On Monday night, the Baltimore City Council, by a vote of 12 to 3, approved an ordinance requiring pregnancy care centers (PCCs) to posts signs indicating that they do not do abortions or provide contraception.  Failure to comply with the ordinance will incur a $150 per day fine.  A proposed amendment to require abortion clinics to post relevant disclaimers was defeated.

In recent years, Maryland has become “ground zero” for attempts by NARAL and other abortion advocates to lodge false accusations about PCCs and to encourage vindictive and unsupported legislative “fixes” to non-existent problems at PCCs.  In 2008, the Maryland legislature considered Senate Bill 690 (and its companion, House Bill 1146) which would have required all state PCCs to inform women that they do not perform abortions and provide “incorrect information” about the negative impact of abortion on women.  Thankfully, this state-wide threat to PCCs was defeated.

However, in addition to the just-approved Baltimore ordinance, Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg recently introduced an ordinance there that would require PCCs to inform women that information and advice that they receive at PCCs is not “medical advice” and does not “establish a doctor-patient relationship.” Moreover, women would be encouraged to go elsewhere for medical advice.  Although claiming that the measure is for “consumer protection,” Trachtenberg admits to buying into pro-abortion rhethoric that PCCs intentionally mislead women.

The situation in Maryland highlights the need for a full understanding of some common pro-abortion “myths” about PCCs:

Myth:  Pregnancy care centers provide medically-inaccurate information to women.
Fact:  PCCs distribute medically accurate information regarding fetal development, pregnancy, and the risks—physical and mental—of abortion.  All information used and distributed by approved providers is medically accurate, recently published, and includes citations to legitimate authorities, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), medical journals, and other reputable sources.

If there is medical debate regarding whether or not abortion carries particular risks (e.g., the abortion-breast cancer link), information on this conflict is brought to the attention of the woman and is not hidden or withheld from her.

Myth:  PCC personnel are poorly or inadequately trained.
Fact:  PCC staff and volunteers are appropriately trained for the services they provide.  Those PCCs that offer ultrasounds and/or other medical services hire medically-trained staff and comply with state and federal regulations regarding licensing and certification.

Myth:  PCCs engage in false advertising, misleading women into believing they provide abortions and abortion counseling.
Fact:  Advertising by PCCs is honest and discloses to women the types of services provided by the centers.  Most PCCs, including those affiliated with national organizations such as Birthright International and CareNet, have strict standards of integrity regarding truth in advertising and require the full disclosure of the types of services provided.

Pregnancy care centers are most often listed under “Abortion Alternatives” in the Yellow Pages or other telephone directories. In many areas, it is the Yellow Pages publisher who determines how to categorize PCCs.  PCCs do not advertise under names such as “Abortion Services.”

Myth:  PCC personnel are judgmental and do not provide a woman with counseling on “all her reproductive care options.”
Fact:  PCCs provide women with compassionate and confidential counseling in a nonjudgmental manner regardless of their pregnancy outcomes.  Women who have used the services of a PCC reported a 98% positive effect, including 71% who had a very positive effect, according to a survey of 630 women conducted by the Wirthlin Group.  Of those women who were aware of PCCs, 87% believed they have a positive impact on the women they serve, including a majority of those who identified themselves as “pro-choice.”

Upon reflection, there is no better indicator of the positive impact that PCCs are having by supporting women emotionally and financially, by protecting women from the adverse health consequences of abortion, and by helping to reduce the number of abortions performed each year than the vitriol directed toward these centers by pro-abortion advocacy groups and individuals. These groups refer to them as “fake centers” and produce and market kits for activists to target and expose pregnancy care centers with negative publicity and protests.  Even they, in their zeal to promote abortion-on-demand, cannot ignore the very real and increasingly powerful impact pregnancy care centers are having on women and on public opinion about abortion. 

For more information about the positive impact of PCCs, see “Pregnancy Care Centers: On the Frontline in the Cause for Life.”

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found a Pittsburg ordinance restricting access to public areas around abortion clinics unconstitutional.  More specifically, the court held the ordinance to be “insufficiently tailored” because it “burdens substantially more speech than necessary” to achieve the City’s stated interest—to prevent “harassment and obstruction of entrances” to hospitals and medical clinics. 

The Pittsburg ordinance combined a “bubble zone” and a “buffer zone.”  The bubble zone extended 100 feet from the entrance of any hospital, medical office or clinic—including public sidewalks—and prohibited anyone from approaching another person within 8 feet without consent to pass a leaflet or handbill, display a sign or engage in oral protest.  The buffer zone essentially cordoned off a 15-foot zone from the entrance of a hospital or health care facility prohibiting anyone to congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. 

The Court of Appeals found the zones to be constitutional when considered independent of each other, but when the ordinance combined both zones it overburdened protected speech.  It remanded the case for the City to decide which zone it preferred and directed the District Court to enjoin enforcement of the other zone. 

In making its ruling, the Third Circuit relied on the Supreme Court’s decision involving a similar Colorado Statute, as well as, the First Circuit’s decisions involving bubble zone ordinances around Reproductive Health Care Facilities in Massachusetts.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a similar 100-ft bubble zone in Colorado finding the statute a permissible content-neutral time, place and manner regulation—making it significantly easier for governments to simply forbid free speech in select public areas.  In doing so, the Court failed to call a spade a spade—or in this case a content-based regulation content-based.

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have lobbied local and state governments to pass these “bubble zone” ordinances under the governments’ public safety interest.  Asserting an interest in safe access to “healthcare” (meaning safe access to abortions), these ordinances attempt to restrict the presence of pro-life advocates and all communicative efforts by them around abortion clinics.

These ordinances criminalize any discussion of abortion outside abortion clinics.  They prohibit peaceful demonstrations and they eliminate any effective means to discuss the harms of abortion at the location these harms occur.  In application, they prevent effective sidewalk counseling and significantly hinder the communication of abortion alternatives to women who need and want the information the most.  These laws permit only one viewpoint to reach women entering abortion clinics—the pro-abortion position and those enacting them know it.

Abortion advocates simply cannot win on the merits of their arguments, so they employ tactics to prohibit or restrict the expression of views opposing abortion.  And unfortunately, they are finding some success in pursuing these  “bubble zone” ordinances across the country and in the courts. 

The courts have refused to see these ordinances for what they are—an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints and prohibit the expression of dissent to abortion. Until the courts are willing to recognize the content and viewpoint discrimination occurring through bubble zone ordinances, abortion advocates will continue to employ this new weapon of choice to unconstitutionally silence opposition to abortion.  

Once again the law surrounding abortion seems to require special exceptions to protect the abortion industry from thoughtful and full debate of the harms it causes to women and their unborn children.

My first column for the Knights of Columbus Web site HeadlineBistro.com, published today, tells the story of Ashli Foshee McCall, who emerged from personal tragedy to help others avoid making the mistake she made.

In 1996, Ashli Foshee McCall, 25 years old, married and pregnant with her first child, was diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), an extreme form of morning sickness.

According to the Hyperemesis Education & Research Foundation, an estimated 39,000 HG sufferers are hospitalized each year (many more suffer without hospitalization), and at least 10 percent of pregnancies complicated by HG end in abortion.

For McCall, after months of terrible suffering that had her crying out in agony and even hallucinating from the effects of electrolyte imbalance, she took her doctor’s advice and did the only thing she thought she could do to save her own life: She aborted her child in the second trimester.

Only afterwards, when she was well enough to do in-depth research – not easy in those days before most medical studies were on the Internet – did McCall find out the truth: With the right treatment, women can get relief from the sufferings of HG and give birth to healthy children.

McCall continued researching the disease for ten years, during which time she underwent three more pregnancies – one miscarriage, two live births – all with HG. (Women who have the illness during one pregnancy commonly suffer it during subsequent ones as well.) The result is her self-published book “Beyond Morning Sickness,” the first-ever patient’s guide to HG, and its companion Web site BeyondMorningSickness.com.

Thanks in part to exposure on Paula Zahn’s CNN show – on which McCall told why her abortion was the “biggest mistake” of her life – “Beyond Morning Sickness” has brought hope into the lives of women who were racked by grave illness and fear. [Read the entire column on HeadlineBistro.com.]

McCall’s story of being advised by her doctor to abort, under the mistaken belief that there was no other way for her and her baby to survive HG, is sadly not unique. Women who suffer from HG are often under pressure from their doctor, insurance company or even well-meaning family and friends to “do something” about it, ending their unborn children’s lives.

Americans United for Life works to end such coercion. One of the model bills we make available to state legislatures is our “Coercive Abuse Against Mothers Prevention Act,” which, in the language of the bill, “seeks to make it illegal to coerce or otherwise force a woman or minor into aborting her unborn child and intends to empower all mothers in the State … to exercise their freedom of conscience in choosing life for their pre-born children free of violent and abusive coercion.” The bill is included in the soon-to-be published 2010 edition of our legal handbook Defending Life.

Today Family Research Council released its report, A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life, highlighting the contributions of pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) over the last 40 years.  The release comes at an interesting time—the President is attempting to make abortion a recognized form of “health care,” and we are seeing increasing attacks on PRCs each legislative session in the form of draconian legislation regulating the activities of PRCs and sometimes even attempting to force them to present information on abortion.

The report released today offers a great rebuttal to those efforts: real health care protects women.  Real health care involves caring guidance to women in need, focusing on both her physical and psychological health.

In a press conference broadcast live over the internet, a panel of speakers—including physicians, clients served by PRCs, and the presidents of three national pregnancy center networks—discussed the impact of PRCs on women’s, adolescent, maternal, and child health and how the movement’s growth is driven by the public’s desire to support abortion alternatives.

This desire is also demonstrated each legislative session.  While we are seeing increasing bills targeting PRCs, those bills are far out-paced each year by bills providing funding and state support to abortion alternatives.

During the press conference, co-author of the report Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at Heritage Foundation, stated that abortions were reduced by tens of thousands last year through the work of PRCs, and that this work results in enormous healthcare savings.

Co-author Moira Gaul, Fellow and Director of Women’s and Reproductive Health at FRC, added that these volunteer-run PRCs assist over 5,000 Americans on a daily basis, providing a “substantial public health benefit to our nation.”

Ironically, as I drafted this blog entry, AUL received word that the Senate Finance Committee voted down important pro-life amendments that would have prevented the federal funding and coverage of abortion and protected the conscience rights of healthcare providers.

In AUL’s press release, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life, said that the defeat of these amendments illustrates the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:

“President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform.  Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action.  The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform.”

Obama’s claim that he wants to reduce abortions is mere rhetoric.  The amazing work of PRCs on a daily basis in truly reducing abortions is reality.

A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life is available at http://www.apassiontoserve.org.  AUL will be posting an in-depth analysis of the report’s findings.

By Jessica Sage and Denise Burke

As Americans continue to debate proposals to reform the nation’s health care system, it is becoming increasingly clear that rationed healthcare is not just a concern for the elderly.  Recently, under Britain’s government-run health care system, doctors denied a premature baby necessary care and the child’s bereaved mother blames the National Health Service (NHS).  Specifically, the mother was told that her son who was born a few days shy of 22-weeks was too premature and that national guidelines prevented his treatment. 

Notably, the national guidelines at issue are not mandatory, but, in practice, effectively guide the decisions of NHS doctors.  Specifically, the guidelines (from the Nuffield Commission) recommend “intensive care should not be given to these babies [at less than 22 weeks development],” because it is extremely rare for a baby at that stage of development to survive and, if the baby does survive, he or she may suffer from a variety of disabilities and medical problems.  In sum, the guidelines view any effort to care for a premature infant as not cost effective. 

As the American public debates the inclusion of a public (or government) option in any health care reform package, NHS’s abject failure to care for premature infants gives us yet another example of how government-run healthcare all too often does not protect or respect life. 

When the government is the source of funding for health care, rationing is inevitable.  In an article on “Death Panels,” Will Wilkinson writes, “We’ve already got government rationing under Medicare and, frankly, the government is way too soft about it.”  He goes on to say, “We’ve known that Medicare is unsustainable for a long time now.  People flipping their lids about death panels and about government-funded doctors trying to sell seniors on suicide should have been flipping their lids years ago.” 

Clearly, it is not too late to “flip our lids.”  Medicare is not the standard of care we want.  Nor do we want limited government funding becoming the reason that life-sustaining or life-saving care is denied.  If the government—as a potential insurance provider—establishes guidelines dictating what is and what is not “futile care” and what lives are and are not worthy of treatment, it will direct doctors’ decisions and even override their medical judgment. 

Ultimate government health care guidelines may not be cast as mandatory and doctors’ decisions may not be initially dictated by them, but—as experienced in Britain—an anti-life attitude eventually creeps into the system.  This attitude professes that “hard choices” have to be made and government-run health care makes politicians and faceless bureaucrats the arbiters of what lives are valuable and thus cost effective to treat. 

Government-run healthcare will inevitably lead to rationed health care affecting the young, the old, the disabled, and the vulnerable.  It is the wrong choice for Americans.

Steven Ertelt, British Doctors Let Premature Baby Born at 22Weeks Die, NHS Blamed for Death (Sept 9, 2009) available at http://www.lifenews.com/int1317.html.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Independent ethics body proposes week-by- guidelines on treating premature babies (Nov 15, 2009) available at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/neonatal/pressrelease_405.html

Will Wilkinson,  Death panels: Wrong name, right idea (Aug 26, 2009) available at
http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99886/Death_panels_Wrong_name_right_idea

US News & World Report’s Dan Gilgoff tried to reach the White House for details on what President Obama means by his oft-used phrase “common ground” on abortion — and was rewarded with the sound of crickets.

The reporter sought the information for a story on the progress of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the means by which the administration is gathering input from abortion advocates and pro-life groups as it prepares a policy plan for “reducing unwanted pregnancy, increasing access to adoption, supporting maternal health, and reducing demand for abortion”

So, Gilgoff asked, what kind of ideas would the White House like to see? The answer was less than forthcoming:

The administration has stressed that it will avoid influencing pregnant women’s decisions about whether to have abortions but wants to find ways to support those who decide to carry their pregnancies to term. So far, though, the White House has avoided giving any hint about what its “common ground” plan on abortion and related issues will look like. Aides working on the matter declined to comment for this column. [Read the full article.]

Translation: “Chirp chirp. Chirp chirp.”

Here at Americans United for Life, we see “common ground” as a wide field of opportunities for common sense. That sound you hear is not crickets, but the keypad clicks and BlackBerry beeps of our legal team as they fine-tune legislation that any sincere advocate of justice for men, women, and children should agree on.

For example, as long as abortion is a legal “choice,” surely everyone should agree that no one should be coerced into choosing abortion. That’s why we developed Coercive Abortion Prevention (CAP) legislation, detailed in the 2009 edition of our annual legal guide Defending Life:

To effectively prevent coercive abuse, coercive abuse prevention (CAP) legislation must address the coercion itself, the timely reporting of suspected coercion, and treatment for victims of coercive abuse. First, coercive abuse must be clearly defined and punished. Coercive abuse takes on many forms. Whether it is actual or threatened physical abuse, a denial of social assistance support, a threat to fire a pregnant woman, or blackmail, each form should be met with a penalty. However, the right of someone to express an opinion or belief concerning a woman’s pregnancy must be protected. Additionally, property rights covering finances, resources, and assets must also be protected in this context.

Second, facilities that provide abortion services should be required to report suspected coercive abuse to the proper authorities. These facilities are often the last opportunity of hope for victims of coercive abuse. While many states require abortion providers to report suspected child and sexual abuse, no state requires providers to report suspected coercive abuse. Such facilities should provide treatment and protection information to patients known or suspected to be victims of coercive abuse. [Read the full article.]

Another common-sense AUL initiative available for those seeking common ground is our Child Protection Act, a comprehensive piece legislation designed to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions. This act, which was debated in the Mississippi legislature this year, is particularly needed to protect children from sexual predators who rely upon no-questions-asked abortion clinics to cover their tracks, as 2007 AUL Fellow Patrick Lavin wrote in Defending Life,

Currently, all 50 states have laws requiring healthcare professionals to report the suspected sexual abuse of minors, including statutory rape. The federal government also mandates that Title X healthcare facilities comply with state criminal reporting laws. However, there is substantial and developing evidence that many family planning and abortion clinics are not reporting all instances of suspected abuse, and are instead advising minors and their abusers on how to circumvent the law. As a result, sexual predators are free to continue to abuse their victims, scarring them for life.

Statutory rape is a major problem in the United States. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates that half of all children born to minors are fathered by adult men. HHS also found that 75% of girls under 14 years of age who have had sex report having a forced sexual experience. In a similar report by the Massachusetts Family Institute, nearly 55% of children born to girls in the state who are 15 years old or younger were fathered by adult males.

We must therefore, champion laws and legislation that requires family planning and abortion clinics and their employees to report all cases of suspected sexual abuse to state authorities and to impose strict penalties upon anyone who is found to be circumventing these laws or encouraging non-reporting of sexual abuse. [Read the full article.]

What these and other AUL initiatives share is that they give American citizens the opportunity to choose for themselves, through their democratically elected representatives, how abortion should be regulated. By contrast, legalized abortion was imposed upon Americans through the judiciary. Our latest polling data shows that only 7 percent of Americans agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that abortion should be available on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Bottom line: If you want common ground, let the people decide, instead of the courts.

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

The Senate-approved S. 1810, “Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act” passed the House yesterday, and awaits President Bush’s signature.

Lead sponsor of the bill Sen. Sam Brownback (R) has been working closely with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) on the measure. The law would require giving families who learn that their child may be born with or is born with a disability with facts about the condition, and with information on the many options and support services available on caring for children with disabilities.

The legislation also provides for the further development of peer-support groups and of a national clearinghouse on information for parents of disabled children. In addition, the bill creates a national registry of families who are willing to adopt children with pre- or post-natal diagnosed disabilities.

Brownback pointed out that “90 percent of children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted, and that percentage is similar for children prenatally diagnosed with other conditions such as spina bifida and cystic fibrosis.” Brownback asserted that these high numbers “suggest that we as a society are not doing everything we can to protect every human life, at every stage.”

Last year, Brownback and Kennedy worked together on a similar bill (that ultimately did not pass) that would have required expectant families with unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome to be informed that genetic tests are not always accurate, and to be given current, reliable information on the kind of life that people with Down syndrome live and enjoy.

LifeNews.com reported that the “plight of Down syndrome babies has received significant attention thanks to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate, who gave birth to a baby with the condition earlier this year.”

Indeed, a recent Washington Post article, Trig’s Breakthrough, hailed Trig Palin as a “4-month-old civil rights leader” who has “smashed the chromosomal barrier.” According to The Washington Post, “civil rights protections for people with Down syndrome have rapidly eroded over the past few decades.”

The article described the rise of “eugenic abortion” in America:

       “[W]hen Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report    that genetic counselors and   physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising   a child with a disability and urge abortion. This is properly called eugenic abortion – the ending of “imperfect” lives    to remove social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And    this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of    people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans,     deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable.    Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or    burdens.”

It is sad and markedly un-American that our society and its medical community do not recognize that children with Down syndrome, as The Washington Post put it, “learn slowly but love deeply” and are experienced by their families, not as a burden or shame,  but as a “complex blessing.” On her son Trig, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin stated that, “We knew through early testing that he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us the unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.” Palin’s experience with her son Trig is a testimony to the inherent value of the lives of children with disabilities.

LifeNews.com described the Brownback-Kennedy team as “a rare show of bipartisan support.” However, The Washington Post pointed out the irony of this Republican-Democrat marriage on the eugenic abortion issue, stating that

     “…the radical pro-choice radicalism held by Kennedy and many others – the  absolute elevation of individual autonomy over the rights of the weak – has  enabled the new eugenics. It has also created a moral conflict at the heart of the  Democratic party. If traditional Democratic ideology means anything, it is the  assertion that America is a single moral community that includes everyone. How  can this vision be reconciled with the elimination of children with Down  syndrome from American society?”

Despite the contradiction of Democratic principles and pro-choice radicalism, and despite the current standards of medical practice that fuel eugenic abortions, there is great hope for turning the situation around. The enactment of Brownback’s “Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act” and the ever-growing national attention on Trig Palin are steps in that direction.

The passage of S. 1810 in both the Senate and House is a great victory for disabled children and for parents who learn that their unborn children may be born with a disability. 

To read The Washington Post article, Trig’s Breakthrough, click here.

On September 19, 2008, the President’s Council on Service and Civic Participation awarded 150 pregnancy center volunteers and 56 pregnancy centers with The President’s Volunteer Service Award. The award was created by the Council as a way to thank and honor Americans who, by their demonstrated commitment and example, inspire others to engage in volunteer service. The award ceremony was hosted by the White House Freedom Corps and the U.S. Department of Public Health and Science.

The volunteers and pregnancy centers receiving the award included 32 Heartbeat International-affiliated pregnancy resource centers, and 55 volunteers who serve Heartbeat-affiliated centers. Heartbeat International President Peggy Hartshorn, Ph. D., stated, “We are very proud to carry on the American tradition of volunteerism and community service especially in a way that helps women and strengthens families.”

The award is given based upon the number of hours an individual or group serves over a 12-month period, or upon cumulative hours earned over the course of a lifetime. Dr. Ann Moell, Medical Director of Elizabeth’s New Life Center (Heartbeat’s affiliate in Dayton, Ohio), was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for providing women facing crisis pregnancies with over 4,000 hours of volunteer service. Dr. Moell stated in an interview that she first started to volunteer at pregnancy centers to “help people find an alternative solution to a difficult pregnancy instead of abortion.”

The bestowing of President’s Volunteer Service Award on crisis pregnancy centers and volunteers is a testimony to the great need for crisis pregnancy centers in American society, and of the good services crisis pregnancy centers provide to mothers in need.

For more information on crisis pregnancy centers, click here.

For more information on Heartbeat International, click here.

To watch the interview with Dr. Ann Moell, click here.

In a blind and ideologically-driven quest to impose abortion-on-demand on a reluctant nation, the Supreme Court of Mexico blatantly ignored the country’s Constitution when it recently upheld a law permitting abortion-on-demand during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The Mexican Constitution clearly states that human life must be defended “from conception until its natural end”, but the Supreme Court succumbed to pressures from international pro-abortion groups including the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood who have been aggressively pushing for abortion-on-demand in Mexico and other Latin American countries.

As a result, since April 2007, abortion is now permitted without restriction during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the Federal District (Mexico City) and the pressure for other Mexican states to follow suit is increasing. Two other Mexican states, Morelos and Yucatan, currently restrict abortions to cases of life endangerment, rape, or birth defects in the unborn child.

To read the entire article, please visit our website at http://aul.org/InternationalPressur

As someone who has given her professional life to pro-life public policy, I am always mindful of the ability of one person to make an important difference in the fight to defend, protect, and honor all human life.  But, every so often, a story of one person’s life is so powerful that it touches me deeply and reinvigorates me for the important battles ahead.  Such is the story of Agata Mroz.

Agata was a member of the Polish national volleyball team, a team that won the European championships in 2003 and 2005.  Given their successes, one can readily imagine that Agata and her teammates were dreaming of Olympic glory in Beijing.  But, that was not to be for Agata.

Agata was pregnant with her first child when doctors discovered that she had leukemia.  Agata and her husband decided to delay a bone-marrow transplant until after the birth of their daughter, Liliana, on April 4, 2008.  Sadly, Agata died just two months later, on June 4, 2008, but her love for her child and her brave defense of life will not soon be forgotten.

Auxiliary Bishop Marian Florczyk of Kielce, Poland said that Agata’s testimony is an example of “love of life, motherhood, the desire to give life, the heroic love of an unborn child.”  And, just a few hours after her death, Polish President Lech Kaczynski announced that Agata would be awarded the Polonia Restituta, one of Poland’s highest awards for extraordinary and distinguished service.

Agata’s heroic sacrifice should motivate all of us to continue to speak, with our words and with our actions, in defense of all human life.  That will be her greatest legacy.

The Minnesota abortion alternatives program, “Positive Alternatives,” has just been granted roughly 1.5 million dollars in state funding per year for the next three years, totaling to 4.7 million dollars.

The Positive Alternatives program was approved by the state legislature in 2005. Non-profit organizations that qualify for participation in the program will be reimbursed with state funds for services they have provided. Under the program, maternity homes, pregnancy centers, counseling agencies, and other social service agencies will be reimbursed for the free services they have already provided to women who have chosen childbirth over abortion. Reimbursable services include medical and nutrition services, prenatal care, parenting classes, housing, adoption counseling, food, personal counseling, and educational and employment assistance.

Executive Director of Positive Alternatives Scott Fischbach stated that “[t[hese grants ensure that pregnant mothers…won’t feel abortion is their only option.” Fischbach continued: “We know that the grants are helping more women choose life for their unborn children, and we hope that they are enough to reduce the overall number of abortions.”

Indeed, abortion alternatives programs have been shown through the years to reduce the number of abortions performed. Pennsylvania’s abortion alternatives program, “Real Alternatives,” is the oldest government-funded abortion alternatives program in America, and has been used as the model for all other state abortion alternatives programs. During the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the PA program served 17,233 women. In that year alone, the number of abortions performed in PA dropped 3%. This drop has been attributed directly to the free services provided by Real Alternatives supporting women’s right to choose childbirth over abortion.

When the MN Positive Alternatives program was approved in 2005, it received overwhelming bi-partisan support. During its first year of funding, the program served at least 5,600 women. This year, Representatives Ken Tschumper (D), Shelly Madore (D) and Will Morgan (D) pushed the Minnesota legislature to completely cut off all funds for the Positive Alternatives program. The legislature, however, recognized the need and importance of the program, and renewed funding for the next three years.

The Minnesota legislature recognized that women who have exercised their right to choose by electing childbirth over abortion deserve the care necessary to carry through with their choice. The state’s funding of the Positive Alternatives program protects women facing crisis pregnancies from being forced by financial and other pressures to resort to an unwanted abortion. The legislature has seen thousands of women served by the program, and has chosen to continue to serve pregnant women in need.

Abortion alternatives programs are prevalent in other states besides Minnesota. Using the successful Pennsylvania program as a model, the state legislatures in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas have created state-supported abortion alternatives programs. These programs are effective and have improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of women.

State legislatures concerned with meeting the needs of women in need and with protecting the right of a woman to choose childbirth over abortion should consider establishing an abortion alternatives program in their state.