Politics
Goal: $45,000. Donations received: $19,400.
Thursday November 5, 2009
E-mail
Print- Commentary on Nov. 5 News
- 'Planned Parenthood Pushes Abortion for Profit': Ex-Abortion Facility Director
- Nun Defiant Following Rebuke, but Stops Abortion Escorting
- Call for Reform of U.S. Bishops' CCHD Bolstered by New Evidence
- New Zealand Study Finds Abortion Increases Risk of Mental Health Problems
- United Nations Report Pushes for Right to Sex-Change Operations
- Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named
- 32 States Saw Personhood Initiatives in 2009 - Movement Celebrates 1 Year Anniversary
- Never Mind: Judge Yanks 15-Year-Delayed Illinois Parental Notice Law Back Into Legal Limbo
- Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to State's Homosexual Partnership Law
- Confusion about Euthanasia Must be Dispelled Says Prominent Anti-Euthanasia Activist
- Courageous Pro-Life Former MP Gus Mitges Passes Away
- Ad Depicting Nude Couple Having Sex Not Pornographic: UK Advertising Standards Authority
Commentary on Nov. 5 News
TODAY'S HEADLINES
Dear Readers,
Glenn Beck asks lots of questions. That is how he has exposed many serious problems with the Obama administration. Why is it that people do not ask a lot of obvious questions about Planned Parenthood? It is a downright evil organization that kills babies for maximum profit and yet government forces Americans to fund this with their taxes.
See yesterday's letter to the editor regarding Sister Donna Quinn's religious order. . The real problem is the Sinsinawa Dominicans - not just Quinn. It would seem very appropriate for Catholics to appeal to Church authorities to finally, thoroughly straighten out the order or remove the Catholic designation of that corrupted order of sisters.
The CCHD scandal story is astonishingly similar to the Canadian Development and Peace scandal, the only difference being that one is a US domestic Catholic bishops' organization and the other is primarily a Catholic bishops' international development aid agency. Both have a strong tendency to fund radical left wing community organizing groups. Also, in both cases, the Catholics in the pews who put their money into the special collections for the respective groups are not aware of what the groups do with those funds. Most mistakenly believe the funds go directly to the poor. It's time - overtime by many years - for big changes.
Steve Jalsevac
LifeSiteNews.com
Back to Top'Planned Parenthood Pushes Abortion for Profit': Ex-Abortion Facility Director
Says, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."
By James Tillman
BRYAN, TX, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Abby Johnson, the ex-director of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility who recently made national headlines after converting to the pro-life position, has revealed that Planned Parenthood pushes employees to strive for more abortions to boost profits.
"There are definitely client goals," Johnson told WorldNetDaily. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."
Abby Johnson had worked at Bryan's Planned Parenthood facility for eight years and been its director for two when she resigned on October 6th, near the beginning of Bryan's sixth annual 40 Days for Life Campaign.
She said that she grew uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood when they told her to try to bring more abortions through the door because of the economic downturn.
"Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have enough money, we don't have enough money - we've got to keep these abortions coming,' " Johnson said in an interview with Fox News. "It's a very lucrative business and that's why they want to increase numbers."
The latest financial report Planned Parenthood, for the year 2006-2007, shows that the abortion behemoth increased the number of abortions it committed from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006. Total revenue amounted to over $1 billion dollars, with the organization's profit margin - "excess of revenue over expenses" - soaring from $55.7 million in 2005 to $112 million in 2006. The organization typically receives over $300 million in taxpayer funds every year.
Johnson said she became involved with the clinic "to help women and ... [do] the right thing." The idea of increasing abortion numbers to increase revenue was repugnant to her. She said that ideally the facility's director would provide "so much family planning and so much education that there is not a demand for abortion."
But this ideal was not shared by the rest of Planned Parenthood, she said, because "abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations."
"With the family planning corporation really suffering," Johnson said, "they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company."
She continued, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."
Johnson said that the Planned Parenthood facility performed surgical abortions every other Saturday, but also began expanding access to abortion by other means.
"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.
Although Planned Parenthood's policies of pushing for abortion made her uncomfortable, Johnson said that at first she just kept "pushing down the guilt."
"I struggled with it for a long time," she told CBN.com. "But you learn to justify it somehow and I've learned over the years and through this conversion that if you're doing the right thing, you shouldn't have to justify it."
She said that she reached her "breaking point after witnessing a particular kind of abortion on an ultrasound," according to 40 Days for Life.
"I could actually see it was a 13 week old baby and I could actually see the side profile of the baby on the ultrasound," she said. "And I could see the cannula going into the uterus. And I could see the baby moving away from the cannula, trying to get away from the probe."
"I saw the baby crumple during the procedure, and that was just life-changing for me. I'd never seen that done before."
Since Abby's resignation, Planned Parenthood has retaliated by filing a restraining order against her. The injunction temporarily prevents her from releasing information until after a hearing scheduled for November 10th in the 85th district court.
Johnson has said that she is not sure why Planned Parenthood is concerned.
"Planned Parenthood is an organization that really runs on fear. If somebody crosses them, they are quick to threaten that person. I've worked for them for a long time and seen them threaten lawsuits multiple times," she said.
"I'm not sure what they're scared of. When I first got the restraining order, I was so surprised. My initial response was, what do they think I know? What are they feeling guilty about?"
Johnson is one of eight abortion industry workers who left their jobs during the 40 Days for Life campaign that concluded on November 1st; she was the highest ranking of the eight. 40 Days for Life has also received at least 534 reports of mothers who turned away from abortion appointments.
See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com:
Director of Planned Parenthood at 40 Days for Life Birthplace Resigns after Watching Abortion Ultrasound
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110204.html
Nun Defiant Following Rebuke, but Stops Abortion Escorting
Local pro-Lifers call nun's claim of physical threats "unbelievable"
By Kathleen Gilbert
HINSDALE, Illinois, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sr. Donna Quinn has reportedly ceased serving as an abortion escort at an Illinois abortion facility after receiving a reprimand from her Dominican community. But according to statements published in the Chicago Tribune Wednesday, the nun remains defiant, claiming her abortion volunteerism protected women from "being physically assaulted" by pro-lifers. At the same time, local pro-life advocates have responded by calling Quinn's portrayal of their peaceful protest activities "unbelievable" and "without basis."
Sr. Quinn has been active since the 1970s as a leading advocate of abortion, homosexuality, and ordination of women in the Catholic Church, and has been escorting outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale for at least six years. When LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) learned of Quinn's activities as an abortion escort last month and contacted Quinn's prioress, Sinsinawa Dominican Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, Mulcahey defended Quinn's actions as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors."
After LSN's report received wide attention, however, the Sinsinawa Dominicans released a statement apologizing for Quinn's actions and indicating that Quinn had been told her actions were "in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious."
In a Wednesday Chicago Tribune article, Quinn said she is ending what she calls her "peacekeeping," insisting that "this is my decision." "Respect for women's moral agency is of critical importance to me, and I look forward to continuing to dialogue with our congregation on these matters as a way of informing my actions as well as educating the community," she said.
She continued: "As a peacekeeper, my goal is to enable women to enter a reproductive health clinic in dignity and without fear of being physically assaulted. ... I am very worried that the publicity around my presence will lead to violations of every woman's right to privacy and expose them to further violence."
Quinn went on to urge pro-lifers who regularly witness at the Hinsdale Clinic, who she claimed to have "seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women," to cease what she called their "war against women."
Lynn Benz, who has been a sidewalk counselor at the Hinsdale clinic for nine years, had a very different account of the scene at the Hinsdale clinic, however.
Benz explained to LSN that, because the pro-life counselors are not allowed onto the clinic property, they cannot contact customers unless the customers themselves choose to approach them. Benz says she usually stands in the middle of the driveway, which allows cars to drive by on either side or stop if they wish to speak to her.
"They can choose to talk to me, or they can pull in," said Benz. "We don't enter the property. How would we physically threaten them? And why? It would probably make them run faster for the door."
The other 25-45 people who regularly pray at the clinic, said Benz, peacefully pray the rosary off clinic property, and do not engage in shouting or protesting. She called Sr. Quinn's statements accusing the group of intimidation tactics "unbelievable."
"There are protests, there are different forms [of pro-life activism]," she said. "We are not out there protesting. We are out their praying and counseling - that's it. It's not a protest forum. That's not what we're about there. "
John Bray, another regular pro-lifer at the clinic, agreed that "there's no way anybody has physically assaulted anybody going into the clinic," and called Quinn's claims "quite frankly without basis."
"We are there to pray in a peaceful manner, which we do," he said.
In terms of violence, Bray said that police have been involved, but not because of the pro-lifers' activities. "About a year ago, we did call the police on one guy who got in my face and told me how many times he could kill me," he noted.
Bray says he considers his and other pro-lifers' presence as the true source of help for women, who often feel forced into abortions by their circumstances, or even by other people. "We have witnessed some pretty sad situations over the years of the women crying and literally being dragged into the clinic by those who brought her," he said.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Updated: Nun Abortion Clinic Escort Reprimanded - Dominican Congregation Apologizes for Scandal
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
Call for Reform of U.S. Bishops' CCHD Bolstered by New Evidence
CCHD has been accused for decades of supporting radical left-wing organizations
By Patrick B. Craine
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM) has released a new report presenting evidence that raises concerns about additional groups being funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).
This new evidence, explains the report, contains "borderline cases where we felt we did not have quite enough evidence to call for their defunding," but which "warrant further investigation by the CCHD and the USCCB and bolster our case that the CCHD grants process is in need of major reform."
BVM's first report on the CCHD, released in August, revealed that four CCHD-funded groups were actively supporting abortion and/or contraception and numerous others were advocating for health-care reform without prejudice to abortion funding. The CCHD responded by defunding two of the former groups, but defended their grants to the others and did not address the issue about how the groups were given funding in the first place.
Then last week a number of Catholic organizations, including BVM, Human Life International, and American Life League, formed a coalition - Reform CCHD Now - calling for a massive reform of CCHD and exhorting Catholics to boycott the upcoming collection on November 21-22.
The first part of BVM's second report exposes two groups as examples of CCHD grantees that are offering or supporting 'family planning' services, a euphemism that typically includes contraception.
The first is Preble Street, a Maine group which offers homeless shelters and soup kitchens, but that makes "family planning" services available at one of their day shelters.
The second is the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP), which has strongly supported health centers that offer emergency contraception and 'family planning' services. One offers these services to youth aged 12 to 21 without need for parental consent. Notably, SFOP successfully campaigned to secure a $200,000 grant for two such health centers.
The second part of the report reveals that seven CCHD grantees, as well as several Catholic Charities branches, are part of a California coalition of campaign partners called Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV). MIV brings together community organizations and equips them "to register, educate, and mobilize their constituents for electoral participation."
As BVM founder Rob Gasper told LifeSiteNews.com, however, MIV is not simply focused on encouraging people to vote, but to vote according to MIV's agenda, which includes support for abortion and same-sex 'marriage.'
MIV's policy platform advocates for 'reproductive health' services, a vague and oft-used euphemism that typically includes contraception and abortion. This stance is further clarified by their 2008 voters guide, which urged voting against parental notifications for minors seeking abortion (Proposition 4). The voters guide also came out against Proposition 8, which prevented same-sex 'marriage.' Notably, Planned Parenthood is listed as a campaign partner alongside CCHD's grantees.
"They don't just want to register people to vote," said Gasper. "They basically want to ... indoctrinate them on these social issues. That's their major goal."
Indeed, as one MIV leader explained, they focus on educating people to vote according to their member groups' interests. "We don't think it's responsible or very good organizing to just get people out to vote," said Nancy Berlin, MIV Executive Committee Chair. "We want to make sure that the work that we do is linked to the broader missions of our community organizations and fosters the work that they are already doing."
Of course, "the grantees might be able to say 'Well, we just used their materials. We didn't know what they were all about.'," said Gasper. However, according to BVM's report, "this in actuality cannot be the case," since MIV insists that they developed their platform and voters guide in conjunction with their campaign partners, presumably including the CCHD grantees.
"[These groups'] association with MIV raises questions which must be answered immediately," the BVM report reads. "Did they distribute the MIV produced voter material? Why would they participate in a voter mobilization drive led by a group acting directly against Church teaching? Will they publicly state their adherence to the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church?"
"We again ask the USCCB to reform the CCHD grants process," the report continues, "so Catholics can be assured that not a single penny of their donations are used to fund groups which support or are sympathetic to grave evils condemned by Church teaching."
While BVM's reports on the CCHD have focused strictly on grantees' promotion of policies contrary to Church teaching, primarily in regard to life issues, the CCHD has been accused for decades of supporting radical left-wing organizations.
The CCHD is meant to be the USCCB's domestic anti-poverty campaign, and through their advertising they present themselves as fighting poverty in America. As critics have noted, however, many Catholics are not aware that the organization specifically does not fund groups that work directly with the poor, such as crisis pregnancy centers. In fact, despite the advertising, the CCHD's mandate is rather to work with "community-controlled, self-help organizations."
The Reform CCHD Now coalition is calling on American Catholics to download and print out special coupons that can be put in the collection basket on November 21-22 in lieu of money. The coupons indicate that the money which would have been given to CCHD is being given instead to a group that conforms to Church teaching on social justice and life and family issues.
See the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry report on their website.
See the Reform CCHD Now website.
Contact Information:
Catholic Campaign for Human Development
3211 Fourth St. NE
Washington DC 20017
v: 202-541-3210
f: 202-541-3329
cchdpromo@usccb.org
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Coalition of Catholic Groups Calls for Massive Reform of U.S. Bishops' Social Justice Arm
New Zealand Study Finds Abortion Increases Risk of Mental Health Problems
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
WELLINGTON, NZ, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study conducted by Professor David Fergusson and a research team at New Zealand's University of Otago has found that having an abortion will likely increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.
The study appeared in the most recent issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry and examined data from a sampling of 500 women who were interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.
The study revealed that unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion is likely to be a risk factor for mental-health problems that include depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, and illicit drug dependence, while unwanted pregnancy that ends in the birth of the baby does not carry the same risk factor.
Dr. Fergusson observed, "those having an abortion and reporting negative reactions had rates of mental health disorders that were approximately 1.4 to 1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion."
Of those women who had undergone an abortion, more than 85 percent reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment.
A similar number reported at least one positive reaction, including relief, happiness and satisfaction. The findings suggest that many women experienced a mixture of both positive and negative emotions about having an abortion.
Earlier reports from the same study, released in 2006, found that more than 40 percent of those who had an abortion suffered major depression within four years prior to the study, nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant. The 2006 report also found that the risk of developing an anxiety disorder also doubled in women who had abortions.
The report concluded: "Collectively, this evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.
"Currently there is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience."
The report further stated that the study showed no evidence to "support strong pro-choice positions that claim unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion is without mental health risks."
Brendan Malone, from Family Life International New Zealand, said the report was just one of several new studies which highlighted the fact that women are not receiving all of the facts when they seek out an abortion.
Citing a Canadian study published in September in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which showed women who had an abortion in the first or second trimester had a 36 percent increased risk of later having a premature baby, and women who had undergone more than one abortion had a 93 percent risk of later having a premature baby, Malone said, "Counselling provided to women seeking out abortions is so woefully inadequate that it is practically non-existent."
"In the vast majority of cases, abortion 'counseling' in New Zealand (and elsewhere) merely consists of ticking a series of boxes, and women are very rarely, if ever, informed of the scientifically established risks that they will be exposing themselves to, and the support that is available to them to pursue alternatives to abortion."
Malone said one of the consistent themes his group's post-abortion counselling team hears is that women were never informed of all the risks and alternatives available to them before opting for an abortion.
"Tragically, these same women also state that they probably would have chosen not to abort their babies had they received proper counseling about the risk factors, and the other options that were open to them."
Malone said pro-abortion lobbyists "like to throw the word 'choice' around."
"But how can we honestly claim that women choosing abortion are making a free and informed decision when they haven't been properly advised about the risks of having an abortion, and the alternatives available to them."
The full text of Professor David Fergusson's research paper "Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health" is available here.
United Nations Report Pushes for Right to Sex-Change Operations
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
NEW YORK, NY, November 5, 2009 (C-FAM) - A week after nations criticized a United Nations (UN) special rapporteur for exceeding his mandate in order to push a redefinition of the term "gender" and a controversial "gay rights" document known as the Yogyakarta Principles, a second special report – this time on health – is sparking similar concern.
Presented to the UN General Assembly late last month, "The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health" by special rapporteur Anand Grover references not only the Yogyakarta Principles, but also a hotly-disputed "General Recommendation" by the Committee monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Recommendation 20 would read a new non-discrimination category based on "sexual orientation and gender identity" into that treaty, even though UN member states have repeatedly rejected inclusion of such a category in any binding international law document.
Critics see a coordinated push to promote the Yogyakarta Principles, injecting it into the UN system via repeated reference and thus create an impression that a "soft law" norm exists. The Yogyakarta Principles purport to "reflect the existing state of human rights law" with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, yet merely reflect the policy predilections of the roughly 30 self-selected experts, activists and UN bureaucrats who crafted them. Indeed, terms such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not defined in any binding international law document and would likely never be accepted by UN Member States.
The specific Principles referred to in the Grover report are Principles 17 and 18. Although the context references informed consent regarding medical procedures among "vulnerable groups," the text of Principles 17 and 18 contain several controversial mandates. Principle 17 would require states to "Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment" (i.e., "sex change" operations), while Principle 18 would require that states "Ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counseling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, secured or suppressed." Such a mandate would deny someone struggling with sexual disorders the option of receiving reparative therapy.
Grover is an activist attorney from India who litigated the case that resulted in a lower court ruling this past summer that India's anti-sodomy law violated the nation's constitution. Last year he succeeded Paul Hunt – one of thirty Yogyakarta draftsmen – as special rapporteur on health.
Grover is further credited with having helped draft the International Guidelines on Human Rights and HIV/AIDS, a 1996 document reissued in 2002 that calls for the repeal of "Criminal law prohibiting sexual acts (including adultery, sodomy, fornication and commercial sexual encounters) between consenting adults in private" – a step critics point out would fuel the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Grover's appointment as health rapporteur was welcomed by activist organizations such as the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. The group, which promotes "community action on AIDS in developing countries," noted at the time that "Anand has passionately advocated for the rights of sex workers, drug users and men who have sex with men," calling the appointment "a tremendous opportunity and a step in the right direction."
(This article reprinted with permission from www.c-fam.org)
Newly Identified Corporate Supporters of Planned Parenthood Named
FRONT ROYAL, VA, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.
"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 231 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said LDI Chairman Thomas C. Strobhar. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $40 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began nearly 17 years ago. "This should serve as a testament to those who thought it impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior."
New boycott targets, appearing on the pre-Christmas 2009 edition of The Boycott List, include Buffalo Wild Wings (restaurants), Estée Lauder (cosmetics/personal care products), Computer Sciences Corporation (information technology), and United Parcel Service (shipping services).
Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include eBay (Pay {Pal, etc.), AlphaGraphics, Wells Fargo (including Wachovia), Nike, Time Warner (HBO, AOL, etc.), Bank of America, Walt Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Chevron, and Nationwide Insurance, and Sonic (restaurants), among others.
LDI singled out longtime boycott target Whole Foods Market for special attention. "Whole Foods Market has been misleading pro-life consumers for many years. Statements from the Company vary, depending on who is doing the talking at the time," LDI Director of Communications Ken Garvey. "Whole Foods has been emphasizing that it does not support Planned Parenthood at the corporate level, but it does do so on the local level. Corporate officials are telling pro-life advocates it is acceptable to shop at Whole Foods if their particular local market does not give to Planned Parenthood. As one Whole Foods officials said, 'As I explain to many of the people you encourage to boycott us, check with your local store and see if they donate. Many are happy with this.'"
"We are surprised that any pro-life consumer would fail to see how they are being manipulated by Whole Foods," Garvey said. "Whole Foods could put an immediate stop to support of Planned Parenthood if the chief executive officer chose to do so. Would the 'decentralized giving program' excuse be acceptable to the Humane Society if a local market chose to make a donation to support dog fighting. Certainly not. Corporate headquarters would put an immediate stop to it. Pro-lifers should view Planned Parenthood in the same way."
Garvey noted that Whole Foods stores located in liberal areas are supporting the pro-abortion group while those in more conservative areas are pleading ignorance and innocence. "It is foolhardy to buy into the idea that one may shop at Whole Foods if their local store claims it is not funding Planned Parenthood," he said. "Every pro-life consumer who accepts this 'reasoning' is doing great damage to the Pro-Life Movement in general and the Corporate Funding Project in particular."
The new Boycott List includes an expanded "Dishonorable Mention" section, which identifies charitable groups that are associated with Planned Parenthood and/or its agenda. Groups named in this section include American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Lions Clubs, the American Cancer Society, Camp Fire, Girls Inc., Girl Scouts, Kiwanis Clubs, the March of Dimes, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Rotary Clubs, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Salvation Army, the YWCA, and YMCA, among others.
"This has not been some sort of 'Jesse Jackson boycott' where we make news for a few days and then go away," Strobhar said. "Corporate officials are learning that those who value life are among the most dedicated people on earth. We will not go away until corporate involvement with Planned Parenthood comes to an end."
More information about the CFP, including the steps taken before a corporation is placed on The Boycott List, please click here.
32 States Saw Personhood Initiatives in 2009 - Movement Celebrates 1 Year Anniversary
DENVER, Nov. 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - November 5, 2009 marks the one-year anniversary of the inception of Personhood USA. Following the Nation's first-ever Personhood effort to reach an election ballot, Personhood USA was launched by the Colorado campaign's full-time coordinators, Cal Zastrow and Keith Mason.
For the first time, Personhood USA is releasing the full list of states participating in Personhood efforts, which is available here.
In 2009, Personhood USA exploded into thirty-two states, serving as an advocacy organization for pre- born babies through peaceful activism, legislative efforts, and ballot-access petition initiatives, amassing over 40,000 grassroots volunteers. Personhood USA has seen a staggering number of first-time-ever pro-life volunteers, along with an influx of seasoned pro-lifers who have not participated in pro-life ministry for many years.
"Personhood offers a new hope for pre-born babies that's exciting and motivating," remarked Brenda Macmenamin, sponsor of Personhood Florida. "Pro-life Americans are encouraged and inspired as they haven't been in years."
"Our goal has been to serve Jesus Christ and offer support to grassroots pro-lifers," stated Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA. "Personhood USA exists to support, encourage, and assist Personhood movements across the country. We are excited to continue this fight against the dehumanization and murder of preborn children."
In the past year, Personhood USA has been featured in Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Las Vegas Review Journal, and numerous other newspapers, blogs, web sites, and radio shows, including acclaimed online news source World Net Daily.
Today Personhood USA announced its goal for 2010: Personhood initiatives in all 50 states. Representatives of Personhood USA say the movement aims to begin, pass, defend, and apply Personhood initiatives in every state, educating every American citizen and making abortion unimaginable.
"Every Personhood attempt is a success," explained Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA. "We are growing by leaps and bounds, and every attempt offers new opportunities to educate Americans about the value of life. All human beings are people, and we must ensure that their right to live is recognized and protected. That is why, with God's blessing, by the end of 2010 Personhood USA plans to be in every one of the United States of America."
Never Mind: Judge Yanks 15-Year-Delayed Illinois Parental Notice Law Back Into Legal Limbo
By Peter J. Smith
CHICAGO, November 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just hours after an Illinois law requiring abortionists to notify parents 48 hours before performing an abortion on teenage girls went into full effect, an Illinois judge issued a restraining order delaying the law's implementation until he can hear yet another legal challenge.
The Associated Press reports that Cook County Judge Daniel Riley ordered the 1995 Parental Notice of Abortion Act, which has languished in legal limbo since its inception, to be put on hold until he had the opportunity to hear arguments. The court order was requested by the American Civil Liberties Union, and Riley agreed saying that from his perspective the ACLU "demonstrated the distinct possibility of irreparable harm."
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo has objected to the restraining order, demanding, "Why does Illinois have to have a law that doesn't take the parents into account?"
He continued, "The idea of having parental notification serves legitimate interests."
Earlier Wednesday morning the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation 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.
Pro-life advocates have long fought for the law, which has never been enforced due to the refusal of the Illinois Supreme Court to craft rules for minors in extraordinary cases that would have need of a "bypass hearing." The state's high court finally crafted rules in 2005, which faced legal challenges in federal court and were eventually upheld by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals in July.
Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel of the Chicago-based public-interest firm Thomas More Society, had praised the state agencies' decision to enforce the law as "a great victory for Illinois families" that would once more make sure that girls have "guaranteed access to the most important pregnancy crisis counselors: their parents."
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.
Judge Riley's decision means the Thomas More Society will once more go to bat for the pro-life law in court as it has for the past 14 years.
Pro-life advocates point out that 36 other states enforce parental notification laws, but without similar legislation taking effect in Illinois, the state becomes a central destination in the United States for girls obtaining abortions without the involvement of their parents. This in turn frustrates efforts to put an end to cycles of sexual abuse perpetrated by sexual predators on minor girls, whom predators coerce into having abortions without telling their parents as a way to cover up their ongoing crimes.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to State's Homosexual Partnership Law
By James Tillman
MADISON, WISCONSIN, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to hear a legal challenge regarding the constitutionality of the state's homosexual partnership law.
The law was challenged in July by Wisconsin Family Action, which argued that it violates an amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution passed by referendum in 2006. This amendment states not only that marriage must be between a man and a woman in Wisconsin but also that a "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
The petition arguing the law's unconstitutionality cites numerous eligibility requirements, entrance procedures, and rights pertaining to the partnership that are identical to those pertaining to marriage. For instance, both applicants must be at least 18 years old, share a common residence, be no closer in kinship than second cousins, not be married or in another domestic partnership, and share a relationship that one state document calls "the functional equivalent of a marriage."
"A reasonable person observing this registry would easily conclude that it mimics marriage and is a test of the marriage amendment and the express will of the people," said Wisconsin Family Action President Julaine Appling, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, in a statement issued by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). "It borrows the requirements and eligibility standards for marriage, even to the point of requiring that the price of the registry certificate be the same as for a marriage license."
"This new domestic partnership scheme is precisely the type of marriage imitation that the constitutional amendment approved by Wisconsin voters was intended to prevent," said Brian Raum, Senior Counsel in the ADF. "Those who are determined to redefine marriage in Wisconsin are attempting an end-run assault on marriage hoping they can evade the clear language of the state constitution."
Nevertheless, the petition, filed by attorneys of the Alliance Defense Fund and of Wisconsin Family Action, was rejected in a terse statement by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The court offered no explanation in its rejection of the suit, however, and attorneys for Wisconsin Family Action quickly said that they would bring the action in circuit court.
"We know that the court's decision to decline original jurisdiction [the right to hear a case for the first time] can be based on any number of factors and implies nothing about the merits of the constitutional challenge," Attorneys Richard Esenberg and Michael Dean said in a statement issued yesterday. "The action may now be brought in circuit court, and we are preparing our next steps to protect and uphold the constitution and the will of the voters."
Lester Pines, an attorney hired by the state, promised that he would resist such action. "We are pleased the court didn't take jurisdiction. We didn't think it was the place this lawsuit should start," Pines said. "We will prevail in the circuit (trial) court and all the way up to the Supreme Court if that's what happens. This law is absolutely constitutional and an attack on it is just flat-out wrong."
Some evidence, however, runs against Pines' optimistic outlook. Lester Pines himself was hired by the Democratic Governor Doyle, who had helped slip the partnership law into the 2010-2011 state budget, because Wisconsin Attorney General John Byron Van Hollen had refused to defend the law, calling it unconstitutional in a statement issued on August 21st.
"My decision isn't based on a policy disagreement," Van Hollen said at the time. "As Attorney General, I prosecute and defend laws that I wouldn't have voted for if I were a policymaker. That is what I believe the job entails."
He continued: "But I will not ignore the Constitution. My oath isn't to the legislature or the governor. My duty is to the people of the State of Wisconsin and the highest expression of their will -- the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin."
"When the people have spoken by amending our Constitution, I will abide by their command. When policymakers have ignored their words, I will not."
Confusion about Euthanasia Must be Dispelled Says Prominent Anti-Euthanasia Activist
By Patrick B. Craine
SASKATOON, Saskatchewan, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-lifers must be clear about the nature of euthanasia and assisted suicide, insisted Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, during an address at the Canadian National Pro-Life Conference last weekend in Saskatoon. "If we allow confusion about what euthanasia or assisted suicide is then we lose!"
The pro-life conference was held as the Canadian Parliament considers Bill C-384, which seeks to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Schadenberg stressed the importance of properly defining euthanasia and assisted suicide, which he said are commonly misunderstood. Contrary to the popular understanding, they are not about "aid in dying," he explained, which is rather the domain of palliative care.
He emphasized that they are "about the direct and intentional cause of death," and not "about withholding or withdrawing aggressive medical treatment." They are not, further, "about unintentional overdoses or unintentional deaths."
One is guilty of "euthanasia by omission," he continued, for killing someone who would not otherwise have died by deliberately withdrawing basic medical treatment. But, he said, "this is different than accepting the limits of life and withdrawing hydration and nutrition from a person who is actually dying and nearing death / actively dying."
He went on, however, to counter the assertion that artificial feeding and hydration is 'medical treatment' which can be withdrawn even when it still benefits the patient, as happened in the case of Terri Schiavo. "Assisted fluids and food are not a type of medical treatment," he said. "Other than the treatment of eating disorders, they are not aimed at treating a condition or curing an illness. They simply provide a necessity of life, to eat and drink."
"We are not opposed to natural death," he stressed. "We are not opposed to ending medical treatment that lacks benefit, is overly aggressive, [or] burdensome. We believe in caring [for] not killing people."
Canadian euthanasia proponent Jocelyn Downie maintains, he said, that "removing life-sustaining medical treatment" is "morally equivalent" to euthanasia or assisted suicide, and that "there is no difference between killing and letting die." "This is a lie," Schadenberg stated simply.
While euthanasia advocates attempt to champion 'choice', Schadenberg insists that such choice "is a lie."
"The statutes that have legalized assisted suicide are not about choice, but rather they are about the rules that a physician must follow to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person," he explained. "If we allow the euthanasia lobby to be the side of choice, then we lose."
He used Bill C-384 as an example of how choice would, in fact, be undermined by legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide. "The bill allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with chronic physical or mental pain," he explained. "The bill allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for someone who requested it, while 'appearing to be lucid.' Appearing to be lucid does not mean the person is lucid. How can a person who lives with chronic depression who 'appears to be lucid' make a free choice?"
Bill C-384, proposed by Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde, is currently undergoing second reading, and is tentatively scheduled to be debated on December 2nd, with a vote the next day. The first hour of debate, held October 2nd, indicated strong opposition in Parliament, and Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.com yesterday that he believes the bill will not pass.
"Without a question, it will be defeated," he said.
In his talk, Schadenberg asserted that the bill "is not about a right to die with dignity," despite its claim. "The bill does not create greater access to excellent end-of-life care and it does not create a 'right to die'," he said.
"C-384 is not about creating end-of-life choices for the terminally ill," he continued. "C-384 gives medical practitioners the right to directly and intentionally cause the death of another person."
He ended his talk by calling for unity among all those who oppose legalization. "We need to work in coalitions," he said. "The only way to build an effective coalition is to accept our diversity but remain unified on a single issue basis. We need unity that is based on every organization that is specifically concerned about euthanasia and assisted suicide to be willing to effectively work together."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
New Poll Reveals that Canadians are Conflicted About Legal Euthanasia
Canadian Parliament Debates Euthanasia Bill
Courageous Pro-Life Former MP Gus Mitges Passes Away
Was one of a few MPs who voted against Trudeau's Charter of Rights because of lack of protection for unborn
By Patrick B. Craine
GUELPH, Ontario, November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Former Canadian Member of Parliament Gus Mitges, who stood as a strong pro-life voice in Canada's Parliament for over two decades, passed away on Sunday at age 90.
"He was a great guy, very pro-life," commented Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition. He said he had met Mitges many times, and even happened upon him in Florida once. "He was trying to rest a bit, and I walked in and he said … 'Don't tell me you followed me here!'"
Mitges, who moved from Greece when he was six, grew up in Guelph, where he became a veterinarian. After serving on the school board and in municipal politics in the 1960s, he won in the 1972 federal election for the Progressive Conservative Party in Grey-Simcoe. He later represented the Bruce-Grey riding after a riding adjustment, until he retired in 1993 due to health problems.
A 1987 profile on Mitges in Canada's pro-life newspaper, The Interim, said of him: "Dr. Mitges asserts that he has always abhorred abortion and believes it to be murder. He believes that life begins at conception and therefore should be given every opportunity to survive until natural death. For Dr. Mitges, this is not a matter of religious doctrine but of basic human rights."
In 1981, Mitges was one of a few MPs who voted against Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it did not include explicit protections for the unborn. The Charter was later used as justification to abolish Canada's abortion law in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, and then again in 2005 when same-sex 'marriage' was legalized.
Mitges presented a motion in 1986 to amend the Charter to include unborn persons, which would have afforded them total protection under the law. While most speakers in the debate defended the unborn, the motion lost the vote 62-89 on June 2, 1987.
Following the 1988 Morgentaler decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which struck down Canada's abortion law and created a legal vacuum, Brian Mulroney's government proposed a new law that would have, in effect, legislated abortion-on-demand. Numerous amendments to the government's motion were proposed, including one by Mitges, which sought to establish legal protections from conception. The government motion and five amendments were brought to a vote, with Mitges' as the only pro-life option, but they all failed, as well as the government's motion.
While the other, pro-abortion options lost overwhelmingly, Mitges' pro-life amendment was shockingly close to succeeding - with 105 in favour and 118 opposed.
Hughes says that at a national pro-life conference in 1992, Mitges got a "standing ovation" from the 1,200 attendees. "It was terrific," Hughes said.
"He wasn't afraid," Hughes continued, commenting on the relative success of Mitges' efforts in nearly winning legal protection for the unborn. "When you're not afraid, you can do anything."
Mitges was married to Yolanda (Odorico) and had previously lost his first wife, Velma (Martin). He had four children and two step-children.
Ad Depicting Nude Couple Having Sex Not Pornographic: UK Advertising Standards Authority
By Hilary White
November 5, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), a newspaper ad for a film depicting a nude man and woman having sex and bearing the caption, "contains strong real sex, bloody violence and self-mutilation," is not pornographic and presents no threat to the values or sensibilities of the community.
The ASA's ruling comes in response to seven complaints they received after the ads appeared where children might easily see them.
The photo is part of an advertisement for the film "Antichrist," and appeared in three of Britain's largest circulation newspapers: the Guardian, the Times and the Independent. Antichrist is a horror film, starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, that revolves around the psychological after effects of the accidental death of an infant. The Lars Von Trier film has been slammed for what reviewers have labeled its extremely and pointlessly graphic content throughout the entertainment industry.
CNN's Tom Charity called the film an "atrocity," saying it is "a wrenching psychodrama for two-thirds of its running time before collapsing into a steaming heap of deranged sadism and supernatural symbolism in the outrageous third act."
USA Today's Claudia Puig said that Antichrist "should have been deep-666'd" and called it "bleak and self-indulgent." "Under the guise of a meditation on marriage, parenthood and anguish, Antichrist is actually a particularly misogynistic torture-porn film," Puig wrote.
Nevertheless, the ads for it - which show a nude man from the buttocks up lying on top of a nude woman, clearly in the act of copulation - are "not offensive," said the ASA, which went on to assure the public that it is "unlikely to cause sexual excitement."
The ASA ruling continued, "If children did see the ad, it was not considered particularly explicit. The dream-like context, introduced by the hands protruding from the tree, had the effect of making the image of the naked couple seem removed from reality."
The ASA's history of opposing traditional moral values is extensive.
In 2002 the agency decided to ban an ad by the UK Life League in Christian publications, saying that the use of the terms "teenage sex clinics" and "death mills" was "offensive, especially because children and people of varying sexual orientations might see the advertisement." However, this year, the ASA announced a proposal to change the rules to allow abortionists to advertise on television.
To contact the ASA:
To contact the Advertising Standards Authority:
Mid City Place,
71 High Holborn,
London,
WC1V 6QT, UK
Phone 020 7492 2222
Textphone 020 7242 8159
Fax 020 7242 3696
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
UK Ad Authority Bans Pro-Life Ads in Religious Publications
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jan/02010905.html
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.