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.

Minors in Illinois have been unprotected from the harms of abortion for decades.  The legislature passed a parental notice law in 1995—a law substantially similar to the 36 other state laws requiring either parental notice or consent.  But of course, the ACLU had to step in and challenge the law.  And until the Seventh Circuit (finally) lifted an injunction against the law this summer, the law had been unenforceable.

You would think that would be the end of it.

But instead, the ACLU filed a separate challenge last month in state court.  Same law, same attorneys, different court.  In any other area of law, it should be an open and shut case—the law has already been litigated, a court already issued its opinion, and the ACLU lost.  But this isn’t any other area of law—it’s related to abortion.

We knew the ACLU—and potentially the state of Illinois—was up to something sneaky.  That suspicion has been confirmed.

When the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion this summer, it gave abortionists 90 days to come into compliance with the new law.  That brings us to today—Tuesday, November 3, 2009.  The law should go into effect today. 

However, it appears that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) may grant yet another delay to the abortionists.  On Friday, the IDFPR issued an extension to the abortionists until it meets on Wednesday to determine whether another delay will be allowed.

If granted, this delay could give the ACLU time to secure an injunction in its newly-filed case, the health and welfare of minors in Illinois would once again be in danger.  Contrary to the ACLU’s claims, parental involvement laws in other states work.  Minors and parental rights are protected.  There have been no reports of “serious and irreversible harm to teens” in other states where parental notice and consent laws have been in place for years.

We can hope that the state court will see through the antics of the ACLU and the IDFPR.  But we don’t want to underestimate the strategy of the ACLU in using Illinois partisan politics—and what an alliance between the two might mean.

I hope you were able to watch my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this afternoon concerning the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. (If you missed it, you can see it on AUL’s YouTube channel.)

Make no mistake if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, it will be a setback for the pro-life cause.

When you couple Judge Sotomayor’s judicial-interventionist philosophy with her support for the radical arguments made by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) in abortion-related cases, her presence on the United States Supreme Court surely would endanger all of the common sense abortion regulations that have been passed in dozens of states.

Your support enabled me to provide this critical testimony today. And your continued support will enable Americans United for Life to continue to serve as your voice, as the voice for life in Washington, D.C. and the state Capitols.

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 standing with us For Life!

Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO

P.S. — Please consider making a donation and being part of this historic effort to protect and defend the hard-won victories of the pro-life movement.

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.

In a decision yesterday ignoring the health and welfare of young girls, the Ohio Supreme Court has allowed Planned Parenthood to hide records that may effectively demonstrate it broke the law by failing to alert parents of their young daughters’ abortions and failing to notify law enforcement officials of suspected sexual abuse.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO, stated: “The American public is rightly outraged by Planned Parenthood’s blatant disregard for the welfare of young girls and their penchant for prioritizing profits over compliance with the law. Parents everywhere should be outraged that this court is now protecting a business that thrives on exploiting the most vulnerable.”

Americans United for Life filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that permitting Planned Parenthood to conceal their records and practices undermines statutory rape laws, exacerbates the harmful consequences of sexual abuse, and allows the perpetuated exploitation and coercion of young girls. AUL’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of U.S. Representatives from Ohio, John Boehner (House Minority Leader), Steve Chabot, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta, and Jean Schmidt, is available on AUL’s Web site.

Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs stated: “This is just one of many instances around the nation where an abortion clinic has failed to abide by the law. By failing to demand that Planned Parenthood hand over important records — records that would be available to the plaintiffs in any other type of proceeding — the court has left young girls increasingly vulnerable and unprotected.”

The case, Roe v. Planned Parenthood, is a civil action filed against Planned Parenthood for failing to abide by the state’s parental involvement law, which at the time required that a parent be notified before a minor obtains an abortion. Despite the fact that the Plaintiffs’ 14-year-old daughter had an abortion, which was initiated and paid for by her 21-year-old soccer coach — who subsequently was convicted and served time for the sexual abuse — Planned Parenthood failed to alert the parents of the abortion or law enforcement officials of the suspected sexual abuse.

Mailee Smith, AUL Staff Counsel,stated: “The Ohio Supreme Court completely ignored the legislature’s protective intent in passing Ohio’s parental involvement laws. If the courts will not enforce the laws, we cannot effectively protect young girls from sexual abuse and their welfare remains at risk.”

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

 
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.

Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

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

On November 4, 2008, the pro-life movement suffered losses on five state ballot initiatives. Yet there is much we can learn from the three pro-life ballot initiatives defeated (in California, Colorado, and South Dakota) and the two anti-life ballot initiatives passed (in Michigan and Washington). 

Specifically, these losses demonstrate that legislative efforts at the state level must remain at the forefront of the cause for life during the coming Obama administration. With dangerous legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act—a radical bill Obama has promised to sign—looming, pro-life forces continue to enact laws protecting women and the unborn from the negative impact of abortion and take immediate action to counter the increased efforts by abortion advocates to enshrine abortion-on-demand into American law. We have learned that our greatest successes—as demonstrated in South Dakota—have come not through ballot initiatives, but through such state legislative action.

To read the entire article, please visit the Culture of Life Foundation’s website at http://culture-of-life.org//content/view/519/1/

Americans United for Life (AUL) today released analysis of the results of yesterday’s life-related ballot initiatives. The election saw pro-life ballot initiatives on abortion defeated in California, Colorado, and South Dakota while initiatives legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Washington state and destructive embryonic stem cell research in Michigan were approved.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL said: “We applaud the work of those who strove to protect human life through state ballot initiatives this year. We will continue working at both the state and federal levels in the days ahead to advance the culture of life. These results do not square with an American electorate that is increasingly pro-life. The life movement will reassess and regroup for the next election cycle with new ways to communicate that even the weakest amongst us should be welcomed in life and defended in law.”

California: Defeat of Proposition 4 (Parental Notice)
For the third time in six years, California voters failed to pass Proposition 4, or “Sarah’s Law,” an amendment to the California Constitution that would have protected parental rights and the safety of minors by ensuring that parents are notified of their minor daughter’s abortion at least 48 hours prior to the abortion.

“The defeat of Proposition 4 is a loss for California parents and children who remain vulnerable to sexual abuse, coerced abortions, and inadequate care at abortion facilities” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs. “Proposition 4 would have put California in line with the rest of the nation, as the vast majority of the states have enacted parental involvement laws.”

Washington: Approval of Initiative 1000 (Physician-Assisted Suicide)
In Washington state, I-1000 was approved by voters, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to legalize physician-assisted suicide. The newly enacted measure creates financial incentives for healthcare insurance companies to deny coverage for life-saving treatment and to pressure vulnerable patients to choose physician-assisted suicide. In addition, the measure does not provide adequate safeguards for those suffering from treatable mental illnesses, and requires physicians participating in patient suicides to falsify death certificates.

“The approval of Washington Initiative 1000 poses dangers for the rest of the nation,” stated J. Margaret Datiles, AUL Staff Counsel. “Now that physician-assisted suicide has been legalized in a state other than Oregon, assisted-suicide advocates will be working relentlessly to legalize the practice across the country.”

Michigan: Approval of Proposal 2 (Embryonic Stem-Cell Research)
Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, the “Stem Cell Initiative.” The amendment legalizes destructive research on human embryos, and will allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics.

“It’s deeply troubling that a state would vote to legalize destructive embryonic stem-cell research at a time when research using adult stem cells is making such progress. It is truly a waste,” added Smith.

South Dakota: Defeat of Initiated Measure 11 (Abortion Ban)
South Dakota failed to pass Initiated Measure 11, a constitutional amendment that would have banned abortions in South Dakota, except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when continued pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health. In 2006, South Dakota voters failed to pass a similar ban.

“Although ultimately unsuccessful, Initiated Measure 11 furthered the debate over the impact of abortion on women, the unborn, and our nation,” said AUL Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe. “Given the mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion, this is a discussion that we must continue to pursue in the days ahead.”

Colorado: Defeat of Proposition 48 (Human Life Amendment)
Colorado voters failed to pass Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” which would have amended the Colorado Constitution to define “person” as “any human being from the moment of fertilization,” impacting actions undertaken by the State and its officials.

“As with the South Dakota abortion ban, the Colorado Human Life Amendment sparked needed debate and discussion within the pro-life movement,” said Denise Burke, AUL Vice President of Legal Affairs, “We are confident that the pro-life movement will emerge from this election cycle stronger, wiser, and more determined.”

While the Presidential election has naturally garnered the majority of the media’s and the public’s attention, there are also critical races and issues being considered in the states.  Five states, California, Colorado, Michigan, South Dakota, and Washington are considering ballot initiatives that directly implicate important life issues:  abortion, biotechnologies, and the end-of-life.

California Proposition 4: Parental Notice

Proposition 4, or the “Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative” (also known to its supporters as “Sarah’s Law”), will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California.  Proposition 4 proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution that would ensure that parents are notified (and involved) when their minor daughters are considering abortion by requiring abortion providers to notify the minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative family member.  Once the parent or guardian is notified, the provider may not perform an abortion on the minor for 48 hours.
In addition, the initiative mandates that abortion providers report statistical information about all abortions (including abortions on minors) to state officials, requires the minor’s non-coerced consent for an abortion, and authorizes monetary damages against physicians if any portion of the new law is violated.

For more information, click here.

Colorado Proposition 48: Human Life Amendment

Proposition 48, the “Colorado Equal Rights Amendment,” proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to define “person” to “include any human being from the moment of fertilization.”  This definition of “personhood” would apply to specific sections of the Colorado Constitution and would inform future actions take by the State, the state government, and state officials.

For more information, click here

Michigan Proposal 2: Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

The “Stem Cell Initiative,” also known as “CureMichigan,” will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot as Proposal 2.  This amendment would allow unregulated and unrestricted destruction of human embryos for research purposes.  It would also allow government funding for research on human embryos produced in fertility clinics and could open the door for the legalization of human cloning.

Proposal 2 would drastically alter existing Michigan law.  Michigan currently prohibits “nontherapeutic research” on a “live human embryo, fetus, or neonate,” fetal experimentation, and human cloning.

For more information, click here (PDF, pages 14-16).

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11: Abortion Ban

An abortion ban initiative, known as “Initiated Measure 11,” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment.  If voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution would ban all abortions except for those performed in cases of rape or incest, or when pregnancy severely endangers the woman’s life or health.  Anyone performing an abortion in violation of the amendment could be charged with a Class 4 felony, which in South Dakota carries a maximum punishment of 10 years in jail and a $20,000 fine.

For more information, click here (PDF, page 8).

Washington Initiative 1000: Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Washington Initiative 1000, also known as “I-1000,” purports to give “mentally competent, terminally ill adults, medically-predicted to die within six months,” the legal choice to request and self-administer a lethal overdose of medication prescribed by a physician.  The measure requires two oral and one written requests by the patient, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of the patient decision.  Physicians, patients, and others acting in “good faith compliance” with the measure would not face criminal or civil liability.

For more information, click here.

Proposition 4, “Sarah’s Law,” has been approved for the November ballot in California. “Sarah’s Law” is a constitutionally sound parental notification measure that would protect both minors and parental rights. It will also put California in line with the rest of America, as the majority of the states have parental involvements laws. The passage of Sarah’s Law in California will not only reduce the number of abortions performed in California, but may encourage some of the 15 states without such laws to consider a parental involvement law.

Measures like Sarah’s Law are essential to protecting minors from coerced abortions and sexual predators. For too long, sexual predators have avoided criminal liability by forcing young girls whom they have sexually abused to have secret abortions without their parents’ knowledge. These secret abortions not only destroy critical evidence of the criminal conduct, but allow the sexual abuse to continue undetected.

Parental involvement laws also give parents the opportunity to talk with the abortion provider about their daughter’s medical history and to make arrangements for adequate post-abortion care. In addition, if parents are aware of their minor daughter’s abortion, they will be able to respond better and more quickly to any complications that arise.

Such measures do not put teenage girls in danger from an abusive parent. If a minor has been subject to a pattern of reported physical, sexual or severe emotional abuse by someone entitled to notice under the law, Sarah’s Law, like similar measures in other states, provides that an “alternate family member” may be notified.

In light of the political climate and judicial history of abortion-related cases in California (PDF), the passage of Sarah’s Law is a viable, realistic way to protect the health of minors and parental rights, and to promote of life in California.

For more information on parental involvement laws, see Parental Involvement Laws: Protecting minors and furthering parental rights from Defending Life 2008.

The Situation

On Thursday, July 10, 2008, Congressman Trent Franks and Congresswoman Iliana Ros-Leightenen held a public forum discussing the Federal Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), HR 1063. CIANA would prohibit the illegal transportation of minor girls across state lines — unbeknownst to parents — in order to circumvent abortion parental notification laws in a girl’s home state. 

This bipartisan legislation received overwhelming support in Congress. CIANA passed the House of Representatives by large margins in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006. In January 2007, CIANA passed the House by a vote of 270 to 157. Currently, CIANA has the bi-partisan support of 130 Members of Congress, and may likely pass the House again.

CIANA is also strongly supported by the American public. For example, in a CBS News poll, 80% of respondents favored a requirement that one parent receive notification of their minor daughter’s abortion. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed that 78% of participants favored parental notification for minor abortions; 64% of those favoring parental involvement identified themselves as “pro-choice.”

Despite overwhelming support by both Congress and the American public for legislative action, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (of which Rep. Franks is a Ranking Member) has refused to respond to multiple requests to hold a hearing on CIANA. Rep. Franks requested such a hearing this past April, and then again in May. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee refused to even send Rep. Franks a reply to his letters. So, Rep. Franks took the initiative to hold a public forum on July 10, 2008 in order to discuss CIANA.

CIANA Protects Minors and Parents, and Fosters Respect for State Laws

Parental consent is required for a minor girl to go on a school field trip, participate in contact sports, get a tattoo, or participate in a sex education program. In Maryland, eleven school systems require a parent’s note before sunscreen can be applied to a minor student. If parental notification and consent is required for these, how much more then, is parental notification and consent needed for an abortion on a child?

The majority of the states have recognized that abortion is a serious and invasive medical procedure, and have enacted some form of parental involvement law that requires at least one parent to be given notice or give consent before their minor daughter receives an abortion. Without parental notification and/or parental consent, a parent will be denied the opportunity to give the abortion provider vital information on the child’s medical history and pertinent family medical history. The parent(s) will also be unable to ensure that the child receives routine post-abortion care and obtains follow-up treatment and examinations. Parents would not have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to any post-abortion complications that may develop (including complication that can be lethal if left untreated).

One of the purposes of CIANA is to protect girls from sexual predators. Teenage pregnancies often occur as a result of predatory practices of substantially older men. These sexual predators seek to destroy the evidence of their criminal conduct – that is, the pregnancy – by taking girls they have impregnated across state lines for secret abortions that the girls’ parents will never know about. Many men have avoided criminal liability by transporting girls across state lines in order to circumvent the protective laws of the girls’ home state. Not only does the secret, out-of-state abortion eliminate critical evidence of the criminal conduct, it allows the abuse to continue undetected. CIANA seeks to protect victims of statutory rape, abuse and incest from being coerced into abortions and from becoming victims a second time.

As the illegal transportation of girls across state lines to circumvent state laws is an inter-state issue (as opposed to an intra-state issue), only a federal law such as CIANA could ensure that parents have the opportunity to protect their daughters from sexual predators who would victimize them further. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that the transportation of persons across state lines is a form of inter-state commerce, and can be legitimately regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause.

CIANA reinforces existing state laws by cutting off a major way in which sexual predators have thwarted sexual crime laws and parental notification/consent laws. It also cuts off a major way in which abortion clinics have thwarted state sexual abuse reporting laws. In doing so, CIANA directly fosters a general respect for existing state laws.

CIANA is Constitutional

Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion prior to viability, and after viability for maternal life and health. It did NOT legalize the right for persons other than a parent or guardian to decide what is best for a child. It did NOT legalize a right for sexual predators to cover up their crimes. It did NOT legalize a right for strangers to place children in potentially fatal situations.

CIANA does not impose an obstacle on a minor entering or leaving any state. Nor does it prohibit anyone from accompanying minors to obtain abortions. Rather, it merely requires those assisting minors to obtain an abortion to comply with the laws of the girls’ home state. Nothing more, nothing less. CIANA is a constitutional piece of bi-partisan legislation that would be unquestionably upheld by any court.

Conclusion

During the public forum on CIANA, pro-life activist Missy Smith stated:

 “I have seen many young girls…being pushed, pulled, screamed at, threatened  and bullied into abortion facilities…and I am there when they come out broken  and in tears…. Our young people deserve protection under the law.”

It is sad that such a protective, life-affirming legislation that has overwhelming bi-partisan support has been denied even a hearing. It is high time that legislators working on the federal level wake up and give CIANA proper attention. Children and parents deserve nothing less.

2008 Polling Results

A number of recent polls show that the majority of Americans are pro-life and favor more restrictions on abortion, and that the number of Americans who identify themselves as pro-abortion/pro-choice has dropped to its lowest in the past seven years.

ABC News and Washington Post polling results show not only that the percent of abortion supporters in America has fallen to its seven-year low, but that the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as “pro-life” has risen to tie the percentage of the last time the pro-life percentage peaked during the same seven-year period. Earlier this year in January, an ABC News-Washington Post poll reported a 4% drop in abortion supporters, and a 4% increase in pro-lifers. So, the good news is that support for abortion is way down, and support for abortion restrictions is way up.

Some participants in the ABC News-Washington Post erroneously believed that abortions in cases of rape or incest, or in situations where the mother’s life was endangered constitute the majority of abortions performed in America. The survey failed to inform these participants that abortions in those circumstances are very rare, and account for only 1-2% of all abortions. The great significance of the fact that 98-99% of all abortions are elective procedures cannot be more apparent; it is strange that such an important fact was not relayed to the poll participants. However, despite the absence of this information, the majority of the respondents still favored abortion restrictions, with only 44% wanting all or most abortions to be illegal. Had the respondents been informed of the rarity of abortions in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, the percentage of Americans who want greater restrictions on abortion may have been much higher.

A Gallup poll conducted this May shows similar results. According to the poll, 71% of Americans want all abortions to be limited to rare circumstances or to be illegal. In response to a question of when abortions should be allowed, a scant 28% took the pro-abortion position.

2007 and 2006 Polling Results

The decline in abortion support has been a steady one. A March 2007 Zogby poll showed overwhelming support for incremental abortion limitations and other life-affirming laws. According to the Zogby poll:

• 69% support the prohibition of using Federal taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions;
• 69% support parental notification for girls 16 or younger;
• 55% support parental notification for girls 18 or younger;
• 56% support a 24-hour waiting period;
• 64% support charging criminals for attacks on pregnant women which result in the killing or injuring of the woman’s unborn child; and
• 69% support prohibitions on using taxpayer dollars for abortions abroad.

In addition to the March 2007 Zogby poll, a November 2007 Newsweek poll reported a 5% increase in the number of pro-life Americans. A CBS News poll also showed a decrease in abortion support for the year 2007. According to the CBS News poll:

• 47% want to prohibit most or all abortions;
• 16% want abortions to be “greatly restricted”;
• 30% want to limit abortions to rare circumstances of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life;
• 12% want abortions to be legal only to save the mother’s life;
• 5% want abortions be illegal in all cases; and
• 31% want abortion to be legal in all cases.

The 2007 CBS News polling results correspond to the 2006 CBS New poll, which reported that 51% of Americans want most or all abortions to be illegal, whereas only 12% want abortions to be legal in all cases.

Conclusion

The trend towards a more pro-life America has been clearly illustrated by the results of national polls over the past years. More and more Americans recognize the importance and need for meaningful abortion restrictions, and are willing to identify themselves as “pro-life” as opposed to “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice. Legislators should pay attention to these trends and facts, as it is their responsibility to pass laws and policies that accurately reflect the views of the Americans people. Laws that expand the right to abortion and increase access to elective abortions are not in line with the views of the American people. On the other hand, laws that ensure that abortions are rare (and, in those rare cases, that abortions are safe), are laws that adequately address the needs and views of the American people. For legislators who are looking to fulfill their responsibility to the American people, there is no time better than now to enact laws restricting abortions and protecting the sanctity of human life.

As life-affirming laws in Michigan increase, the abortion rates in Michigan continue to plummet. Michigan state health officials announced last week that the abortion rate in the state have dropped to a record low since record-keeping began in 1979. The current abortion rate shows a 50% drop since the peak in 1987, and a 3.7% drop from 2006. The Michigan Department of Community Health reported that in 1987 there were 350 abortions for every 1,000 live births. In 2007, the number of abortions dropped to 200 abortions for every 1,000 live births.

The drastic drop in the Michigan abortion rate in 2007 is no surprise. Americans United for Life (AUL) ranked Michigan as the #1 pro-life state for 2007. AUL bases its rankings on the number of pro-life laws being enforced in a state, and the breadth of protection provided by each law.

Michigan currently has a number of women’s health and safety laws in effect, including:

• a comprehensive informed consent for abortion statute;
• a statute providing an option for women to view an ultrasound image of the unborn child;
• parental consent statute for abortions performed on minors;
• minimum health and safety requirements for abortion facilities;
• and a prohibition of the use of public funds and school health coverage plans for abortions.

Michigan law also contains provisions that specifically protect the health and safety of the unborn and the newly born. Michigan law defines the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide, and defines non-fatal assaults on an unborn child as a crime. In addition, Michigan law requires that infants who survive an abortion and are born alive must be given immediate and appropriate care.

In terms of bioethics, Michigan law bans human cloning, for both reproductive and research purposes. Michigan also bans fetal experimentation and non-therapeutic research on a live human embryo, fetus, or neonate. As for end-of-life issues, Michigan treats physician-assisted suicide as a felony.

Lastly, Michigan law protects the rights of conscience of healthcare providers in the abortion context. Under Michigan law, healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities who object on grounds of conscience may not be forced to participate in the performance of an abortion, and may refrain from participation.

It is no coincidence that the abortion rate in Michigan has dropped to its all-time low, and that Michigan has the best pro-life, incremental legislation in place. Research shows that incremental protections are effective means of lowering the number of abortions performed. Michigan is a concrete example of this conclusion. The effectiveness and importance of passing life-affirming, incremental legislation in the states has been made clear enough. For those interested in making abortion rare, Michigan stands out as a model.

To go to National Right to Life’s article elaborating on congruent abortion data click here.

In our introduction to Defending Life 2008, we argue that “[I]t is in the states where we are winning the battle to create a culture of life and to protect all human life from its earliest stages until its natural end.  Each year, we are making progress incrementally – state by state and law by law.”  State-by-state building blocks for a culture of life has been AUL’s focus for decades, even more so in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and opening the door to more state legislation that protects women and their children from the negative consequences of abortion.

AUL’s focus on the states is driven by our belief that there is where we, in partnership with pro-life Americans, legislators, and policy-makers, are truly making a difference.  Information just released by State Net, a group that actively monitors all legislative activity in the 50 states, confirms our analysis and validates our focus.  According to State Net, abortion is one of most debated topics in 2008, along with illegal immigration and the housing crisis.

Moreover, abortion-related legislation is being actively considered in nearly 80% of the state capitols.  AUL’s independent analysis shows that pro-life measures far exceed pro-abortion measures and that the states continue to make measurable progress toward a culture of life.

The on-going court battle in Illinois over the state’s permanently-enjoined parental notification law has once again brought parental involvement laws to the forefront of the cultural and legal fight against abortion. Accompanying the increasing cultural acceptance of abortion is a proportionate increase in the necessity for parental involvement laws. The promotion of sex-with-no-consequences in America has generated a high demand for abortion, including abortions for minors.  These abortions present a host of issues not present in adult abortions:  (1) the state’s interest in protecting the health and welfare of minors; (2) the state’s interest in protecting the constitutional rights of parents to raise their children; (3) immature minors’ lack of ability to make fully-informed decisions that take into account both immediate and long-range medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion;  and (4) ensuring care that takes into account her medical history.

 In light of the differences between minor and adult abortions, how important are parental involvement laws? How have the courts and legislatures treated parental involvement laws? And in the absence of parental involvement laws, what is at stake for minors and parents?

To read the entire article click here

New Yorkers for Parental Rights (NYPR) (http://www.nyfpr.com/) have been spearheading the efforts in opposition to ex-Governor Spitzer’s radical abortion bill, “The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act”(RHAPP), also known as the NY “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA). The group has posted anti-RHAPP billboards on 14 major roadways around the State of NY, and released a 30-second commercial and a 4-minute educational video opposing the bill. Both the commercial and educational video can be viewed on www.abortionbill.org.

The RHAPP would wipe out all safety and health abortion regulations, and authorize non-physicians to perform abortions. The bill would violate parental rights by allowing abortion providers to perform abortions on minors without parental notification. The bill would also force Catholic physicians and other healthcare professionals to lose their licenses if they refuse to participate in abortions, even if they refuse on moral or religious grounds.

Dr. Alveda King (http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/index.htm), niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and founder of King for America has come out in support of NYPR’s efforts against the abortion bill, stating:
“We require parental notification and permission for minors for everything from ear piercing to dental work, and in most legal proceedings; yet abortion, a dangerous and devastating procedure, too often remains in a category apart, protected from parents who will often have to pay for the damages and consequences their children suffer through abortion.”

Former Governor Eliot Spitzer has introduced an extreme abortion bill, the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP), into the New York State Legislature. This bill will do anything but make abortions rare and safe in New York. On the contrary, the RHAPP will increase the number of abortions performed in New York and wipe out all existing health and safety abortion regulations. If the RHAPP is enacted, it would make New York the abortion capital of America.  

To read the full article, please visit http://aul.org/NY_RHAPP

As most people are now aware, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught trafficking in prostitution across state lines. This morning’s news reports indicate that he will step down effective Monday.

What does this mean for the Reproductive Health and Personal Privacy Act (RHAPP) – the radical pro-abortion bill currently pending before the New York legislature?

For those unaware of what this bill will do, AUL staff attorney Maggie Datiles will have an excellent summary on the AUL web site later this week. In short, this bill will remove every abortion regulation that exists in the state and prohibit any new ones from being enacted. It is similar to the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that’s been under consideration for years.

In the NY bill, any female as young as age 12 will be able to get an abortion from any health care provider for any reason in all nine months of pregnancy. Forget laws requiring the abortionist to be a qualified doctor. Your dermatologist would now qualify. In fact, forget needing to be a doctor at all. And forget laws requiring emergency equipment to be present whenever an abortion is performed. Those things aren’t necessary.

And forget about opting out of performing the procedure. With RHAPP, no doctor, nurse or hospital, regardless of moral views or religious affiliation, can decline to perform abortions. Additionally, any and all employers and insurance companies will be forced to pay for them. And that’s not all. Publicly-funded sex-ed programs must encourage abortion and contraception, and state money would be prohibited from being used for abortion-alternative programs.

However, with Spitzer’s personal shenanigans, one of the bills biggest backers is now toast. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the state legislature is no longer functioning. “‘Everyone’s on death watch,’ said John McArdle, spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. ‘We’re trying not to get caught up in it but it’s brought everything to a standstill.’”

The new governor, David Paterson, is reportedly far more liberal than Spitzer. He is known for his support for embryonic stem cell research, and abortion. He’s also more willing than Spitzer to negotiate across the aisle and with opponents in his own party. This means that we are probably less likely to get the full version of RHAPP but could be more likely to get a stripped down version that will cause havoc and destroy women’s lives anyway.

New legislation under consideration in New Hampshire would require guidance counselors or healthcare providers to counsel teenage girls before they undergo an abortion, but effectively denies parents or guardians the right to be consulted and involved in this major medical decision.

In 2007, New Hampshire lawmakers repealed the state’s parental notification statute that required an abortion provider to notify a girl’s parent or guardian when she requested an abortion.  However, several lawmakers are currently attempting to revive the requirement.

New Hampshire is the first state to repeal a parental notification law. Currently, 36 states have enforceable parental involvement laws, requiring parental consent (25 states) or parental notification (11 states) before a minor may undergo an abortion.

Parental involvement laws have been shown to advance key state interests of protecting the health and welfare of minors, protecting the constitutional right of parents to rear their children, increasing teenage sexual responsibility, and reducing teenage demand for abortion.

Moreover, parental involvement laws are supported by the majority of Americans, regardless of their positions on abortion.  Ironically, notification is required before virtually all non-emergency procedures except abortion

New Hampshire Citizens for Life president Roger Stenson told LifeNews.com, “Parents have a primordial right to protect and counsel their children. Children have the right to their parents’ involvement in their lives.”

He said the legislators who voted to get rid of the involvement law “trampled on every family in our state.”

He said the vote would encourage secret abortions on minors with people who sexually abuse them taking them for abortions without their parents knowing.

For more information on parental involvement laws, see Defending Life 2008, “Parental Involvement Laws: Protecting minors and furthering parental rights (PDF).”

For more information on New Hampshire’s legislation, go to http://www.lifenews.com/state2833b.html