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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A woman is far more likely to choose life if she sees an ultrasound of her unborn child, which is why AUL has long promoted laws requiring abortion clinics to give clients the opportunity to view their ultrasound. Now, it appears that an ultrasound can change the heart of an abortion-clinic director as well. Last week, Abby Johnson, the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas–which was the first clinic protested by the pro-life group 40 Days for Life–quit her job after watching an ultrasound of an abortion in progress.

LifeSiteNews reports:

The director of the Texas Planned Parenthood abortion mill where the 40 Days for Life campaign began has resigned, saying she experienced a conversion after watching an ultrasound video of a child being killed by abortion.

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it,” said Abby Johnson in an interview with local news network KBTX 3.

Johnson ’s change of heart was so dramatic that she reached out to befriend the organizer of the 40 Days for Life protest–a move that has led to a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood. No doubt the nation’s largest abortion chain is none too pleased at what its former employee is revealing about its pressuring her to bring in more abortion clients to boost its bottom line.

Johnson had been affiliated with Bryan’s Planned Parenthood facility for eight years, and worked as its director for two. She said she began to feel uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood’s business philosophy after the organization, suffering from the economic downturn, told her to try to bring more abortions in the door. “The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Thanks to the prayer, educational efforts, and activism of pro-lifers, the truth of the evil of abortion reached a woman who was completely immersed in the abortion industry. This is a story that should give hope to everyone in the pro-life movement.

RELATED: As the health care reform debate rages, learn how you can help your friends, family, and legislators understand that real health care respects life.

LifeNews reports that the Obama administration’s official volunteerism Web site, Serve.gov, encourages visitors to put in hours at Planned Parenthood.

Journalist Lisa Staub discovered the government site’s promotion of the abortion giant when she typed the keyword “health” and the city “Houston” into its search engine, which is intended to connect prospective volunteers with service organizations in their communities. Doing so “brought up Planned Parenthood’s need for volunteers to make sure women with abortion appointments are not harassed by the peaceful and prayerful people involved in the 40 Days for Life effort to help women,” LifeNews reports.

“Their job? Make sure pro-life protestors don’t speak or give any information to women seeking abortions at the clinic,” Stauber writes. …

Jill Stanek, a pro-life blogger, visited the site and also found a volunteer sign-up for Planned Parenthood of Central Ohio, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin seeking help to promote abortion at the Madison Farmers Market and others.

“I’m sure I’d find more if I kept looking but you get the drift. You’re paying for Planned Parenthood to snag volunteers, sometimes to directly combat our pro-life efforts,” she complained.

Blogger Thomas Peters observes, “Let’s face it – the President supports the mission and organization of Planned Parenthood. That’s the unavoidable conclusion to his political background, promises — and now — presidential administration.”

TAKE ACTION: Visit RealHealthCareRespectsLife.com to learn how you can join the thousands of pro-lifers who are letting the White House and Congress know that Americans do not want their tax dollars to aid abortion providers.

It’s no secret that birth control and abortion have racist roots.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, pushed vehemently for the use of birth control and abortion to eliminate populations of people she deemed unfit and detrimental to America. In her writings and interviews (including video-taped interviews), she did not even attempt to hide her racist motivations.  Her articles included titles such as “Birth Control: The True Eugenics.”

Sanger believed that sterilizing the “unfit” would be “the salvation of the American civilization.”  She was not alone.  Dr. S. Adophus Knopf, a member of Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril.  Board member Dr. Harry Laughlin wanted to purge America’s “bad strains.”

It is amazing that Planned Parenthood has yet to publicly distance itself from its racist underpinnings.  Instead, it distributes “Maggie” awards every year to honor people who, like Margaret Sanger, push its blatantly anti-life agenda.  “Maggie” would be proud that Planned Parenthood is sticking so closely to her “ideals.”

Indeed, in recent months pro-life student Lila Rose has caught Planned Parenthood employees accepting donations aimed at exterminating minorities.  But it doesn’t take an undercover operation to discover Planned Parenthood’s true intent.  Just look at where Planned Parenthood focuses its attention and where it builds its clinics: 78% of their clinics are in minority communities.

But birth control and surgical abortion didn’t work the way Sanger and Planned Parenthood had hoped.  After all, we still have poverty and minority populations.

Enter RU-486, the abortion “wonder drug.”

Created in France in 1980, President George H.W. Bush banned its importation for personal use. 

But in 1992, President Bill Clinton was elected.  Later, in 1996, the Population Council filed an application with the FDA for approval of RU-486 in the United States.  The drug was fast-tracked and approved in 2000.

Changes are expected when a new administration takes office.  We’ve certainly seen that with the Obama Administration.  But a letter dated January 6, 1992, addressed to “President-To-Be Clinton,” demonstrates that RU-486 – just like birth control and surgical abortion – was envisioned as a means to wipe out populations in this country deemed “unfit” by abortion supporters.

Written by attorney Ron Weddington – a modern-day Sanger crony – he urged President Clinton to “start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country.”  He states, “… what we need to do as a nation is prevent … as many poor babies as possible.”

His answer? “[G]overnment is … going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortions … RU-486 and conventional abortions.”  He mentioned that he was contemplating the option of setting up a non-profit corporation to license and distribute the abortion drug.

After ending his letter stating, “We don’t need more poor babies,” he adds the following chilling post-script:

“I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book…. I have never had one moment of regret.”

Perhaps the timeline is mere coincidence: President Bush bans the drug, President Clinton is elected, President Clinton receives a letter pushing the eugenic potential of RU-486, RU-486 is hastily approved by the FDA.  But one thing is clear – abortion was, is, and always will be used for bigoted purposes. 

History has been made in this country – we now have our first African-American President.  Ironically, he ardently supports the very organization that has worked for decades to wipe out minorities. 

When will the American people say, “Enough is enough”?

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.

Dear Friend,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours for life,
 

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

Planned Parenthood Federation of America released their 2007-2008 Annual Report, which includes information regarding their finances, services, and activities for 2007-2008. The main documented increases are the total number of abortions conducted by PPFA and the total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates. The total number of abortions conducted by PPFA increased from 289,750 in 2006 to 305,310 in 2007. This number has almost doubled in the past decade, since there were 160,000 PPFA-provided abortions in 1997. The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates also increased from $337 million to $350 million (this reflects grants from all government sources including state, local and federal sources). Again, these increases focus on the increase from 2006 to 2007; however, the increase in government funding over the past decade has more than doubled – from $160 million in 1997 to $350 million in 2007.
 
Another part of the Annual Report to note is that PPFA boasts that the number of adoption referrals provided by Planned Parenthood has increased by over 100% from 2006 to 2007. However, it is the first time in over a decade that the number has increased; therefore, the number of adoption referrals is still lower than it was in 1997.
 
Click here to view the PPFA 2007-2008 Annual Report.

Representative Steve King (R-IA), joined with Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), led a pro-life Special Order last week on March 31st.

King opened the hour by discussing the Constitutional value of life. He eloquently stated:

[Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] was a very specific, very carefully thought out, very prosaic, designed phrase…[they are] prioritized rights, Mr. Speaker, and the right to life is paramount to anyone’s liberty and the right to liberty is paramount to pursuit of happiness…If I were to choose the pursuit of liberty that would violate someone’s right to life, the right to life trumps anyone’s pursuit of liberty. So our Founders understood; these are prioritized rights.

Smith then discussed Secretary Clinton’s acceptance of the Margaret Sanger Award (from Planned Parenthood) to which he questioned and challenged the Secretary:

Is our Secretary of State unaware of Margaret Sanger’s inhumane beliefs? Was she not briefed on Margaret Sanger’s cruel and reckless disregard of poor, pregnant women? Respectfully, Secretary Clinton should at a minimum return the Sanger Award. More importantly, Congress and the White House must at long lost take a long, hard second look at the multi-million, almost billion coorporation called Planned Parenthood.

King continued by discussing the extreme views of Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s nominee for the Office of Legal Counsel, which, as King stated is “the most influential, most powerful position you’ve never heard of. The Office of Legal Counsel provides opinions on the constitutionality of the legal activities of the entire administration and gives advice to the President of the United States.”

King then discussed the issue of when life begins and the importance of legally establishing this. After this, Smith picked up and discussed abortion as violence to children. He asserted, “The most persecuted minority in the world today are unborn children…It is time we call it for what it is. It is child abuse, abortion. It is violence against children. It is prejudice.”

The hour concluded with King quoting Henry Hyde, “a stalwart” for pro-life issues.

To view the excerpts, visit YouTube.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

October 16, 1916 is truly a “day that will live in infamy.” On this date 92 years ago, Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League — an organization that would later become Planned Parenthood — and opened its first clinic in Brooklyn, New York.

In that time, Planned Parenthood has left a legacy of ruined lives, lies, and unfulfilled promises. Over 92 years, this destructive and deceptively-named organization has relentlessly pursued an agenda of unapolegtic abortion-on-demand, putting profits and ideology above women’s health and safety. Again and again, Planned Parenthood has proven that they are not the defenders of women’s rights and health that they hold themselves out to be.

What has Planned Parenthood wraught over nearly a century:

• They have performed the majority of the 48 million abortions this country and its families have suffered since 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided.
• In their quest to further enrich their bulging coffers, they have made American taxpayers involuntarily complicit in their radical agenda. Congress allocates more than $300 million to Planned Parenthood each year and, given Planned Parenthood’s ever-increasing abortion market share, this undoubtly means that taxpayers are paying for many abortions performed each year.
• They have prioritized their profit margins and their political agenda over women’s health and safety by (among other things):
  • Ignoring the ever-mounting evidence of the negative impact of abortion on women and misleading women about the physical risks and emotional impact of abortion.
  • Opposing attempts to ensure that abortion clinics comply with the same mimimum health and safety standards that other medical offices and clinics must meet.
  • Opposing common-sense, protective laws that are supported by the majority of Americans including parental involvement, informed consent, and laws permitting only licensed physicians to perform abortions.
  • Failing repeatedly to report sexual crimes (such as statutory rape) committed against children.
  • Dispensing the dangerous abortion drug RU-486 in direct violation of the medically-established protocol for the drug. This failure has result in patient death and other dangerous and preventable complications.
• They advocate violating the constitutional rights of those who disagree with them. They seek to compel healthcare professionals, Catholic hospitals, and other unwilling groups and individuals to participate in abortions regardless of their religious, moral, or ethical convictions against the practice.
• And America is not large enough to contain their ambitious agenda. Adhering to the population control views of their foundress Margaret Sanger, they are on a quest to make “abortion the law of the world,” bullying countries around the world to comply with their demands and goals.

The American public needs to learn more about the history, agenda, and practices of this dangerous and radical organization and voice their disgust and opposition to what they stand for — and when they do, Planned Parenthood may not be around to celebrate its centennial.

For more information on the legacy of Planned Parenthood, visit Paul Butler’s (Moody Radio) Production Blog

Today, the United States Senate rejected an amendment that would have given Planned Parenthood special drug pricing and helped it rake in millions more in profit across the country.  The measure was defeated 52-42.  (60 votes were needed for passage.)

In the ‘economic stimulus’ amendment that the Senate considered today, pro-abortion Democrats inserted language that would have helped Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, to buy drugs at dramatically discounted rates – lower than virtually anyone else.

Federal Medicaid regulations help determine the price of drugs.  However, certain organizations can buy drugs at dramatically reduced prices (called ‘nominal’ drug prices).  For example state-operated AIDS drug assistance programs and health care programs for the homeless are allowed to buy these reduced price drugs so they can stretch their dollar farther and help more people.

Such is the argument around this initiative.  Planned Parenthood helps women in their clinics.  They need a break.

However, it doesn’t seem that Planned Parenthood is in need of financial help right now. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $337 million in federal, state, and local government funding and had $115 million in excess revenue. (Since Planned Parenthood is officially a non-profit organization, they don’t call it profit.)

Thankfully, the Senate blocked this effort to give Planned Parenthood even more.  Not only would they have gotten reduced prices on the drugs they buy, the aren’t limited on what price point they sell those drugs.  In other words, Planned Parenthood would made millions in profit as they resold these drugs to the public they’re ’servicing’.

President Bush threatened to veto the legislation if it reached his desk in this form.  Fortunately, the Senate acted appropriately.  If you want to see how Senator voted, follow this link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00206

We’re back this morning at the Minneapolis Convention center as the GOP platform delegates continue their consideration of amendments to the platform.  This morning has been devoted to the national defense section. 

But it still provided a great example of how life issues affect so many different areas:  in a section focused on international organizations, language was inserted to reaffirm the Mexico City policy barring funding to organizations that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

All in favor, say AYE.

The motion passed.

We break for lunch in a little while and will come back this afternoon to consider the Health sections which include the Rights of Conscience sections and a portion that references stem cell research and human cloning.  The hall is buzzing with rumours that the stem cell section might be watered down.

More later.

Emerging evidence suggests that China and India may not be the only countries where sex-selective abortion is commonly practiced.  In a video released today, Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI), argues that America also has a hidden and growing problem with sex-selective abortion, a problem that most pro-abortion and feminist groups refuse to address.

The United Nations has defined sex-selective abortion as the intentional killing of unborn females due to the preference for male offspring (also know as “son preference”).  Worldwide, sex selective abortions most commonly occur because of the low value associated with the birth of females who tend to be regarded as more of a financial burden to their families and as a result of various social and legal conventions (such as males carrying on the family name).  This “son preference” is one of the most evident manifestations of sex discrimination in many societies, undermining female equality and contributing to the elimination of many females’ very right to exist.

Currently, sex-selective abortion is widely practiced in Asia and other parts of the world, resulting in a statistically improbable ratio of baby boys to baby girls.  According to the United Nations, the practice has already claimed the lives of more than 100 million girls worldwide. Moreover, a recent study published by the National Academy of Sciences indicates that many American groups, particularly those of Asian descent, have the same skewed birthrates as found in their country of origin.  Apparently, many of the customs and practices that have led to these skewed birthrates in other countries are being imported into the United States and leading to the selective abortion of baby girls here.

Pro-abortion and feminist advocacy groups have largely ignored this problem, prioritizing their support for unregulated abortion-on-demand over addressing this growing and barbaric form of sex discrimination.  In fact, their silence on this issue is deafening and very telling as to their true priorities and allegiances.
Conversely, the American public and medical professionals have repeatedly condemned this deplorable practice.  In a March 2006 Zogby poll, 86% of Americans agreed that sex-selective abortions should be illegal.  Moreover, in February 2007, the Committee on Ethics of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated, in an ethics opinion, that sex-selective abortion is inappropriate for family planning purposes.

In response to this growing problem, several countries (including China and Great Britain) have enacted bans on sex-selective abortion.  Given the evidence released today, it is clear that we need to do the same and that pro-abortion and feminist groups should be confronted for their continued silence on this critical issue.
Visit the Population Research Institute’s website at www.pop.org

William McGurn does the country a great service today by writing a column on the largely unreported story of how the abortion industry targets black Americans.  Did you know that while one of every five white pregnancies ends in abortion, one of every two black pregnancies end that way? Or that Planned Parenthood fundraisers have been recorded accepting contributions restricted for the termination of black babies?

Thanks to work by pro-life black leaders, a move is afoot to try to rally the NAACP and other prominent black Americans to confront the problem.  This article is a must-read.

WSJ – Main Street – The NAACP and Black Abortions

A two minute excerpt of Barack Obama’s speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year where he promised that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act is now on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

Planned Parenthood endorsed a candidate for President – Barack Obama.

The endorsement, while unsurprising, may make it more difficult for Obama to move to the middle on abortion – something he has been looking to do over the past few weeks.

For example, Obama told Relevant magazine last week, “I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy.”

However, Planned Parenthood specifically lists as one of the reasons for their endorsement his support of the Freedom of Choice Act – a bill that would erase virtually every abortion law across the country, and make abortion for “mental distress” legal in all 50 states. Obama promised in a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year,

The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. (emphasis mine)

During the same speech, he also stated:

There will always be people, many of good will, who do not share my view on the issue of choice.  On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. (emphasis mine)

Planned Parenthood also says that Obama intends to repeal rules that bar any U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that perform or promote abortions.

Here is the official press release.

In a decision issued last week by the Eighth Circuit (sitting en banc), the Court reversed a preliminary injunction that had blocked the enforcement of certain provisions of South Dakota’s informed consent law.

The provisions require that a woman be informed that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” and that the woman has an existing, Constitutional relationship with her unborn child.  Planned Parenthood had challenged the law, and initially obtained the now-overturned preliminary injunction from the lower court. 

The effect of this ruling remains to be seen.  Because the decision involved only a preliminary injunction, the actual merits of the case—and the constitutionality of the informed consent provisions—have not been decided.  However, a few positive developments must be noted.

First, the Court concluded that, in a preliminary injunction proceeding involving government action, plaintiffs such as Planned Parenthood must meet a higher standard.  It is not enough that Planned Parenthood show that it might succeed on the merits of the case; it must show that it is likely to succeed.  This heightens the standard that district courts in the Eighth Circuit will use when considering preliminarily enjoining abortion related laws.

Second, this Court more accurately balanced expert witness testimony than it has in the past.  For example, in Carhart v. Gonzales, one of the partial-birth abortion cases, the lower court and Eighth Circuit took abortionist testimony as fact, completely dismissing the accuracy and strength of the government’s expert witnesses.

Here, however, the Court emphasized that Planned Parenthood did not have enough medical and scientific evidence that the informed consent provisions were unnecessary or inaccurate.  The Court did not take as fact a plaintiff abortionist’s own affidavit.  Instead, it balanced the legislative history and multiple expert witnesses testimonies given by the government.  In other words, the Court did not take abortionist testimony as fact, as it has done in the past.

Finally, the Court indicated that the question of when life begins is a scientific, and not necessarily ideological, fact.  It demanded scientific evidence from Planned Parenthood.  And because Planned Parenthood did not produce, it lost at the preliminary injunction stage.

What happens next with this case remains to be seen.  The informed consent provisions are not in the clear yet—the preliminary injunction stage is just one hurdle in the battle of constitutionality.  But at least as the lawsuit proceeds, the provisions will be in effect.

For the last several years, the State of Ohio has been in litigation defending its law requiring that physicians prescribing RU-486 abide by the FDA’s protocol when dispensing the drug.  On June 23, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law should be evaluated by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Passed in 2004, the law was aimed at the abortion industry’s common failure to abide by the FDA’s protocol in prescribing the RU-486 drug regimen.  According to the regimen approved by the FDA, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic.  The woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby.  The woman returns for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to monitor bleeding and confirm the abortion.

However, abortionists are commonly misusing RU-486, directing women to take the second dose vaginally and at home—rather than orally and in an office or clinic—and completely bypassing any follow-up appointments.  Misuse of RU-486 has devastating effects.  At least eight women have already died in the United States alone.

Ohio’s law states that abortionists must follow the federal protocol in prescribing and dispensing RU-486.  Planned Parenthood filed suit claiming that it does not understand what is meant by “federal protocol.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of physician members of the United States Congress, arguing that the law is not vague and educating the court on the dangerous effects of RU-486.  That brief can be viewed here. 

At least 14 women have now died—including 8 in the United States—after using the abortion drug RU-486.  A new study by University of Michigan scientists reveals that improper use of the drug regimen—as pushed by Planned Parenthood—is killing women.

When the FDA approved RU-486, it directed that the drug be taken according to a certain regimen.  Specifically, a woman first takes three RU-486 tablets at a doctor’s office or abortion clinic.  This initial ingestion blocks progesterone from getting to the baby, and the baby starves to death.  Under the regimen approved by the FDA, the woman is to return 36 to 48 hours later to take a second drug, misoprostol (a prostaglandin), which causes the woman to expel the baby.  The woman is supposed to return for a third visit three weeks later for an exam to confirm that the baby has been completely expelled, and to monitor bleeding.

However, abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, routinely fail to follow this specific regimen.  Instead of instructing women to take the second dose (misoprostol) orally, they are instructing women to take it vaginally.  And instead of requiring women to take the second dose in a doctor’s office or clinic, they are releasing women to take the drug on their own, at home, without any medical support.  Thus, there is no follow-up care for the woman after the initial visit.

When four women died in one week after a California Planned Parenthood facility provided RU-486 to the women, the scientists began investigating the cause of those deaths.  They found that vaginal use of misoprostol allows bacteria to cause fatal infections.

That specific Planned Parenthood facility has begun instructing women to take the second dose orally, but it still has not revised its policy that allows women to take the second dose at home.

This new study adds to the evidence demonstrating that Planned Parenthood is killing the very women it claims to protect.