Pro-Life Page

by Cheryl Sullenger | LifeNews.com | 10/3/14 11:06 AM

Two years ago, there were over 40 abortion facilities operating in Texas with very little oversight. Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that could result in the immediate closure of 13 abortion facilities, leaving only seven open by this weekend.

A spot-check conducted by Operation Rescue early Friday morning of several facilities that are in known non-compliance with the law shows that some have already shut down while others continue to operate.

The ruling blocks a stay issued by a lower court on enforcement of Texas’ HB2, which provides minimum safety standards for abortion businesses, until the State’s appeal of the lower court’s decision that the law is unconstitutional can be heard.

The ruling allowed the full law to be enforced immediately, including portions that were previously blocked by the lower court that pertained to the requirements that abortionists maintain hospital privileges within 30 miles of their abortion facilities and that those facilities meet Ambulatory Surgical Center standards.

“This is a huge victory and gives us every confidence that all the provisions of HB2 will prevail upon appeal,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, who has coauthored the new book, Abortion Free, that outlines how to implement strategy to stop abortion, including those used in Texas will soon be responsible for closing 83% of all abortion centers in that state. Previous closures have already caused abortion numbers in Texas to plummet.

The reality is that abortion facilities operate well below accepted medical standards. They are known to cut corners on women’s health and safety in order to maximize profit. Since these business have been largely without oversight, they have been able to get away with subjecting women to unsafe conditions and practices for decades.

The Texas law ordered abortion facilities to upgrade to medical standards. Instead of cleaning up, they sued. Now, they must close.

“Abortion facilities that cannot ensure the most basic care, such as sanitary facilities, proper drug handling, adequately licensed staff, and hallways that can accommodate a gurney in the event of an emergency are just too dangerous to stay open,” said Newman. “The abortion cartel has worked overtime to try to spin the facts into saying safety rules pose a danger to women’s health. Their propaganda attempts would be laughable if the result of injured or infected women and dead babies wasn’t so tragic.”

In 2010, Operation Rescue conducted an undercover investigation of abortion facilities in Texas and found that violations of health codes, informed consent, waiting periods, and parental notification was rampant. Disturbingly, Operation Rescue discovered that Whole Women’s Health abortion mills in McAllen and Austin were illegally dumping recognizable remains of aborted babies in public dumpsters, which posed a hazard to the general public. They were cited for these violations and heavily fined.

In 2013, Operation Rescue released shocking information and photos obtained by four former employees of Houston abortionist Douglas Karpen, that were evidence that babies were being born alive only to have their heads twisted nearly off their bodies during illegally late abortions. A grand jury mysteriously failed to indict Karpen despite the gruesome photos taken by clinic workers depicting large babies that had been nearly beheaded.

Nevertheless, that evidence prompted Texas Gov. Rick Perry to call a special session of the legislature for the purpose of passing HB2. Today, Karpen is prevented from legally conducting abortions due to the implementation of that law. The Karpen evidence also contributed to the passage of Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts in several states as well as the U.S. House.

“Documenting and exposing abortion abuses can serve as the foundation for safety regulations that can shut down substandard abortion mills and save lives. As a result of yesterday’s ruling we expect thousands of women will be spared the trauma and tragedy of abortion and that precious baby boys and girls will grace their lives with blessings,” said Newman. “Protecting the lives of women and their babies is what our work is all about.”

Read the Fifth Circuit Court Ruling

The California Catholic Conference filed a complaint Wednesday against the state's mandate that Catholic institutions cover all forms of voluntary direct abortion, including late-term and gender selection, stating that defending the sanctity of life is essential to Catholic beliefs.

"Catholic beliefs about life and human dignity animate and shape our Catholic ministries," said Bishop Robert McElroy, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and chair of the Institutional Concerns Committee of the California Catholic Conference

"It's why we oppose abortion, but it is also why Catholic schools provide education, Catholic hospitals care for the poor and vulnerable and why Catholic social services provide assistance to people and families in need. It goes to the core of our moral beliefs."

The compliant, sent earlier this week to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, cites federal civil rights violations by the California Department of Managed Health Care concerning the abortion coverage.

It explains that an administrative directive issued in August to eight major health insurance plans dictates them to amend their health plan policies to remove any exclusions to the abortion coverage, arguing that abortions are "basic health care" and need to be included in insurance packages.

"This is a coercive and discriminatory action by the state of California," McElroy added. "This demand by the state was directly targeted at Catholic institutions like Santa Clara University, Loyola Marymount University, along with other California employers and citizens. It is a flagrant violation of their civil rights and deepest moral convictions, and is government coercion of the worst kind."

The complaint further states that this is the first time health plans in any state have been required to cover all abortions, even late-term abortions.

"This action effectively precludes California citizens and employers, who conscientiously believe that abortion destroys an unborn human life, from exercising their freedom to purchase a health plan that excludes coverage for abortions in which the life or health of the mother is not actually at risk," the complaint reads.

It further accuses abortion advocacy groups of inflicting pressure on the DMHC to take this action.

Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University are two major Roman Catholic institutions that were told they must pay for abortions as part of their insurance policies in August.

"… [T]he California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally," the DMHC directive read.

Both the Life Legal Defense Foundation and the Alliance Defending Freedom have sent out another letter protesting the change.

"DMHC cannot deny approval to or otherwise penalize a health insurance plan for failing to provide coverage of some or all abortions and remain in compliance with the Weldon Amendment," the letter from the pro-life groups read.

"In its failed lawsuit against the amendment, California admitted that all of its departments are subject to the amendment due to some of those departments receiving over $40 billion in federal funds for programs in the areas of education, health, and employment."

A separate report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in September showed that the the Affordable Care Act, also called "Obamacare," is providing abortion coverage, contrary to claims of some proponents of the health care law.

It found that 15 of 18 insurers providing qualified health plans ignore rules stating that the ACA should only cover abortions in the event of rape, incest, or health of the mother.

"Of the 18 issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services from which we obtained information, all but three issuers indicated that the benefit is not subject to any restrictions, limitations, or exclusions," the GAO report said.

"These 18 issuers offered a total of 246 unique QHPs that covered non-excepted abortion services — or 24 percent of the total number of QHPs covering non-excepted abortion services in the 28 states with no laws restricting the circumstances under which abortion services can be provided as a covered benefit."

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 9/30/14 4:26 PM

When most Americans think of abortion, they frequently refer to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case that legalized it. However, it is a lesser known case that helped make abortion so prevalent: Doe v. Bolton.

Sandra Cano, the “Mary Doe” of the infamous case,never wanted an abortion. But, like Norma McCorvey, the Roe of Roe v. Wade, she was used to topple pro-life laws across the country. Now, Cano is in the hospital in poor health.

Can had been critically ill in a hospital outside of Atlanta dealing with throat cancer,  sepsis and heart failure. Today, she passed away.

As one pro-life activist reports:

Today, Sandra Cano, Mary Doe in the Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court Decision a companion decision to Roe v. Wade has lost her battle with cancer.

According to her friends on Facebook- she passed away September 30, 2014

A post written on Cano’s Facebook page after her death reads, “She is more happy than anyone I know to be gracing heaven. If anyone knows how to enjoy it…it’ll be Sandra. WE love you, Sandra!!! Your name lives on as someone fought for the life of a child…not the right to kill it!!! Love you!!”

As the companion case to Roe v. Wade, the Doe decision saw the high court define “health” to include “all factors — physical emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” that may prompt someone who have an abortion. Pro-life groups have since opposed health exceptions in any pro-life legislation because it would essentially all for all abortions to remain legal.

Cano eventually filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Doe v. Bolton but was unsuccessful.

Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America told LifeNews:

Most young adults in this generation don’t know about the companion case to Roe v. Wade – Doe v. Bolton, in which Sandra Cano was Mary Doe. Both cases were instrumental in launching an entire movement dedicated to overturning both decisions and making abortion illegal. Doe v. Bolton specifically defined “health” as “all factors — physical emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age” which meant that a woman could essentially have an abortion for any reason whatsoever and claim it was for her “health.” Sandra Cano became pro-life however and she wanted nothing more than to see her case overturned. Her fight is one that that Students for Life of America will continue to fight for her. We pray for her soul and thank her for her fight to end abortion in this country. May she rest in peace.

Father Pavone of Priests for Life recalled that during a 1997 event at the National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, TN., Sandra said: “I pledge that as long as I have breath, I will strive to see abortion ended in America.”

Calling her statement “a lasting hope for our nation,” Father Pavone said: “Sandra’s work to overturn that devastating decision that was based on lies will not end with her death. When life ultimately triumphs over death, Sandra will share in that victory.”

Cano told the Catholic Register, “It’s a nightmare to be connected to a case that I never wanted to be connected to. Doe v. Bolton allows abortion up to the ninth month. This case takes children’s lives.”

“Back in 1970,” Cano begins, “I had a very complicated marriage and had two children in foster care. I was pregnant and wanted to get my babies back from foster care. I was poor, uneducated and ignorant. My life was very unstable. I was in a survival state. I went to Atlanta Legal Aid to get a divorce. Whoever was there to try to help me, I trusted. That’s how I became unknowingly involved with Doe v. Bolton. Never once did I know that we were going to kill babies.

“I can’t understand how a case like this could go to the Supreme Court without anyone knowing or speaking to me to find out if what the attorney was presenting to the court was true. I was so ignorant I didn’t know that there were two cases that legalized abortion.

“I ran away to Oklahoma to keep from having an abortion. They knew I was against abortion. Grady Memorial Hospital said I had gone before a panel of nine doctors and nurses to seek an abortion. I never sought an abortion. The hospital has no records because I never went to the hospital.

“It was only later that I learned that, through Margie Pitt Hames, I had sued Georgia Baptist Hospital to have an abortion.”

The Register asked how she discovered the truth and she replied, “In 1974, I went to Georgia Right to Life to try to find someone to help me. I told them that I was the woman who was involved in the abortion law, but didn’t know what it was about. They sent me to Fayetteville to seek help. On and off over the years, I would come forward, but when you don’t have money or people willing to help, a lot of people think you’re someone off the nut wagon.

“In the 1980s, I talked to an Atlanta Journal and Constitution newspaper reporter. She told me I had to prove who I was. I asked, “How do you do that?” She told me I had to go down to the court to verify that I was the person involved in the case. When I did that, they told me I had to go to the Federal Archives building. When I did that, they gave me this humongous book to look through. I didn’t understand half of it. I was out of my league. There was also a sealed envelope. I wanted to open it, but couldn’t. They told me that I would have to go to the court to have my records unsealed. Someone at the court showed me how to petition the court to unseal the records.

“A week later, Judge Owen Foster called me. He told me, “I don’t normally do this, but think you need a lawyer. We’re going to be hearing your case.” I found an attorney and went down to the court to unseal the records. Margie Pitt Hames didn’t want me to open the records. After unsealing the records I wrote to the Supreme Court. They said that the statute of limitations had passed.”

“They connected my name to a case that I never knew about in the beginning, never participated in, never believed in. I carried a guilt for many, many years. I was just a pawn,” Cano told The Blaze.

by Cora Sherlock | LifeNews.com | 9/23/14 12:32 PM

Speaking today in response to calls by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to mark the 25th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child I represent the Pro Life Campaign in saying human rights for children could not be achieved if they are denied the most basic human right of all, the right to life.

My remarks follow:

How can we hope to improve children’s rights if millions of children across the UN are denied the right to live at all?

The Committee’s call for the rights of all children, ‘including the most marginalised and vulnerable’ to be respected can only be taken seriously when the right to life of the unborn is protected.  What child is more vulnerable than an unborn baby? The UN cannot purport to support human rights unless it takes measures to encourage Member States to protect unborn children and their mothers.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child includes a provision that children have a right not to be discriminated against yet in most UN Member States unborn children are deliberately targeted and their lives ended.   Abortion regimes in many countries are utterly barbaric permitting abortion throughout the full nine months of pregnancy on certain grounds. We have seen how this results in children being discriminated against in the womb for their gender, and for reasons of disability.

At the UN General assembly on the 20th of November, the anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Human Rights representatives must address abortion for what it is – a grievous infringement on children’s rights.

Today the UN has said that it aims to take stock of progress of children’s rights since 1989 and to examine challenges that face children’s rights.  It’s time the UN addressed the greatest human rights abuse of all – the denial of children’s right to be born.

If we are to really champion children’s rights, we must start with the most basic right of all, the right to life.

by Sarah Zagorski | LifeNews.com | 9/19/14 2:49 PM

On Thursday, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed an appeal of a trial court’s decision that upheld the state’s alleged misuse of more than $14 million in taxpayer dollars. ADF, former Governor Bill Owen and former Senate candidate Jane Norton, filed the lawsuit against Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains because they violated the state constitution by using state funding to go to their abortion business.

Michael Norton, from ADF’s Senior Counsel said the following about the appeal: “No one is above the law, including Colorado politicians who are violating our state’s constitution by continuing to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortion activities with state taxpayer dollars. The state acknowledges that about $1.4 million of state taxpayer money flowed from state government agencies through Planned Parenthood to its abortion affiliate. The lower court seems to have agreed with that but dismissed the case on a technicality.”

Natalie Decker, ADF legal counsel and co-counsel in the case also said, “We hope the Colorado Court of Appeals reinstates this case for the benefit of the taxpayers and the voters who clearly intended to stop exactly this kind of back-door funding.”

The Colorado Constitution states, “No public funds shall be used by the State of Colorado, its agencies or political subdivisions to pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion.”

Yet between 2009 and 2012 fiscal years, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) received $10 million from the state of Colorado. These funds came from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Department of Education, Justice Department, and Department of Health and Environment.

As LifeNews previously reported, earlier this year Live Action released a video of Planned Parenthood encouraging young teen females to participate in sado-masochistic sexual activities, including gagging, whipping, asphyxiation, shopping at sex stores, and viewing pornography. Planned Parenthood employees also told these girls that “stop,” really doesn’t always mean, “stop”. This advice benefits Planned Parenthood because when girls participate in sexually risky behavior and get pregnant, they can go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion.

This manipulation shouldn’t be all that surprising since they’ve published multiple “resources” for children and teenagers concerning sexual activity. These materials claim to provide “age appropriate” sex education to children starting at age four. Planned Parenthood justifies starting sex-education at such a young age by stating, “Ideally, medical accurate sexuality education would be taught each year in our schools from pre-kindergarten to 12^th grade.”

Additionally, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast had to pay the state of Texas $4.3 million for fraudulently overbilling the taxpayer funded Medicaid program. And in Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains failed to inquire about or report the suspected sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child by her stepfather. They abortion giant performed the abortion and sent the girl right back to her abuser.

This is why pro-life groups like Colorado Citizens for Life are committed to defunding Planned Parenthood. Citizens who oppose the abortion giant shouldn’t have their tax dollars go to a business that profits off of hurting young girls and teaching children how to have casual sex.

by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 9/18/14 11:43 AM

A coalition of pro-life groups and members of Congress gathered today on Capitol Hill to demand a Senate vote on a House bill that would stop the massive taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamaca.

The call for a vote comes on the heels of a new nonpartisan GAO report showing Obamacare is the biggest expansion of abortion funding since Roe v. Wade.

Despite a promise President Obama made to lawmakers and the American public in a special joint session of Congress on healthcare reform that, “under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion,” a new report released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows well over 1,000 health care plans under Obamacare pay for abortions with taxpayer money.

“The American people don’t like being lied to!” Congressman Chris Smith told media gathered for the press conference.

The House of Representatives has passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7), which would apply the traditional Hyde Amendment policy to all federal programs, including the Obamacare premium-subsidy program. But pro-abortion Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to schedule a vote on it.

“Congress should change ObamaCare to provide transparency and remove abortion funding so when individuals buy exchange plans beginning November 15th, they can actually make an informed decision,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council. “There have been many broken promises associated with ObamaCare. This is one broken promise that we cannot let go. The Senate must pass H.R. 7/S. 946 the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act sponsored by U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).”

National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson says it is “no surprise” that Obamacare funds abortions and he called on pro-life voters to hold lawmakers accountable in November.

“Those really responsible for this scandal are the lawmakers, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Udall of Colorado, who voted against the pro-life amendment that would have prevented this massive federal funding of abortion-covering plans, as well as those who voted to enact the bill after the amendment was rejected, such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas,” he said.

The GAO report focused mainly on determining the prevalence of elective abortion coverage in health plans sold on the exchanges, in the 27 states plus D.C. that currently do not have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage. The GAO found that on these 28 exchanges, 1,036 plans cover elective abortion while 1,062 do not. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that between 2015 and 2024, $726 billion will flow from the federal Treasury in direct subsidies for Obamacare health plans.

The Obamacare law was enacted in early 2010 despite objections from pro-life forces that it contained provisions that would result in massive federal subsidies to help scores of millions of Americans buy health plans that cover elective abortion. However, President Obama repeatedly insisted that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.”

Johnson said these massive subsidies for abortion-covering plans amount to a sharp break from decades of federal policy under the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment says that no federal funds “shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion,” but the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the Obamacare law. Attempts to include Hyde-like language in the Obamacare law were initially successful in the House but were ultimately blocked by President Obama and his allies in Congress.

According to Johnson, the author of so-called “compromise” language that paved the way for enactment of the law, then-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), said in 2009 that “you have to write two checks: one for the basic policy and one for the additional coverage for abortion. The latter has to be entirely from personal funds.”

He said the Nelson “two check” system, previously given great credence by some journalistic “factcheckers,” turns out to be not merely a flimsy gimmick, but a vanished mirage. Although the GAO confirmed that the law requires “issuers to collect from each enrollee in a QHP [Qualified Health Plan] covering non-excepted [elective] abortion services a separate payment for coverage of these services,” the Obama Administration is not enforcing such a requirement. Not a single one of the 18 insurance companies that are selling abortion-covering plans, and that responded to the GAO, actually were collecting a separate payment from enrollees for elective abortion coverage.

According to National Right to Life, despite assurances that there would be plans available in each state that do not fund elective abortions, the GAO found that in five states – Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont – every insurance plan currently sold on the exchange covers elective abortion. In addition, abortion-covering plans dominated the exchanges in California (96% cover elective abortion, 86 plans out of 90), Massachusetts (98%, 109 plans of 111), New York (95%, 405 plans of 426), and Oregon (90%, 92 plans of 102).