February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Obama Administration is showing its loyalties. And it is not to women. It is to Planned Parenthood.
The Texas Legislature and Governor Rick Perry have authorized the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to continue the Medicaid Women’s Health Program (WHP). The program, which the HHSC points out provides preventative health services to more than 100,000 low-income women annually, is set to expire in March 2012. Those services include contraceptives, STD testing, and screening for hypertension, diabetes, and breast and cervical cancers.
The HHSC has applied to the Obama Administration for an extension of the program through 2013, with the condition that no funding go to organizations that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliated with such organizations. Of the more than 1,000 certified WHP providers across the state, this rule excludes fewer than 100 Planned Parenthood providers. The State has an interest in not promoting abortion when it promotes birth control. The fact that Planned Parenthood performs many thousands of elective abortions every year in its 14 abortion facilities in Texas was not lost on the Legislature.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has threatened to deny renewal of the WHP if Texas does not fund Planned Parenthood as a provider. President Obama seems to care more about Planned Parenthood than about women’s health.
Last June the Texas Legislature overwhelmingly passed Senate Bill 7, which allows for the renewal of the WHP, on a Senate vote of 21-9 and a House vote of 96-48. The bill prohibits the state from contracting with entities that “perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”
Federal law allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion declaring that federal law allows states to exclude abortion providers and their affiliated organizations from Medicaid.
There are ample alternate WHP providers in Texas who are not involved in abortion. These physicians and clinics typically offer comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning. These providers could become the medical home for low-income women. The Obama Administration is about to deny WHP funds to these quality providers, and to the women they serve, just because Texas wants to fund these without funding Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood is a poor investment of public funds. Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary and preventative care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have one mammogram machine anywhere in Texas. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.
Planned Parenthood should not be trusted with our tax dollars. For example, Planned Parenthood of San Antonio operated four abortion facilities illegally without a license for as long as four years until they were discovered by the State in 2009 and fined more than $100,000. They were required to return thousands of dollars billed to the WHP.
The Obama Administration, not the Legislature or the Governor, will be to blame for killing the Women’s Health Program, if the Obama Administration does not renew the program just because Planned Parenthood is excluded.
Joe Pojman, Ph.D., is the executive director of Texas Alliance for Life
Planned Parenthood asks college students to ‘check in’ where they had sex with free ‘GPS condoms’
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, February 28, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a marketing campaign that combines condom use with social media, Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest (PPGNW) distributed 55,000 condoms at colleges across western Washington state - and asked their recipients to go to a website and described how and where they were used.
Each prophylactic has a QR code, a bar code which connects its owner to the website WhereDidYouWearIt.com. There the young man can register the location where his condom was put to use during intercourse.
The website, PPGNW states, “targets college students and millennials, already comfortable with social media to promote healthy sexuality and to be ‘proud to wear protection.’”
“In the past week the response has been incredible,” Planned Parenthood notes in a press release. “Check-ins have come in from 48 out of 50 states and from six continents!”
“Planned Parenthood has hit a new low,” James Bascom, a campus activist with TFP Student Action, which promotes traditional morality on campus, wrote in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “Not content with promoting abortion and contraception behind closed doors, they seek to glorify, glamorize, and destigmatize sin in the public square.”
The interactive map at the WhereDidYouWearIt website logs each sexual encounter. One entry reads: “A 20 something guy and a girl whose relationship is just for fun and have already talked about safer sex and STDs used a condom in the bedroom to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. It was ah-maz-ing – rainbows exploded and mountains trembled.”
“Shame on them,” Bascom told LifeSiteNews.com. “Our college students need purity, not promiscuity.”
Catholic group launches video, web campaign to protect religious liberty from HHS mandate
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)—A leading Catholic political organization has launched a new video and website aimed at protecting religious conscience rights from the HHS contraception and abortifacient mandate.
Catholic Advocate released the video “Consultation” to point out that the Obama administration had not conferred with the nation’s Roman Catholic leadership to determine whether his accommodation would be acceptable to them. However, he discussed the plan with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.
Part of the video’s purpose is to bring the national discussion back to the salient issue of the First Amendment. “Some are trying hard to make this about a different issue,” said Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate.
Richards, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, and others claimed that a recent Congressional hearing on religious freedom that featured two pro-life women was really a hearing on the future of contraception attended only by men.
Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, testified before the committee that the president’s accommodation policy “came upon the bishops’ conference of a sudden. There was no consultation. It was not given to us in writing, and it was told to us not long before it was announced.”
Catholic Advocate has simultaneously launched www.ProtectOurConscience.org to encourage faithful Americans to contact their representatives to overturn the mandate. Smith said at least one parish in each congressional district in every state has used the site to make their voices heard in Congress.
“Make no mistake, when those in power try to rip through the fabric of what America stands for, the voices of the people unite,” Smith stated in a comment e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “People of faith across the country are joining together in support of our religious liberties.”
Readers may respectfully contact their elected officials through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
“Consultation” followed an earlier Catholic Advocate video, “Common Ground,” which contrasted President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame with his actions on crafting a religious conscience exemption.
Activists to bring pro-life message to American Atheists convention featuring Richard Dawkins
Secular Pro-Life, an organization of atheists and agnostics who defend the rights of the unborn, will set up a booth, distribute literature, and speak one-on-one with the convention’s attendees next month. This year’s keynote speaker is Dr. Richard Dawkins.
“The pro-choice view has become a default for atheists, because nobody is reaching out to them,” the group’s president, Kelsey Hazzard, told LifeSiteNews.com. “We allow the pro-life movement to be seen as a religious thing and [say], ‘Oh well, let the pro-abortion movement have the atheists. We can succeed without them.’”
“I just don’t think that’s wise,” she said. “If we’re going to make abortion unthinkable, we have to make it unthinkable for everybody.”
She and Canadian pro-life activist Kristine Kruszelnicki will man the booth, displaying first-trimester fetal models for convention attendees to examine, and “secular literature debunking the argument that legalized abortion is necessary to save women’s lives.”
Hazzard, who is a senior at the University of Virginia School of Law, said the group is in its fourth year. Its FaceBook group now has more than 700 followers.
Speaking with atheists or agnostics requires a different set of arguments and references than speaking to people of faith. “First of all, we talk about prenatal development, because that is an area where there is a lot of misinformation,” Hazzard told LifeSiteNews.com. “Then we talk about the secular ideas of human rights.”
“Historically, whenever we have decided as a society that a certain group of human beings are not persons, that’s never turned out well,” she said. “We really think that we have the power to decide whether or not someone’s life is worth living before they’ve taken their first breath. Isn’t that a bit presumptuous?”
Atheists and agnostics are more likely than any other group to favor abortion on demand. A 2010 Pew Research survey found 85 percent of atheists and agnostics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Secular Pro-Life notes more than half (51 percent) of unplanned pregnancies that occur to an atheist or agnostic woman end in abortion – a higher rate than any other religious identification. “Atheists are at risk of abortion, actually slightly more than average,” Hazzard said.
Despite being a minority, Hazzard said the American Atheists’ convention’s organizers “have been very cordial and welcoming.” She noted similar presentations before campus atheists groups have been well-received.
“We look forward to a lively debate with pro-abortion convention attendees,” Hazzard told LifeSiteNews.com. “We also look forward to providing a support network for those atheists who are already pro-life, but who are uncomfortable with the religious tone taken by many major pro-life organizations.”
Journal editor defends pro-infanticide piece: Killing newborns is already legal in Holland
February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The editor of an ethics journal that recently published an article advocating infanticide (what the authors call “post-birth abortion”), has responded to widespread criticism by pointing out that promoting the killing of newborns is nothing new: in fact, in the Netherlands infant euthanasia is already legal and practiced.
Editor Julian Savulescu also criticizes what he calls the “hate speech” directed at the authors of the article, arguing that the public’s response to the piece shows that “proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
In the journal article Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, made the case that “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy. They base their argument on the premise that the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently “morally irrelevant.”
In response to the backlash, Savulescu wrote that the arguments in the article “are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris.”
He also observes that the paper “draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.”
The fact that The Netherlands already permits the killing of disabled newborns is not widely known, even by many in the pro-life movement. The practice is permitted under the so-called Groningen Protocol, which outlines the circumstances under which a physician may deliver a lethal injection to a newborn who suffers from a disability, at the request of the child’s parents.
An article published in 2008 in the prestigious Hastings Center Report about the Protocol similarly provoked outrage after the authors argued that disabled babies might be “better off dead.”
The authors of that article also linked infanticide to legalized abortion, arguing that infanticide may in fact be the morally superior alternative to abortion.
“The supposedly morally superior alternative [of abortion]…does not strike us as superior at all,” they wrote. Instead, they said, parents of a child with a poor prenatal diagnosis should wait until the child is born, when they can make a more informed decision about the chance that their child has of living a “satisfactory” life.
“We join disability activists who condemn the routine recommendation of abortions performed for no other reason than to prevent the birth of an affected baby,” they said.
In his response today, editor Savulescu observed that the authors of the recent paper simply took for granted the premises that undergird legal abortion, and followed them to their logical conclusion.
“The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view,” he writes. “It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.
“The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn,” he continues. “Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.”
The pro-infanticide article and the defense from Savulescu come only months after a Canadian judge employed similar arguments in the process of handing out a lenient sentence to a mother who strangled her newborn and threw him over a fence.
According to Justice Joanne Veit, Canada’s lack of an abortion law indicated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”
“Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother,” she added.
Savluescu, the director of the Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, has made the news in the past for arguing that the requirement for organ donors to be dead at the time of organ harvesting should be removed, and that “mandatory” organ donation should be instituted. He has also argued that humanity has a “moral obligation” to use in vitro fertilization (IVF) to select the most intelligent embryos for the good of society.
Young woman poised to win leadership award with pledge to bring abortion to Prince Edward Island
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A young pro-abortion woman is poised to win a $1000 youth leadership award after garnering the largest number of people in support of her ambition - to bring abortion to Prince Edward Island, the only province in Canada that remains abortion-free.
“I feel that we are on a new brink of a feminist age as we see women laying claim to their bodies in such a plethora of ways,” said Kandace Hagen, the current front-runner of the ACTIVE-8 initiative run by the Atlantic Council for International Cooperation. The online contest requires that each ambassador – two from each Atlantic province – make a pledge to improve their community.
“The declaration of female reproduction justice has been ringing so clearly these past few years as we continue to take strides to claim control of every aspect of ourselves,” says the Charlottetown native, who shared in her video testimony the trials she faced at the age of 14 as she had to travel off the island to have her baby aborted.
The woman has vowed that if she wins, she will donate the prize money towards providing travel bursaries to island mothers seeking to abort their babies on the mainland.
Hagen’s pro-abortion platform received international attention and support after a private email from Ann Marie Tomlin, a spokesperson for P.E.I. Right to Life Association, was leaked to the media. In the email, Tomlin encouraged her pro-life friends and acquaintances to vote for an alternative candidate so that Hagen would not win the youth leadership contest.
“The vote is close so please send this to all the youth and youth groups you know,” Tomlin had written in the email.
When the email was leaked, Tomlin’s efforts backfired as national and international left-leaning media defended Hagen’s cause and became her champion.
Michelle Lovegrove-Thomson of The Paltry Sapien hailed Hagen last week as a “courageous women” for making her abortion public and for devoting her energies to secure abortion access for island women. “This issue deserves attention, and you should vote for it,” wrote Lovegrove-Thomson.
Anna North of Jezebel called Hagen’s platform “pretty awesome” and criticized those she called “anti-choicers” for “start[ing] a campaign to sabotage her candidacy.” North also encouraged her readers to vote for Hagen.
Tomlin said that since her e-mail was leaked Hagen has not only gained more support, but P.E.I.’s pro-life movement has been maligned and raked through the mud by a frenzied pro-choice media.
But Tomlin says she remains convinced that she did not do anything wrong. She believes that unborn P.E.I. children need someone to stand up for their right to life.
“I’ve spent the last 30 years of my life trying to protect women and children from abortion. When I hear there is someone up for an award for promoting death for children and harm for women, of course I will do whatever I can to oppose them.”
Tomlin made it clear that she in no way personally opposes front-runner Hagen, only the position that she is representing. Tomlin surmised, however, that Hagen has not yet processed the extent of the harm caused to her by her abortion.
“I know that women first go through a period of denial. Part of the denial is trying to convince yourself that you did the right thing. Often women don’t just try to convince themselves but they try to convince others by promoting abortion. I don’t see that as leadership, but rather as a desperate cry for help.”
Tomlin and her pro-life companions have endorsed Tara Brinston from Fredericton for the leadership award on account of her pledge to improve the rights of persons with an intellectual disability.
“She wants to improve things for the disabled and part of the pro-life mandate is to protect the disabled,” said Tomlin.
The ACTIVE-8 youth leadership campaign closes tomorrow at midnight. Whichever ambassador garners the most public support for their work wins the recognition and the prize.
Rena Kulczycki, an ACTIVE-8 spokesperson told LifeSiteNews that while the whole focus of the campaign is about “highlighting young people from Atlantic Canada who are engaged in global issues and social justice,” votes from people around the world are counted in the final tally.
Abortion activist Hagen currently leads with 1471 votes while disability advocate Tara Brinston sits at 1024 votes, a difference of 447. Paul Manning sits at third place with 303 votes.
Brinston told CBCNews that she would welcome pledges from people who are “inspired by the work I do within the disability movement.”
FREDERICTON, February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The New Brunswick Health Department has issued a warning that syphilis is spreading at an increasing rate among the province’s homosexuals and that strategies to prevent infection and reduce risk of transmission by infected individuals seem to be ineffective.
According to the January issue of the New Brunswick Disease Watch Bulletin, infection numbers have gone from fewer than five cases per year before 2008, to 9 in 2009, 37 in 2010 and 57 last year, with 10 cases already reported in the first two months of this year.
The New Brunswick Health Department is particularly concerned that most of the syphilis infections are occurring in the homosexual community.
“Since late 2009, 92 per cent of cases have been male. Most male cases have reported only male sex partners (MSM),” the Disease Watch Bulletin states, highlighting that the disease does not seem to involve traditional high-risk groups such as prostitutes or injection drug users.
“This outbreak does not appear to involve traditional high-risk groups such as sex trade workers, patrons of sex trade workers and injection drug users,” the bulletin states.
“We seem to unfortunately have a trend,” Dr. Denis Allard, New Brunswick’s deputy chief medical officer of health, told the Canadian Press. “We hope we can have an effect on it, but for the time being it seems to be as high or higher than last year.”
Allard pointed out that most of those infected are between 20 and 25, and although the health department has posted information on syphilis on it website and produced flyers and posters directed to the homosexual community, the spread of the disease is linked to an increase in promiscuous sexual behaviour.
“People these days tend to go on the Internet to find partners there and don’t seem to inform themselves very much, they just want to have sex, and they get infected. These are people who have multiple sex partners, especially if these sex partners are anonymous,” Allard said.
The Disease Watch Bulletin notes that success in reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted infections is affected by the ability of the Health Department to trace and contact the sexual partners of infected individuals, but this is hindered by the anonymous nature of homosexual sex encounters.
“In New Brunswick, contact tracing is often challenging because one in three syphilis cases have reported having anonymous sex partner(s) in the last year. These challenges are compounded by multiple anonymous contacts associated with the Internet and bathhouses as well as by the apparent transient nature of some cases into and out of the province,” the Health Department explained.
Dr. Allard concluded that the increase in the number of sexual partners is likely contributing to the increase in syphilis infections.
“It could be that people are a little more promiscuous in their sexual behaviour,” he said.
DALLAS, February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A lesbian judge in Texas says she will not perform wedding ceremonies for heterosexuals until the state allows homosexuals to “marry” as well.
Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker told the Stonewall Democrats of Dallas at a meeting last Tuesday that it would be “oxymoronic” for her to perform wedding ceremonies that can’t be performed for her.
She said that when couples appear in her courtroom, she directs them to another judge, but not before using the opportunity to “give them a lesson about marriage equality.”
“I usually will offer them something along the lines of, ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people,’” she said.
After her speech received national attention, she elaborated on the legal ramifications of her unusual policy for the gay news service Dallas Voice.
“Performing marriage ceremonies is not a duty that I have as the Presiding Judge of a civil district court,” she said. “It is a right and privilege invested in me under the Family Code. I choose not to exercise it, as many other Judges do not exercise it. Because it is not part of our duties, some Judges even charge a fee to perform the ceremonies.”
Her speech has been uploaded onto Youtube, where it has received almost 25,000 hits.
Stonewall Democrats of Dallas issued a statement last Thursday in support of Parker, whose campaign they had endorsed during her 2010 election.
The organization claimed that the Texas was denying “1,138 rights” to same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry, and applauded Parker for treating every person “equally without bias.”
Big Abortion follows Big Tobacco’s business model: target kids
February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The tobacco industry does it. And even though ads targeting minors are outlawed, it hasn’t stopped. Tobacco products are still heavily marketed to kids in other ways, such as being placed at a child’s eye level in convenience stores. Why? Tobacco companies know if they can make smoking attractive to youngsters, they have a better chance of gaining customers for life.
Planned Parenthood understands this theory. While abortions aren’t addictive in the same way as tobacco, exposing a young impressionable child to the ease of terminating a pregnancy before her conscience is formed is a good way to achieve one of the most profitable types of sales—repeat business.
Pro-life leaders in California are attempting to place a parental notification initiative on the ballot again this year. It requires doctors to notify parents 48 hours before their minor child has an abortion. In 2008, it lost by a small margin (52 to 48 percent). The pro-abortion community, fueled by Planned Parenthood, stopped at nothing to defeat it. Regardless of the legislation proposed, the standard mantra is “reproductive rights” should not be limited to women in any way. More than likely, the underlying agenda is to retain a valuable asset to abortion’s customer base—young children with many years of fertility ahead.
The latest numbers released in 2011 by Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, show there were 1.21 million abortions in the U.S. in 2008. Out of this total, 6 percent, or 72,600, were performed on girls ages 15 to 17. In the general category of “under 14,” there was a 0.4 percent abortion rate. While this percentage may seem low, it represents 4,840 abortions performed annually on any girl old enough to become pregnant. An abortion for even one 10-year-old should cause an outcry, but almost 5,000 children—children—are violated this way each year.
I don’t know about your kids, but at that age, my own can’t make up their minds about what to have for breakfast much less whether or not to consent to intercourse and then destroy the life it creates. Planned Parenthood is notorious for not reporting suspected abuse and rape of these young girls.
A state parental notification requirement is one step toward protecting our youth from the PP mafia, which has its designs on these mega money-making customers. A study by the Guttmacher Institute states that “multiple abortions may indicate mainly prolonged exposure to the risk of unintended pregnancy.” The younger the child, the more years she has to become pregnant and have an abortion—over and over again. An appalling 22 percent of girls under 20 who undergo an abortion have had at least one before.
California abortion rates are higher than the national average, representing almost 18 percent of U.S. abortions, according to the latest numbers. When a young girl under the age of 18 is brought to a facility in California, her parents or guardians may never know she’s undergone a serious medical procedure, much less consented to it.
No doubt, after the abortion, the child is given birth control to “safely” continue the behavior that brought her to the clinic in the first place. Guttmacher’s own claims regarding the effectiveness of birth control are contradictory. On one hand, the institute states that “providing post-abortion contraceptive services is key to preventing unintended pregnancies and abortions.” But, on the other hand, it admits “the majority of women having their second or even their third abortion were using contraceptives during the time.”
The message by abortion providers is clear: engage in pleasurable risky behavior and take care of the consequences by having another abortion. A young victim is defenseless to a provider’s insistence on using birth control and returning for more “services.”
If you live in California, fight to join over 30 other states that have instituted parental consent or notification laws. Sign the petition to have the act placed on the ballot and vote for it in November. Let’s stop feeding our girls to the abortion monster to be victimized repeatedly then discarded like yesterday’s trash.
If our children must be protected against tobacco addictions that can kill their bodies, how much more important is it to save them from abortions that can kill their bodies and souls?
Carol Maxwell and her husband Scott have been married for 27 years and have seven children. Scott is the Executive Director of Culture of Life Family Services, a San Diego-based full-service medical office that provides free care to women in need with unplanned pregnancies.
Jacksonville sees decrease in abortions every year since 40 Days for Life began
February 28, 2012 (40DaysforLife.com) - One abortion is one too many, of course. So it’s always encouraging during a 40 Days for Life campaign when we see local abortion numbers decrease dramatically.
After we did the first 40 Days for Life campaign in Texas back in 2004, abortions dropped 28 percent in our community that year.
As 40 Days for Life has spread to other cities, we’ve seen similar results. Today, we start with an amazing example where abortion numbers keep falling!
Trudy sent me a graph showing Jacksonville’s abortion numbers over the past ten years. Abortions increased from 2002 through 2006. Starting in 2007, however, abortions have decreased every year.
What happened in 2007? Well, in the fall of that year, Jacksonville held its first 40 Days for Life campaign. Then in 2009, volunteers started Family for Life — daily prayer at the abortion centers Monday through Saturday. That’s more than 300 days of prayer every year!
In 2011, Jacksonville abortions reached a ten-year low. The Jacksonville team has already sponsored several events this campaign, including a Jericho march, in which prayer volunteers marched back and forth between two abortion facilities seven times.
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
The sound of the shofar kicked off the second 40 Days for Life in Asheville. Mary Ann in Asheville said 100 people took part in the opening prayer vigil and procession, led by representatives of Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and home churches.
People sang hymns and heard inspirational messages from a local pastor and a former abortion industry employee. “Hearts were deeply touched,” Mary Ann said.
From a very small start last fall, the Asheville effort has now expanded. Many churches now have members of their congregations signing up for prayer at the vigil, the leaders have gotten information about the campaign in a number of publications and team members have been able to speak about 40 Days for Life at meetings of various local organizations.
“God is moving big-time in Downey, California,” Tim wrote in the 40 Days for Life blog.
“He is stirring the saints to come out of the pews and onto the street to make a difference at the Family Planning Associates abortion facility in Downey,” he said.
Tim described how 40 college-age young adults stood in prayer and worship from 9 pm to midnight recently, and some of them were right back at the vigil outside the abortion center at 7:30 the following morning.
In just the first few days, eight babies were spared from abortion in Downey. “God is pouring out His Spirit,” Tim wrote, “just as He said He would.”
The Obama Administration is mandating that all insurance providers provide free FDA approved birth control methods to women as well as permanent sterilization procedures. Besides the documented physical harm that hormonal birth control and sterilization does to a woman’s body, there is also another effect that it has which often carries a much high cost: emotional pain and regret. The department of Health and Human Services ignores the post contraceptive regrets of women who later mourn the children they willingly prevented. Below is one woman’s powerful story of the profound regret that came after being offered permanent sterilization by her physician. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), by age 45, at least one partner in every two marriages in the U.S has been sterilized.
Dear Medical Provider:
I am writing this personal story and presenting it to you in an effort to heal some deep emotional wounds. I pray it helps you also. You see, when I was 29 I was pregnant with my third child. This was a blessed and wonderful time in my life. During an appointment you brought up the option of permanent sterilization after delivery. I honestly had never even considered it. But, there it was. I brought the pamphlet home and presented it to my husband. He responded “well, if the doctor thinks it’s best.” Obviously, we are easily influenced. Nothing was mentioned again until a few hours after the delivery of my beautiful baby girl. You missed the delivery but flew into the room exclaiming “so, we are doing a tubal, right?”
I was shocked. I had not given it much thought. I was not in a state of mind to understand the full depth of what that meant. I was thinking the whole time of another child. I know you sensed that. You reassured me it was permanent. At that time I could not fully comprehend what that meant. Then, you said something as you left the room that has painfully echoed and haunted my thoughts for years. I heard you mumble “I’ll do the most reversible type.” I still do not know what that meant. How could something be permanent and reversible at the same time? I did not fully understand what was happening.
Before I knew it, the procedure was done. I realized the next day that I did not want this procedure to be permanent. I always wanted more children. I had hopes and dreams of a larger family. I found it difficult to articulate that. Large families are not “popular” in today’s world. I acted in fear of being judged. Who was I to go against the social norms? It seems there is an unwritten social standard that says family sizes of 2 or 3 is “normal.” This misconception set up by media and a popular social agenda is standard, but not necessarily right or even remotely good for us. I was guilty of buying into this agenda.
Now it has been 7 years since the tubal. I have wanted it reversed since the day that it was done. I realize more than ever that you did me no favors. The tubal cost us $30. It was the worst money I ever spent. The mental and emotional turmoil of self-induced infertility has been beyond difficult. I have cried and grieved the loss of that part of myself for years. I realized that my fertility was a very special gift. Fertility was very much a part of who I was. It defined me as a woman. On a very deep level, fertility was essential to my mental and emotional health. It influenced my relationships with my husband, children, co-workers and friends. Without it I suffered and my marriage suffered the greatest of all to the point where my husband and I sought counseling. The counselor looked at me and recognized that I was grieving. It was then that I realized that he was right. I was grieving! I was grieving the loss of my fertility. Seven years later at age 35 I was able to have a reversal. The procedure cost $11,200.That was the best money ever spent. The procedure was healing beyond explanation…I was wholeagain. I truly felt the mercy and love of God!
Through this entire experience valuable lessons have been learned. We live in a society where we have separated love from life. However, I have learned that this misguided compassion is not in the best health interest of any person.
My challenge for you as a medical provider is to go back to treating the whole person. To treat their fertility as a part of who they are. Not something to be controlled or practiced. Fertility is a central part of being male or female and is a sacred part of the marriage union. When fertility is taken away you deny something very sacred to a person and to that marriage union. Do not be so quick to take that gift away.
My second challenge to you is to learn more about the whole truth of human sexuality through Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body. This is a very truthful study of who we are as persons. God always has our best health interests in mind. God knows us in a more truthful, meaningful, and healing way than we know ourselves. God truly has you and your patient’s best interests in mind. If you are willing to take that a step farther learn more about NFP (natural family planning) and help those who use this method. Many couples are choosing natural alternatives to family planning and they need your support.
Through all this I have come to realize that when I am fearful of being judged I am missing the point. There is no fear in love. We are called to love ourselves and one another; for God is love. When I am fearful I realize that I am more afraid of what others might think than doing what God desires. I have to remind myself that God is love. Fear does not come from God. Fear comes from popular, often harmful worldviews and my hesitancy to soar beyond them to find the truth. For there is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, so one who fears is not yet perfect in love 1John 4:18. I have found that if I look to the love of God and seek his truth instead of trying what is popular or what my colleagues are doing I am more satisfied, more fulfilled, more content and more loved. Then I have nothing to fear.
I pray this helps as you consider the challenge to change your practice.
I also want you to know that I have forgiven you. I hope you can learn something from this personal testimony. I pray it encourages you to consider how you care for your patients.
Through the love of Christ we welcomed one more soul into our family.
Our blessed baby boy arrived May 29th 2009. He brings true joy to all who meet him.
May the Love of Christ touch the hearts of all who have shared this story with me. May it help you to understand and embrace the truth found in the love of God.
Michele Brown and her husband are now expecting their second child after her successful tubal ligation reversal in 2008. Michele hopes her story will provide a helpful insight for other women who are considering sterilization. (Re-printed with permission.)
Russia defunds late-term ‘social abortions’ as country moves to curtail high abortion rate
February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Russian government has cut off funding for most late-term abortions that are done for “social” reasons, in a move that may signal more restrictions to come.
Previously, Russians could receive government-funded abortions after the first twelve weeks of pregnancy in cases of rape, when a woman had been deprived of parental rights by a court, imprisonment of the woman, or death or disability of her husband.
The only “social” condition that now remains is rape, according to Russian media sources. Women may also still obtain late-term abortions if they suffer from a life-threatening illness during the pregnancy.
Although the rule applies only to government-provided abortions, it represents another step towards restrictions on abortion that have long been sought by the current government.
In July of last year, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a law requiring all abortion providers to commit 10% of their advertising to increasing awareness about the adverse health risks of abortion, which include cancer, deadly hemorrhages, and sterility. The same law prohibits abortionists from making the claim that abortion is a safe medical procedure.
Since that time, pro-life forces in Russia have pushed for greater restrictions. Legislation has been in process since mid-2011 to prohibit almost all abortions after the first trimester, require a waiting period of one week, and require women over six weeks pregnant to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before aborting.
The proposed law was approved in October of last year by the Duma, Russia’s lower legislative house, but has not passed the Federation Council, which is the upper chamber. The legislation may have been stalled be protests by Russian citizens, many of whom rely on abortion rather than contraception to escape the responsibility of parenthood.
The current government, led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, strongly favors tighter restrictions on abortion to counteract Russia’s demographic crisis, in which the total population has fallen substantially since its peak in 1991. The nation’s high abortion rate is a major variable in that equation.
Ethicists justify infanticide in major medical journal
MELBOURNE, Australia, February 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Taking the logic of abortion to its ultimate consequence, two ethicists have argued that “killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”
Alberto Giubilin, a philosopher from the University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, an ethicist from the University of Melbourne, have made the case that since both the unborn baby and the newborn do not have the moral status of actual persons and are consequently morally irrelevant, what they call “after-birth abortion” should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is perfectly healthy.
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
The article titled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” appeared online in the Journal Of Medical Ethics last Thursday.
The authors highlight that the justification for “after-birth abortion” is based on the interests of the people involved, not those of the baby.
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
The authors do not say at what stage of development it become morally repugnant to kill a newborn baby but leave the question of when a baby moves from being a potential person to being an actual person to be settled by neurologists and psychologists.