.

Of course, the biggest “complication” is that someone – the innocent unborn child – dies in every

“successful” abortion. This alone is evidence that abortion is an inherently unsafe and unsound “medical

procedure.” Abortion violates the most basic principle of medical ethics: “first do no harm.”

Abortion harms women and children. What further research do we need?

[1] The data from this study was supposed to be better because patients who did not return to the clinic but

went instead to the ER were included by cross referencing the abortion billing and treatment coding.

Researchers looked at any billing for any medical service occurring anywhere within six weeks of their

original abortion billing and sought from codes to determine whether or not that treatment was abortion

related.

[2] “Incomplete” abortions, of which there were 231, would be those abortions in which some part of the

baby, placenta, gestational sac remained in the woman’s body. “Failed” abortions, of which there were 30,

would be when the baby remained and the abortion failed to occur.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

by Kristi Burton Brown | LifeNews.com | 12/10/14 4:41 PM

(LiveActionNews) — With today’s modern technology and medical information, we have a real-time window into the womb. What happens to babies before birth – all the ways they move, grow, and change – is nothing short of amazing.

Here are just 10 things that happen to babies before birth. These 10 things demonstrate their uniqueness, value, and of course, their humanity.

What’s more, each of these 10 things happen in the first trimester – when approximately 90% of abortions in the U.S. occur.

1) “On the first day following fertilization, the human embryo is identifiable as a specific individual human being on a molecular level.”

A South Dakota legislative task force, appointed to examine the science behind unborn life, found that “the new recombinant DNA technologies indisputably prove that the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a living human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine.”

2) A Baby’s Heart Begins to Beat at 21 Days.

Here is a video of the baby’s heart beating at four weeks and four days, just a little over a week after it began beating.

According to The Endowment for Human Development, “[b]etween fertilization and birth, the heart beats approximately 54 million times…”

3) At 2 to 3 Weeks, a Baby’s Brain is the “First Organ to Appear.”

4) A Baby May Feel Physical Pain as Early as His Fifth Week.

After examining scientific resources and hearing medical testimony, the South Dakota Task Force found that “(the necessary pieces) for pain detection in the spinal cord exists at very early developmental stages.” Babies have also been documented moving away from unwanted or painful touch in their first few weeks of in utero life.

5) A Baby’s Kidneys are Present at Only 5 Weeks.

In fact, by eight weeks old, all of the baby’s organs are in place and only need to be fully developed.

6) A Baby’s Brainwaves Can be Measured at 6 Weeks Old.

See the brainwaves for yourself here.

8 week old human fetus. All her organs are present.

7) At 6 Weeks, a Baby Will Move Away if His Mouth is Touched.

The Endowment for Human Development has a video of a six-week-old baby responding to touch here.

8) A Baby’s Ear Can Begin to be Seen Around 6 Weeks.

9) A Baby Has Fingerprints at 9-10 Weeks.

These fingerprints will be the same throughout the baby’s life. His permanent identification is already developing. Watch a video and see an unborn baby’s fingerprints here.

10) A Baby Can Suck Her Thumb and Yawn at 9 1/2 Weeks Old.

According to The Endowment for Human Development, most babies prefer their right thumb. At this age, plenty is going on. A baby’s vocal cords are forming, her bones are hardening, and her toenails and fingernails are emerging. See a video of a ten-week-old baby yawning here.

For more on prenatal development, go here.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

At the time I thought the “it wasn’t a difficult decision” line was terribly insensitive to Richards’ three surviving children. They certainly know it could have been any one of them who was snuffed, in which case so what, according to their mother?

But we know why Richards had to act blasé. There is a new campaign underway to destigmatize abortion, and to do that abortion has to be portrayed as nothing earth shattering to a woman and not necessarily done for awful reasons, like rape, or a handicapped baby. Explained post-abortive Merritt Tierce in a recent New York Times op ed:

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

Which leaves so many unanswered questions. How can it be that the premier leader of the abortion/contraception industry got pregnant by mistake? Was she using birth control? What kind of birth control? When did she get her abortion, before or after she was married? Why? Before, after, or between which child? Did she get her abortion at a Planned Parenthood or go to a private doctor? Did she do it for her career (which would be incredibly ironic)?

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

That sentence makes no sense. If their mother’s abortion was “no big deal,” it should have not been “important” for the kids to talk about. Clipping one’s fingernails would fall under the category of “no big deal,” in which case kids wouldn’t think it important to discuss.

So what exactly was “important” for Richards and her surviving children to hash through? That they are missing a sibling? That there’s someone to mourn? That they are special to their parents, even if by the luck of the draw they could have been so unspecial as to have been killed – without a second thought?

The problem with Cecile Richards’ abortion is if it truly “wasn’t a difficult decision,” then she is showing heartlessness not just about the death of a child created with the man she loved, then killed in cooperation with him, but also toward their surviving children.

But we know Richards is lying, because it turns out she needed to somehow smooth things over with her children, I’m guessing during the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to thread a needle of displaying callousness toward the offspring she killed but love toward the offspring she didn’t kill but easily could have – quite a feat, and good luck with that.

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

by Jill Stanek | LifeNews.com | 12/9/14 1:21 PM

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards disclosed in Elle in October that she had had an abortion:

I had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my husband, and it wasn’t a difficult decision. Before becoming president of Planned Parenthood eight years ago, I hadn’t really talked about it beyond family and close friends. But I’m here to say, when politicians argue and shout about abortion, they’re talking about me—and millions of other women around the country.

By repeating only the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking, terrifying abortion stories, we protect a lie: that abortion isn’t normal. We have learned to think of abortion with shame and fear. We have accepted the damaging idea that a person who wants an abortion must grovel before the consciences of others…. We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.

Thus, Richards reiterated her abortion was no biggie in a video she made for the “1 in 3″ campaign a couple weeks ago, adding, “[t]oday, I’m telling my story”:

But Richards didn’t tell her story. She gave absolutely no details other than she and her husband were indifferent about killing their baby.

And how could Richards travel the country promoting Planned Parenthood and abortion for eight whole years as president and not disclose her own abortion? Wasn’t that living one huge, stinking lie?

The mundaneness by which Richards claimed to have procured her abortion began to show itself differently in an interview she gave to Cosmopolitan, published yesterday, in which she said:

I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,” but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it.

How can @CecileRichards show apathy toward the child she killed but love to those she didn’t?

Which makes the latest pro-abortion campaign another impossibility to pull off. If even the president of Planned Parenthood cant do it, no one can.

If Richards were to ever show compassion in any way toward her aborted baby, she would be unlocking a compartment in her consciousness that would begin to unravel everything she stands for.

The thing is, I think Richards already knows all that.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 12/8/14 12:30 PM

A Catholic religious order, the Little Sisters of the Poor, will appear before a federal appeals court today to

tell it to protect their religious liberties and prevent the Obama administration from making them comply

with Obamacare’s abortion mandate.

The mandate compels religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions.

Without relief, the Little Sisters face millions of dollars in IRS fines because they cannot comply with the

government’s mandate that they give their employees free access to contraception, sterilization, and

abortioninducing drugs.

Previously, the U.S. Supreme

Court temporarily protected the

Little Sisters from the mandate.

The Little Sisters are now before

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

in Denver to extend that protection,

and their attorneys will present oral

arguments today.

“We are thrilled the Supreme Court

temporarily protected the Little

Sisters from having to violate their

conscience or pay crippling IRS

fines. We are hopeful the Tenth

Circuit will give them more lasting protection,” said Mark Rienzi, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for

Religious Liberty and lead counsel for Little Sisters of the Poor. “The federal government is a massive

entity that has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people–it doesn’t need to force the Little Sisters to

participate.”

The injunction from the Supreme Court provided the Little Sisters shortterm protection from being forced

to sign and deliver the controversial government forms authorizing, ordering, and incentivizing their health

benefits administrator to provide contraceptives, sterilization, and drugs and devices that may cause early

abortions. Instead, the Little Sisters simply had to inform HHS of their religious identity and objections.

Protection has been given to 18 of the 19 similar cases.

“Virtually every other party who asked for protection from the mandate has been given it,” said Rienzi.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Christianrun Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to obey the

HHS mandate that is a part of Obamacare that requires businesses to pay for abortion causing drugs in

their employee health care plans.

The Little Sisters are joined in the lawsuit by their religious health benefit providers, Christian Brothers

Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefits Trust, and hundreds of similarlysituated Catholic

ministries that obtain their health benefits from the same providers. The Plaintiffs are also represented by

Locke Lord, a national law firm, and by Kevin Walsh, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby

Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free

contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S.

Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all

governmentapproved contraceptives for women without copayments or other charges to the patient.

Fiftyone percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance

with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate

Monday, December 8, 2014

by Kathy Ostrowski | LifeNews.com | 12/8/14 11:08 AM

Planned Parenthood of Kansas & MidMissouri has withdrawn its challenge in federal court to a Kansas law

requiring that its website homepage contain a live link to the Kansas Health Department “informed consent”

information.

This concession happened at the eleventh hour, as a hearing was scheduled Monday in the court of Judge

Kathryn Vratil. PPKMM technically has until Monday to refile, which is extremely unlikely.

PPKMM had refused to comply with the weblink law even after all other Kansas abortion clinics had

complied and despite the fact that a separate challenge from the Hodes & Nauser abortion clinic collapsed

in state district court this spring.

This is the fourth win for the legal team under Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt in

defending sound prolife laws promoted by Kansans for Life.

Kansas has required abortion clinics to provide

access to state materials on prenatal development,

abortion information and assistance for unplanned

pregnancies since 1997. The required weblink at

issue reads:

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment

maintains a website containing information about the

development of the unborn child, as well as video of

sonogram images of the unborn child at various

stages of development, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment`s website can be accessed

here[womansrighttoknow.org].

The state’s defense was rock solid against PPKMM’s argument that the weblink was:

1. a free speech infringement of PPKMM’s preferred narrative about pregnancy, and

2. it didn’t belong on the homepage where other nonabortion clients might see it.

The state rebutted that the required link was a form of consumer protection and that the state had a right

to alert women before they committed to abortion. From the state’s most recent filing (emphasis added):

“In the 1980s and 1990s, public access to the Internet was extremely limited. Few businesses or public

institutions had websites. …In the face of these changes in technology and access, and in order to more

effectively reach women as they are contemplating the weighty decision of whether to undergo an abortion,

the Kansas Legislature enacted a law in 2013…that when a company is in the business of performing

abortions and that company maintains a website, it must include a link on its homepage.”

Friday, December 5, 2014

by Radiance Foundation | LifeNews.com | 12/4/14 2:33 PM

The world’s largest prolife event, the annual March for Life in DC, brings together hundreds of thousands

of passionate advocates for life. With over 500,000 in attendance,

the majority of people are there due to the passionate and

persistent work of the Catholic Church.

Evangelicals are emerging, too, in greater numbers to fight the

social injustice of abortion.

For the first time ever, a nondenominational prayer and worship

event, OneVoiceDC (www.OneVoiceDC.com), will be held at the

Renaissance Washington DC Downtown Hotel (the main hotel of the

March for Life), the night before the massive march.

OneVoiceDC is open to all and is being spearheaded by The

Radiance Foundation, Bound4LIFE and Online For Life in

partnership with numerous prolife, profamily, and proLiberty

organizations. This unifying evangelical event, with racially and

denominationally diverse leadership, will be held from 7pm9:30pm

at the Renaissance hotel’s Grand Ballroom Wednesday, January

21st, 2015. It will be a powerful time of focused prayer (ending abortion, postabortive healing, victories)

and worship led by an inspirational team of worship leaders.

“The March for Life is such an incredibly diverse experience–racially, ethnically, denominationally, and

generationally,” says Ryan Bomberger, Chief Creative Officer of The Radiance Foundation. “OneVoiceDC

is an event that will enable Christians to focus on what we’re all about—loving God and loving people.”

“When God’s people pray, anything is possible—mountains can move, wounded people can get healed,

justice can be released,” says Matt Lockett, Executive Director of Bound4LIFE. “OneVoiceDC is an

opportunity to join together in prayer for all this and more on behalf of the nation.”

Online For Life President, Brian Fisher, explains: “The culture of death and abortion in America is primarily

a spiritual condition. Prayer, therefore, is our primary act in the effort to end abortion in America. I can’t

wait to see how God answers the prayers of His people at OneVoiceDC. Hearts will be changed, babies will

be rescued, and families will be restored.”

OneVoiceDC is a free event, but those who’d like to attend are encouraged to register online (and receive

a freetshirt) at http://www.onevoicedc.com. Seating is limited