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.

Dear Friend,

As you’ve undoubtedly heard, Justice David Souter is leaving the Supreme Court, and President Obama will soon nominate a replacement.

Since casting his first vote against life in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice Souter has repeatedly voted to extend the tragedy of abortion — into all nine months of pregnancy, at any time, and for any reason.  In 2000 and again in 2007, Justice Souter voted to make partial-birth abortion a Constitutional right.

You and I don’t want another Justice Souter on the Supreme Court, so we have to make our voices heard.  People are waiting to see if we will respond.  I’ve had countless reporters ask me what the pro-life movement is going to do. 

That’s why AUL’s work is so important.

In everything from the Wall Street Journal to the Congressional Quarterly to the Chicago Tribune, AUL is speaking out against any nominee who intends to implement a radical abortion rights agenda as a Supreme Court Justice.

In addition, the AUL Legal Team has put together and is distributing widely a comprehensive report on potential Supreme Court nominees.  The report examines those we believe are on President Obama’s “short list,” as well as other potential nominees he may be considering.  Every potential nominee is pro-abortion and would advance President Obama’s radical agenda to pass FOCA, eliminating every restriction on abortion nationwide.  You can read the report to see just how radical the President’s nominee could be.

Right now, I need your help to continue this vital work.

Already, pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood are raising money to help them make sure the next Supreme Court Justice will not only uphold Roe v. Wade, but go even further.  They want the new Justice to read the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the Constitution — striking down every abortion restriction in the nation.

You see, they haven’t yet succeeded in getting FOCA through Congress.  And their Plan B — passing FOCA through Congress “by stealth” — is taking longer than they’d like.

In the meantime, they’re moving ahead with Plan C — to have an activist Supreme Court erase every pro-life law nationwide.

Unfortunately, a new Justice who would read FOCA into the Constitution wouldn’t be alone.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has even written a law review article detailing how she would do it. 

So you see, the stakes are very high indeed.  If President Obama sends a pro-abortion nominee to the US Senate, we will do everything possible to make sure that nominee is rejected.

We need your help to make sure we don’t get another pro-abortion Justice.  Will you send a generous gift today?

Time is of the essence.  We must show the US Senate that we will not stand for another Justice Souter who will continue to undermine our right to protect women and children from the tragedy of abortion.  Together, we can make our voices heard. 

Yours for life,
 

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life
 
P.S. — With a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we must act now to stop Planned Parenthood and NARAL from getting a new Justice who will read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution.  Please give generously today to help.  Thanks!

This is the thirteenth, and last, entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Conclusion

Recently, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a chief Congressional proponent of FOCA, promised that FOCA would be introduced in the 111th Congress “sooner rather than later,” but he did not elaborate on specific plans for its introduction and debate. However, it is clear from the actions of the Obama Administration, Congress, and their pro-abortion allies that a campaign to implement FOCA-by-Stealth is already well underway. If we are to effectively counter this radical agenda, we must remain vigilant and continue to speak out against any legislation, policy, or action by the Administration or Congress that furthers the spirit of FOCA and its radical vision of an America (and a world) of unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

The Administration, Congress, and abortion advocates are counting on the economy and other pressing issues to divert the attention of the American people so they can surreptitiously and with little resistance advance their radical pro-abortion agenda. We cannot afford them success. Future generations are literally counting on us to remain motivated and vigilant against this discretely and stealthily advancing culture of death.

This is the twelfth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Potential Ratification of International Conventions & Treaties

The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate power to ratify international treaties and conventions and make them binding on American law and citizens. They may ratify treaties and conventions with or without “reservations”: unilateral statements purporting to exclude or modify the legal obligations of the treaty or convention and its effects on the reserving nation or government.

In recent years, a variety of international conventions—many of them originating with the United Nations—have been developed and have as their stated or implied purpose the expansion of abortion rights and the repeal of laws regulating or limiting abortion. To date, the U.S. has not ratified any of these conventions, but Americans cannot underestimate the negative impact of potential ratification.

In February 2009, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)—a vocal supporter of abortion-on-demand—promised to call on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the U.S. State Department to complete their review of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and transmit it to the Senate for immediate ratification.

If ratified, this international convention could severely undermine parents and their inherent right and responsibility to care for and raise their children without unneeded 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 and its bureaucrats.

A fundamental presumption of UNCRC is that parental responsibility exists only insofar 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 Convention’s right to privacy provisions 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 historic 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. Article 19 of the Convention permits the “identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up” of those—including parents—who interfere with a child’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.

UNCRC is not the only international convention yet to be ratified by the Senate that embodies the spirit of FOCA and implements key components of its radical abortion-on-demand agenda. Abortion advocates and their allies have long agitated for the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

CEDAW was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, but it has never been ratified by the Senate. Notably, while the word “abortion” does not appear in the actual text, Article 12 of CEDAW asserts that ratifying nations “shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.” Many official bodies—both inside and outside the U.N.—interpret this Article and other related provisions to condemn all limitations or restrictions on abortion as per se discrimination against women.

In practice, U.N committees and bureaucrats have consistently used CEDAW as the basis for criticizing member nations and pressuring them to weaken or repeal laws restricting abortion, to provide public funding of abortion, and to even eliminate laws protecting the conscience rights of healthcare providers who decline to participate in abortions.

Not surprisingly, support for CEDAW is strong and widespread among abortion advocates. For example, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York-based group dedicated to using “the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill,” has consistently called for the ratification of CEDAW with “no reservations” so that its spirit and intent could be fully implemented in the U.S. Notably, CRR actively opposes any limits or restrictions on abortion and regularly files federal and state lawsuits seeking to derail laws regulating abortion.

Moreover, CRR and other abortion advocates routinely argue that CEDAW cements abortion as a fundamental human right and mandates unfettered abortion-on-demand in the U.S. and elsewhere. For example, in their 2001 lawsuit in federal district court seeking to strike down the Mexico City Policy, CRR cited U.N. conventions and customary international law as support for the bold assertion that “abortion is the law of the world.”

Clearly, with abortion supporters currently in control of the Senate, the ratification of UNCRC, CEDAW, and international conventions promoting abortion-on-demand is a distinct and troubling possibility—one that would effectively usher in an era of unregulated and unrestricted abortion in America and invalidate any federal or state limitation on or common-sense regulation of abortion.

This is the eleventh entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Efforts to Reform the Healthcare System

President Obama has consistently maintained that a complete overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system is one of his top priorities. He has already taken steps to bring about his expansive vision of universal healthcare coverage, including comprehensive abortion and family planning services funded by taxpayer dollars.

On March 5, 2009, President Obama hosted the White House Health Care Summit, purporting to bring together 150 healthcare leaders, including key members of his Cabinet, White House staffers, members of Congress, and others to discuss how to reform the nation’s healthcare system. Among those invited to participate was Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion supporters. Notably, the President asked no pro-life healthcare group to participate.

During the Summit, Richards opined that healthcare reform must ensure women have “access to comprehensive family planning and reproductive healthcare”—more code words for unrestricted and unregulated abortion-on-demand. She also promoted universal healthcare including abortion services funded by taxpayer dollars. This was not Richards’ first opportunity to expound on her vision of comprehensive, taxpayer-funded “reproductive healthcare.” In August 2008, she addressed the Platform Committee of Democratic National Committee, then-chaired by Janet Napolitano, now a member of President Obama’s Cabinet.

This is the tenth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Federal Legislation

Members of the 111th Congress have already introduced at least 14 measures relating to abortion and family planning services. Nine of these measures are demonstrably pro-life, while five would provide expanded funding for “comprehensive family planning services” (including abortion) and are likely to result in an increased taxpayer-provided income stream for groups like Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, the White House, Congressional leaders, and the media are expressing the most positive interest and attention to measures that would increase taxpayer funding of groups like Planned Parenthood. The most notable of these measures is the “Prevention First Act” (S. 22 and H.R. 463) sponsored by Senate Majority Harry Reid and nearly 150 other members of Congress and championed by Planned Parenthood. The “Prevention First Act” has several key components:

• Making Title X of the “Health and Human Services Act” a permanent program and providing it with at least $700 million in taxpayer funding each year. Since its inception in 1970, Title X has been a major funding source for Planned Parenthood. However, like many pro-life appropriations riders, Title X is not currently a permanent program and must be reauthorized every year. Under the “Prevention First Act,” Planned Parenthood stands to more than double the taxpayer funding it currently receives under Title X.
• Mandating health insurance plans covering prescription drugs also cover contraceptives. There are no exemptions for religious employers or others with conscientious objections to contraception.
• Creating an educational program to promote “emergency contraception.” Notably, Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are major distributors of “emergency contraception,” often selling it at a significant mark-up.
• Removing federal funding from hospitals that fail to provide “emergency contraception” to sexual assault victims. Again, there are no exemptions for Catholic or other religiously-affiliated hospitals.

This is the ninth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Action on Budgetary Riders

The repeal of established provisions and policies prohibiting or limiting federal funding of abortion is a top priority of pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Often called “pro-life riders,” abortion advocates want Congress to eliminate these provisions and policies and quickly authorize the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-on-demand.

Appropriations provisions or riders prohibiting or limiting the use of taxpayer funding for abortion and contraception are already under attack and many remain vulnerable. Importantly, these riders are not permanent law and must be regularly renewed by Congress to remain in effect.

Congress has already rendered the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funding of programs that include coercive abortions, impotent (by the passage of the fiscal 2009 Omnibus spending measure). Negative action on additional riders like the Hyde Amendment, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, and others is not far behind.

The Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976, prohibits Medicaid and any other federal program from funding abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. Meanwhile, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, first enacted in 2004, protects the freedom of conscience of healthcare providers by prohibiting programs that receive federal funds from discriminating against healthcare providers who refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortions. Notably, both of these important riders have survived multiple court challenges and been deemed constitutional. However, pro-abortion groups are actively lobbying for their repeal and, unfortunately, Congress and the White House are likely to comply.

This is the eighth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke.. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Federal Spending and Other Budgetary Measures

A deep economic recession, burgeoning federal deficits, and budget cutbacks in critical areas such as national defense are not dissuading abortion advocates from demanding increased taxpayer funding for their radical abortion-on-demand agenda. Unfortunately, Congress and the Administration are more than happy to comply.

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed the fiscal 2009 Omnibus spending measure. This $410 billion measure needed to keep the federal government functioning through September 2009 also included significant distributions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to international family planning programs—programs that often promote abortion and sterilization as effective and acceptable means of family planning.

First, the measure allocated $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) for its work in more than 150 countries around the world. The UNFPA’s stated mission is to promote the right of every woman, man, and child to enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA claims to support countries in “using population data for policies and programs to reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.” However, UNFPA is on record arguing that abortion is an appropriate solution to child poverty and has also been complicit in brutal population control programs in China, North Korea, and elsewhere that include forced abortions, forced sterilizations, and other human rights abuses.

Further, the spending measure provided $545 million for a variety of bilateral and multilateral family planning and “reproductive health” [i.e., abortion-promoting] programs worldwide. This allocation is $82 million over 2008 funding levels and a 66 percent increase over the budget request made by the outgoing Bush Administration.

Not surprisingly, officials from the United Nations and other international family planning groups welcomed the new Administration’s support. For example, Tod Preston, Vice President for U.S. Government Affairs at Population Action International, an American-based group supporting population control efforts, enthused that the new Administration’s actions “represent[ed] the last vestiges of a failed effort by the previous administration to decimate U.S. family planning and reproductive health programs.”

During the Congressional debate over this measure, the Senate rejected (by a vote of 38 to 55) Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-MS) attempt to protect US taxpayers from funding coercive abortions through UNFPA. The Wicker Amendment would have restored the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which has been in place since 1985 and which denies federal funding to organizations or programs the President determines support or participate in a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

This is the seventh entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Judicial Appointments

The President has a unique opportunity to influence a variety of legal and policy debates and decisions through his judicial appointments. He appoints all federal district court and appellate judges, including USSC justices. By virtue of the lifetime tenure of federal judges, the President can exert this influence long after he leaves office.

For this reason and others, a candidate’s judicial philosophy is typically of significant interest during a Presidential campaign. During his campaign, President Obama publicly stated he would appoint USSC justices in the mold of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, two of the Court’s most ardent abortion rights supporters who, for example, voted to strike down the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. President Obama further opined he finds himself compelled “to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

True to his expressed intent to appoint pro-abortion judges who will interpret the American Constitution in light of ever-evolving circumstances and principles rather than the original intent of the Framers, President Obama used his first judicial appointment to select a radically pro-abortion judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. On March 17, 2009, the President nominated David Hamilton, a federal district court judge from Indiana, as well as a former Vice President for Litigation and board member of the Indiana branch of the ACLU and a former fundraiser for Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Hamilton was first appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 even though the American Bar Association (ABA) had given him a “not qualified” rating.

As a federal judge, Hamilton issued multiple rulings over seven years preventing Indiana’s informed consent law—a law that fully complied with the USSC’s requirements for such laws (as set out in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision)—from going into effect. The Seventh Circuit—the same court to which he is nominated—later reversed him, stating “[n]o court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey.”

In response to Hamilton’s nomination, the New York Times opined that Hamilton’s nomination was meant to send a signal as to the types of judges President Obama would appoint. If that proves to be true, it is clear President Obama will appoint hard-core abortion proponents—judges who will read the spirit and intent of FOCA into the U.S. Constitution and invalidate medically-supported and common-sense regulations or restrictions on the abortion license—to the federal bench and to the US Supreme Court.

This is the sixth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Department of Justice Appointments

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is charged with enforcing federal law and ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. To effectuate these important tasks, the President appoints the U.S. Attorney General and other senior officials at DOJ, including the Solicitor General and the head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The Solicitor General conducts all litigation on behalf of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) and supervises other federal appellate court litigation directly implicating the interests of the Administration and the American people. In doing so, the Solicitor General routinely files briefs and presents oral argument in important cases before the USSC, including those involving the constitutionality of abortion-related restrictions and regulations. Thus, the Solicitor General is in a unique position to support or oppose such restrictions and regulations and to influence the way the USSC views such laws.

Prior to his inauguration, on January 5, 2009, then-President-elect Obama nominated Elena Kagan, then-Dean of Harvard Law School, to serve as Solicitor General. She was confirmed by the Senate on March 19, 2009. Ironically, Solicitor General Kagan, by her own admission, has very little litigation experience, but she is a strong abortion rights advocate who, for example, supports the use of taxpayer funding to pay for abortions.

Even more troubling was President Obama’s selection to head the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to DOJ’s website, the OLC:

provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department . . . The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality.

Given their sweeping and critical responsibilities, the head and staff of OLC are supposed to be apolitical and academically disciplined.

President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen, a professor of constitutional law from the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University, to serve as the head of OLC. Prior to her academic career, Johnsen served as a staff counsel fellow with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and then for five years with the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

In 1989, as the legal director of NARAL, Johnsen filed an amicus brief in the USSC case, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a constitutional challenge to a Missouri law that restricted the use of state taxpayer funds and other state resources for abortions.

In her brief, Johnsen argued that any restrictions making abortion less accessible are tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because they require “a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn.]” She continued that, in effect, a woman “is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Such “forced pregnancy,” she contended, reduces women to “fetal containers” and violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting slavery. Fortunately, the USSC gave no credence to these radical and ridiculous arguments.

In 2005, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), an avowed abortion supporter, gave a speech calling for policy changes so abortion “[did] not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.” In response, Johnsen alleged that Senator Clinton had taken a “step in the wrong direction” by arguing for such policies. Instead, Johnsen believes “[p]rogressives must not portray all abortions as tragedies.”

Further, despite USSC decisions upholding the constitutionality of informed consent laws with 24-hour reflection periods, parental involvement laws, and bans on partial-birth abortion, Johnsen opposes them and continues to argue they are not constitutionally permissible. For example, in a 2006 op-ed opposing Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation, she argued that opposition to all restrictions on abortion—not just acceptance of Roe v. Wade—should be a litmus test for judicial nominees. To Johnson, “[t]he notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable ‘compromise’—perhaps to help make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare’… proves nonsensical.”

Critically, Johnsen and Solicitor General Kagan will be in positions to argue against the constitutionality of laws regulating or restricting abortion—including those laws the USSC has previously determined to be constitutional and which are supported by a majority of Americans—and negatively influence the actions and positions of the White House and other Executive Branch departments.

This is the fifth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Executive Appointments

The President has the responsibility to make a wide range of executive appointments, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other Executive Branch officials. These individuals are charged with implementing the President’s policies on a variety of topics, including abortion and important civil rights such as healthcare freedom of conscience.

Among the appointed positions with a direct impact on abortion-related policies are the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Surgeon General.

In the current Administration, even the Secretary of State is expected to use her office to promote abortion-on-demand. In the face of increasing threats to U.S. security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has inexplicably promised that promoting “reproductive rights” (i.e., abortion-on-demand) will be at the top of the Administration’s international agenda. On March 30, 2009, Secretary Clinton received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, an avowed proponent of race-based eugenics. In her acceptance speech, Secretary Clinton stated, “reproductive rights . . . will be a key to the foreign policy of the United States” during the Obama Administration and that she was proud President Obama had already repealed the Mexico City Policy. She also opined that Planned Parenthood is “one of the great exports that America has” and she looks forward to partnering with Planned Parenthood in effectuating President Obama’s foreign policy.

Moreover, on March 1, 2009, President Obama nominated pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebilius to serve as Secretary of HHS. If confirmed, she will be in a position to profoundly influence American healthcare—including federal and state policies regarding abortion, healthcare rights of conscience, bioethics and biotechnologies, and end-of-life issues.

As HHS Secretary, Governor Sebelius would be in a position to make important policy determinations including:

• Whether to rescind, modify, or retain HHS rules requiring recipients of HHS funding certify their compliance with existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience. In March 2009, HHS announced its intent to rescind these protective rules and requested public comment on the rules and their implications.
• How to respond to the recent unilateral decision of a federal district court judge ordering the FDA to expand the over-the-counter availability of “emergency contraceptives” (such as Plan B) to allow some minors to obtain these controversial and potentially dangerous drugs without a prescription or parental involvement.
• Whether to rescind approval for or, at a minimum, review the safety and efficacy of RU-486 (“the abortion pill”), which has killed at least 7 women in the U.S. since it was approved by the FDA in September 2000.

Sadly, her extensive public record demonstrates she is an ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand and gives strong indications she will implement and follow strongly pro-abortion policies during her tenure as HHS Secretary.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s then-State Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest abortion-related measures as parental notification, reflection periods, and informed consent—all constitutional measures.

However, her record as Governor is—in substantial part—even more extreme in its support for abortion. She has routinely opposed or vetoed abortion-accountability bills, including medically-supported clinic regulation legislation which she vetoed in both 2003 and 2005. The need for this critical legislation was predicated, in large part, on evidence of shocking conditions in Kansas abortion clinics. For example, two inspections of the same Topeka abortion clinic discovered fetal remains stored in the same refrigerator as food; a dead rodent in the clinic hallway; overflowing, uncovered disposal bins containing medical waste; unlabeled, pre-drawn syringes with controlled substances in an unlocked refrigerator; improperly labeled and expired medicines; a carpeted floor in a surgical procedure room; and visible dirt and general disarray throughout the clinic. Dr. Krishna Rajanna, who operated the unsafe and unsanitary clinic, also consistently violated practice guidelines for conscious sedation.

In 2008, she vetoed a measure that would have strengthened the state’s existing parental notification law by 1) requiring any adult accompanying a minor show identification, declare in writing their relationship to the minor, and identify the putative father of the unborn child; 2) requiring the minor to show some form of photo identification providing identity and place of residence; and 3) if the minor chooses to seek a judicial waiver of the law’s requirements, prohibiting any employee of an abortion provider or clinic from assisting her with the requisite court filings and proceedings.

More shocking is her continuing and unyielding support for late-term abortions, including post-viability abortions. Over the past three years, she has vetoed measures:

• Requiring explicit and medically-supported reasons for late-term abortions;
• Requiring abortion providers to report the diagnosis or the nature of the condition which necessitated a post-viability abortion;
• Permitting injunctive relief for either a completed or about-to-be-performed illegal late-term abortion; and
• Adding certain prosecutors (in addition to the Attorney General) to investigate and pursue violations of existing restrictions on late-term abortions.

Interestingly, in the face of these controversial vetoes, Governor Sebelius honored notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller, 25 friends and employees of Tiller’s Wichita abortion facility, and Nebraska partial-birth abortionist LeRoy Carhart at the Governor’s mansion in April 2007.

Governor Sebelius not only honored radical abortion supporters and renegade practitioners at the Governor’s mansion. She also appointed them to important state positions. For example, she appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller’s Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the state Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later in May 2008.

She further appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary charges. Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later he was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records.

This is the fourth entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Executive Orders

American Presidents have issued Executive Orders since 1789; most of these orders have set the policies of executive departments or otherwise directed the activities of Executive Branch officials. Because they are an efficient and effective means for the Administration to unilaterally further its policy goals, Executive Orders have often been controversial. Just days into his term, President Obama made use of an Executive Order to further FOCA-by-Stealth.

On January 23, 2009—just three days after his inauguration—President Obama signed an Executive Order to repeal the Mexico City Policy prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funding of international family planning programs that promote and perform abortions overseas. Among the groups denied funding under this former policy was the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the parent organization of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (more commonly known as “Planned Parenthood”).

In a statement released the next day, President Obama blithely ignored the mounting evidence of abortion’s negative impact on women and the fact that this funding is often used by groups such as IPPF to force abortion on unwilling nations and cultures. Instead, he couched his action in terms of its potential economic impact and his desire to end the “culture war” over abortion, stating:

It is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development. For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us. I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.

This statement is eerily reminiscent of then-Presidential candidate Obama’s speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July 2007, when he told cheering abortion supporters he remains “absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties,” and it is “time to turn the page” since he and other abortion supporters are “tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.”

Not coincidentally, in this same speech he also promised “[o]n this fundamental issue [abortion], I will not yield,” and the “first thing” he would do as President was “sign the ‘Freedom of Choice Act’.”

This is the third entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL’s Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M. Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

How Is FOCA’s Expansive and Radical Agenda Being Implemented?

Despite the increasing backlash against both FOCA and the Administration’s apparent desire to centralize power and authority in the federal government at the expense of the States and the people, abortion advocates within and outside the Administration have not been dissuaded from their goal of unfettered, federal government-controlled, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand. Instead, they are clearly determined to pursue what they believe is the path of least resistance: FOCA-by-Stealth.

Rather than a direct and possibly losing battle and debate over FOCA as a whole, they are resorting to a strategy of incremental and relentless implementation of the principles, spirit, and intent of FOCA. In pursuit of this strategy, they are already using a variety of tools including Executive Orders; Executive Branch appointments; federal budget appropriations; federal legislation; action on long-standing budgetary riders; efforts to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system; and even potential Senate ratification of international conventions to advance and fund a radical pro-abortion agenda.

This is the second entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Recognizing an Ally, Abortion Advocates Waste No Time Making Demands
Just a month after the election, a coalition of pro-abortion groups—including Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—gave an expansive set of marching orders to the Obama Administration. In a 55-page memorandum subsequently posted on the Obama Transition Team’s website, the coalition urged the incoming Administration to, among other things:

• Rescind the Mexico City Policy first implemented by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to prohibit federal taxpayer funding of programs and organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas.
• Restore federal taxpayer funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which actively promotes abortion worldwide and is arguably complicit in the continued enforcement of restrictive population control programs and forced abortions.
• Remove U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restrictions on minors’ access to over-the-counter “emergency contraceptives” (also known as Plan B). Existing FDA protocols require girls under 18 years of age to have a valid prescription for this potentially-dangerous drug.
• Reverse the December 2008 decision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring recipients of certain federal funding certify compliance with existing federal laws protecting healthcare professionals who are morally opposed to promoting or providing abortions.
• Appoint federal judges—including US Supreme Court justices—who support abortion rights and would interpret that “right” in an increasingly expansive and radical manner.
• Increase Title X family planning funding, which provides funding to Planned Parenthood, from $300 million in fiscal year 2009 to at least $700 million in 2010.
• Repeal the Hyde Amendment, which limits federal taxpayer funding for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women.
• Provide federal taxpayer funding of abortions for federal employees and their dependents, members of the Armed Forces and their dependents, residents of the District of Columbia, Peace Corps volunteers, Native American women, and women in federal prisons.
• Increase federal funding of international family planning programs from $461 million in fiscal year 2009 to $1 billion for 2010.

Finally and predictably, the document also specifically called on President Obama to take the lead in calling for Congress to pass the “Freedom of Choice Act” and—as he has already promised—sign it into law once it arrives at his desk.

Each of the demands listed above—and others contained in this controversial and extensive wish list—embody the spirit of FOCA and represent incremental but critical steps toward implementing its radical agenda. Sadly, the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress have acted quickly to meet and even exceed the demands of abortion activists. In just its first two months, the new Administration has met many of these demands and already earnestly begun action on the remainder.

Illinois House Bill 2354, the “Reproductive Health and Access Act,” also known as Illinois’ state FOCA, will not be called for a vote today, the last day the House could have passed the bill. The bill’s proponents, groups such as Planned Parenthood and ACLU, could not find enough votes before tonight’s deadline, which means Illinois will not have a state FOCA, at least for another year.

This bill, which was testified against by AUL’s Senior Counsel, Clarke D. Forsythe in early March, would have crippled the pro-life efforts of hundreds of groups and individuals in Illinois and provided abortion-on-demand without any restrictions whatsoever. This is a great victory for the pro-life movement.

This is the first entry in a series on FOCA by Stealth by AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, Denise M Burke. The entire article from which this series is taken is available at Beware of “FOCA-By-Stealth”: Radical Abortion-on-Demand Agenda Being Implemented Piecemeal.

Recently, abortion advocates and their allies have begun insisting in the media and in communications with supporters that the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), while “important,” is not an immediate priority and that concerned Americans have overreacted to a piece of legislation that has not even been introduced in the current Congress.  And despite having control of Congress and the Executive Branch, some have even appeared to confess they do not have the support needed for passage.

What are the reasons for this sudden and very public change of tune?  Why—when they have President Obama’s promise to finally enact FOCA, 20 years after it was first proposed—do they appear to be quickly conceding defeat?

This apparent back-pedaling on a long-established priority is a testament to the ferocious opposition engendered by this radical federal power-grab masquerading as common legislation.  However, as history repeatedly shows, abortion advocates’ apparent concessions should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.  Now more than ever we need to beware of “FOCA-by-Stealth”: attempts by the Administration, Congress, and abortion advocates to enact FOCA piecemeal while purposefully attempting to deflect—or at least neutralize—public opposition to their far-reaching abortion-on-demand agenda.

The Administration and abortion advocates have stolen a page from the successful pro-life playbook of incremental strategy.  However, instead of targeted laws designed to fence in the abortion license and to protect women from the negative impact of abortion, they are using a variety of executive, budgetary, and legislative means to realize their “full vision of reproductive freedom” —code words for unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

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.

Yesterday, the Missouri House passed the AUL-drafted resolution on the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) by a vote of 116-40.  Showing the priority the legislature holds on opposing FOCA, it was only the second piece of legislation to be voted on by the House after a jobs bill.

AUL’s Missouri State Director Kerry Messer said regarding the resolution’s passage, “The legislature had a spirited two-day debate about the dangers of the federal government following through with President Obama’s pledge to sign FOCA into law.  With 45 new House members, this vote gave us the opportunity to have an early recorded pro-life vote.  And it shows we have the votes in the House necessary if we need to override a veto by Governor Nixon of the pro-life legislation we’ve prioritized for this year.”

Many thanks to Kerry Messer in helping shepherd this through.  If you’d like to drop Kerry an email to thank him for his great work on this, you can email Missouri@AUL.org.

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.

As we look toward celebrating the New Year on Wednesday night, my email box is filling up with end-of-year appeals, and I know yours is too.

Let me then be plain in telling you how much we appreciate your partnership with AUL this past year and as we head into the new one.

Many have asked how things stand and what our strategy will be with an incoming presidential administration that has taken such a radical stance supporting abortion.  The short answer:  I am, frankly, heartened by the tremendous response each time we’ve asked you to stand for life.

First, we saw the remarkable response to our FightFOCA petition.  Pro-lifers are not giving in!

The signatures have continued rising — even over the Christmas holiday — and now stand at over 350,000!

I am also heartened by your response to the 55-page Wish List pro-abortion forces sent to President-elect Obama.  We asked you to enter comments on the document and now there are over 3,000 comments, mostly pro-life, on the Change.gov website.

US News and World Report noted the surge in comments and observed:

But the volume of comments also shows that the pro-life movement is very much engaged right now and can be quickly activated.

That’s encouraging!

Of course, a realist must acknowledge that no one really knows what the ground game will look like once we begin confronting an administration so radical that its leader, President-elect Obama, could not bring himself to vote to protect babies born alive after abortion.  And he is unwaveringly supported by the current leader of the world’s largest abortion provider, Cecile Richards, who was the deputy chief of staff to the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi only three years ago.

Even so — even so! — I remain hopeful.

I have on my fireplace mantle a copy of the classic work, Streams in the Desert, which belonged to my grandparents.  The entry to be read each January 6 addresses the perennial question of uncertainty and recounts the example of the self-opening gate:

There is a self-opening gate which is sometimes used in country roads.  It stands fast and firm across the road as a traveler approaches it.  If he stops before he gets to it, it will not open.  But if he will drive right at it, his wagon wheels press the springs below the roadway, and the gate swings back to let him through.  He must push right on at the closed gate, or it will continue to be closed

The author, Lettie Cowman, sums up by saying “This illustrates the way to pass every barrier on the road of duty.”

Duty is an old-fashioned word, rarely heard today.  But we believe that it is indeed our duty — and a high calling — to stand against those who would promote a Culture of Death with every last resource that God grants us, regardless of the barriers that block the road ahead.

We will pray for wisdom, direction, and discernment.  And then, we intend to run straight at the gate.

These are difficult times.  I’ve talked with so many of you recently who have told me that you are standing with us, despite financial challenges.  We are humbled — and emboldened — by your commitment.

Thank you for your faithful support that enables us to “press on and step out boldly.”

Yours for Life,

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life

PS: If you haven’t yet made an end-of-year contribution, please do so today!

“As thou goest, step by step, I will open up the way . . .”
Proverbs 4:12 (Hebrew translation)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 11, 2008

Americans United for Life Releases Eight New Model Legislation & Policy Guides: Twenty-Three Model Legislation & Policy Guides Now Available

Chicago, Illinois — Americans United for Life (AUL) today released its 2009 Model Legislation & Policy Guides. With the addition of eight new guides this year, AUL now offers 23 pieces of model legislation on key issues related to abortion, protection of unborn victims of violence, bioethics, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “AUL is the leading developer of cutting-edge pro-life legislation that saves lives today and lays the groundwork for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

New additions to AUL’s library of model legislation include a state legislative resolution opposing the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a prohibition on coerced abortions, and The Child Protection Act—comprehensive legislation to ensure abortion providers report child sexual abuse and prevent the transportation of children across state lines for clandestine abortions.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “Each year, AUL legal and policy experts provide extensive consulting and support to legislators across the nation, helping to enact protective laws that advance a culture of life. We look forward to partnering with legislators and pro-life allies in 2009 to build on our past successes.”

All of AUL’s Model Legislation & Policy Guides are available at http://www.aul.org/Legislative_Guides

Americans United for Life Urges State Legislatures to Oppose Federal Power Grab: Provides Model Resolution Denouncing Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

Washington, DC — Americans United for Life (AUL) today announces the release of a model state legislative resolution opposing the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). AUL urges state legislatures to adopt the resolution immediately when they convene their 2009 sessions.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO said, “The so-called ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ endangers women’s health. It protects and promotes the abortion industry, sacrifices the health of women to a radical political ideology, and silences the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion on abortion.”

AUL and its legislative arm AUL Action are leading the fight to defeat FOCA. Through the website FightFOCA.com, more than 290,000 Americans have expressed their strong opposition to FOCA, urging Congress to summarily reject it.

Denise Burke, AUL Action Vice President of Legal Affairs, noted, “FOCA will invalidate common-sense, protective laws that the majority of Americans support including parental involvement, bans on partial-birth abortion, and protections for healthcare providers who object to participating in abortions.”

AUL’s model resolution emphasizes that FOCA would nullify more than 550 federal and state laws related to abortion, undermine the right and responsibility of the States and the people to determine abortion policy, and circumvent the States’ general legislative authority as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The model resolution is available at http://www.FightFOCA.com/AUL_Model_Resolution_FOCA.pdf

For more information about FOCA, visit FightFOCA.com (a project of AUL Action).

During the 110th Congress, at least 97 bills and resolutions were considered in the areas of abortion, contraception, stem-cell research and cloning, artificial reproductive technologies, genetic counseling, healthcare rights of conscience, and the end-of-life.

Read the full article at AUL.org/110Review

The number of people signing up to oppose FOCA at FightFOCA.com has skyrocketed overloading the servers and causing delays for people visiting the site.

As of Friday afternoon, 11,000 people had signed up.  This morning, that number had climbed to over 35,000 and was continuing to climb at a rate of 2 per second.

If you haven’t yet signed up, please do so!  If you have, please make a donation to help AUL Action continue it’s fight against the Freedom of Choice Act.  Visit www.FightFOCA.com and click the big orange button to make a contribution.  Thanks for all your support to defend human life.

Did you miss the November 5 conference call with AUL experts analyzing the results from the election?  Now you can listen to a recording of that call by following this link:

Full Conference Call
OR
Conference Call Part 1 (AUL Presentation)
Conference Call Part 2 (Q&A)

On the call are:

• President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest on the Presidential race;
• Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe on the threat of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA);
• Vice President Daniel McConchie on the new makeup of Congress and what happened in the Governor, Attorney General and State Legislative races across the country;
• Vice President Denise Burke on the five life-related ballot initiatives.

Don’t miss out on having the inside track of where we are and where we go from here.

In light of the win Tuesday by Barack Obama and increasing numbers of pro-abortion politicians who will be populating Congress, the public is starting to wake up to the radical agenda promoted by Planned Parenthood in this election.

Barack Obama promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the first thing he would do as President was sign the radical “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) into law.  FOCA will eliminate every limitation on abortion nationwide.

Thousands of people have already signed the petition.  If you haven’t yet done so, please visit www.FightFOCA.com now and add your name to the growing list of people making their voice heard.

If you have signed it already, please send an email to like-minded friends and family and get them to join the movement.

In response to the election of Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life President & CEO offered congratulations to the President-elect and issued the following statement:

“Over the course of this historic campaign, President-elect Obama and his surrogates argued for a ‘common ground’ on abortion rights. At the same time, he promised Planned Parenthood that his first act as President will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). In contrast to his moderate rhetoric, his support for FOCA — which would eradicate every state and federal law regulating abortion — is extreme. His support for FOCA stands in contradiction to the common ground, common sense abortion regulations that the majority of Americans support and that this radical legislation would eliminate.

“We have long known that the work of advancing a culture of life is not a short-term project. Recall that William Wilberforce fought against the slave trade for 45 years before he ultimately prevailed in his defense of life.

“In 2008, it is clear that despite the challenges still remaining, the pro-life message is steadily gaining ground. Momentum in the states has enabled us to make significant gains in protecting women and unborn children. Young people today self-report as pro life at a higher rate than their parents’ generation.

“We will continue working in the days ahead to educate Americans about the threat to common sense that FOCA poses. And we will make common cause with defenders of life in both the Democrat and Republican parties, fully committed to the ultimate goal of seeing both parties dedicated to the defense of life.

“We continue to hold as self-evident the truth that all were endowed with the unalienable right to life, and that governments are instituted to secure this first right. We look forward to fully realizing this truth in our day.”

A Constitutional analysis of FOCA is available at www.aul.org/foca.

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.