As President Obama made his first official visit to China, new information on China’s “one-child policy” surfaced in the media.

In an article published last week, The Washington Post revealed that “monetary incentives and penalties are attached to population targets,” creating what amounts to “bounties on the unborn,” according to a 2009 State Department report. Technically, it is illegal in China to kill a baby, but family- planning imperatives sometimes prevail. Unfortunately, according to the same source, as recently as July, China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission said that the one-child policy “will be strictly enforced as a means of controlling births for decades to come”.

While Chinese officials insist that abortions are voluntary under the one-child policy, the Post’s article informs about recent electronic documentation that shows coerced abortions and involuntary sterilizations are still commonplace in China.

The consequences of these violent and dehumanizing policies are many. Besides killing millions of children, abortions, especially late term abortions, claim the lives of the mothers as well, as evidenced by reports from China. Whatsmore, about 500 women a day commit suicide there. This is the highest rate in the world and it is attributed in part to coercive family planning.

Rep. Chris Smith, a long time champion of Chinese human rights and Chairman of the House Human Rights Committee, also pointed out the atrocious harms to Chinese women, exclaiming that “China’s coercive population control program has imposed unspeakable violence, pain and humiliation on hundreds of millions of Chinese women, many of whom suffer lifelong depression as a consequence.”

Furthermore, China has used abortion for sex-selective purposes because of a traditional (cultural) preference for boys. This has resulted in a tremendous gender imbalance with Chinese men outnumbering Chinese women by 37 million.  In this regard, Smith stated, “As a direct result of the government’s one-child policy, tens of millions of girls are missing today…The lost girls of China is a gendercide.”

While the Post rightfully asserts that “[a]verting our gaze from China’s horrific abuse of women is [a choice],” they neglect to mention the U.S.’s involvement in supporting China’s coercive family planning policies (including coerced abortions and forced sterilizations) is also a “choice.”  The Fiscal Year 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House this past March created an exception to allow unrestricted funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) including their operations in countries (such as China) that force women to abort or to be sterilized.  In approving the spending, 55 U.S. Senators voted to reject Senator Roger Wicker’s attempt to protect U.S. taxpayers from funding coercive abortions through the UNFPA.

In light of President Obama’s emphasis on human rights while in China this week, the U.S. should strongly consider withdrawing U.S. taxpayers’ money from operations funding these dehumanizing policies in China.

Americans United for Life experts have created comprehensive model legislation and policy guides to address these issues. For a copy of the 2010 Coerced Abortions Legislative Guide, please click here.  For the 2010 Legislative Guide on Sex Selective and Genetic Abnormality, please click here.

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley— a current Democrat candidate for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat—strongly criticized the House health care bill for prohibiting federal funding of abortions.  The Boston Globe reported her saying that “fighting for a women’s access to abortion was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its [other] aims.”  

Apparently, AG Coakley is willing to compromise all for a women’s access to abortion—despite its inherent and realized harms to women.  In her opinion, access to abortion trumps the possibility of health care reform, but more importantly constitutionally-protected speech.  AG Coakley is the same AG who interpreted the Massachusetts Buffer Zone Law as criminalizing the mere presence of pro-life advocates around abortion clinics.  In her interpretation of the Act and guidance to law enforcement, she unconstitutionally silences any expression of opposition to abortion within a 35-foot radius around “reproductive health care” facilities. 

In relation to health care, Coakley says she will not compromise on abortion rights.  She makes evident that nothing is of more importance to her than protecting mere access to abortion (as opposed to women’s health and safety).   She criticizes fellow Democrats for not being principled on the issue of abortion, claiming that they are “selling one set of constitutional rights for another.” 

What she seems to forget (or it simply does not bother her) is she willingly “sold” explicit First Amendment rights for the Court-declared abortion right.  It is a good thing she is not expressing these views within 35 feet of an abortion clinic in MA, otherwise she would be handed a “go to jail “ card.   But then again, she would not have to say a word.  If she simply put on the abortion clinic’s volunteer vest and escorted women into the clinic for an abortion, the law exempts her and her viewpoint—actions speak louder than words. 

AG Coakley makes very clear she will use her position and power to promote abortion at any price.

On Tuesday we reported that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) would be considering whether to once again delay implementation of the Illinois parental notification law.  For a short while on Wednesday, pro-lifers felt victorious: rather than further delay enforcement, as we expected, the IDFPR allowed the law to go into effect.

Unfortunately, the ACLU was able to convince a state court later Wednesday afternoon that the parental notification law is unconstitutional under the state constitution—despite the fact that abortion itself was still illegal in Illinois at the time the constitution was put into place.

So once again, minors in Illinois are left unprotected from the harms of abortion, and parents are left helpless and without knowledge when abortionists perform procedures on their daughters that carry substantial short-term and long-term physical and psychological risks.

But the ACLU’s claims, and the state court’s acceptance of their false claims to date, will be potentially disastrous to all women in Illinois—not just minors.  What the ACLU is arguing is that any commonsense regulation of abortion is unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution.

Pro-abortion forces were unsuccessful this year in passing a state Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) in Illinois.  Had FOCA passed, it would have enshrined abortion on demand into Illinois law, making it nearly impossible to protect women through informed consent laws, parental notification laws, or abortion clinic regulations.

So the ACLU has apparently shifted its strategy.  Rather than working through the legislature—where such decisions belong—the ACLU is using the court system in Illinois to block a law that the majority of Americans and Illinoisans desire.

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.

Breaking News! - The Hyatt Regency Atlanta has graciously given us a spacious room for this event, so we have extra space for a guest or spouse. Additionally, Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council will be joining us for lunch to discuss health care reform proposals on Capitol Hill. There’s still a short time left to register. Call 1-800-225-4008 today or click here to RSVP online.

WHAT: Pre-ALEC Luncheon & Conference on Life & Family Issues

WHO: Americans United for Life and Family Research Council

WHEN: Tuesday, July 14, 2009; noon until 5:00 p.m.

WHERE: Hyatt Regency Atlanta (site of ALEC Conference); Hanover Room C-E

265 Peachtree Street Northeast; Atlanta, Georgia

RSVP: 1-800-225-4008 or online at www.frc.org/events

SCHEDULE:

Noon – The Current State of Health Care “Reform” – Lunch with Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council

1:00 – Surviving Obama: Successful State Strategies for Reducing Abortion – Clarke Forsythe, Esq., Americans United for Life

1:45 – Clones & Stem Cells: Fact vs. Friction – David Prentice, Ph.D., FRC

2:30 – How We Can Beat the Porn Industry – Cathy Ruse, FRC

3:00 – Where Does the Public Stand on Life Issues? – Cathy Ruse, FRC & Matthew Eppinette, AUL

3:30 – Future Tech: Ethical Issues in the Pipeline – Matthew Eppinette, AUL

4:00 – The Battle for Marriage – Peter Sprigg, FRC

4:30 – Worse than Souter: What to Expect from a Justice Sotomayor – Dan McConchie, AUL & Tom McClusky, FRC

5:00 – Special Bonus! Book signing and refreshments with Clarke Forsythe; compliments of Ideas for a Better Georgia

Learn about the key life and family issues affecting your state! Experts from Americans United for Life and Family Research Council will discuss the latest legislative initiatives and state legislative trends. They will address the impact of current cutting-edge developments on state legislation and how you can be prepared.

Don’t miss this complimentary luncheon and afternoon seminar on life and family issues exclusively for state legislators.

Click here to RSVP online

Taxpayers in New York may soon be paying women to put their lives at risk.

The ethics committee of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board recently recommended that taxpayer money be given to researchers who have paid women for the harvesting of their eggs for research purposes.  If the full stem-cell board agrees, New York will become the first state to allow such reimbursement.

But the ethics committee shirked a glaring problem: egg harvesting endangers women’s health.  Egg donation requires preliminary hormone treatment, and this hormone therapy is accompanied by serious health risks including an increased risk of ovarian cancer and complications with future pregnancies.  Other risks include ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS), which can cause loss of fertility, organ failure, and death.

And in the current economic climate, more women will be putting their lives at risk.  At a “reimbursement” rate around $10,000, women hard-hit by the economy will be more likely to take risks they would not have otherwise taken.  The result is the commoditization of eggs and the exploitation of women.

What’s more is that there is no benefit in sight, and certainly not to the women involved.  Quoting Dr. David Prentice, Wesley Smith in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century explains that it is not possible to obtain even enough eggs to treat diabetic patients in the U.S., let alone all of the other patients who have been promised (intangible) benefits from embryonic stem cell research.  Dr. Prentice has computed that it would take 800 million eggs just to treat the 16 million Americans suffering from diabetes.  Smith concludes, “There simply aren’t enough women of childbearing age to supply all these eggs.”

In other words, the harvesting of eggs will not help produce cures, and women’s lives are placed in danger simply to satisfy scientific curiosity.  This can be categorized as nothing other than the exploitation of women.

In 2008, AUL, in conjunction with Dr. Prentice, provided an extensive report to New York’s stem cell board demonstrating that therapies utilizing adult stem cells are already treating patients and that any taxpayer money should be used for treatments that are already proven to be working.  The ethics committee ignored these hard facts.

Apparently, scientific whim is more important than the lives of women.

AUL and Family Research Council are holding an educational seminar on life and family issues the day before the start of the annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council in Atlanta on July 14.  All legislators who care about issues of life and family are welcome to attend this complementary event.

WHEN: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 from noon until 5:00 p.m.

WHERE: Hyatt Regency Atlanta (site of the ALEC Conference)

RSVP: 1-800-225-4008 or online at www.frc.org/events

Speakers will include:

The Honorable Sonny Perdue, Governor of Georgia (invited)

Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, Americans United for Life

Tom McClusky, Sr. Vice President, Family Research Council Action

Daniel McConchie, Vice President of Government Affairs, Americans United for Life

Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow for Life Sciences, Family Research Council

Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life

Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Family Research Council

Bill Saunders, Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life

Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council

Americans United for Life (AUL), a national public interest law and policy organization defending human life through vigorous legislative, judicial, and educational efforts, seeks highly-qualified and motivated law student to serve as research assistant to AUL’s Senior Counsel.  The position is unpaid and may be undertaken for credit (as approved by the law school involved) or to fulfill other graduation requirements.
 
Qualifications
• Excellent legal research and writing skills.
• Demonstrated initiative and attention to detail.
• Ability to work with minimal direct supervision. Candidates are not required to be in the Chicago area, but must be available by telephone and email.

Duties & Responsibilities
• Provide research and other assistance to AUL’s Senior Counsel in the development of book projects on the impact of legalized abortion.
• Research, draft, and edit articles for law reviews, national magazines, and websites on life issues.

To Apply
• Send a resume, writing sample, and list of three references to Resumes@AUL.org with “2009 Summer Research Assistant” in subject line
• For more information, email Resumes@AUL.org or call 312-568-4700.
• Deadline:  Until the position is filled.

Today Americans United for Life (AUL) filed an amicus curiae brief before the Montana Supreme Court on behalf of 28 bi-partisan Montana Senators and Representatives, arguing that there is no right to assisted suicide under the State’s constitution.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL stated, “It is appalling that the district court has attempted to unilaterally manufacture a state constitutional right to assisted suicide – a right that has no basis in the history of our nation.  Instead, Montana has compelling interests in protecting all human life and in preventing the abuses inherent in assisted suicide.”

In December 2008, a state district court ruled that, under the Montana Constitution, individuals have a right to suicide, and a right to assistance in committing suicide.  However, the judge did not impose any restrictions on the practice, even leaving room for the active euthanasia of patients by their physicians.

“The district court held that a person’s constitutional rights are ‘defeated’ if she does not receive assistance in dying.  This means that anyone—even a patient who cannot administer lethal drugs herself—is entitled to have a physician kill them,” observed Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel. 

She continued, “What’s even worse is that there is no requirement that another person witness the suicide request or that there be written documentation of the request and the basis for it.  Physicians can unilaterally decide that their patients want to die, with no paper trail to hold them accountable.  That is not assisted suicide—that is euthanasia.”

AUL worked in conjunction with the Montana Attorney General’s office in coordinating amicus curiae briefs supporting the State’s prohibition of assisted suicide.  AUL’s brief can be accessed here.

In 2008, the states of Washington and Montana legalized assisted suicide, joining Oregon which legalized the practice in 1994.  This legalization of assisted suicide in America demands a truthful look at the logical outcome when this form of killing is accepted.  The logical outcome—as we see in Switzerland—is not just assisted suicide of the terminally ill, but assisted suicide of the healthy.

Ludwig Minelli—founder of the Swiss assisted suicide clinic, Dignitas—recently revealed plans to help a healthy Canadian woman die along side her terminally-ill husband.  Minelli told England’s BBC radio “suicide is a marvelous, marvelous possibility given to a human being in order to escape a situation which is unbearable.”  He also has no hesitation in killing psychiatric patients suffering from depression or mental illness.  In Minelli’s opinion, anyone who has the “mental capacity” should be permitted to commit suicide, even healthy patients.

Switzerland has the most liberal assisted suicide laws in the world—in part as a result of Minelli’s continuing challenges to even the modest boundaries of the Swiss assisted suicide law.  Switzerland legalized assisted suicide in 1918 and is the only jurisdiction that allows nonresidents to kill themselves.  In November 2006, the Swiss Supreme Court expanded the law by declaring a constitutional right to assisted suicide for psychiatric patients and other mentally ill individuals.

For Minelli, the next step in the right to assisted suicide is for the healthy to be permitted to kill themselves.  For him, this is a “marvelous opportunity” to further his agenda and extend the permissiveness of assisted suicide in Switzerland and for those willing to travel there.  He announced his intentions to assist the Canadian couple with full expectation that the case ultimately will end up in courts where he can push for further expansion of the right to assisted suicide.

Minelli is not a doctor, but a human rights lawyer.  He, along with other advocates for assisted suicide, rely on two ideological principles:  1) Individual Autonym— principally, that it is the “ultimate civil liberty” to control the time, manner and place of our own death;  and 2) Killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering.

Assisted-suicide advocates argue that laws can create safeguards to prevent abuses and protect the most vulnerable.  They have managed to convince many Americans, who naively rely on these assertions and believe assisted suicide will be only for the old, the sick, and the dying.  But in reality, Minelli and Switzerland’s laws reveal the true debate. It shows America that the end goal of assisted suicide advocates is to make it available to all—even those who may not really want to die, but are depressed over a difficult time in their lives.

Thus, initially limiting assisted suicide to the terminally ill is only the first in a line of incremental steps for society to accept killing as an alternative to human suffering.  The next is the killing of those with other illnesses and psychiatric patients, then the healthy.  If not informed and wise, America will quickly find herself a nation ridden with euthanasia—where her most vulnerable, in need of protection and help, are simply put to death.

Are you in or out?  That is the question for hospitals across the state of Washington, as each one determines its policy on the “Death with Dignity Act” passed through voter initiative (Initiative 1000) last November.   The Act went into effect last week, 120 days after the election.

The trend in America allowing individuals, primarily licensed physicians, to legally counsel and assist a patient in ending his or her life is alarming.  However, this law and view of life is a logical follow-on to legalized abortion and the categorization of unwanted or undesired life.  If our nation’s laws permit a licensed physician to counsel and perform an abortion–ending a baby’s life–for pragmatic reasons, why would not the next logical right declared in law permit licensed physicians to assist those wanting to end their lives through suicide?

Our nation’s inclination toward death over life is troubling and drastic.  In the days before Initiative 1000, one opinion writer called upon “responsible citizens” to disregard emotions and vote with “logical minds.”  He continued, “Our feelings cannot be allowed to govern other people’s rights. If a human being is suffering, they have the right to ease that suffering through whatever means are available to them,” including ending one’s life with the aid of a licensed physician.

I suggest those in favor of this legislation are in fact the ones voting with their emotions, choosing death because they are emotionally unable to deal with the discomfort and thought of possibly dying in six months or less.  Yet, what about our logical minds?

The logical mind inquires into what principles and policies underlie this radical law, departing from our people’s declared unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  When did a right to Death creep into our purview?   The logical mind remembers America’s ‘can do’ attitude of triumphing over trials and facing hardship with dignity–not surrendering to hopelessness and quitting.  The logical mind asks, “Can I trust a licensed physician to treat me for a potentially fatal disease when I know he believes at some point I should conclude that I have no hope and should kill myself with his assistance?”

Policies and laws impact the views of the people.  When our nation took the step to permit abortions, it began to degrade our citizen’s view and value of life.  With Oregon and now the state of Washington accepting that some people are better off killing themselves, our nation faces a critical point of evaluating the logical steps to follow.

Yes, Americans need to be responsible citizens and use their logical minds.  They must realize the individual with terminal illness or the woman with an unwanted pregnancy may have difficulty looking beyond the challenges of the day.  People in these emotionally-laden positions should not be counseled out of desperateness into hastening death.  On the contrary, these individuals need realistic encouragement to face the difficulties ahead and to be given hope for life tomorrow.  Death is a certainty of life, but the timing and means of death are not decisions to rest on the shoulders of human beings.  Rather, they should be left to the Creator in whom our unalienable rights originate.

A so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) in Illinois (IL House Bill 2354) is scheduled for a hearing at the State House at 8:00 AM on Wednesday, March 4.

Like the federal FOCA introduced in the 110th Congress, and state versions that have recently been introduced in other states such as New Mexico, the Illinois FOCA would authorize a nurse, in any public school in the state, to do an abortion on a minor girl, at any time of pregnancy, without any parental knowledge.  The bill then specifically immunizes such a nurse from any civil or criminal claim by any parent in Section 25(a).

The Illinois FOCA would repeal Illinois physician-only law and all other Illinois limits on abortion by virtue of declaring abortion to be a “fundamental right” and by prohibiting (in Section 15) any “interference” with the fundamental right and by prohibiting “discrimination” in funding in Section 20.

The FOCA would also eliminate the Illinois prohibition on partial-birth abortion and repeal other existing abortion regulations.

The declaration of abortion as a “fundamental right” would extend from conception to birth and thereby strike down any regulations of abortion throughout pregnancy.

Section 35 of the Illinois FOCA also tramples on conscience rights.

It would also require public funding of abortion from conception to birth by requiring that abortion be treated equally with childbirth.

Americans United for Life proudly announces its 2009 Fellows:
 
            *  Richard Lender is a second year law student at the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University.  Richard holds degrees in political science, history and theology.  He has studied abroad in both New Zealand and Poland and has completed legal internships with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the National Association of Broadcasters.
 
            *  Patrick Nagorski is a second year law student at Ave Maria School of Law and a commissioned reserve officer in the U.S. Army.  He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Notre Dame.  He is currently interning with the Honorable Annette Berry, a Circuit Court judge in Michigan.
 
The AUL Fellowship Program provides a prestigious summer fellowship for first and second-year law students, training and educating the next generation of pro-life leaders.  Each year, the program identifies future leaders through a competitive application process, deepening their commitment to life and equipping them with legal and policy experience to prepare them for future leadership roles in the pro-life movement.

Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) promised to call on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department to complete its review of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and to send it to the Senate for ratification within 60 days.

If ratified, this international convention could severely undermine parents and their inherent right and responsibility to care for and raise their children without governmental oversight and interference.  It would also directly undermine U.S. sovereignty and the enforceability of American laws, subjecting U.S. citizens and American laws to the administrative oversight — and even “veto” power — of the United Nations.

A fundamental presumption of the convention is that parental responsibility exists only in so far as parents are willing to further the independent choices of their children.  To advance the convention’s purposes – seeking to make children (even young children) autonomous from their parents and arguably supplanting parents with the State — the convention grants to children a list of inviolable and radical “rights” including “the right to privacy,” “the right to freedom of thought and association,” and the right to “freedom of expression.”

Specifically, the provisions of this convention could be used to undermine and eliminate laws mandating parental involvement in a minor daughter’s abortion decision.  Article 16 of the convention purports to invest a minor with an absolute right to privacy which, in light of the U.N.’s support for unfettered abortion-on-demand, would necessarily permit a minor to obtain an abortion without the benefit of parental involvement and even without her parents ever knowing about the abortion.

Ominously, Article 19 the Convention permits the “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of those – like parents – who interfere with a child’s fundamental “rights.”

For more information on this radical threat to the family and American sovereignty, go to http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={30FF0076-5974-4B3C-B658-BBF7931E3EF8}

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its sixth annual ranking of the most and least pro-life states.  Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and South Dakota top the ranking, while California, Hawaii, and Vermont ranked lowest.

“AUL’s annual ranking highlights the significant progress we are making each year toward a more pro-life America,” said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO.  “There is every reason for optimism even in the face of new challenges.  Since the election, we have seen a huge outpouring of grassroots support for our work opposing the radically pro-abortion Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as well as hundreds of inquiries about life-affirming legislation.”

While AUL’s criteria covers states’ treatment of all life issues, final rankings depend largely on each state’s enactment of prudent and well-supported laws.  Such laws fence in the abortion license granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade.  Among the laws AUL looks for are informed consent, parental involvement for minors, medically-supported regulation of abortion providers, and limitations on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.

“We are making progress — state by state and law by law — to build a culture of life in America,” said Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President of Legal Affairs.  “In states that have passed common-sense limitations on abortion, abortion rates have declined by nearly 20% over the past 10 years.  These laws also underscore the growing and irrefutable evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women.”

The complete state rankings are available at http://dl.aul.org/your-state and will be featured in the soon-to-be-released Defending Life 2009.

About Defending Life 2009
AUL’s annual publication, Defending Life 2009: Proven Strategies for a Pro-Life America, is the definitive legal guide to abortion, bioethics, healthcare freedom of conscience, and the end of life.  Cutting through the murky cloud of media chatter and controversy, Defending Life provides comprehensive, timely, and thought-provoking information to anyone who wants to understand key pro-life issues and utilize proven strategies to address them.

In a recent column, AUL Board member George Weigel writes of the late Pope John Paul II and how his view of America evolved during his life.  One particular observation of the beloved pontiff (from 1997) seems particular apropos as America inaugurates a new President:

No expression of today’s [American] commitment to liberty and justice for all can be more basic than the protection offered to those in society who are most vulnerable.  The United States of America was founded on the conviction that an inalienable right to life was a self-evident moral truth, fidelity to which was a primary criterion for social justice.  The moral history of [America] is the story of [its] people’s efforts to widen the circle of inclusion in society, so that all Americans might enjoy the protection of law, participate in the responsibilities of citizenship, and have the opportunity to make a contribution to the common good.  Whenever a certain category of people — the unborn or the sick and old — are excluded from that protection, a deadly anarchy subverts the original understanding of justice.  The credibility of the United States will depend more and more on its promotion of a genuine culture of life, and on a renewed commitment to building a world in which the weakest and most vulnerable are welcomed and protected.

Let’s pray the President Obama and his Administration take heed of this wisdom.

I had a good debate with U. Texas Law Professor John Robertson last night at Yale Law School. The debate was co-sponsored by Yale Law Students for Life and Yale Students for Reproductive Justice.

John is author of Children of Choice and a number of legal articles on reproductive technology. For 30 years, he has advocated a fundamental right to virtually unlimited “procreative freedom” that encompasses using technology to obtain children through virtually any means. He is also a Fellow with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), which advocates for fertility practitioners.

We debated regulating assisted reproductive technology (ART), a very broad topic. With only 15 minutes to present my case, I proposed 3 rather modest regulations, because we were asked to debate regulating ART and because I sought to identify regulations for which the medical data was the strongest: (1) adequate, timely data collection and reporting to protect the public health; (2) limits on the number of embryos conceived and transferred in any reproductive cycle; and (3) prohibiting the buying and selling of human eggs. I also argued the constitution does not protect a right to IVF and states have broad authority to regulate ART and protect human life.

As expected, he rejected all, though John is a very amiable fellow and not a harsh partisan. To counter every proposed regulation, he advocated self-regulation by doctors and offered countervailing interests of individuals who want to procreate through IVF. The debate demonstrated the need for strong medical data in support of any regulation of ART.

Yale Law Students for Life are hosting two events featuring AUL’s own Clarke Forsythe: a debate on reproductive technology Thursday (tonight!) at 7pm, and a career/book lunch Friday at noon.

Embryo Economy: Regulating Egg Donation and In Vitro Fertilization
Date: Thursday, Dec. 11
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: SLB 129
Speakers: Clarke Forsythe (AUL) v. John Robertson (Univ. Texas School of Law)
Topic: Regulating Reproductive Technology
Sponsors: Yale Law Students for Life & Yale Law Students for Reproductive Choice
Food: Non-pizza dinner

How To Be a Pro-Life Lawyer
Date: Friday, Dec. 12
Time: 12:00 NOON
Place: SLB 129
Speaker: Clarke Forsythe (AUL)
Topic: What is a pro-life lawyer and what books does he or she write?
Sponsors: Yale Law Students for Life
Food: Pizza

Americans United for Life offers two prestigious student programs- a Spring/Fall Externship and a Summer Fellowship. Qualifications for both include a demonstrated commitment to life issues and proven academic excellence.

AUL’s 2009 Fellowship Program is designed to provide a prestigious summer fellowship for first and second year law students and consists of a paid, six to eight week program in our Chicago office.  Each Fellow is given meaningful, cutting-edge assignments including drafting model legislation, working on amicus briefs, and writing educational articles.  Moreover, each Fellow is actively mentored by an AUL attorney who meets regularly with the Fellow to coach him or her on his or her legal work and cultivate a long-term commitment to pro-life work, either on a full time or pro bono basis. The Fellowship Program also provides opportunities for Fellows to meet with notable leaders in the pro-life movement through our Legal Institute training program, as well as other dinners and events. 

The application deadline for our Fellowship Program is January 30th, 2009. To obtain additional information on the Program and to apply, click here.

Our Spring 2009 Externships allow students to continue their studies while interning for us, as they are designed to be completed remotely from the students’ law school location. The externships may be undertaken for credit (as approved by the extern’s law school) or to fulfill other graduation requirements.

The application deadline for the Spring Externship Program is January 15th, 2009. For additional information and to apply, click here.

The election is this coming Tuesday, and the pro-life movement is at a critical crossroads. Be sure to vote.

We need every pro-life American to vote on November 4!

But after we’ve voted and the dust settles, what will we do next? Please join me and our AUL experts for a post-election conference call on Wednesday, November 5 at 3pm ET (2pm CT, 1pm MT, 12pm PT) for about 30 minutes of pro-life election summary and analysis followed by a time of Q&A.

We will discuss the impact of the new President, the changed makeup of Congress, countless state legislative races, and the five pending pro-life ballot measures.

To join the call, you must register. Visit http://tinyurl.com/5gfebx to sign up today.

And please invite your friends to join us.

It was great to speak at Boston College Law School yesterday on “Threatening Women’s Health: How the Federal ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ (FOCA) would eliminate every health regulation on abortion in the country.” I addressed the threat of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) to women’s health, parental rights, religious freedom, and the lives of unborn children. It was a diverse audience which raised a number of challenging questions. The Lex Vitae Pro-Life Society has a great group of student leaders who are bringing pro-life experts to BC Law School.

Who:
Clarke Forsythe, AUL Senior Counsel

Topic:
Threatening Women’s Health: How the Federal “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) would eliminate every health regulation on abortion in the country

When:
12:30 pm, October 21 (TODAY!)

Where:
Barat House
885 Centre Street
Newton Centre, MA

Sponsored by Lex Vitae Pro-Life Society at BC Law School

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) last night presented the Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award to New Yorkers for Parental Rights (NYFPR). Jessica Shanahan, President of NYFPR, was on hand to accept the award.

AUL President Dr. Charmaine Yoest said, “The work of New Yorkers for Parental Rights is both an inspiration and a guide to all who work to protect women and the unborn.”

In presenting the award, AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith, who worked closely with NYFPR, said, “Tonight we honor Jessica Shanahan and New Yorkers for Parental Rights for their outstanding efforts and political insight.”

Upon accepting the award, Ms. Shanahan said, “We did not relish this fight, but I felt a responsibility to do something. Unless more pro-life legislation is enacted and pro-abortion legislation is defeated, we will not continue to see a reduction in abortion in our country. It’s an honor to be recognized and to accept this award on behalf of New Yorkers for Parental Rights.”

New Yorkers for Parental Rights was formed to combat the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP) in the New York state legislature. The Act would have elevated abortion to a “fundamental right”—enshrining Roe v. Wade into New York law, eliminating all current regulation of abortion, and preventing future attempts to introduce common-sense regulations.

The Henry J. Hyde Defender of Life Award is presented by Americans United for Life in recognition of outstanding legislative efforts in the defense of human life. “Henry Hyde will always be an inspiring model of commitment to public service and the sanctity of human life—the William Wilberforce of our time,” said AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe. Congressman Hyde represented Illinois’ 6th District from 1975 to 2006; he served as Honorary Chairman of Americans United for Life until his death in November 2007.

The award was presented at the 2008 Annual Gala. Held at the Palmer House Hilton of Chicago, the Gala was emceed by social commentator and activist Lakita Garth-Wright, and featured a keynote speech by author and National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru.

A good indicator of how the pro-life position is winning is the extreme rhetoric people use in opposing it. The more ground the pro-life position gains, the more extreme the rhetoric we hear form those who oppose us. Hate mail is a good case in point.

As you may know, the AUL 2008 Annual Gala — featuring keynote speaker Ramesh Ponnuru — is coming up October 9 at the Palmer House Hilton of Chicago. As organizations do, we have been sending out invitations by mail and by email.

Many have responded, almost all of them positively. But in one of the reply envelopes, we received the flyer below (click on the image for a larger version).

I’m not sure I understand how it is that those of us who are working to protect life are to be equated with one of the most life-destroying regimes that ever existed. Some people just have too much time on their hands, I suppose.

By the way, seats are still available for the Gala.

You are cordially invited to the

Americans United for Life

2008 Annual Gala

on the evening of
Thursday, October 9, 2008

at the
Palmer House Hilton of Chicago

Keynote Speaker: Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for National Review and the author of The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, published by Regnery Publishing.

Hors d’ouevres begin at 5:45
Dinner will be served at 6:45
Silent auction items will be on display throughout the evening

$175 per ticket; $300 per couple
$2,000 to host a table (seating up to 10)

Semi-formal attire

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.

Our friends at the Culture of Life Foundation have opened the registration for their first annual awards reception and conference.

Culture of Life Foundation is pleased to announce our first annual:

“William E. May Award for Promoting Ethics and the Human Person”

To be presented to

Dr. William E. May

In conjunction with our annual conference:

The Culture of Life vs. The Culture of Death: from Humanae Vitae to Cloning and Assisted Suicide

September 20, 2008

Day Conference Fee and Concluding with a Cocktail Hour :
$100.00 Per Person (includes morning coffee, Full Lunch, and Cocktail Reception)

Campaign Life Coalition, LifeCanada and International Right to Life Federation are organizing an international pro-life conference in Toronto, Canada this fall.

Pro-life speakers from around the world will be present, among which Dr. Jack Willke, regarded by many as the father of the pro-life movement in America and Father Gerard Wilberforce, prominent pro-lifer in Great Britain and great, great, grandson of William Wilberforce, who fought successfully to end the slave trade in England.

You can find more information about the conference on Campaign for Life Coalition’s website.

In an unexpected move by the Kansas Supreme Court today, several formerly-sealed documents in the cases involving Planned Parenthood and Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline were unsealed.  Importantly, that Court rejected Former Attorney General Paul Morrison’s letter clearing Planned Parenthood of any wrong-doing.  In fact, the unsealed documents prove that Morrison tried to return evidence back to Planned Parenthood—an entity that gave him campaign money to have him hide evidence of its criminal activity.

Significantly, all judges that have reviewed the evidence against the local Planned Parenthood affiliate have found probable cause that crimes have been committed.

Phill Kline has now been given proper clearance to be in possession of those redacted records.  He has and will continue to protect the identity of women who had abortions.  All patient records have been redacted, and there is no privacy concern that the women who had abortions will ever be indentified. 

While a victory for Kline and the pro-life community, these redacted records now need to receive proper review in a court of law.  Once that review occurs, the true nature of Planned Parenthood will come to light.

This morning, President George Bush formally welcomed Pope Benedict XVI to the United States during a ceremony on the South Lawn at the White House.  In a short speech, the President praised the Pope’s promotion and defense of a culture of life, stating:

“In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred and that each of us is willed, each of us is loved, and each of us is necessary.”

This comment drew sustained applause from the crowd of 13,000 gathered to welcome the pontiff.  We wholeheartedly agree.