---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

Pro-Life Lawmakers Condemn 'Sham' Health Bill Abortion Compromise

Possible game-changer as Rep. Stupak called away from House after sudden death of his mother-in-law

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, D.C. November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives have slammed purported compromise language on abortion in healthcare reform as a "sham." The language was proposed in an amendment known as the "Ellsworth amendment" by Democrats desperate to overcome a bloc within their own party that will attempt to bring down the abortion-expanding bill if it is not changed. 

The development comes just two days after Rep. Chris Smith warned thousands of listeners on a pro-life webcast that House leadership was likely to come up with language that would appear to lessen the bill's abortion threat.  But, as Smith and other leaders on the webcast insisted, Democrats in the House are not about to give up the "abortion industry bailout" in the bill.

"Today we see yet another phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language," Smith said following the introduction of the Ellsworth amendment.

"Under the new arrangement, instead of an HHS employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand," Smith explained.  "It is a distinction without a difference.  The public should not be fooled nor should any pro-life Democrat."

In the Ellsworth plan, the government-run public health insurance option would still cover abortion, but would have to contract with private contractors to carry out the administrative functions related to paying for elective abortion. 

Congressional pro-life leaders insisted that only Stupak and Pitts' Hyde language would suffice to end the bill's threat. 

"If they truly want to keep abortion out of the health care bill, they must accept the Stupak-Pitts amendment, that says clearly and plainly that there can be no funding for abortion and no government subsidies for plans that cover abortion," said Smith.  Pro-life Republican Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania called Ellsworth's amendment a "sham."

National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said that, "The pro-abortion House Democratic leadership is using Ellworth's phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment [from Stupak].

"The Ellsworth language is the legislative equivalent of putting pancake makeup on a cancer, rather than performing lifesaving surgery."

Initially dismissed by President Obama and mainstream media reports on the health bill, the abortion issue has come to the fore in recent weeks as the primary battleground on which Democrats fear the legislation could be defeated.  The bill's potential radical change in federal policy on funding abortion has prompted 40 Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, to demand that the full House at least have an up-or-down vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which is similar to the famous Hyde amendment that disallows federal funding of abortion.  Stupak and other sources acknowledge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not allow the vote opportunity, because the amendment is seen as very likely to succeed.

However, a crucial and unexpected turn of events this week could serve to prevent Stupak from whipping his colleagues, and even from casting his much-anticipated rule vote. 

Stupak's mother-in-law, Elaine Olsen, passed away Sunday in Escanaba, MI, and Stupak's office confirmed the Congressman would be out of town and thus cancelled his activities on the Hill for the rest of this week.

An anonymous senior House leadership aide told FOX News that Stupak's absence would not change the shape of abortion negotiations, but another top Democrat had a different take.  When asked if Stupak's absence could make an impact, the lawmaker responded: "Yeah. Big time."

Rep. Pitts, who has worked closely with Stupak to block the bill's abortion expansion, suggested that leaders were pursuing the "compromise" in order to exploit Stupak's absence.

Meanwhile, H.R. 3962 inched closer to its final destination Tuesday evening after leadership filed the so-called "manager's amendment," setting off a 72-hour minimum time buffer to allow lawmakers to read the bill before it is put to a vote.  The House Rules Committee will meet at 2 p.m. on Friday to determine the rules for the final debate, in preparation for a possible vote Saturday evening at 6 p.m.

Though House Democrats are working hard to ram the bill through on a tight schedule, there has been an increasing fear that their swift action will not be reflected in the Senate.  Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today that getting the health bill done by the end of the year was "a no-go."

Only a week ago, President Barack Obama said at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that he was "absolutely confident" he'll have a health bill to sign by the end of the year.

Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid simply replied "We are not going to be bound by any timetables.  We are going to do this as quickly as we can."

It is considered generally easier to pass controversial legislation in non-election years such as 2009, when lawmakers faced with tough votes are less concerned about assuaging their constituency back home.  Also, House Democrats are likely to be more reticent about voting on the contentious bill if they have no feel for how their counterparts in the Senate will vote.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110303.html

 Back to Top

---

Conservative Pro-Life, Pro-Family Dark Horse in NY 23 Race Defeated in Close Race

Scozzafava's ties to labor unions resulted in powerful N.Y. unions pouring in hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Hoffman

By Peter J. Smith

WATERTOWN, New York (LifeSiteNews.com) - Doug Hoffman, the upstart third-party Conservative candidate for the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, conceded defeat to Democrat Bill Owens early Wednesday morning.

The final tally showed Owens beating out Hoffman by 4,000 votes, 49 percent to 45 percent. On social issues, Owens has identified himself as "pro-choice" regarding abortion, but on marriage, he indicated that he favored President Obama's position: against same-sex "marriage," but for civil unions.

GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who suspended her campaign on Saturday and endorsed the Democrat Owens over the Conservative/Republican Hoffman, still remained on the Republican and Independence Party tickets and received 6 percent of the vote.

"This race was a very tough race. We stood up against two major parties that had a lot of money, but we got this far on determination, and we got this far with a grassroots campaign that got many volunteers out," Hoffman said in his concession speech.

"This one was worth the fight," he continued, telling his supporters that their fight was a fight for America. "And it's only one fight in the battle, and we have to keep fighting."

Hoffman built an insurgent third-party campaign running on the Conservative Party ticket that tapped into district grass-roots anger that GOP party bosses had nominated a Republican who boasted a very liberal record on both social and fiscal issues.

While polls on the eve of election-day showed Hoffman having pulled ahead by at least five points, Scozzafava's weekend endorsement of Owens after the implosion of her own campaign, which had the blessing of national GOP leaders, may have proved the game-changer.

Scozzafava has close ties to the labor unions - her husband is a labor organizer - and channeled that on-the-ground support into Owens campaign. The Albany Times Union reports that powerful New York unions poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Hoffman.

Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens was met with horror by state GOP leaders and national Republicans, who had poured around $900,000 into her candidacy and supported her in spite of the fierce conservative resistance that fueled Hoffman's rise, which depended heavily on small-size donations and the endorsements of conservative organizations and personalities. GOP Chairman Michael Steele had called Scozzafava's original decision to back out of the race a "selfless act" - a statement that proved embarrassing once Scozzafava endorsed Owens in the Watertown Daily Times.

Hoffman had much on the ground grassroots support from Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which coordinated an effort to man the polls and canvass the district with pro-life, pro-family volunteers that were key to Hoffman's strong showing on election day as a third-party candidate.

Hoffman's defeat is not likely to dampen the conservative insurgency that has ignited within the Republican Party. Politico reported on Election Day that grass-roots activists, especially in the "Tea Party" movement, have targeted a dozen GOP lawmakers for primary challenges.

"To be frank, this is a win for motivated conservative activists who are driven by issues and not party. Dede Scozzafava's advocacy of the extreme Obama agenda would have been a great loss for the GOP and all those who care about the values enshrined in its platform," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of SBA. "The road to a GOP majority is not paved with taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage and government-run healthcare."

"In going the difficult route as a third-party candidate, Hoffman generated funds, volunteers, and enthusiasm for his message of fiscal and cultural conservatism. That he came as close as he did running as an insurgent is an accomplishment in itself," wrote analyst John Gizzi at Human Events.

What lessons the GOP has learned from the battle over NY-23 will reveal themselves in the days to come. Liberal members of the GOP contend that Hoffman's defeat shows that conservatives cannot win without embracing "moderate" candidates. Conservatives for their part contend that Scozzafava's implosion and endorsement of Owens to play the spoiler in the race as the GOP candidate shows the contrary: the GOP cannot ignore its grass-roots when it comes to selecting candidates.

 Back to Top

---

Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" Law

By Kathleen Gilbert

AUGUSTA, Maine, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Maine voters handed traditional marriage supporters a major victory Tuesday night after rejecting a same-sex "marriage" law that the state government approved six months ago.

Though signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, the law never went into effect, and remained in limbo after the success of the ballot initiative calling for a people's vote.

Had the law been upheld, Maine would have been the sixth U.S. state to allow homosexual "marriage," after Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

As of early Wednesday, the law was defeated 53% to 47%, despite polling data leading up to the vote showing the race in a dead heat.  A similar scenario played out last year in California, where a neck-and-neck battle ended with 52% of voters rejecting same-sex "marriage."  A national survey of marriage initiatives by ProtectMarriage.com last September showed that polling data underestimated voter support for true marriage on election day by an average of 7 percentage points.

The Stand for Marriage Maine campaign celebrated its victory at a Portland rally beginning at midnight Wednesday.

"We've struggled, we've worked against tremendous odds, as we've all known," said campaign manager Marc Mutty. "We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight."

Maine's same-sex "marriage" activists on the other hand, who had banked on the state's left-leaning electorate to push the new definition of marriage through, vowed to continue the fight. 

"We're not short timers. We're in for the long haul,'' said No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly early this morning.  Connolly's campaign has yet to officially concede the vote, and ABC News reports that the Protect Maine Equality campaign is likely to call for a statewide recount, which could take several weeks to conclude.

Same-sex "marriage" has now lost in all 31 states in which the question has been put to a popular vote. 

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), pointed out: "Every time Americans vote on marriage, traditional marriage wins. As people become aware of the true homosexual agenda, that it is not about equality but indoctrinating children and discriminating against Christians, they shore up protections against it."

Maine's vote marks the third time citizens have rejected same-sex "marriage" in response to action by the state government.  One year ago today, 52% of California voters also upheld traditional marriage, striking down a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing homosexual "marriage" in May.  In 1998, Hawaii became the first state with a constitutional amendment dealing with homosexual "marriage" in response to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Hawaiian voters then passed Amendment 2, which gave the legislature the power to reserve marriage to unions of man and woman.

Though outspent two to one, the traditional marriage campaign received a boost from Portland Bishop Richard Malone, whose advocacy for true marriage helped solidify the response of Maine's Catholics.  Catholics constitute 37% of the Maine population.  "The Catholic Church led the fight in Maine against those seeking to reinvent marriage, and won," said Catholic League president Bill Donohue Wednesday.

Maine's victory was not the only one for marriage Tuesday night: the losses suffered by pro-same-sex "marriage" Democrats in Virginia's and New Jersey's gubernatorial races pose a significant hurdle to homosexualist advocates.  The victory of New Jersey Republican Chris Christie was particularly significant, as same-sex "marriage" supporters now only have until January to push through their legislation in time for lame duck Gov. Jon Corzine to sign it.  Christie has vowed to veto any legislation legalizing same-sex "marriage."

"Gov. Corzine said gay marriage was 'on the ballot' with him in New Jersey this year.  Today, New Jersey voted 'No' on both of them," said Len Deo, President of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

Washington, D.C.'s city council is also preparing to approve a same-sex "marriage" law.  Conservative D.C. activists are gathering support for a referendum to protect traditional marriage.

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Maine Ad Promoting Same-Sex 'Marriage' Uses 'Catholic' Mom 

Maine Homosexualists Frantically Refute Evidence that Same-Sex "Marriage" Would Affect Schools 

Battle in Maine Over Future of Same-Sex "Marriage" in Dead Heat 

Good News for Proposition 8: New Study Shows Polls Significantly Understate Support for True Marriage 

 Back to Top

---

Pro-Life Candidates Make Triple Sweep in Virginia Elections

By Peter J. Smith

RICHMOND, Virginia, November 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Virginia's state elections saw a sweep for pro-life candidates into the state's highest offices. Pro-life Republicans captured the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general by wide margins.

Pro-life Republican Bob McDonnell handily beat his pro-abortion Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds. Election night returns showed McDonnell cruising to victory, garnering 59 percent of the vote to Deeds' 41 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting in.

"Eight months ago I applied for the job of governor of Virginia, tonight you have hired me," said Governor-elect McDonnell to cheering supporters.

McDonnell took the podium addressing the people of Virginia for his victory, saying he was both "humbled" and "honored" with their decision to send him to the governor's office. But McDonnell also mentioned his special gratitude to God.

"I thank God for his grace goodness and divine providence in my life," continued McDonnell, before pledging to go to work for Virginia.

McDonnell's victory marks the first time since 1997 that a Republican has won the Virginia governorship. McDonnell replaces out-going Democratic governor Tim Kaine, who was prevented from seeking re-election by Virginia's term-limits.

Pro-life Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican, also handily won re-election with 57 percent of the vote, to 43 percent for his pro-abortion Democratic challenger Jody Wagner, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

Pro-life Republican Ken Cuccinelli also beat out his Democratic and pro-abortion challenger Steve Shannon for the office of attorney general, 58 percent to 42 percent with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

All three candidates had been strongly endorsed and supported by the Virginia Society for Human Life for their legislative efforts in Richmond defending the rights of the unborn.

"Today is a great day for unborn children and their mothers, as well as the vulnerable of all ages throughout the Commonwealth.  We congratulate Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli for their spectacular victories in today's election," VSHL President Olivia Gans said in a statement.

"The Virginia Society for Human Life looks forward to working with all three of these stalwart pro-life leaders, as well as pro-life members of the State Senate and House of Delegates, to enact laws that will safeguard the right to life of unborn children and support their mothers, and protect older people and those with disabilities from denial of lifesaving medical treatment, food and water."

Gans told LifeSiteNews.com days before the election that the election would also be a referendum on whether Virginia would remain true to "traditional family values."

Gans explained that a pro-life victory would send the message that "we are not a pro-abortion country, we are in fact a pro-life state and a pro-life America."

The Virginia election and McDonnell's massive margin of victory also has broader implications for President Barack Obama and his policies. Exactly one year ago, Virginia had voted to send Obama to the presidency, and although the President's personal appeal remains high, his efforts to convince Virginia voters to elect Deeds proved futile.

Voters' highest concerns were the economy, jobs, and fiscal responsibility, lending credence to the view that the election may also prove to be part of a larger referendum on the policies of Obama and his Democratic-controlled Congress.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

Interview: President of Oldest US Pro-Life Group on 2009 Virginia Election
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102709.html

 Back to Top

---

Pro-Life Pro-Family Candidate Chris Christie Captures New Jersey Governorship

By Peter J. Smith

TRENTON, New Jersey, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Incumbent Democrat Gov. Jon Corzine conceded defeat last night to pro-life, pro-family Republican Chris Christie in New Jersey's governor's race.

Christie fought a hard-won battle against the incumbent Corzine and third-party candidate Chris Daggett, winning 49 percent of the vote. Corzine, whose bid for re-election received huge assistance from President Barack Obama, who personally campaigned for him in New Jersey, came in second with 45 percent of the vote, with Daggett trailing in third with six percent.

President Obama had attempted to rally support behind Corzine by tapping into the popularity that garnered the President 57 percent of the vote in New Jersey in 2008. However neither Obama's personal charisma, nor Corzine's outspending Christie by almost 3-1 - $30 million to $11.5 million - could save the incumbent governor from defeat in an election that mainly turned on the economy and job stagnation, crippling fees and taxes (especially sky-high property taxes), and fiscal irresponsibility in Trenton that has run rampant during Corzine's tenure.

Christie accepted Corzine's concession of defeat around 11 p.m. on Tuesday and took to the podium with Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" playing in the background. Cheering supporters waving American and "Tea Party" flags greeted Christie and interrupted his acceptance speech several times, including with shouts of "Yes, we can" - an obvious reference to Obama's famous 2008 campaign slogan.

"Tomorrow we will take back New Jersey back for our families. Tomorrow we will take back New Jersey for our friends," Christie told cheering supporters. "Tomorrow we begin to build that greater New Jersey for our children and grandchildren. I want my children to raise their children in this state. I want your children to raise their children in this great state."

However, social issues - especially life-related issues and same-sex "marriage" - also played a supporting role in the gubernatorial campaign.

During the brutal campaign fight, Corzine, who was endorsed by abortion-provider Planned Parenthood, had attacked Christie in ads for the latter's support of a constitutional amendment banning abortion and his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

Corzine is a big proponent of embryonic stem-cell research. However, New Jersey voters, frustrated with the state's failure to close a $3 billion budget gap, rejected in November 2007 a $450 million ballot initiative to support a project that would have funded embryonic stem-cell research facilities. The setback was a political humiliation for Corzine, who had broken ground for the Christopher Reed Pavilion in October with the words "to the future," only to have the voters shelve the project a month later.

Christie, on the other hand, received a critical endorsement from New Jersey's foremost pro-life GOP Congressman Chris Smith. The pro-life leader's approval for Christie, who admitted at the beginning of his campaign that he used to describe himself as "pro-choice" until the birth of his own children led him to embrace the pro-life position, was followed by the endorsement of New Jersey Right to Life.

New Jersey's governor-elect told New Jersey's Star-Ledger on the campaign trail that he favors common-sense restrictions on abortion, such as the partial-birth abortion ban, parental notification laws, and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for women considering aborting their unborn children.

Although he favors allowing New Jersey's current law allowing civil unions for same-sex couples to stay on the books, Christie went on record as supporting a Marriage Protection Amendment and promised that he would veto any bill passed by the state legislature legalizing same-sex "marriage."

Both of Christie's challengers, Corzine and Daggett, indicated that they would sign a bill legalizing same-sex "marriage" if given the opportunity.

Corzine is pressing the New Jersey legislature to pass same-sex "marriage" before January - within the lame-duck session - although it is unclear how the crushing defeat handed to same-sex "marriage" proponents in Maine would affect political enthusiasm for such a bill among New Jersey legislators.

See related election coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

 Pro-Life Candidates Make Triple Sweep in Virginia Elections
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110401.html

Breaking: Maine Voters Reject Same-Sex "Marriage" Law
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110402.html

 Back to Top

---

'Is the Quebec College of Physicians Deliberately Confusing Canadians on Euthanasia?' Asks Anti-Euthanasia Leader

"We are saying death can be an appropriate type of care in certain circumstances," explained a College spokesman in announcing their new document on euthanasia.

By Patrick B. Craine

MONTREAL, Quebec, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A prominent Canadian anti-euthanasia activist is demanding an explanation from the Quebec College of Physicians (CMQ) following their release yesterday of a highly controversial document in which they call for the legalization of euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, says that the CMQ in the document blurs the line between legitimate end-of-life palliative care and euthanasia, and comes out in support of the former while wrongly giving it the name of the latter.

"Are the Quebec physicians deliberately causing confusion for Canadians in order to serve their own political agenda?" asked Alex Schadenberg. "I think there's a political motivation going on here, and they should have to prove to me otherwise."

Dr. Yves Robert, CMQ Secretary, at a news conference announcing his organization's decision on euthanasia said, "We are saying death can be an appropriate type of care in certain circumstances."

"This is a major breakthrough."

The CMQ say they have determined that euthanasia should be legalized and "integrated as a part of appropriate end-of-life care as soon as possible."  They contend that there are "certain exceptional situations" where euthanasia is part of appropriate end-of-life care, and maintain that the current legal situation risks putting doctors in a position of facing criminal charges while they are merely exercising their duty of care.

"Legislation can suddenly encroach on the decision making process [at the end of life]," the CMQ document states.  "In effect, there are certain exceptional situations - uncontrollable pain or interminable suffering, for example - in which euthanasia could be considered to be a final step required to assure the provision of quality care."

The CMQ's stated 'exceptional situations' regard occasions where a patient's pain is so great that the amount of analgesics required to control it results in his death.  While the CMQ claim this is a form of euthanasia, Schadenberg insists that "they know better."

"They continue to improperly define euthanasia," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com.  "They define euthanasia as being similar to the use of analgesics in high doses, and that is incorrect, at least the proper use of it. ... It actually is the direct and intentional killing of another person. ... It has nothing to do with high doses of analgesics, unless you're actually abusing the use, and actually doing that intentionally to cause their death."

"The fact is that if they get their way, they're just going to open the door to abusing the proper use of analgesics in Canada, and that shocks me," he continued. 

Schadenberg says he has two questions for the CMQ: "Are they covering up for physicians who are abusing these analgesics?  Or are they deliberately trying to confuse Canadians by giving them the wrong idea about what euthanasia actually is?"

This decision follows a report in July from the CMQ's task force on ethics which proposed the legalization of euthanasia in certain cases.  In announcing that report, Schadenberg charges that CMQ Secretary Robert again conflated euthanasia and palliative sedation.

The CMQ is arguing that the law should align itself with the reality that, in seeking to relieve their patients' pain, doctors already are administering doses of analgesics so high that it hastens their patients' deaths.  But while the CMQ maintains that through such actions these physicians could face criminal charges, Schadenberg insists this practice of palliative sedation is legitimate, legal, and carries no risk of sanction.

"The proper use of sedation is not against the law," he said.  "The proper use of sedation is absolutely moral.  It's the improper - it's the abuse of sedation that is [illegal]."  "There is no risk to physicians who properly use analgesics," he continued.  "All of the court decisions that have already been made in the past clearly define that the use of large doses of medication is not euthanasia, is not morally wrong, unless they intentionally use them to cause someone's death."

Dr. José Luis Pereira, chief of palliative care at Bruyère Continuing Care and Ottawa Hospital, agrees with the substance of Schadenberg's assessment that the CMQ's document is spreading confusion.

"It has all gone several steps too far," he told the Globe and Mail.  The doctor, who spent three years working under Switzerland's regime of legal euthanasia, said that the CMQ is confusing end-of-life care with euthanasia and misleading the public.

"They always start off with the premise of extreme cases, and the definition inevitably expands," he stated. "There's an enormous amount of misinformation, it's extremely irresponsible."

The CMQ document has been released just as Canada's Parliament deliberates over Bill C-384, to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The bill, brought by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, is undergoing second reading.  The second hour of debate is tentatively scheduled for December 1st, with a vote the next day.  According to Schadenberg, "Without a question, it will be defeated."

Despite the apt timing of their decision, the CMQ is criticizing the present bill for "confining doctors to the role of simply carrying out orders."  The bill is not broad enough, they say, in the sense that it does not allow doctors to euthanize those who lack lucidity, but is too broad in that it could require a doctor to euthanize a person who is "depressed or ... who refuses the appropriate care."

"There is no provision for patients who are not competent or for all those who may not have made a request while they were still able to do so," they say.  "And yet, given the consent of a patient's loved ones, many doctors would probably feel justified in shortening the agony of certain incompetent patients in a terminal phase and suffering from uncomfortable pain."

According to Schadenberg, however, "The fact is this bill allows [doctors to kill] people who aren't competent."  "It says 'appearing to be lucid'," he said, "which ... doesn't mean you're lucid."

Several recent polls conducted in Quebec have indicated widespread support for the legalization of euthanasia.  In August, one revealed that 3 out of 4 Quebeckers support legalization, and last month, another poll indicated support from 75% of Quebec medical specialists.  Another of Quebec family physicians yielded similar results.

Ironically, given his own organization's apparent confusion about the definition of euthanasia, CMQ President Dr. Montagne told the Canadian Press that the poll respondents likely misunderstood the meaning of euthanasia. "When we talk about euthanasia, everyone sees it as big as that," explained Dr. Lamontagne, opening his arms wide. "I feel that in the survey of both federations, it is a bit like that" that the term had been understood.

A poll commissioned by LifeCanada, released this week, revealed that Canadians are more conflicted about euthanasia than the Quebec polls would indicate.  While 61% supported legalization, 70% worried that patients would be euthanized without their consent should it be legalized.  As well, 69% thought the government should focus on palliative care, compared to 18% who advocated legalized euthanasia as the priority.

To see the Quebec College of Physicians' document click here.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Quebec Physicians Propose Legalized Euthanasia 

New Poll Reveals that Canadians are Conflicted About Legal Euthanasia 

Anti-Euthanasia Group Questions Survey Suggesting Quebec MDs are Favorable to Euthanasia 

Canadian Parliament Debates Euthanasia Bill 

 Back to Top

---

Planned Parenthood Attempts to Strangle Personhood Ballot in Missouri

By James Tillman 

ST. LOUIS, MO, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Planned Parenthood is suing the state of Missouri in an attempt to keep Missouri's citizens from voting on a pro-life ballot initiative that would define "person," as used in certain sections of the Missouri state constitution, to include every human being "from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

"Planned Parenthood is again trying to stifle the will of the people by forcing their twisted political and business agenda through court action," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, in a statement issued Monday. "They know the people are against them." 

Planned Parenthood is arguing against the measure on several grounds, including saying that the proposed summary text to be submitted to voters in the ballot "fails to advise voters of the far-reaching legal changes and consequences that would result" from the amendment and "thus is likely to deceive and mislead voters."  

Judie Brown responded, however, that the "only legal implication of any personhood proposal, including Missouri's, is equal justice and human rights for all human beings - if Planned Parenthood wants to oppose that, then their true motivation has been exposed and they should have the courage to say so." 

Keith Mason of Personhood USA similarly stated that "the legal and constitutional 'fallout' of a Missouri Personhood amendment, is that all humans in the state of Missouri have human rights. ... All humans are people, and must be protected." 

Advocates of the measure also say that Planned Parenthood's accusations regarding the alleged lack of clarity of the ballot text are unfounded. 

"Our amendment is easy to understand, and simply protects all humans from their biological beginning," stated Dr. Gregory Thompson, chair of Personhood Missouri. 

Indeed, an alternate summary text proposed by Planned Parenthood appears less clear in many respects than the text submitted by Personhood Missouri.  Their summary devotes over two-thirds of its words to cautioning voters of the supposedly dangerous effects of passing the amendment, warning ominously that it would alter "many laws ... in potentially unforeseen ways," and calls unborn human beings simply "fertilized eggs." 

Planned Parenthood does not merely wish to alter the text submitted to voters, however, but to quash the initiative entirely.  They argue that because of the many potential effects of the amendment, it violates a requirement that petitions amending the Constitution do not contain more than one subject.  However, precedent in this case is not on the side of Planned Parenthood: a similar measure in the state of Colorado was found to be a single-subject measure.

Personhood Missouri's Dr. Thompson pointed out that the Planned Parenthood lawsuit will cost taxpayers additional funds and use valuable government resources: "The very organization that uses tax dollars to cause the deaths of millions of innocent human beings and many mothers, along with years of physical, mental, and spiritual pain, is now using government resources again to keep this issue from going to the voters." 

"The motivation of Planned Parenthood is highly suspect," Personhood USA's Keith Mason said.  "This is clearly an act of desperation by a billion dollar industry, seeking to keep the issue of Personhood away from the people of Missouri." 

Planned Parenthood also recently brought a lawsuit against another pro-life ballot initiative in Missouri.  The initiative would "protect taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion, somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning), and research that destroys human embryos," according to Frederic G. Sauer of the Missouri Roundtable for Life. 

Using arguments resembling those employed in the other lawsuit, Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said that the bill's language was ambiguous because it did not define "abortion services," according to the Missouri Lawyers Media. 

See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com: 

California Pro-Lifers Launch Human Rights Amendment Petition Campaign  

Colorado Pro-life Group Introduces Amendment Recognizing "Personhood" of Unborn Child  

Florida Pro-Life Group Announces Personhood Amendment Campaign     

 Back to Top

---

UPDATED: After Vote to Put Illinois Parental Notice Law Into Immediate Effect, Judge Issues Restraining Order

By Peter J. Smith

(Breaking Update 7:21 p.m.: The Associated Press is reporting that an Illinois judge has put a restraining order on the law at the behest of the ACLU, further delaying the implementation of the law until such a time as the judge can hear arguments from the ACLU over their opposition to the law. More info will follow as this unexpected development unfolds...)

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After enduring a protracted legal battle spanning fifteen years, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act has finally gone into full effect today without further delay.

The Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Wednesday morning decided to enforce without further delay the pro-life law, which requires that one parent or legal guardian must be notified 48 hours in advance when a minor aged seventeen or younger seeks an abortion.

"This is a great victory for Illinois families. Girls that face an unwanted pregnancy will be guaranteed access to the most important pregnancy crisis counselors: their parents," said Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel, Chicago-based Thomas More Society in a statement. "We've fought this legal battle so that Illinois would join with the majority of the people in the nation who value parental rights and the well-being of their children."

The Thomas More Society (TMS), a Chicago-based public interest firm, litigated for well over a decade for the enforcement of the law, which remained in legal limbo because the state Supreme Court refused to issue rules - mandated by the law - regarding an appeals process for minors requesting a "bypass hearing." The rules finally were issued three years ago, when a reconstituted Court finally issued the rules.

However litigation dragged on, since the American Civil Liberties Union then intervened, arguing that the parental notification law was unconstitutional.

The litigation finally saw its efforts pay off when the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the parental notification law on July 14. TMS Chief Counsel Thomas Brejcha argued against the ACLU before the federal court, saying that the law was necessary to safeguard minors and put a stop to cycles of sexual abuse by sexual predators, who coerce them into having abortions without telling their parents in order to cover up their crimes.

The federal appeals court ruling affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court's decision to implement a rule that provided for minors in extraordinary cases to have expedited and confidential "bypass hearing" appeals. A few weeks later, when the Circuit Court issued its mandate, the Parental Notice of Abortion Act became fully effective and enforceable for the first time since 1995.

However, the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board, which has responsibility for enforcing the Parental Notice Act against physicians who willfully violate the law, had further delayed implementation of the law, by recommending that the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation suspend enforcement of the law for ninety days, beginning on August 5, 2009.

But this morning's decision by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation brings further delays in implementing the parental notification law to an end.

Since the passage of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois girls below the age of majority have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

Illinois now joins 36 other states enforcing similar parental notification laws.

 Back to Top

---

Italian Politicians Furious over Anti-Crucifix Decision by European Human Rights Court

By Hilary White

ROME, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against crucifixes in Italian schools has garnered outrage from many corners in Italy, including senior officials of the Vatican and the Italian Parliament as well as local political and social groups. The news made the front page of most national Italian papers. 

The ruling comes in response to a complaint by an Italian citizen of Finish origin, Soile Lautsi, who now lives near Padua, who had asked her local public school to remove crucifixes that she deemed offensive. Lautsi had campaigned through the courts for eight years against the presence of crucifixes in Italy's classrooms. The ECHR ruling granted her compensation of five thousand Euros for moral damages.

The ruling said, "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities ... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions."

Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi SJ, said that the decision had been greeted with "astonishment" in the Vatican. "The Crucified, remember, was always a sign of God's offer of love and union and reception for all humanity," Lombardi said. For this reason he said he is "sorry that it would be regarded as a sign of division, exclusion or restriction of freedom. This is not in the common sentiment of our people."

Lombardi defended the presence of Christianity in Italian schools saying, "Religion makes a valuable contribution to the training and moral growth of individuals, and is an essential component of our civilization. It is wrong and short sighted to want to exclude this from the educational reality."

The Italian bishops' conference issued a statement saying the ruling is "likely to artificially separate the national identity from its cultural and spiritual matrix." The bishops called it an example of Europe's "degeneration into secularism, hostility to all forms of the political and cultural importance of religion."

Reactions from government and political leaders, however, have been even more blunt, with most calling the ruling a serious offense against Italian culture, history and independence.

Minister of Education Mariastella Gelmini said that the government is appealing the decision. "Our Constitution rightly recognizes a particular value of the Catholic religion. I would not like some of the rules referred to by the judges in Strasbourg would be inconsistent with our Constitution," she said, adding, "The crucifix represents Italy and to defend its presence in schools means to defend our tradition."

Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said that the Vatican "appreciates" the efforts against the ruling by the government and said he hoped that other European governments would follow. But Bertone said that it is for the laity to react, saying the Holy See "cannot interfere with the decisions of the European Court."

Italian Foreign minister, Franco Frattini, however, said the ruling is "a fatal blow to Europe of values and rights." Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, called it a "mistake and an act of insensitivity" and the fruit of a "partial and ideological" court.

Agriculture Minister Luca Zaia called it a "shameful" decision and said, "Pending clarification of the reasons I cannot but side with all those, believers or not, religious or not, Christian or not, who feel aggrieved by an abstract and pseudo democratic ruling.

"The one who is offending the feelings of the peoples of Europe born from Christianity is without doubt the Strasbourg court. Without identity there are peoples, and without Christianity there would be no Europe."

Minister of Youth, Giorgia Meloni, said, "The crucifix is a symbol inextricably tied to the identity of European peoples, even beyond its religious meaning." This was backed up by Minister of Economic Development Claudio Scajola who called the crucifix a "universal symbol of love, gentleness and peace."

Union of Christian and Centre Democrats (UDC) party leader Pier Ferdinando Casini said, "The decision to reject the presence of the crucifix in schools is the first consequence of the timidity of European governments that have refused to mention the Christian roots in the European Constitution."

Even the leader of Italy's centre-left Partito Democratico (PD), Pierluigi Bersani, speaking at the headquarters of the European Commission, said the decision in this "delicate area" is where "common sense becomes a victim of the law." "I think," he continued, "that an ancient tradition as that of the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone."

A local paper of the Veneto region, that includes Padua, said the area is for one day declaring "secession from Europe" in rebellion. Corriere del Veneto quoted MEP Bizzotto Mara saying, "To prohibit the crucifix in our schools is a glaring idiocy." Another Veneto politician called for a rebellion and for crucifixes to be displayed in every classroom and every office.

Bricolo Frederick, chairman of the Senate of the Carroccio, said, "At home no one can impose rules that are against our history and our culture. Even those European organizations which demonstrate increasingly distant from the belief and the will of our peoples."

Paul Caratossidis, coordinator of Forza Nuova, said that anyone trying to remove crucifixes from Veneto schools would face a "human wall" of opposition, "Even if it means risking the illegality."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

European Court of Human Rights Bans Crucifixes in Italian Schools
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110311.html

 Back to Top

---

Not Over Yet: Washington Same-Sex Ballot Measure Still too Close to Call

By Peter J. Smith

OLYMPIA, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-family advocates can celebrate a victory on the East Coast with the defeat of same-sex "marriage" at the ballot box in Maine, but the referendum battle in the state of Washington over an expanded domestic partnerships law may not turn out to be a consolation prize for homosexualist activists smarting from their latest defeat.

Referendum 71 is a ballot measure in Washington that gives state voters a chance to approve a state law that confers on homosexual couples in domestic partnerships all the rights, obligations, and benefits of marriage except the name of "marriage." Pro-family advocates put R-71 on the November ballot, realizing that the law was an invitation to state courts to redefine the institution of marriage by presenting domestic partnerships as second-class "marriages." 

Even though homosexual activists' bid to approve R-71 remains slightly ahead, the race even now is too close to call, and could shift in favor of pro-marriage, pro-family advocates by the end of the evening.

As of press time, Washington voters are approving R-71 by 51.06 (511,651 votes in favor) percent to 48.97 percent (490,948 votes against), meaning that in order to win pro-family advocates must overcome a deficit of 20,000 votes and then some.

However, unlike most US states, Washingtonians decide a referendum through mail-in ballots, not by going to the polls, and the Protect Marriage Washington campaign tells LifeSiteNews.com that they believe they can still pull off a victory and take the lead by around 5 p.m. pacific standard time.

"It's very close," said Larry Stickney, campaign manager for the Protect Marriage Washington Coalition, which is leading the charge to reject R-71. "We had anticipated a close race; it's very likely we will close the gap here to a certain degree, and we are hoping and praying we can take the lead here by five o'clock."

"That's our optimistic projection, but it is within the realm of possibility," continued Stickney.

Stickney told LSN that since 1996, conservative or Republican candidates "have nearly always brought in a two to four percent lead" when it comes to counting the late votes coming in from all over the state, and they believe the effort to reject R-71 should perform similarly, especially if opposing the measure is perceived as a Republican or conservative issue.

"We stand to gain somewhere in that percentage range," said Stickney. He added that their number-crunchers have put their lowest estimate at a "9,000 vote loss," but very close to the percentages necessary to force a recount.

"We are optimistic that we will go above and beyond that and possibly win this thing," said Stickney.

"We'd like to be ahead at this point, but history shows we are definitely still in the hunt."

 Back to Top

---

No British Referendum on Lisbon Treaty: Tory Leader

By Hilary White

ROME, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -  While the leader of Britain's Tory opposition party had long promised to stand against Lisbon should he form the next government, David Cameron is now saying that opposition to Lisbon after the fact is pointless. They can "no more hold a referendum on the treaty than ... a referendum on the sun rising in the morning," he said.

Cameron, who is expected to be the next Prime Minister, garnered headlines today when he said that despite what he had once called his "cast iron guarantee" of a public referendum on Lisbon, the party will seek only to "repatriate" some of Britain's powers from Brussels back to Westminster.

"The Lisbon treaty has now been ratified by every one of the 27 member states of the European Union, and our campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty is therefore over. Why?" he asked. "Because it is no longer a treaty: it is being incorporated into the law of the European Union. Next week, the new posts that the Lisbon treaty creates - a president and a foreign minister - will be filled."

Pro-life campaigners against Lisbon have long warned that the European Union will become even more unaccountable with the passage of Lisbon, which grants the power to overturn national laws, including those like Ireland's pro-life constitutional guarantees, to the European Court of Justice.

But the new Tory rhetoric may not go over well with voters. Benedict Brogan wrote in the Daily Telegraph today that "those who do not live and breathe the subtleties of Westminster may have missed the small print in the 'cast-iron guarantee' the party leader offered when he promised to give voters the say on the treaty that Gordon Brown (and Tony Blair) denied them."

Judging from the Telegraph's "heaving postbag," voters are already not happy with Cameron's change of direction. "To them," Brogan writes, "it was a simple proposition: Mr Cameron said they would get a referendum, and they, trusting souls, believed him.

"They assumed that Mr Cameron meant what he said. Or at least, what they thought he had said. They did not hear the 'but' that limited the pledge to the eventuality that the Treaty had not come into force. And boy, are they angry as a result."

 Back to Top

---

Letters to the Editor - Nun Abortion Clinic Escort

Re: Updated: Nun Abortion Clinic Escort Reprimanded - Dominican Congregation Apologizes for Scandal

If you believe for one second that the Sinsinawa Domincan religious sisters, the community of the pro abort Sr. Donna Quinn, are truly repentent over the years of involvement of one of their own in the blood trade of abortion, you have been deceived.

I was the president of the parish advisory council at St. Patrick Cathedral  Parish in Ft. Worth, Texas in 2004. I am very familiar with the Sinsinawa Domincan priory and its deep involvement with abortion and radical feminism.

A representative of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was scheduled to come to the cathedral in August of 2004 to give an appeal allegedly for the priory's mission work. A few weeks prior to the date of the appeal, several council members did some research  on this group of sisters, much of it coming form the community's own web site.

We discovered that the Sinsinawa Dominicans were public supporters of abortion (especially through their very public institutional support of the Convention To End Discrimination Against Women  i.e. CEDAW), radical feminism, the gay rights movement, and an assortment of other positions in conflict with Catholic moral teaching. The Sinsinawa Dominicans, as largely revealed by information which they put out themselves on their website, are in sad shape morally.

The parish council pleaded with the then pastor to cancel their appearance at the cathedral since to allow them to ask for money for their causes would be deceptive at best, and fraudulent at worst. We produced an entire file of documents to prove the involvement of the Sinsinawa Dominicans in everything we alleged. The evidence was tight, and was never controverted. But the pastor would have none of it. The then bishop of this diocese also refused to cancel their appearance.

So on a Sunday morning in August of 2004 one of the radical pro abort Sinsenawa Domincans stood at the lecturn in the sanctuary of the cathedral to lie to us and to filch money from the faithful at the cathedral to advance their heretical agenda that includes, among other things, radical feminism and international expansion of abortion on demand.

Sr. Donna needs to be booted out of the Dominicans, and the Sinsinawa community needs to be investigated. The prioress' claim of sorrow over the actions of Sr. Donna, whose actions have been fully known for years, are the sounds of a failed leader who has been caught in her failure and wants to avoid further investigation. Don' t believe it.

Robert J .Gieb
Attorney at Law
Fort Worth, Texas
____________________________________

Recent events have shown that LifeSite News is a force to be reckoned with. Congratulations on all that you have accomplished as you continue to shine the light on stories that are important to pro-life supporters everywhere. Your efforts give us hope, courage and strength.  You are in my prayers.

RoseAnn Opferman
Pittsburgh, PA
____________________________________

One wonders where this nuns's immediate superiors were during the reported six years she has acted as an abortion clinic escort and spouted her abortion rhetoric support for all to hear? Is it any wonder the Vatican has ordered an investigation of American nuns?

J. Murphy
Savannah, Georgia
____________________________________________________________________

To write a letter to the Editor: E-mail your letter to editor@lifesitenews.com. Write "letter to the editor" in the subject line. You must include your name and complete address, as well as your phone # (the phone # and street address are for verification of identity only, and will not be published). Please note that all letters are subject to editing. LifeSiteNews.com will publish letters to the editor at its discretion, giving priority to the most concise, well reasoned, factual and timely submissions. Harsh language or personal attacks will not be published.

 Back to Top

---

SHARE THIS PAGE: E-mail  Print

---

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.