Governor Phil Bryant blasted “the hypocrisy of the Left,” which “says that I should have never signed” a law requiring all state abortionists to be certified OB-GYNs with admitting privileges at a local hospital. He said abortion advocates are more interested in assuring the state’s only abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the state capital, stays open than they are in preserving women’s health.
“They don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified,” he said.
“You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the Left that love so much to talk about women’s health care would rush to support this bill,” he said. He stated the bill assured a woman’s “life and safety to be paramount.”
“The true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb,” Bryant said.
Mississippi Right to Life President Barbara Whitehead told LifeSiteNews.com it was common sense to require medical specialists to have “expertise in that field,” and to be able to send women to local hospitals in the case of botched abortions. “The doctors who actually perform the abortions are coming in from out of state, so they don’t really have a connection to the state,” Whitehead said.
She said the same logic is behind the Left’s opposition to a bill MRTL favors that would ban tele-abortions, a practice in which doctors prescribe an abortifacient drug without ever meeting their patients. “If you’re really concerned about women, you’re not going to send them in to see a doctor on a TV screen,” she said.
Gov. Bryant has said he longs for the day Mississippi is “abortion-free.”
“I clearly said I want to end abortion in Mississippi,” he said Tuesday. He previously supported the state’s Personhood amendment.
Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves said the new law “should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi.” Felicia Brown-Williams, regional director of public policy for Planned Parenthood in Hattiesburg, said she was “sick about this” bill after it passed. The clinic’s owner, Diane Derzis, has threatened to sue if she is unable to comply with the bill, although similar laws have been upheld in other states.
The clinic is in the midst of another political battle, as Reeves is currently blocking the nomination of Dr. Carl Reddix to the State Board of Health because of his role in referring the clinic’s patients to local hospitals.
Reddix, who was nominated by former governor and one-time presidential hopeful Haley Barbour, told local media he did not perform abortions but referred the victims of other doctors to the emergency room.
“Having a doctor [on the state board] who does have a relationship with the abortion clinic does not seem to me to make a lot of sense, especially since there are problems there to begin with,” Whitehead told LifeSiteNews. Its members “have not been following all the guidelines for the abortion clinic,” she said.
“We believe that Governor Bryant will put somebody in there who will make certain that the health department will follow the laws.”
A full transcript of the segment follows the video.
Gov. Bryant: You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the Left that love so much to talk about women’s health care would rush to support this bill, would just say, “Absolutely we want the strongest health care. We want admissions privileges. We want that women that is going through that abortion for her life and safety to be paramount.” Well, it should be the paramount of the child.
Even if you believe in abortion, the hypocrisy of the Left that now tried to kill this bill – that says that I should have never signed it – the true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb. It doesn’t really matter. They don’t care if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can’t admit them to a local hospital, that he’s not even board certified. We passed that bill, and I think you’ll see other states follow. And when that happens, at least these fly-in abortionists are going to be regulated under the state laws of the Medical Procedures Act here in the state of Mississippi, as they should be across the nation.
Tony Perkins: Well the driving factor is profit for many of them.
VIDEO: 2011 Miss Delaware one of 7 children: ‘Abortion is murder’
DOVER, April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Maria Cahill, the winner of the Miss Delaware 2011 contest is using her new-found fame to promote the pro-life message. She participated in the March for Life as Miss Delaware despite opposition, according to an interview to be published in full in Townhall magazine.
In an April 2011 video just prior to her winning the Miss Delaware title, Cahill indicated she would be using her fame to save lives.
She described herself as “one of seven kids” noting that thus “my family is extremely pro-life and conservative.” She said that in college the topic of abortion is taboo and suggested one reason is the fact that “this is murder we’re talking about.” She added “People don’t use that word… it’s a vulgar term, but that’s what it is – it’s murder.”
Talking about her aspiration to win Miss Delaware, Cahill said, “If it takes a crown on my head and wearing a sash to talk to young people” about abortion, “so be it, everything happens for a reason.” She added, “If it takes a crown to save one baby’s life, then I’ve done my job.”
Cahill said that at her college she was teased for being ‘the virgin Mary’. Cahill said she regarded it as the highest compliment.
Speaking about the HHS mandate and the ‘war on women’ with Townhall, Cahill said, “With this [birth-control] mandate and the so-called ‘war on women,’ I feel like people don’t know both sides and they’re not getting to the real root of the problem, and that is another life is at stake. I think getting to the root of the problem is where the solution lies.”
OTTAWA, Ontario, April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As Parliament prepared to debate an historic pro-life motion Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to vote against it when it comes up for a vote in June or September.
The Prime Minister went further by telling Parliament during Question Period on Thursday that it was “unfortunate” that the motion, put forward by Tory MP Stephen Woodworth, was even deemed votable.
The comments came as newly-minted Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair of the New Democrats charged that Harper was allowing the private members motion to go forward as an attempt to signal his pro-life support to the Tories’ social conservative base.
“We know the Prime Minister likes to control his message. He wouldn’t let his Conservative do something that he didn’t agree with,” Mulcair said in Question Period. “Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians why he allowed his Conservative MPs to reopen the debate on abortion?”
In reply, the Prime Minister stated: ”Every private member can table bills and motions in this House. Party leaders don’t have any control over that. … This particular motion was deemed votable by an all-party committee of the House. I think that’s unfortunate. In my case I will be voting against the motion.”
Woodworth’s motion is scheduled for an hour of debate on Thursday around 5:15 p.m. The Kitchener Centre MP hopes to establish a special committee to consider when human life begins by re-examining section 223 of the Criminal Code, which states that a child only becomes a “human being” once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.
His effort has been strongly opposed by all of the major political parties, but none are saying that they will whip their caucus to vote against it.
“We’re not going to have to impose anything because our caucus is unanimous on this,” Mulcair told reporters. “We are unanimously opposed to that motion and that approach.”
The Liberal caucus has a number of pro-life MPs who are expected to support the motion. Liberal leader Bob Rae, who is vehemently pro-abortion himself, says he will allow caucus members to vote “their conscience.”
“If there are individuals in my caucus who feel strongly for moral reasons one way or the other, we’re not going to whip the vote,” he told the Toronto Star.
When Woodworth announced the motion at a press conference in February, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson sent a statement around to media stressing the government’s disapproval. “The Prime Minister has been very clear [that] our government will not reopen this debate,” said Nicholson.
The Conservatives took the same approach in 2010 when Winnipeg Tory MP Rod Bruinooge put forward a bill to ban the coercion of women into abortion. When the bill was defeated 97-178 on December 15th, 2010, Prime Minister Harper took what was considered an unusual step by actually showing up to vote against it.
Despite the stances of Canada’s political leaders, polls have consistently shown that Canadians oppose the current status quo on abortion, where the deadly procedure is legal and tax-funded up until the moment of birth.
An Environics poll in October found that 72 percent of Canadians want some form of protection for children in the womb, with 28% saying they want protections from the moment of conception.
Obama’s Notre Dame address seen through the lens of the HHS mandate
April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservative observers of the Obama scandal at the University of Notre Dame in 2009 immediately felt the event went beyond faux pas: it was a sign of our new president’s revolutionary attitude towards the Catholic Church and its teachings. For others in the Catholic world, this new attitude took a little longer to discover.
Though many downplayed the abortion-friendly speech by pointing to Obama’s pitch for “open hearts, open minds” and a “sensible conscience clause,” others could only watch as their worst fears played out over the next three years. The irony by now is too unbearable to miss.
Robert Mylod, the vice chairman of the Board of Directors at Christendom College, offered a contemplation of Obama’s Notre Dame address in light of what has fallen out since then: the courting of high-level Catholics to pass a health care bill that contains an assault on Catholicism so unprecedented that even Obama’s dedicatedCatholic supporters (including a shocked president of Notre Dame) have at last discovered to their dismay that they have been thrown under the bus.
Obama Quote: “When we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.”
- Comment: The words are soothing but his actions leave little room for common ground. His concept of ‘common ground’ leads to persecution of those whose religious beliefs clash with his agenda.
Obama Quote: “So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies.”
- Rescind the Mexico City Policy instituted by President Reagan and supported by the presidents Bush which blocked U.S. funding for any foreign private organizations that provided abortion services or counseling, referrals or information on abortion.
- Force by Federal mandate all health care programs, including private health insurance, to carry birth control technologies (some of which are abortifacients) at no cost to the ‘patient’. Heavy fines for those (both insurers and individuals) who fail to comply.
- Fully cover without co-pay all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.
- Deny federal funding to organizations that aid trafficking victims: The USCCB Office of Migration and Refugee Services was denied Federal funding for its highly regarded services that aid trafficking victims after the Department of Health and Human Services opted for grantees that provide ‘family-planning services’ (read abortion and contraceptives).
- Force Catholic colleges to provide coverage for contraceptives in their health insurance programs. In 2009, Belmont Abbey was accused of gender discrimination after eight faculty members filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over Belmont Abbey’s decision to eliminate coverage of contraception in its health insurance.
Obama Quote: “….and making adoption more available.”
- Support for the radical expansion of parental eligibility to include homosexual couples. In states where this has already been passed, it has become very difficult for faith-based agencies that believe that marriage is between one man and one woman to function according to their beliefs.
- Reversal of the Justice Department’s commitment to defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Justice Department is now actively attempting to bring the law down in court.
Obama Quote: “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause.”
- The only religious exemption in the new law (commonly labeled ‘Obamacare’) is so narrowly defined that it prompted the USCCB to note that even Jesus’ ministry would not qualify since He fed, healed, and taught non-Christians.
- The HHS interpretation of Obamacare offers ‘conscience protection’ if entities meet the following conditions:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization;
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization;
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization;
(4) The organization is a church, an integrated auxiliary of a church, a convention or association of churches, or is an exclusively religious activity of a religious order, under Internal Revenue Code 6033(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A).
Obama Quote: “….and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science on embryonic stem cell research altogether.”
- Overturn President Bush’s proscription on Embryonic Stem Cell Research by Executive Order.
- Defend the executive order in court. A federal judge upheld President Obama’s position in a long-running battle over the scope of federal funding for human embryonic stem-cell research. Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to Mr. Obama, called the judge’s ruling “another step in the right direction.” “We know that stem-cell research offers hope to millions of Americans across the country,” Ms. Cutter wrote on a White House blog.
- Provide funding for immoral and economically unviable embryonic stem cell research. The Obama Administration has funded embryonic stem research with some $434 million on since he took office.
- Push Federal expansion of embryonic stem cell research. NIH head Francis Collins has approved 135 human embryonic stem cell lines for taxpayer funding.
- Disregard the economic and biological inviolability of embryonic stem cell research. Geron, the largest private stem cell researcher has discontinued further development of its stem cell programs and is seeking a partner to take over its work because it is economically less viable than other of its research efforts. It eliminated a full 38% of its workforce in the process.
Obama Quote: “Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game.”
- Comment: His actions suggest that he actually sees the world as a zero sum game and seeks to keep the pie from expanding, particularly the population ‘pie.’
- Aggressively promote abortion, sterilization and contraception (for adolescents without parental knowledge or consent) both domestically and abroad. Population growth is a fundamental building block of any healthy economy.
- Limit access to medical care for seniors.
- Aggressively advance the myth of global warming. John Holdren, presidential ‘czar’ of science and technology and a radical population control advocate pursues this misinformation even now. This hamstrings the economy.
- His energy policy is classic ‘zero sum’ thinking and restricts expansion of the economy.
Mexico City abortion activists ‘celebrate’ five years of legalization—more than 77,000 dead
April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-abortion activists are celebrating five years of legalized abortion-on-demand in Mexico City on Tuesday, a milestone accompanied by a stark figure: almost 78,000 unborn children have died legally at the hands of abortionists since that date.
Under Mexico’s Federal District’s abortion law, women can have abortions free of charge at one of dozens of government hospitals, during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. No conditions are applied to the policy.
The subsidized killing of the unborn in the nation’s capital since 2007 has resulted in a total of 121,148 inquiries by women, and 77,919 of those inquiries resulted in an abortion, according to the ex-director of Mexico City’s Women’s Institute, Martha Micher.
The figure does not include the provision of abortions at private clinics, where the procedure is unregulated and unmonitored.
Micher, who is running as a socialist for a seat in the national Chamber of Deputies, is pushing for even broader abortion access, advocating its legalization nationwide.
“The stars need to be aligned,” Micher told the Spanish news service EFE. “The idea is to break with these religious myths where they speak about sin, and move ahead with this issue in the law, so that at the national level there will be a bill similar to that of the Federal District, and women can decide over their own bodies.”
According to the El Universal newspaper, ten organizations hailed the anniversary of the law and echoed Micher’s call for national legalization.
Adriana Jimenez of the Network for Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Mexico (DDESR) claimed that one-fourth of women who have aborted their children are from outside the Federal District, and “therefore the necessity of legislating throughout the country.” She said that 83 percent of the women who received the “free and safe medical services” of abortions “have been Catholics.”
Standing ovation in Commons as Conservatives announce appeal of prostitution ruling
OTTAWA, Ontario, April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Federal Government will appeal a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal last month that determined that provisions in the law prohibiting brothels and living from the profit of prostitution were suddenly unconstitutional. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson told the House of Commons yesterday that Canada’s top court will have a say in the matter.
“After consideration of the ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal with regards to the Bedford prostitution challenge, I am pleased to inform this House that the government of Canada will seek leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada,” said Nicholson in a statement.
“We believe that a binding national decision is required,” continued Nicholson. “Prostitution is harmful for society as it exploits Canada’s most vulnerable people, especially women. Canadians can continue to count on the government to protect those who are vulnerable to this kind of exploitation.”
The announcement was greeted in the House with cheers, clapping, and a brief standing ovation. One person could be heard saying loudly “well done”.
In its decision Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court of Appeal determined that Sections 210 and 212 (1) (j) of the federal Criminal Code that regulate prostitution were unconstitutional. It suspended its “bawdy-house” decision for twelve months to give Parliament time to draft a new “Charter-compliant” bawdy-house provision. The overturning of the “living on the avails” of prostitution provision would have taken effect yesterday evening had the Federal Government not appealed the decision.
“It is our position that the Criminal Code provisions are constitutionally sound,” continued Nicholson in his statement to the House. “It is important to clarify the constitutionality of the law and remove the uncertainty this decision has created. The Criminal Code provisions denounce and deter the most harmful and public aspects of prostitution.”
Ex-prostituted women, who have experienced first hand what businessmen call the sex-trade but what they call the “dreadful darkness of sex-slavery”, have breathed a sigh of relief with the news of the appeal.
Tania Fiolleau, a former prostitute and overseer of brothels where hundreds of women were prostituted, told LifeSiteNews that she was “happy” with the Federal Government’s decision to appeal. She denounced the Ontario ruling saying that in her opinion, it “just gives the government a license to be a pimp, because now they can charge taxes to these women”.
She pointed out that if Canada really wanted to “fix the problem of prostitution”, it must adopt the Nordic model, which she said proved very effective in cutting down prostitution in Sweden by approximately 45%, with hardly any of the trade going underground. According to this model, the buyer is the one who is criminalized, not the prostituted women.
Fiolleau is skeptical that Canada’s politicians and Supreme Court judges will do much to curb prostitution, because she says, some of these very people are the ones using prostitutes. She told LifeSiteNews that people would be outraged if she were to expose the identities of some of the high profile clients who had visited her brothels.
“Members of Parliament and judges aren’t fighting against prostitution because there’re the ones who are buying the services,” she pointed out.
Fiolleau argued recently in an op-ed piece special to LifeSiteNews that “prostitution and brothels should be made illegal in Canada”.
“Some people think that legalizing brothels will make the prostituted women safer and allow them to lead better lives. This is far from the truth. Many of the women working in brothels have already been abused by human trafficking, enslavement to pimps, or by being controlled by criminal organizations through fear and oppression.”
Fiolleau’s will tell anyone who will listen that it is a tragedy for any young girl or women to enter into what she calls the “hell of prostitution.” Prostituted women become what she calls “our nation’s lost women.”
“They become victims of a dark and sinister sex enslavement. Their life is one of agony and horror,” she wrote.
Ex-prostitutes from Montreal had also slammed last month’s ruling saying that legalizing brothels would do nothing to help prostitutes protect themselves from exploitation and abuse when selling sex for profit.
“It’s hypocritical - it’s merely legitimizing pimps into businessmen,” said one ex-prostituted women to the National Post. “Legalizing bordellos is simply telling men it’s OK to go there.”
Gwendolyn Landolt, vice president of REAL Women of Canada, told Postmedia News that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn the lower court’s ruling, but that it would be most effective for the government to circumvent the court’s decision by using the the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The only remedy is the notwithstanding clause to restrain them (the courts). That’s all that’s left,” she said.
If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it could be as long as two years before a final decision is reached. Legal observers suspect that the two sides will likely appear before the Supreme Court within a month to begin the legal proceedings.
On the cross at Calvary, there were two men crucified next to Our Blessed Lord. To His right was St. Dismas, a good thief, who repented of his sins and begged forgiveness. To His left was Gestas, a rebel who mocked Our Lord, challenging Him to reject His cross and save the three of them from their physical sufferings and death. The example of these two men calls to mind the divisions Jesus spoke of when He said that He would separate the wheat from the chaff and the lambs from the goats. On one side is salvation; on the other is death and everlasting fire. Today, this division is becoming abundantly clear.
As the director of American Life League’s Defend the Faith project, I have seen the festering cancer of Modernism, immorality, and disobedience laying waste to communities within the Catholic Church. “Dissenters” put forth ideas suggesting that it is acceptable, and indeed “Catholic,” to disagree with fundamental Church teachings on moral and theological issues such as abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and women’s ordination.
Garbage-liners like the National Catholic Reporter, America Magazine, Commonweal, and US Catholic have all published articles attempting to question the Church’s teachings on all these things without openly rebelling against the Church. Funding agencies like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have seen fit to grant money to organizations that speak at events promoting homosexuality (like the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights), or produce voter guides endorsing same-sex marriage (like Coalition LA).
Catholic parishes, like Most Holy Redeemer in San Francisco, host a wide variety of openly homosexual events. Pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic, such as John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, or Joe Biden, openly profess their support for abortion, homosexuality, and birth control while maintaining a feigned allegiance to their Catholic faith.
The sad truth is this: While these “dissenters” have, in reality, abandoned their faith, very few seem willing to publicly rebuke, chastise, or correct these institutions and individuals. But last week, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) gave us a firm sign of strength and fortitude.
The Leadership Conference on Women Religious, which represents over 80 percent of the 57,000 nuns in the United States, underwent an investigation that started in 2008. Last week, the CDF published the results of this investigation, along with the 5-year reform that will be imposed on the conference. Immediately after the document’s publication, National Catholic Reporter published a screed, concluding with this call for open rebellion against the Catholic Church: “I have just one thought: Resisting injustice is the ultimate act of virtue in our time.”
Earlier this week, NCR broadened this call for rebellion in an article titled, “LCWR: A radical obedience to the voice of God in our time.” At the end of the article, the author clearly draws a line in the sand—and steps on the side that is NOT with the Vatican: “If the sisters are ejected from the church, we must create church around them. If they are evicted from their properties, those with the means must take them in.”
Not to be left out, US Catholic, in an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Being a Woman Today: LCWR to be ‘Renewed’ by USCCB and CDF,” also calls for open rebellion against the Vatican: “Finally, they can just accept the findings and the remedies and comply. I, for one, hope they do not. And I look forward to hearing from some of the women religious I have been inspired by, the women who, when studying theology, gave me hope for a better and brighter church.”
It isn’t surprising that dissenting publications such as these are so upset about the CDF’s document. The reason is simple. This document indirectly applies to them as well. For instance, this statement is equally applicable to the above-mentioned individuals, publications, and organizations:
While there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception [i.e., an individual’s biological beginning] to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance in the life of the Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or challenge positions taken by the bishops, who are the Church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals, are not compatible with its purpose.
In his 1995 address to the United Nations, Pope John Paul II said, “The tears of this century have prepared the ground for a new springtime of the human spirit.” Over 40 years of dissent and confusion within our Catholic Church over abortion, birth control, and homosexuality have played a significant role in the creation of those tears, and now, praise God, the new springtime seems to be upon us. As openly dissenting Catholics loudly proclaim their rebellion—or dare I say, apostasy—Our Blessed Lord stands in the middle. On His right are St. Dismas, the good thief; the lambs; and the wheat, while to His left are Gestas, the bad thief; the goats; and the chaff. While both sides suffer equally, only one side has life everlasting.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, April 25, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – People seldom associate the bowling alley with the abortion alley, but an annual “bowling for abortion” event has raised more than $400,000 to fund abortions across the country.
The National Abortion Access Bowl-a-Thon describes itself as “a nationwide series of local events that allow community members (you!) to captain your own bowling team, participate in a kickass national event– and raise money to help women and girls pay for abortions they couldn’t otherwise afford.” In addition offering partial funding for abortions, the proceeds “buy bus or plane tickets, and even offer a place to stay for those who have to travel for an abortion.”
As of this writing, the group has raised more than $401,000.
A total of 32 bowl-a-thons, from Rhode Island to California, are scheduled in the last two weeks of April. Those in other locations can take part in a virutal bowl-a-thon on April 30.
On Sunday, there will also be one miniature golf-a-thon. Last year, the D.C. HOLE-a-thon raised $28,000 for abortions in the nation’s capital. This year, its goal is $40,000.
Participating bowling teams have names like Bowlin’ for ‘Bortions, Kiss Our Uter-Ass, Margaret Sanger’s Ball Bangers, THUNDERCUNTS, If Only Limbaugh’s Mom Used Birth Control, IUDivas, Tuff Titties, Vag of Courage, Takin’ Our CUNTry Back, No Rosaries On MY Ovaries, Queer As In Fund Us, the Valiant Vulvas, the Charlottesville Harlots, and the Fierce Pussy Posse.
According to its press kit the bowl-a-thons’ beneficiary, the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), is “an affiliation of more than 100 grassroots abortion Funds in 40 states in the United States, as well as Funds in Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and online.”
Last year, NNAF distributed more than $2.9 million last year to pay for 21,000 women to have abortions. Its George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund “provides funding to women seeking later abortion care.”
“Over the past two months, more than 75% of the calls we received were from women who were 16 weeks or further into their pregnancy,” the foundation states.
The fund concentrates its work on “women living in the South,” as well as “women in prison, immigrant women, very young women and girls, and women for whom English is a second language.”
The organization asks the government to restore Medicaid funding for abortion to all women “regardless of immigration status.” It calls on legislators to “require all institutions that receive public money, including religiously affiliated institutions, to provide a basic standard of care that includes full reproductive health services.” Its other demands include covering “abortion and contraception in all private insurance plans” and selling Plan B over-the-counter.
Despite working to get poor women discounts from abortionists, it does not pay the full price of the procedure. Instead, NNAF encourages women to consider “lying to a friend or family member” to get money for an abortion. It asks young women to join “medical testing groups” and cultivate their “relationship” with their landlord. It also suggests they drop out of college.
- The Moriah Fund, which was established in 1985 by Robert and Clarence Efroymson. “Their philosophy of giving was rooted in fundamental Jewish values,” its website states. Its mission includes “promoting reproductive health and rights,” especially for women “marginalized by race, ethnicity, economic or immigration status or other social inequities.”
- The Dickler Family Foundation, which dissolved in 2010, dispersed $8.9 million that year to pro-choice organizations such as the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, and the New York Women’s Foundation. It gave $1,000 to the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous to aid those who saved Jews from the Holocaust.
- The Mary Wohlford Foundation was established by a nurse who “was particularly concerned about reproductive health and rights and responsible population growth.”
- The Herb Block Foundation, established by the liberal Washington Post editorial cartoonist who signed his works “Herblock.”
NNAF also receives funds from the Educational Foundation of America, the General Service Foundation, and “two anonymous funders.”
The $401,000 raised from the month-long “bowling for abortion” events outpaces pro-life groups, which usually set more modest goals. For instance Biking for Babies, which raises money for crisis pregnancy centers, has a goal of $40,000 this year.
Abortion advocates stage ‘huge’ protest with ‘over 50’ ppl against pro-life motion
OTTAWA, Ontario, April 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Abortion advocates in the Ottawa area staged a protest on Parliament Hill Wednesday against MP Stephen Woodworth’s pro-life motion. Activists bore “knitted wombs and vulvas” to claim that Stephen Harper’s federal Tory government wants to “control our uteruses.”
The rally received wide media coverage and the National Post, one of Canada’s leading national papers, touted the turnout as “huge,” though the crowd included only “over 50 activists,” according to the Globe and Mail.
Ottawa social conservative activist John Pacheco, who organized the 15,000 strong rally for traditional marriage, railed against the National Post’s distortion asking readers to contact the editor at the Post asking for correction. “50 people?!?!? Goodness gracious me! Have you ever heard of such a thing? Pandemonium on steroids! 50 people! Where did they fit them all! HUGE!!!!!,” wrote Pacheco.
Countless pro-life rallies across the country held throughout the year, even in rural areas, often draw far more than 50 activists, yet usually without mention even in local media.
The pro-abortion rally was held as Parliament is set for an hour of debate on Woodworth’s motion on Thursday around 5:30 p.m. The Kitchener Centre MP hopes to establish a special committee to consider when human life begins by re-examining section 223 of the Criminal Code, which states that a child only becomes a “human being” once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.
Polls have consistently shown that Canadians oppose the current status quo on abortion, where the deadly procedure is legal and tax-funded up until the moment of birth.
An Environics poll in October found that 72 percent of Canadians want some form of protection for children in the womb, with 28% saying they want protections from the moment of conception.
Nevertheless, Woodworth’s effort has been strongly opposed by all of the major political parties, including the ruling Tories.
Even as Woodworth announced the motion at a press conference in February, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson sent a statement around to media stressing the government’s disapproval. “The Prime Minister has been very clear [that] our government will not reopen this debate,” said Nicholson, who was once regarded as a strong pro-life MP.
Wednesday’s protesters called themselves the Radical Handmaids and wore red garments and “flying nun” hats as an allusion to Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.
They say Harper’s Conservative government is trying to push Canada to that futuristic America described by Atwood where women are subjugated and used strictly for their reproductive capabilities.
“The Handmaid’s Tale shouldn’t be an instruction manual,” they said in their press release. “We’re watching what’s going on in the United States with the war on women and we know the Conservatives are trying to sneak it up here.”
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 25, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – State legislatures nationwide have kept pro-life laws moving forward in the last week.
The Arizona state senate has passed a measure to defund Planned Parenthood on Tuesday. A similar law in neighboring Texas, signed by Governor Rick Perry, has the Lone Star State mired in a legal war with the Obama administration.
When state health care exchanges are set up under the health care reform law in 2014, Alabama’s will not include abortion coverage, if the state’s senators have anything to say about it. A near-unanimous bill passed that body on Tuesday, forbidding the state system from covering elective terminations. Only two senators voted against the ban.
The lieutenant governor of Mississippi is blocking the nomination of a doctor associated with the state’s only abortion clinic to the state Board of Health. Tate Reeves has said, through a spokesperson, that Carl Reddix’s role in the facility raised his “concerns.” Reddix does not perform abortions but has admitting privileges and refers victims of botched abortions to local hospitals.Reddix was nominated by former governor and onetime chair of the Republican National Committee Haley Barbour, who considered entering the presidential race last year. Current Governor Phil Bryant has said he is prepared to make a new nomination. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the state’s only abortion clinic. Bryant signed a bill earlier this month requiring all abortionists in the state to be ob-gyns who have such privileges. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the state’s only abortion clinic.
After Mississippi required that all state abortionists hold hospital admitting privileges, the state of Tennessee has passed a similar requirement. The Tennessee bill holds that abortionists must be able to admit victims of botched abortions to hospitals in their own or a neighboring county. A similar bill has already passed the state House.
As South Carolina compiles its state budget for 2012-13, a state senate committee has restricted taxpayer dollars from funding some abortions. The amendment, which will head to the full senate, would bar the state from paying for abortions unless the mother’s life is at risk. Currently state law also allows financing for abortions in the case of rape or incest.