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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier today, the U.S. Army preferred 13 charges and specifications of premeditated murder against Major Nidal Hasan.  This preliminary step does not and should not preclude the preferral of additional charges including a charge and specification for the killing of the unborn child of one of the victims of the Fort Hood massacre,  Private Francheska Velez of Chicago, Illinois.

As a former military judge advocate (for 14 years) who specialized in military justice, I understand the confusion that the announcement of these charges and specifications has engendered.  However, it is important to understand that the military justice system is different than the civilian system that most are more familiar with.

The investigation into Hasan’s conduct will continue and, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Rules for Courts-Martial, his commanders are free to prefer additional charges if warranted.   Moreover, under the UCMJ, Hasan is entitled to an Article 32 hearing — a pretrial hearing in which a military officer, likely a military judge in this case, will review the evidence and charges against Hasan for factual and legal sufficiency, and that hearing officer may also recommend that additional charges and specifications be preferred if the evidence supports them.  In fact, the preferral of additional charges and specifications in a case of this magnitude is common.

Importantly, Army officials have already acknowledged that additional charges are under consideration.  Specifically, the Associated Press is reporting that a decision has not yet been made as to whether Hassan will face a charge and specification under the changes made to the UCMJ in 2004 when President George W. Bush signed the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA).  The UVVA criminalizes assaults on the unborn — including those that result in the death of the child — that occur during the commission of another federal crime or on federal property such as military installations like Fort Hood.  The UVVA specifically modified the UCMJ to allow the prosecution of military personnel (stationed anywhere in the world) who kill or injure an unborn child. 

Notably, if an additional charge for the killing of Private Velez’s unborn child is preferred and referred for court-martial, this will not be the first time that a member of the U.S. military has faced charges under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act.  The Air Force has already prosecuted and secured a conviction in one such case.

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.

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.

It was reported last week that, for the first time, surgeons in the U.K. have successfully treated an extremely ill heart patient with a combination of an artificial heart and his own stem cells.  The patient was fitted with a mechanical pump and then injected with 6 million of his own stem cells, in hope that those cells would repair damage in the patient’s heart.

This success raises questions for us in the United States.  First, why are embryonic stem cell advocates—and the President and his administration—still pushing for destructive research that has yet to successfully treat a single human person, while ignoring the need for substantial funding of adult stem cell research?  Once again, AUL is here to point out that adult stem cells have been used to treat or cure patients with over 70 different diseases and conditions, while there have been absolutely no successes with embryonic stem cell research.  We’re starting to feel like a broken record.

Yet the message is still not getting across.  To date, only sixteen states promote or encourage the use of umbilical cord cells and/or other forms of adult stem cells for research.

But an underlying question is also raised, one that is timely as we wait to find out what kind of health care we will be left with once the federal government takes over. 

In relaying the patient’s story, Sky News reported that NHS in the U.K. will not pay for this life-saving treatment.  Instead, the patient said he “relies on charity funding—or travels abroad to implant pumps in countries where governments are prepared to fund the £60,000 devices.” 

Interesting.  This patient—in a country with nationalized healthcare that is the predecessor to what President Obama is seeking for the United States—has to travel outside of the U.K. to other countries that are willing to pay for his treatment.

The surgeon himself stated, “I am very frustrated that all the work that I have done back home in the UK has to be translated into patient care in other countries,” and “”[w]e have helped to develop implantation programmes in France, Greece and Japan. It’s time we did it in the UK.”

He believes that this treatment protocol for heart patients could save 12,000 patients each year.

The article continues:

The Greek government has recently agreed to fund pumps for some patients with serious heart failure.

Professor Papakonstantinou [a heart surgeon at the Ahepa University Hospital in Thessaloniki] said they offer good value for money because patients are able to leave hospital and do not need drug treatment.

But in Britain, the NHS will only fund pumps in transplant patients who are waiting for a donor heart. Around 100 a year are implanted.

In a statement, the Department of Health said: “Before making such technology more widely available as an indefinite long-term treatment in end-stage heart failure, the NHS needs to ensure there is clear evidence of benefit.

Apparently 11,900 extra lives saved isn’t a clear enough benefit.
I’m not sure this is what most Americans have in mind when they think “health reform.”

The article from Sky News can be viewed at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Artificial-Heart-And-Stem-Cells-Save-Mans-Life-In-Pioneering-Surgery-By-British-Surgeon/Article/200909415387553?lpos=Health_Second_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15387553_Artificial_Heart_And_Stem_Cells_Save_Mans_Life_In_Pioneering_Surgery_By_British_Surgeon

AUL President Charmaine Yoest speaks on Fox News with Shannon Bream about the recent meeting at the White House, with President Obama’s key policy staffers.

This week, Americans United for Life’s legislative arm AUL Action met with senior White House officials Melody Barnes, Tina Tchen and Joshua DuBois.  AUL Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest called on the White House to clarify President Obama’s recent statement of support for keeping abortion funding out of health care reform.  After the meeting, Dr. Yoest stated that the White House remained noncommittal on explicit language excluding abortion from the health care bill. 

“After the meeting, we remain deeply concerned about abortion funding and the abortion mandate in health care reform.  Ms. Barnes reiterated the President’s statement about opposing abortion funding in his address before Congress last week but the White House would not commit to language that explicitly excludes abortion from health care reform.  The reality on the Hill right now is that the health care bills do include abortion funding. 

Without a specific statutory amendment that includes an explicit ban on federal funding and coverage, taxpayers will be paying for abortion.  Including abortion in health care is something the pro-life movement will oppose vigorously.”  

Dr. Yoest provided the White House with a brief from the Americans United for Life legal team that documents why anything less than a explicit ban on abortion funding and coverage will allow government-funded abortion.     

Dr. Yoest also delivered a petition with over 39,000 signatures from pro-life Americans telling President Obama that they urge him to veto any bill that does not specifically forbid mandating insurance companies to cover abortion.  The petition also urges the President to veto any bill that could make taxpayers responsible for directly or indirectly paying for abortion.  

For further information, please visit AUL’s health care website: www.RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com

By Jessica Sage and Denise Burke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:45 p.m. – Obama is promoting a public option. This would undoubtedly ensure that he would keep the promise he made to Planned Parenthood that abortion would be at the “center and heart” of his health care plan. See video on RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com in which he makes that promise.

8:50 p.m. – “I WILL PROTECT MEDICARE!” Obama shouts, to wild applause.

8:55 p.m. – Warns he will not “waste time with those who think it is better politics to kill this plan than to approve it. … I will not accept the status quo as a solution.”

8:55 p.m. – Warns that “more will die” if nothing is done. Yikes.

8:56 p.m. – Brings up “our beloved colleague” Ted Kennedy. Says that Kennedy wrote to him in May that “fundamental principles of social justice” are at stake. Well, we all know what Kennedy thought of the “fundamental principles of social justice” as they related to abortion. To him, abortion WAS social justice.

9:02 p.m. – Says he will not follow those who suggest deferring health care reform to his next term. Raises voice to say that health care reform is “our calling.” The One has spoken. End of speech. Visit AUL’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com for the truth about how all the current health care reform proposals on Capitol Hill threaten the elderly, the ill, and the unborn, and bookmark the AUL Blog for further updates.

8:10 p.m. – As we await the President’s appearance, some words from AUL Staff Counsel Mary Harned, who has seen an advance copy of part of Obama’s speech: “No matter how President Obama and Congress change the structure of the health care reform proposals — whether there is a public option, co-op, exchange, etc. — any legislation that provides government funding for health care must contain explicit language that excludes abortion.  Abortion is not health care; however, based on how courts have interpreted Medicaid, we know that courts will interpret any legislation relating to government-funded health care as requiring abortion coverage unless there is an explicit prohibition (like Hyde).”

8:12 p.m. – The President is introduced.

8:17 p.m. – Obama starts by recounting America’s economic woes. “I will not let up until Americans who seek jobs can find them.” Applause.

8:18 p.m. – Claims that his “bold and decisive action” since January has “pulled the economy back from the brink.”

8:19 p.m. – “I am not the first President to take up this cause [health care], but I am determined to be the last.” Applause.

8:20 p.m. – “Our collective failure to meet this challenge … has led us to the breaking point.” He is trying to highlight a sense of urgency.

8:21 p.m. – “We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy” [perhaps correcting himself due to speed-reading his Teleprompter] that “allows such hardship” (as being uninsured) for millions of its people.

8:22 p.m. – He’s now running down a list of horror stories about problems of uninsured people in America.

8:25 p.m. – “Our health care system is putting an unsustainable burden on taxpayers.” And YOUR agenda will cost us HOW much, Mr. President? Have you looked at your own CBO’s figures?

8:26 p.m. – Obama says that some think the only way to fix the system is to have a single-payer system like that in Canada. Someone in the hall thinks it’s an applause line. He goes on to say that he’d rather “build on what works and fix what doesn’t rather than building an entirely new system from scratch.” But the current House plan would in fact build an entirely new system.

8:28 p.m. – Starts complaining about “scare tactics” by opponents of Obamacare. “The time for bickering is over.” He’s raising his voice. “NOW IS THE SEASON FOR ACTION!” Applause.

8:29 p.m. – Claims his plan would “slow the growth of health care costs.” But is it a new plan — his own? He’s not specifying that he is in fact offering a plan.

8:29 p.m. – “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” But what is “our” plan? He’s implying he has his own plan, but hasn’t actually said he’s offering one. As Michael Steele said in Politico (will link the article shortly), there is NO plan currently in Congress that has all the things the Prez claims “our plan” has.

8:32 p.m. – He’s running down a long list of what his plan will offer. It’s much like RNC Chairman Michael Steele wrote earlier today:

Here’s what we know for sure – the president will give a good speech Wednesday night. He always does. We also know that he will say a lot of things that the American public likes and agrees with when it comes to health care reform. He always does.

But there is one small problem. Speaker Pelosi’s bill, a bill that the president has endorsed, doesn’t have anything in common with the president’s eloquent, poll-tested rhetoric. In fact, no Democrat proposal exists from the president or any of his congressmen that has anything in common with the president’s rhetoric.

8:35 p.m. – Says his plan will REQUIRE individuals to carry basic health insurance, just like drivers are required to carry auto insurance.

8:36 p.m. – “While there remain some significant aspects of the plan to be ironed out” — this line is met with laughter.

8:38 p.m. – Anger erupts from the crowd as Obama insists his reform would not cover illegal immigrants.

8:38 p.m. – “No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” WHAT conscience laws — the regulations he put on ice when he took office? And to say that federal dollars will not be used to fund abortions is misleading, as every plan in Congress right now would mandate abortion funding. Unless the President plans to immediately demand that abortion be explicitly excluded from any health care plan, the courts, under existing laws, will be required to read abortion into any plan passed by Congress. See AUL’s RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com for details on this.

Liveblogging will continue presently in a new post.

Washington, DC — This week a federal district court in South Dakota affirmed that a woman has a right to know that an abortion “terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, stated, “This is a victory for women and their right to complete and accurate medical information when considering abortion.  Fully informed consent is a bedrock principle of medical care and this principle is especially applicable to abortion.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, an uninformed decision about abortion can lead to devastating consequences.”

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs added, “That Planned Parenthood even challenged this law speaks volumes about their radical and self-serving agenda.  Clearly, they do not want women to have all the information about abortion because they know that the more women know about abortion, the more they choose life.”

The case, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, involves a challenge to a 2005 South Dakota law that supplemented the state’s long-standing informed consent law.  The court struck down requirements that a woman be informed that abortion increases the likelihood of suicide and that she has an “existing relationship” with the unborn child.  Parties to the suit have indicated that they will appeal.

Media Contact
Heather Smith
202-270-9962
heather.smith@aul.org
##

Penny Young Nance writes in today’s Baltimore Sun that, for pro-lifers once enamoured by a President whom they thought shared their values, recent events point to the end of the affair.

RELATED: The thrill may be gone, but that doesn’t mean you can’t stay in touch. Let him know you care — sign the “Keep Abortion Out of Health Care” petition.

It took more than a decade, but minors in Illinois will finally be protected under the law.  Yesterday the Seventh Circuit lifted a federal injunction which had prevented Illinois’ parental notice law from going into effect.

The law had been enacted in 1995, but it was, of course, challenged, as we have come to expect from abortion rights advocates.  After all, the health of minors is not exactly their top concern.

A federal court enjoined the law.  However, under the court’s ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court simply needed to enact some rules directing an appeals process for those minors wanting to obtain abortions without telling their parents.  But the Illinois Supreme Court did not do so, and the parental notice law was left languishing for over a decade.

Following a petition from DuPage State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett in 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously adopted the rules necessary for implementing the parental notice act.  At that point, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan petitioned a federal district judge to lift the original decision blocking enforcement of the law; when he denied her petition, the case landed at the Seventh Circuit.

Illinois now joins the majority of states which protect minors through parental involvement laws.  Currently, 25 states require parental consent before a minor can obtain an abortion, and 12 states require that a parent be notified before a minor can obtain an abortion.  In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states may constitutionally require a minor to attain the consent of a parent or guardian before obtaining an abortion.

The latest episode in a video series on NationalJournal.com features AUL President & CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest discussing Sotomayor411.com, AUL’s one-stop resource for background on the Supreme Court nominee, including our campaign revealing that Sotomayor would be worse than Souter on life issues. The Wall Street Journal likewise sought out Yoest this week, quoting her insights on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s resignation.

Also in the news is AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe, who was featured yesterday on Paul Edwards’s drive-time show on Detroit’s WQLV discussing his new book Politics for the Greatest Good. The entire show is now available online; Forsythe’s interview is about two-thirds of the way into the recording.

Thanks to your support, this past week saw AUL at the center of two national news stories, including an outstanding victory for life.

• The Associated Press, CBS News, and dozens of other media outlets across the country spotlighted Sotomayor411.com — our one-stop resource for background on Judge Sotomayor’s record on our life issues — and our campaign showing she would be “Worse than Souter.”
• In a case that featured heavy AUL involvement, the Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia’s partial-birth infanticide law. What’s more, the arguments our legal team presented to the court featured prominently in its decision.

These and other AUL success stories testify to the power of our pro-life advocacy to influence minds and hearts.

But we must reach higher.

With the Sotomayor confirmation hearings set to begin on July 13, we need “all hands on deck” to show the Senate and the nation that Judge Sotomayor’s radical record — including her longtime participation in a pro-abortion advocacy group — makes her unfit for the highest court in the land.

AUL is not only America’s oldest national nonprofit working exclusively to promote life. We also have the largest and most experienced team of pro-life attorneys working to defend life in law.

We have already been meeting on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to brief them on Judge Sotomayor’s agenda and urge them to ask her the tough questions.

But to do that takes long hours of legal research and lots of legwork on Capitol Hill.

That’s why I’m asking you to stand with us. Our fiscal year ends on June 30, and we must close strong. Over the last few months we’ve been able to hire new attorneys – Bill Saunders, a Harvard-trained expert in life issues, and Mary Harned, former Chief Counsel on the Judiciary Committee to Senator Tom Coburn – and we plan to bring in even more expertise to keep the focus on life in these challenging times.

We only have 48 hours left before we close out our books for the year. We need your support now to make sure Congress hears your opinions about Judge Sotomayor! Join our support team today. By acting before midnight, Tuesday, June 30, you further enable us for the confirmation battle which begins just two weeks from today.

When U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, asked Judge Sotomayor if she believed the unborn had any rights whatsoever, she told him she had “never thought about it.” We need to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to think about the consequences of confirming a Supreme Court justice whose radical record shows she would vote to overturn all legal protections for the unborn.

Will you join us? Make your donation today and be part of this historic effort to protect and defend the hard-won victories of the pro-life movement.

Thank you for supporting our work and and standing with us For Life!

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

P.S.  If Judge Sotomayor makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, she will have the power to read a fundamental right to abortion into the Constitution. Send your donation by midnight tomorrow, June 30, and help us make sure the Senate Judiciary Committee calls her to account for her radical record.

When “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart invited Mike Huckabee to discuss the topic of his choice on his program last week, the former Arkansas governor chose one near to his heart: the dignity and value of every human life. That is no surprise, given Huckabee’s strong witness for life during his 2008 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination (in which Charmaine Yoest, now AUL’s President & CEO, served as Senior Advisor) and his support for Americans United for Life, which he calls “the premier pro-life organization in America.”

The ensuing discussion was, to both men’s credit, far more substantial and civil than what normally passes for dialogue in mass-media coverage of the life issue. Big Hollywood TV correspondent Tim Slagle, not a fan of Stewart, observes with glee:

Governor Huckabee very clearly laid out the constitutional pro-life position for the Daily Show audience. Stewart, was defenseless against a rational case for the rights of the unborn, especially since Huckabee’s position was not based in religion, zealotry or misogyny–the straw men Stewart usually attacks.

Although Slagle delights in what he calls the host’s “humiliation,” Stewart — despite his ill-advised attempt to offer a drink to Huckabee (an ordained Southern Baptist minister) and his promoting the “my body, my choice” trope — in fact emerged more humble than humiliated. He admitted that, as a father, seeing an ultrasound made him aware of the wonder of life in the womb, and he also confessed to finding it harder to be “self-righteous” about the abortion issue than his other liberal positions.

Huckabee’s eloquent witness seems to have succeeded in helping Stewart to think more deeply on the issue. One hopes his viewers will too.

RELATED: As Stewart notes, ultrasounds have the power to change the parents’ hearts. Read about how Americans United for Life works toward informed-consent laws designed in part to give a woman seeking abortion the opportunity to see her unborn child in the womb.

Please note: AUL is not responsible for the advertising content that may appear in connection with the above videos.

A Father’s Day editorial in the Washington Times, “Childless on Father’s Day: Abortion industry scapegoats dads,” shines a light on the pain abortion causes to men who have no legal say in whether their children will live or die:

The story of a man abandoning a woman after getting her pregnant has become the stereotypical image of pro-abortion activists and some pro-lifers. The male shirker is central to the abortion storyline and often is used to rationalize taking the life of a baby.

Arthur B. Shostak, professor of sociology at Drexel University, is one of a team of academics who took a hard look at men and abortion over a 20-year period. Their findings shatter the common myth that men are more likely to abandon women who get pregnant rather than support them.

Most men in the survey reported that ending a pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only 5 percent didn’t support the abortion. However, nearly half of single and divorced men said they had suggested getting married and having the baby. As many as 1 in 6 men are never told about a pregnancy or an eventual abortion.

The editors add further details of Shostak’s research that reveal a depth of suffering rarely revealed in news stories on abortion. Many men began to cry during the sociologist’s interviews. As the editors write, men who want to keep their babies or help comfort their partners during the horrors of abortion “are inconvenient truths for the abortion industry, which would rather demonize men and keep business flowing.”

Read the full editorial on the Washington Times’ Web site.

A big “thank you” to the hundreds who participated in last week’s conference call to learn the inside story about the Judge Sotomayor nomination. This week’s edition of “For Life!” features opportunities for you to get involved in defending the dignity of human life in your state and throughout the country.

Currently the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nomineee Judge Sonia Sotomayor are scheduled to begin July 13. Make sure to visit AUL’s new Web site Sotomayor411.com, and bookmark it, as we’ll be adding important information and initiatives to the site as the hearings approach.

Thank you for your work and for being a part of this movement!

Charmaine Yoest, PhD
President & CEO

Who Is the Real Judge Sotomayor? Get the 411!
The White House is attempting to paint Judge Sotomayor as one who would maintain the liberal “balance” on the Supreme Court but her record of abortion activism shows she is even worse on life issues than retiring Justice David Souter. With the confirmation hearings coming up fast, help us get the word out to pro-life America about her pro-abortion agenda. Visit our NEW site, Sotomayor411.com, a one-stop resource for all the essential information about where Judge Sotomayor stands on the life issues.

Don’t let your friends be in the dark about this important judicial nomination. One way you can help is to spread the word on our Web site by adding a Sotomayor411.com button to your own Web page.

Hear Our Experts Weigh In
Did you miss our conference call on Judge Sotomayor? Now you can listen to the call online. You’ll learn what to expect in this important U.S. Supreme Court nomination and the latest on AUL’s work to protect life.

Take AUL to the Beach
Christianity Today magazine just named Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, by AUL’s own Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe, as one of “Ten Theology Books for Your Beach Bag.” The editors write: “The senior counsel for Americans United for Life advocates the neglected virtue of prudence for fighting abortion” and adds that “his timing is impeccable” in light of current events. Order your copy today from Amazon.com.

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.

Interviewed yesterday on ABC “World News Tonight” about Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, AUL President & CEO Charmaine Yoest said, “We need to know what her philosophy is and how she would approach a case if it came before her.”

What we do know of Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy is that she vigorously promotes judicial activism. As Dr. Yoest this week in her NPR commentary, “taking such ‘judicial action’ is part of what she calls the ‘heroics of judges today.’ Those heroics, she says, depend upon ‘protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.’

An article in today’s Washington Post, “Abortion Rights Backers Give Reassurances on Nominee,” gives new information on how the nominee might take “judicial action” in abortion cases.

White House Secretary Robert Gibbs tells the Post that, although President Obama did not specifically ask Judge Sotomayor about abortion during her interview with him, “the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, which 36 years ago provided abortion rights nationwide”:

“In their discussions, they talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law,” Gibbs said. “He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.”

Most disturbing is a statement from George Pavia, senior partner in the law firm where Judge Sotomayor used to work as a corporate litigator. The Post says “he thinks that support of abortion rights would be in line with her generally liberal instincts.”

“I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights,” Pavia said.

As the nation awoke yesterday to news of President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, news outlets sought Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest for commentary on what significance Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination has for pro-life Americans.

Video coverage by the Associated Press highlighted Dr. Yoest’s assessment of the nominee’s judicial temperament. The AUL President appears at 1:23 of the following clip.

Dr. Yoest was also interviewed at length for Breitbart.tv’s 5 p.m. newscast.

Other news outlets that featured AUL’s take on the nomination included:

• The Associated Press: “Sotomayor: A liberal record . . . but not entirely so“
• CNN: “Obama nominates Sotomayor to Supreme Court“
• ABC News: “Some Voices Rise Against Sotomayor’s Nomination“
• National Review Online: “Bench Memos.” NRO blogger Kathryn Jean Lopez notes that, in the face of liberal kudos for Judge Sotomayor, Dr. Yoest — unlike the Republican National Committee — decided that now is not the time to be neutral.
• U.S. News and World Report: “Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War“
• Life Site News: “Obama Supreme Court Pick Lacks Abortion History, but Criticized for Judicial Activism, Racism“

Today, the national coverage of AUL’s reaction to the nomination continued, including an article on CBS News.com’s PoliticalHotsheet: “Sotomayor Nomination Renews Roe v. Wade Debate.”

Dear Friend, 

I know you’ve seen all of the polling data that’s been circulating recently about Americans’ views on life issues.  In interviews I’ve done over the past week on FOX News, in the New York Times, and in the Los Angeles Times, the media seems shocked by the country’s pro-life attitude.  But you and I aren’t surprised.  We know how important a culture of life is to Americans.

Just this week, AUL sponsored a poll to learn what Americans want in a Supreme Court nominee.  And the overwhelming majority said that they don’t want liberal activist judges legislating from the bench. 

That’s not all.  Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree that the President’s nominee should be someone who won’t reverse common-sense abortion regulations or support partial-birth abortions.  (The results of the poll on our website, along with a letter I sent yesterday to every U.S. Senator.)

And yet, as we detailed in the report we released last week, the current “short-list” of potential Supreme Court nominees is filled with pro-abortion ideologues and committed judicial activists.  For example, one person on the list is Janet Napolitano, the current head of Homeland Security . . . and the same person who defended the DHS report that listed abortion opponents among extremists because we’re pro-life!

The new administration in Washington wants to ignore what AUL’s new polling data confirms:  Americans oppose activist judges with a political agenda.  But they underestimate us — you and me and millions of other people who won’t stay silent when it comes to protecting life in this country. 

That’s why it’s so important we continue to make ourselves heard.  As President Obama prepares to nominate someone for the Supreme Court, we need to continue to make our commitment to life known.  

In the DHS report, bumper stickers were mentioned as indicators of “extremism” . . . so we’ve got one for you!

Will you help us by publicly standing together with AUL to tell the federal government that we won’t be silent?  With a gift of $25, $10, or even $5, you can receive an AUL window decal as a way to demonstrate your commitment to life and solidarity with AUL’s efforts. 

We want to send a loud and clear message that we will not be intimidated into backing down.  Do you have friends who will join us in speaking up for those who can’t defend themselves?  We’ll send you decals for them as well! 

Even the Washington Post has noticed how “energized” pro-lifers are!  The stakes are so high — thank you for standing with us! 

For life,
 

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

P.S. — Please take a public stand that you are pro-life.  With your gift of $25, $10, or even $5, we will send you AUL window decals so you can publicly demonstrate your commitment to life.  Thank you for standing up for life with AUL!

Charmaine Yoest, AUL’s President & CEO, was on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier discussing the latest Gallup poll numbers that indicate for the first time that the majority of Americans are pro-life. See the YouTube video below to view the clip.

Abortion has been a very hot topic in the news lately, with the retirement of Justice Souter, Obama’s stance on the issue coming to the forefront, several pro-life bills presented in various states, Gallup’s new poll concluding the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life, among others. As a result of abortion becoming the center of much dialog around the country, Americans United for Life has been one of the main go-to pro-life groups in the news. Below are a few (among many) articles appeared over the weekend, highlighting AUL’s recent activity in the media.
 
Abortion, gay marriage complicate Supreme Court decision, Los Angeles Times

51% identify as ‘pro-life’ in U.S., Los Angeles Times

Obama’s Short List of Abortion Supporters, by Charmaine Yoest, Human Events

In addition to these media appearances, AUL’s President & CEO, Charmaine Yoest, will appear on Special Report with Bret Baier on Fox News TONIGHT. Tune in during the 6pm EST hour to hear her discuss the recent Gallup Poll studies.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 5, 2009

WASHINGTON – Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life (AUL), issued the following statement to support the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as ranking minority leader of the GOP and to address what’s being reported as a rushed nomination for the United States Supreme Court to replace Justice Souter:

“We applaud the appointment of Senator Sessions for this leadership position and his commitment to give a ‘fair evaluation’ of all nominees for the Supreme Court. He has an excellent record and we have confidence he will do what’s right in properly vetting this nomination.

“We appeal to Sen. Sessions to halt the idea implied by Sen. Hatch that President Obama will fast track this selection to the Court. Proper evaluation of each nominee will help ensure that he or she is qualified and values application of the law, and is not a liberal judicial activist seeking to impose their own political agenda from the bench.

“Several of the potential nominees being reported are, indeed, either not qualified or have records of judicial activism – a strong indication that they would use the Court to roll back abortion restrictions made by the American people through their elected representatives such as partial birth abortion and parental notification. Both of these laws are overwhelmingly supported by the public, but a Justice with an agenda could reverse the rule of law by legislating from the bench.

“Sen. Sessions, we urge you to begin your role as ranking minority member by putting the brakes on rushing through a Supreme Court nominee.” 

About Americans United for Life

Americans United for Life (AUL) is a nonprofit, public-interest law and policy organization whose vision is a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.  The first national pro-life organization in America, AUL has been committed to defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and educational efforts at both the federal and state levels since 1971.  The Wall Street Journal has profiled AUL, and PBS’ Frontline program chronicled AUL’s successful efforts in Mississippi.

Media Contact:
202-289-1478

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.

Bioethicist Jacob M. Appel is obviously a big fan of late-term Kansas abortionist George Tiller who is on trial this week in Kansas. A verdict in the case is possible today.

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, Appel writes,

The Times’ article on the upcoming trial of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller certainly conveyed the animosity that abortion opponents feel toward his work, but I am not sure it captured fully the degree to which abortion-rights supporters, such as myself, hold him in esteem.

To many progressive Americans, George Tiller is a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty.

Although one need not agree with this assessment of Tiller, the intensity of this brave man’s support among his admirers should not be underestimated.

Jacob M. Appel; New York
The author teaches bioethics at New York University.

Really?  About abortion and the devastation it causes both men and women, Susan B. Anthony wrote,

Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!
The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

HT: Jivin J @ Culture 11

This year, one of AUL’s new pieces of model legislation is the “Use of Force to Protect the Unborn” bill – a bill that allows pregnant women to use force, even deadly force, to protect her unborn child.

Across the nation, countless pregnant women are victims of domestic violence.  Sometimes, their attacker has one intent in mind – to kill the unborn child she is carrying.  In 1999, Jaclyn Kurr suffered a miscarriage after being physically attacked by her boyfriend, Antonio Pena. Jaclyn was more than 16 weeks pregnant with quadruplets when Pena punched her stomach multiple times during an argument. Jaclyn stabbed Pena in defense of her unborn children. Pena subsequently died, and Jaclyn was charged with and found guilty of manslaughter.  On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Jaclyn, as a pregnant woman, was justified in using deadly force to protect the lives of her unborn children.

However, charges should have never been filed against Jacklyn in the first place. But, due to this area of law being unclear, every pregnant woman who defends her unborn child is at risk of the overreach of an overzealous prosecutor.  AUL’s Use of Force bill will help close this loophole.

Oklahoma is the first state to consider this model legislation, and the Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn Coffee carried the bill personally.  The bill passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 44-0.  Here is a copy Senator Coffee’s press release.

The bill now goes to the Oklahoma House for consideration.

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.