Illinois Federation for Right to Life
Monday, May 10, 2004
US Bishop Aquila Warns Catholic Pro-Abortion Politicians They "Risk the Possibility of Hell"
US Bishop Aquila Warns Catholic Pro-Abortion Politicians They "Risk the Possibility of Hell"

(LifeSiteNews www.LifeSiteNews.com) The scandal of U.S. Catholic pro-abortion politicians defying Catholic teaching and receiving Communion despite their grave sin of supporting abortion has caused several bishops to speak out forcefully on the issue. The latest is Fargo Bishop Samuel J. Aquila Bishop of the diocese of Fargo in North Dakota.

In a four-page homily delivered Sunday and posted on the diocesan website, Bishop Aquila said, "In the light of the last few days and all of the media coverage regarding John Kerry's unambiguous support of abortion rights, his personal opposition to abortion, and his insistence on the separation of his Catholic faith from his professional life, I, as a successor of the apostles, cannot remain silent. I, as an apostle, must speak with the apostles and obey God rather than man and present to you the teaching of the Church on the proper relationship between our faith and professional life."

Addressing all Catholics and especially "'pro-choice' Catholics," and "'Catholics for a free choice,'" the bishop said, "Jesus Christ has warned clearly within the Gospel that hell is a reality and that we are free to choose it. Catholics who separate their faith life from their professional and social activities are putting the salvation of their souls in jeopardy. They risk the possibility of hell"

"The grave error that has come about, the grave error that the Father of Lies has planted in the hearts of many is the lie of thinking that we can have one foot with God and one foot with the world. . . . We must always put the law of God above the law of man, especially as it concerns the dignity of the human person and the life of the unborn," said the Bishop.

On the point of reception of Communion, Bishop Aquila said: "In regard to the question of sanctions for Catholics who are 'pro-choice', who say that they are personally opposed to abortion but whose words and actions speak otherwise in their support of abortion rights, I would share with them the words from St. Justin Martyr in today's Office of Readings. This was in 165 A.D. They shared the same problems we do today. 'No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.'"

Read Bishop Aquila's full homily online at:

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 7, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/6
White House Representative To Meet With House Members on Expanded Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
White House Representative To Meet With House Members on Expanded Federal Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

(Kaisernetwork www.kaisernetwork.org) The Bush administration has promised that an administration official this week will meet with members of the House of Representatives who support relaxing President Bush's policy on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the Washington Post reports (Weiss, Washington Post, 5/9).

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research say it could lead to treatments or cures for diseases such as cancer, juvenile diabetes and Alzheimer's, while opponents say the research is immoral because it requires the destruction of human embryos. A bipartisan group of 206 House members at the end of last month sent a letter to Bush asking him to loosen his restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush's policy -- which he announced on Aug. 9, 2001 -- limits federally funded embryonic stem cell research to stem cell lines created on or before that date (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 5/6).

Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Michael Castle (R-Del.) and others in charge of circulating the House letter are scheduled to meet on Capitol Hill with Kristin Lee Silverberg, who serves as special assistant to Bush on stem cells. The meeting is the first face-to-face meeting between legislators and the Bush administration on the issue of stem cell research in more than two years, according to several observers, the Post reports. However, Bush administration spokesperson Trent Duffy said that the meeting does not suggest the administration "is reconsidering its stance" on the issue, the Post reports. Duffy also said that the House members can expect to receive a response to their letter soon, according to the Post.

Bipartisan Pressure

The scheduled meeting comes as "pressure is growing on several fronts to allow federal funding of research on embryos slated for disposal at fertility clinics," the Post reports. "People on both sides of the aisle are realizing that [Bush's] policy is not working," DeGette said. She added that there is a "solid majority" in the House that would legislate a change if the Bush administration does not alter its stem cell policy. In addition, the Senate is currently circulating a letter similar to the House letter, and Nancy Reagan -- wife of former President Reagan, who has Alzheimer's -- on Saturday at a Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation fundraiser for stem cell research publicly spoke in favor of embryonic stem cell research for the first time (Washington Post, 5/9).

Fundraiser Details

Reagan at the fundraiser in Beverly Hills, Calif., made an "impassioned call" for expanding embryonic stem cell research and "lent a powerful conservative Republican voice" to the debate, Reuters reports (Reuters, 5/9).

Reagan said that Alzheimer's has taken her husband "to a distant place where I can no longer reach him," adding, "Because of this I'm determined to do whatever I can to save other families from this pain" (Associated Press, 5/9).

Reagan continued, "Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. ... We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more." Actors Harrison Ford and Calista Flockhart read letters of support written by former Presidents Clinton, Carter and Ford for Reagan's efforts on stem cell research (Reuters, 5/9).

Actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's, said, "For someone like Mrs. Reagan to step outside of political or ideological groupings and just speak to what she believes ... can help people is tremendously valuable" (Washington Post, 5/10).

Also at the fundraiser, JDRF President Peter Van Etten announced that the organization is creating a Stem Cell Development Fund with the goal of raising $20 million for stem cell research (JDRF release, 5/8).

The $500-per-plate event was expected to raise about $2 million, according to the Los Angeles Times (Chavez, Los Angeles Times, 5/9).

Source: Kaisernetwork
Publish Date: May 10, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/5
ACLJ Won't Give Up on “Terri's Law”
ACLJ Won't Give Up on “Terri's Law”

(ACLJ www.aclj.org) Firm is Disappointed with Florida Court Decision Declaring “Terri's Law” Unconstitutional

Clearwater, Fla., May 6, 2004—The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law won’t give up fight to reverse a Florida court decision declaring “Terri’s Law” – legislation that cleared the way for Florida Governor Jeb Bush to restore life-saving measures to Terri Schindler Schiavo – unconstitutional.

The decision was made by Pinellas Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird who twice rejected legal efforts by the ACLJ on behalf of Terri’s parents – Robert and Mary Schindler – to intervene directly into the case to defend the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law.”

“We are extremely disappointed with the decision of the court,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which represents the Schindlers in the state case. “The legislature and Governor acted appropriately and constitutionally in passing and implementing ‘Terri’s Law.’ The decision declaring the law unconstitutional is disappointing but not surprising. It was the same court that repeatedly denied Terri’s parents permission to intervene directly into this case to defend the constitutionality of the law on behalf of their daughter. We applaud the Governor for taking quick action to keep ‘Terri’s Law’ in place through the appeals process. We strongly support the Governor’s position in this case and are now examining all legal avenues to ensure that the interests and concerns of Terri’s parents are represented in this appeals process.”

The ACLJ filed its latest appeal on a motion to intervene on behalf of the Schindlers with the Second District Court of Appeal on April 29th after Judge Baird denied for a second time a motion to intervene. Judge Baird denied the ACLJ’s first motion in November 2003. In March 2004, the appeals court ruled that Judge Baird did not follow judicial rules and said Baird’s order should be reversed and sent the case back to him "for further proceedings." One week later, Judge Baird again denied the second motion to intervene.

The ACLJ is representing the Schindlers in Schiavo v. Bush - the legal challenge to the constitutionality of the actions of the Governor and state legislature. Patricia Fields Anderson, an attorney in St. Petersburg, serves as ACLJ local counsel in Schiavo v. Bush and represents Terri's parents in all other aspects of the Schiavo case.

The American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and the protection of human life. Based in Washington, D.C., the ACLJ web site address is www.aclj.org.

Source: The American Center for Law and Justice
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/4

Related News: Judicial Activism vs. Terri Schiavo

(FRC www.family.org) In the latest chapter in the fight over the life of Terri Schiavo, a circuit court judge has struck down a law approved by the Florida Legislature last year allowing Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) to have doctors reinsert a feeding tube that provides Terri with food and water. But in yet another example of judicial activism, Judge Douglas Baird yesterday ruled the law unconstitutional. The Florida courts are tormenting Terri Schiavo and her family with the cruel and unusual punishment of imposing a death sentence on her through starvation.

What is not reported is that Terri's estranged husband is aggressively pushing to have the state withdraw food and water from Terri so he can collect an inheritance and carry on with another relationship without the shadow of Terri haunting his conscience.. And, he does this even though Terri's parents have repeatedly said they will care for her and want nothing more than to do just that. FRC's former president, Ken Connor, is representing Gov. Bush in this case and has pledged to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
FDA Official Rejected OTC Status for EC Plan B Against Advice of Own Staff, Says Decision Not Based on Politics
FDA Official Rejected OTC Status for EC Plan B Against Advice of Own Staff, Says Decision Not Based on Politics

(Kaisernetwork www.kaisernetwork.org) Steven Galson, acting director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, on Friday during a teleconference said he made the decision to reject Barr Laboratories' application for over-the-counter status for its emergency contraceptive Plan B based on the data provided and against the recommendations of two advisory panels and his own staff, the Washington Post reports (Kaufman, Washington Post, 5/8).

A joint meeting of two FDA advisory panels in December 2003 voted 23-4 to recommend that Plan B -- which can significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse -- be sold without a prescription. However, FDA on Thursday issued a "not approvable" letter to Barr, citing inadequate data on Plan B use among girls under age 16. The letter was unusual in that it was signed only by Galson and not by members of the FDA review team, as is routine (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 5/7).

Galson said that after consulting with his staff and the FDA commissioner's office, he determined that the agency did not have enough scientific data to determine whether broader access to EC would increase the rates of sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent girls. Galson said, "From (ages) 11 to 14, where we know there are substantial amounts of sexual activity, there were no data in the application, and that really concerned me" (Kemper, Los Angeles Times, 5/8).

He added, "The worst-case scenario is that you've got a young couple and they would normally use a condom when they were having intercourse, but since they know they can run to the CVS to get Plan B, are they going to worry about that?" (Harris, New York Times, 5/8).

Political Connection?

Although Galson's concerns about making EC available without a doctor's prescription "echoed" concerns raised by some members of Congress in a letter to President Bush, Galson said that Bush administration officials did not influence his decision to reject Barr's application, the Los Angeles Times reports (Los Angeles Times, 5/8).

Forty-nine House Republicans in January sent a letter to Bush urging him to order FDA to reject Barr's application, saying that the FDA advisory panels only considered information on Plan B's safety and effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and did not consider the "significant impact" that wider EC availability will have on the "sexual health of adolescents and young people." The House members wrote that making Plan B available without a prescription could lead to more risky sexual behavior among adolescents and could result in an increased incidence of STDs. They concluded that easier access to EC "may ultimately result in significant increases in cancer, infertility and HIV/AIDS" (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 1/14).

However, Galson said he made the decision himself and was not aware of any meetings the Bush administration held to discuss the issue, according to the Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles Times, 5/8). Galson said his decision "had to do with looking at all the data and reading all the transcripts" (Washington Post, 5/8).

A Bush administration spokesperson confirmed that FDA scientists alone made the decision to reject Barr's application, Reuters reports (Richwine, Reuters, 5/7).

Unusual Move

FDA observers said that it is "extremely uncommon if not unprecedented" for an agency to overrule its staff and advisory panels, the Post reports (Washington Post, 5/8).

Dr. Robert Fenichel, who worked for FDA for 12 years and left the agency in 2000, said that it is "simply unheard of" for the director of the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to issue a "not approvable" letter. Most such letters are issued at a "much lower level" than that of the director, according to the New York Times. Galson said he knew of just one instance in the past 10 years in which the director overruled the conclusions of the center's staff. He said, "This isn't common, but it's not unheard of" (New York Times, 5/8).

FDA follows the advice of its advisory panels about 90% of the time, according to the Boston Globe (Dembner, Boston Globe, 5/8).

Advisory Panel Members' Reaction

Some members of the advisory panels said they have considered resigning following the rejection of Barr's application, USA Today reports. Michael Greene, a Harvard OB/GYN who is a member of the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, said, "E-mails suggesting mass resignations are already flying around among people who were on this committee." He added, "People are just hopping mad. The decision is blatantly contrary to the science and the facts and so blatantly politicized." Frank Davidoff, editor emeritus of the Annals of Internal Medicine who is a member of the Non-Prescription Drugs Advisory Committee, said he has considered resigning but likely will not do so. "There's always an issue: Can you do more good by hanging in there?" he asked (Rubin, USA Today, 5/10).

Other Reaction

A bipartisan group of 37 members of Congress who support abortion rights on Friday wrote a letter to FDA protesting its decision to reject OTC status for Plan B, the Post reports (Washington Post, 5/8).

In addition, women's rights advocates and reproductive health groups on Friday continued to denounce the agency decision. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists President Vivian Dickerson called the decision "morally repugnant" (Los Angeles Times, 5/8).

She added that it "is a tragedy for American women and a dark stain on the reputation of an evidence-based agency" (Reuters, 5/7).

Members of the Wish List, a fundraising group supporting Republican female candidates for Congress who support abortion rights, said that the decision represents a "lost opportunity to narrow the divide over the abortion issue," according to the Post. Wish List Chair Karen Judd Lewis said, "This is a bridge issue; one in which reasonable people on both sides, those who support abortion rights as well as those who oppose, can find common ground because Plan B can reduce the number of abortions in this country" (Washington Post, 5/8).

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposes EC because of concerns that it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus, supported the decision. Cathy Cleaver Ruse, planning director of the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, said, "A drug which can destroy human embryos and increases health risks to women and girls does not belong on the drugstore shelf" (Los Angeles Times, 5/8).

Next Steps

Galson said that FDA would "quickly" review any new proposals submitted by Barr, Reuters reports. "We're not shutting the door" on OTC EC, Galson said, adding, "Wide availability of safe and effective contraceptives is important to public health" (Reuters, 5/7).

In its letter to Barr, FDA said that the drug maker could submit an alternative proposal to market Plan B over the counter to women over 16 and require a doctor's prescription for younger girls to access the drug. In that case, Barr would be required to show how the age restriction would work. Although Barr CEO Bruce Downey on Thursday said that the company was disappointed by FDA's decision, he added that Barr plans to do whatever is necessary to make Plan B available without a doctor's prescription. In addition, Barr spokesperson Carol Cox said that the company will pursue the age restriction option and provide FDA with additional information about the drug's safety for girls under age 16 (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 5/7).

Source: Kaisernetwork
Publish Date: May 10, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/3

Republican National Coalition for Life Chairman Phyllis Schlafly Responds to Cardinal George's "GOP never had a soul" Comments
Republican National Coalition for Life Chairman Phyllis Schlafly Responds to Cardinal George's "GOP never had a soul" Comments

(RNC www.rnclife.org) The Chicago Sun Times (4/8/04) reported that Cardinal Francis George, in an appearance before the City Club of Chicago, addressed the subject of abortion politics. During his remarks, he said, "One could say, as I have, that the Democratic Party has lost its soul. . . One could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul."

Below is Mrs. Schlafly's response to those comments.

To His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Archbishop of Chicago, 155 East Superior Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611

Your Eminence,

Press reports of your appearance at the April 7, 2004 City Club of Chicago luncheon where, in commenting on abortion politics, you said: "One could say, as I have, that the Democratic Party has lost its soul. . . . One could also argue that the Republican Party never had a soul," have caused considerable consternation among Catholic pro-lifers who have worked for the past 34 years to promote pro-life public policy and to create, protect and defend the pro-life platform plank in the Republican National Platform and also in state Republican platforms throughout the nation.

Having organized hundreds of thousands of pro-life Republicans into a force sufficient to repel attacks on our principled pro-life plank by the abortion industry and its allies in the media, I can assure you that every single one of our people has a heart and soul full of unselfish commitment to the cause of life. While some wealthy and prominent individuals and groups in our Party are anti-life, the big majority of grassroots Republicans and Republican public officials are pro-life. We work hard to hold all Republican officials accountable to the Republican Party’s pro-life principles, and we rejoice that every Republican Platform since Roe vs. Wade has taken a strong pro-life stand.

Page 26 of the 2000 Republican National Platform called "Renewing America’s Purpose Together" says, in part, "We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

This is official Republican Party policy. It is in striking contrast to the Democratic Party’s Platform which states that abortion should be legal at any time, for any reason, performed by any one, paid for by the taxpayers. In compliance with this policy, the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate has resorted to extraordinary procedures to prevent the confirmation of any federal judge who might be suspected of being critical of Roe v. Wade.

On the issue of abortion, there is no moral equivalency between the official positions of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party adopted in national conventions.

Our work is not easy, especially because of the hundreds of so-called Catholic politicians who support pro-abortion public policies and laws and do so with impunity, without criticism from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, with a few notable exceptions. But we remain steadfast in our pursuit of justice for the unborn, and we work persistently as best we can through the Republican Party which, after all, proved it had a soul when it was founded a century and a half ago on the principle that no human being should be considered the property of another.

Despite the "belly laughs and applause" of many Democrats attending the City Club luncheon, your comment was hurtful to the thousands of pro-life Republican volunteers, all with a soul, who read about them in the April 8, 2004 edition of the Chicago Sun Times and then through numerous e-mails and faxes.

We are currently preparing for the 2004 Republican National Convention Platform hearings in New York where every pro-abortion advocate both inside and outside of the Republican Party is expected to demonstrate and promote their agenda. Perhaps you and others among your fellow bishops would like to learn more about the history of the pro-life movement within the Republican Party. I enclose a copy of the RNC/Life brochure, "The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party," for your review.

Respectfully, Phyllis Schlafly, National Chairman, Republican National Coalition for Life,

By: Phyllis Schlafly
Source: Republican National Coalition for Life
Publish Date: May 7, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/2
Woman Dies as a Result of In Vitro Fertilization Treatment
Woman Dies as a Result of In Vitro Fertilization Treatment

(LifeSiteNews www.LifeSiteNews.com) A woman has died from complications arising from her in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

Jacqueline Rushton, a 32 year-old Dublin woman, died in January as the result of Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome arising as a complication of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS), which arose during IVF treatment at the HARI (Human Assisted Reproduction Ireland) unit of Dublin's Rotunda Hospital in December. Following an inquest, Rushton's death was ruled "medical misadventure" early this week.

Rushton isn't the first casualty of IVF -- the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported a death from intra-cranial hemorrhage (a type of stroke) in a woman following IVF-induced OHSS, in 1996. A Medline search revealed that a death also occurred in New Zealand in 1995 resulting from an OHSS-triggered blood clot to the brain. Two cases of non-fatal stroke were also reported, with both women left with paralysis, following IVF treatment. Two heart attacks are reported in the literature, as were 20 cases of thrombosis (a life-threatening blood clot) of the internal jugular vein in the Medline search results. The formation of blood clots is a major cause of strokes and heart attacks. One such blood clot resulted in the necessary amputation of a woman's forearm.

The Medline search also revealed that IVF results in a higher rate of miscarriage than regular pregnancies, at eight percent of established pregnancies, and that "ectopic pregnancies are regular occurrences." Risk of premature births are also much greater, especially for multiple babies.

Fifteen case reports of ascites, a dangerous retention of fluid within the abdomen, were reported. In most cases, several liters of fluid had to be drained surgically. Fluid retention was also reportedly the reason why one woman went into shock, a second developed pleurisy, an acute inflammation of the lung, and three others had potentially fatal hydrothorax, or water on the lung.

Two cases of liver failure resulting from IVF treatments were detailed. Adult respiratory distress syndrome was also reported.

A study from France revealed a significantly increased trend for women undergoing IVF to require hospitalization for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

An Israeli study warned that IVF caused "Increased rates of perinatal mortality [death of baby] and morbidity result from prematurity, and higher rates of maternal diseases in pregnancy (preeclampsia, diabetes mellitus, bleeding, anemia) contribute to fetal intra-uterine growth restriction and maternal morbidity [death of mother]."

Read local coverage, at:

Also read the CDC report of the IVF death at:

To perform a Medline search, go to:

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 7, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040510/1
Friday, May 07, 2004
Italian Physician Claims Three Babies He Cloned are now Born
Italian Physician Claims Three Babies He Cloned are now Born

(LifeSiteNews.com) Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori claims three babies he cloned have been born. Antinori said the cloned babies are the product of an experiment that they were allowed to live until term.

Antinori, who gained notoriety as an in-vitro fertilization specialist for impregnating a 65-year-old, announced in 2002 that three women had been impregnated with cloned embryos. Experts dismissed Antinori's claims, insisting that the technology was not yet available to pull off a successful human clone.

Antinori has always distanced himself from his own announcements -- refusing to explain his role in the experiments or to reveal the nationality or whereabouts of the alleged mother(s), and saying other unnamed doctors would be delivering the clones in an unknown jurisdiction. Antonini has been called to task for failing to produce any evidence of his claims for peer review.

The rogue fertility specialist maintains he acted only as an "advisor" in this case. "I confirm the facts. I have had information that it happened and I am repeating it," he said at a press conference in Rome.

Read the Yahoo news account: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&u=/nm/20040505/hl_nm/science_clone_antinori_dc_1&printer=1

Also see the Interim article "Don't Send in the Clones," which describes the disastrous health consequences for cloned animals, at: http://www.theinterim.com/2002/july/16dontsend.html

Source: (LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/6
Shocking Forced Abortion Case at the U.S. Supreme Court
Shocking Forced Abortion Case at the U.S. Supreme Court

(LifeSiteNews.com) The United States Supreme Court has docketed the case Jane Roe II vs. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc. as Case No. 03-1447. In this case Jane Roe II, alleges that an abortionist at Aware Woman violated the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law when he had her restrained during an unsuccessful abortion, even though she loudly and repeatedly demanded that he stop the procedure and let her leave.

According to reports, the woman was pinned down for an abortion at the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida while she screamed 'Stop!, Stop!, Stop!'. The abortionist did finally stop once the baby was dead and he had perforated her uterus and pulled part of her intestines out.

Jean Sapp, director of the Counselor Corps, an organization which trains reproductive health service providers said, "Forced abortions as well as non-consensual abortions of all kinds, are being done non-stop across America. These atrocities against mothers are our country's blackest unspoken secret."

The United States District Court in Orlando ruled against the victim. She appealed to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta. The judges there held that the abortionist should be exonerated because he claimed to be helping the mother and acting in her best interest.

Her appeal to the Supreme Court was filed by prominent attorney, Michael Hirsh of Atlanta, Georgia.

"Please pray," asks Mrs. Sapp, "for God to provide the wisdom and courage needed by the Supreme Court and also that they use this God-given wisdom and courage to protect all mothers from unwanted abortions."

One concession granted by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was the reference to Jane Roe II, an abortion patient, as a "mother" in their written opinion.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/5
Fla. judge rules that 'Terri Schiavo Law' is unconstitutional; gov. says he will appeal
Fla. judge rules that 'Terri Schiavo Law' is unconstitutional; gov. says he will appeal

(BP www.bpnews.net)--A Florida judge struck down “Terri’s Law” May 5, ruling the measure violated the state’s constitution by allowing Gov. Jeb Bush to order the nutrition and hydration tube of a disabled woman to be reinserted.

Pinellas County Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird made the ruling the day before Bush’s attorneys initially were scheduled to depose their first witness. Bush’s office said he would appeal.

Terri Schiavo, 40, is the Clearwater, Fla., woman at the center of a legal battle over the so-called “right-to-die.” Some doctors say she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and will never improve or recover from a brain injury she received in 1990 after collapsing under unusual circumstances at home.

Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, has long advocated the removal of her feeding tube, a move with which her parents, devout Catholics Mary and Bob Schindler, disagree.

In October, the case received international attention after the Florida legislature empowered Bush to issue an executive order, dubbed "Terri’s Law," which provided for the reinsertion of her feeding tube. It was predicted she would die of starvation and dehydration within 7-10 days if her only source of nutrition and hydration was not re-established. Michael Schiavo filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bush’s actions.

In his May 5 ruling Baird asserted the law violates the Florida constitution on two primary grounds: it hinders Schiavo’s right to privacy and it infringes upon the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers.

The Florida constitution, Baird argued, provides a greater right to privacy than does the U.S. Constitution.

“The Act, in every instance, ignores the existence of this right and authorizes the Governor to act according to his personal discretion,” he wrote. “By substituting the personal judgment of the Governor for that of the patient, the Act deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decisions.”

The state’s interest “in preserving life,” Baird wrote, does not override “an individual’s personal choice regarding his or her own medical treatment decisions.”

“Moreover, the state’s interest in preserving life is strengthened or weakened based upon whether the person’s affliction is curable or incurable,” he wrote.

In addition, Baird said the law violates the separation of powers by infringing upon the right of the court to decide cases.

“Thus among other things, under the separation-of-powers doctrine, a final judgment of a court cannot be undone by legislation as to the parties before the court,” he wrote. “Any legislation that hampers judicial action or interferes with the discharge of judicial functions is unconstitutional.”

Kenneth L. Connor, the governor’s attorney, who immediately filed a notice of appeal, told the Florida Baptist Witness that the governor and his attorneys were “not surprised” by Baird’s ruling.

“Judge Baird had made a public pronouncement before the case was filed that the law was unconstitutional,” Connor said. “He telegraphed his views of the statute before the governor even was permitted to plead.”

Connor said the courts don’t have an “exclusive monopoly” when it comes to protecting people like Terri Schiavo, and the legislature’s and governor’s actions were necessary after Michael Schiavo, “a man with a clear conflict of interest,” was granted his wish to pull her feeding tube from her.

Connor cited Michael Schiavo’s involvement with another woman with whom he fathered two children, his apparent financial gain from a civil case stemming from medical malpractice in relation to Terri’s condition and his continual insistence that she not be given antibiotics for illnesses. Connor said the governor was interested in affording Terri Schiavo with another “layer of protection.”

“The circuit court didn’t even afford her the benefit of a guardian ad litem,” Conner said. “We think the judge is dead wrong in his assessment that the state doesn’t have a compelling interest that outweighs the encroachment on the so-called privacy right. We couldn’t disagree more.”

Connor said the action of Baird in relation to Terri Schiavo might have implications about how the legal system functions.

“The courts are quick to slap down the other branches of government any time that they are perceived to be encroaching on the judiciary’s authority,” Connor said. “But the other two branches of government frequently are slow to exercise their checks and balances as it relates to the judicial branch.

“The judicial activism that we have seen has been breathtaking. The governor has rightly thought to exert himself as the chief executive of the state.”

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, told The New York Times: "It's a very strong affirmation of the privacy rights of the people of Florida and an equally strong rebuke to politicians who interfere with decisions that should be left to each of us."

Michael Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, told Reuters that he will not attempt to have the feeding tube removed until the governor's appeals are exhausted.

"The last thing any of us wanted to see is Terri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed, put back in, being removed, etc., as has been done before, which is really an affront to her dignity," Felos said at a news conference, according to Reuters.

An attorney for the Schindlers, Pat Anderson, said she is not surprised at the judge’s decision, given the roller coaster of rulings she’s experienced thus far in the case.

“The saga continues,” she told the Florida Baptist Witness. “I make no predictions about what will happen now.”

Anderson filed her most recent motion challenging Michael Schiavo’s fitness as Terri’s guardian April 26 in the same court where Baird presides. Her latest complaint includes information about the Schindlers having been barred from visiting their daughter since March 29, after they were involved in an ongoing investigation about unfounded allegations against them involving Terri’s physical condition.

Since that time, Anderson said Terri Schiavo has been kept in “isolation” and has been prevented from receiving communion on Easter and has not been allowed to see her priest.

Referring to a recent statement issued by Pope John Paul II saying that it is “morally obligatory” to continue artificial nutrition and hydration for people in a persistent vegetative state, Anderson said she is mulling over the implications of that statement for Terri Schiavo.

“The Pope did everything but put her name on that speech,” Anderson said. “If we have the legal fiction that Terri would want to die, let’s also consider the proposition that Terri, as a practicing Catholic, would not want to sin in the eyes of the church. I don’t think we can quickly assume that she would go against the Pope’s statement on this.”

Terri Schiavo’s father agreed.

“We totally respect the Pope’s opinions,” Bob Schindler told the Florida Baptist Witness. “Although we don’t need the Pope to tell us that we have to respect life, we listen to what the Pope says.

“This is very important for Terri as a practicing Catholic. With the priest barred from her room and not able to offer her religious counsel and support, she’s 100 percent isolated.”

Schindler said he and his wife have only one thing they can do at this point.

“Really, we are back on our knees again and haven’t been off them,” Schindler said. “These Pinellas County judges have displayed an utterly cavalier attitude and complete disregard for the law. They are aiding and abetting Michael Schiavo to commit homicide.”

Connor said the implications of the case are far-reaching.

“There is a tremendous amount at stake in this case,” Connor said. “Are we going to be able to dispose of the weak and the frail and vulnerable because they are inconvenient and their quality of life is diminished?

“Are we going to be sure that we can provide adequate safeguards for their protection? This case not only is about the sanctity of human life but about the role of various branches of government in protecting the right to life.”

By: Joni B. Hannigan
Source: Baptist Press News
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/4
FRC Praises FDA Decision to Keep Morning-After Pill from Going Over-the-Counter
FRC Praises FDA Decision to Keep Morning-After Pill from Going Over-the-Counter

(FRC www.family.org) Citing a concern that young teenagers may not safely use the morning after pill without a doctor's guidance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late today officially rejected a plan to make the pill available over-the-counter in America's pharmacies. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement in response to the FDA's decision:

"FRC applauds the FDA for putting the safety of American women and girls above the wishes of the pro-abortion lobby and we encourage them to hold their ground.

"Women taking the birth control pill consult with their doctors once a year for medical check-ups. The morning-after pill is 50 times stronger, and yet over-the-counter access would have allowed women and girls to take this dangerous drug without any medical oversight.

"It is worth noting that the self-described 'protectors of women's health', the pro-abortion lobby, repeatedly calls for such decisions to be made between 'women and their doctors.' But in this case, they were asking for these decisions to be made between young girls and a pharmacy counter, with no accountability or safeguards in place. We are glad the FDA saw it differently."

View this Press Release online at:

Source: Family Research Council
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/3
Higher Death Rate of Abortion Discussed in New England Journal of Medicine
Higher Death Rate of Abortion Discussed in New England Journal of Medicine

(Elliot Institute www.afterabortion.info) More physicians are now aware of the new studies proving that death rates associated with abortion are far higher than death rates associated with childbirth, thanks to a letter from the Elliot Institute's director, Dr. David Reardon, that was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The letter was published as one of three critical responses to an article the journal had previously published regarding partial birth abortions.

The original commentary claimed that partial birth abortions would pose fewer health risks to the woman than childbirth, particularly if a woman faced concurrent health problems. In such cases, doctors should be free to recommend the abortion to protect the woman's health, the authors argued. In making their claims, the authors used dissimilar studies regarding death rates from abortion and childbirth to assert that abortion is associated with a lower mortality rate.

Reardon's response documented the newest record-based research proving that the risk of death associated with abortion is actually higher than that associated with childbirth, miscarriage, or not being pregnant. These are the only studies to examine pregnancy-associated mortality related to abortion and childbirth using a common standard and methodology. He also documented that women face higher risk of psychiatric illness following an abortion and noted the lack of any evidence that couples who abort a baby due to fetal anomalies experience any psychological benefit. He concluded his remarks with the observation that proponents of abortion have failed to document any benefits of abortion that outweigh the known risks, either in general or specifically for those women who face a concurrent illness.

Citing: Reardon DC, Hoeldtke NJ, Marchetti P, Greene MF, Ecker JL. "Abortion, Health, and the Law," N Engl J Med 2004; 350:1908-1910, Apr 29, 2004. Correspondence

Source: Elliot Institute News Vol 3, No 5
Publish Date: May 6, 200
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/2
Talking Points on The Morning-After Pill (MAP)
Talking Points on The Morning-After Pill (MAP)

(CWFA www.cwfa.org) Why the Morning-After Pill should not be available without a prescription


The morning-after pill (MAP) lacks testing for safety to women. Access to the drug over-the-counter, or without a prescription, would prompt use among consumers who, unknowingly, have medical conditions that put them at high risk of life-threatening complications. It could be slipped to women without their knowledge, and statutory rapists would rely on it to cover up their abuse of adolescents. In areas that allow easy access, the sexually transmitted disease rates have skyrocketed. The drug owner encourages multiple sex partners (putting women at risk of sexually transmitted diseases, or STDs), and endorses frequent use of the drug, though it has not conducted studies on multiple use. Morning-after pill promoters have been found guilty of overstating the efficacy of the drug and understating the risks to women.

(Documentation is available at http://www.cwfa.org/hot-topics.asp)

Potential Risks to Women

Over-the-counter access would extend the availability of the MAP to a broader population than any study has included — females who have not been counseled or screened for contraindications.

Easy access allows someone other than the consumer to buy it and then slip it to a woman without her knowledge or consent. Unlike other drugs like aspirin, there is more potential for abuse by someone who, contrary to or unaware of the woman’s wishes, does not want her pregnant. Drugs less easy to administer have been used against women:

In one example, Gary Bourgeois’ girlfriend refused to have an abortion. During sexual relations, he inserted misoprostol, used in the RU-486 abortion regimen. Later she experienced violent cramps then felt a partly dissolved pill drop from her vagina. Her baby died. He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and administering a noxious substance in Canada in September, 2003.

In another incident, Dr. Stephen Pack pleaded guilty to injecting Joy Schepis with an abortion-inducing drug in April 2000. The Bronx, New York, doctor jabbed his former lover with a syringe filled with methotrexate, which causes abortions, because she refused to have one.

It will be difficult for doctors to treat complications when the woman’s medical history is unknown or hidden.

The morning-after pill is a high dose of the birth control pill, which requires a medical exam, a prescription, and physician oversight. Birth control pills can cause significant or life-threatening conditions such as blood clots, stroke and heart attacks. Birth control pills are contraindicated for women with diabetes, liver problems, heart disease, breast cancer, deep vein thrombosis, and for women who smoke and are over 35. Physician oversight is necessary to ensure that none of these contraindications exists. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 1.85 million women of reproductive age (18 – 44) have diabetes; approximately 500,000 do not know that they have the disease.

The World Health Organization has warned: “There may be a higher percentage of ectopic pregnancies among emergency contraceptive pill failure cases than among a normal pregnant population.”

Nurses at the Royal College of Nursing warned that pharmacists in the United Kingdom (where the drug is available behind the counter) were failing to warn customers of possible complications or carry out routine medical assessments.

Lack or Absence of Scientific Studies on The long-term effects

The high dosage. A drug’s safety at one dose or range of doses does not mean that the drug is equally safe at a much higher dose. Yet proponents stake their arguments on decades of use of the birth control pill, a lower dose – which is not available over-the-counter.

Repeated usage. In the United Kingdom, one in seven of all women used the morning-after pill repeatedly in the same year.

Females not screened for medical contraindications.


The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the morning-after pill with a prescription was not based on controlled scientific studies, but on unscientific, anecdotal evidence. All studies (including those cited in the over-the-counter approval application of Plan B, a brand of the MAP) focus on the drug’s relative reliability in decreasing the expected birth rate, not on the effect on the women who have taken the drug regimen.

Reasons Not to Trust Morning-After Pill Proponents

The FDA found Plan B’s promoters guilty of false advertising, for overstating efficacy (claiming greater effectiveness in prohibiting pregnancies than the evidence shows) and understating the medical risks to women. The FDA stated the “ads raise significant public health and safety concerns.” Yet proponents continue to make similar claims.

Plan B’s promoters make the contradictory claim that the MAP inhibits implantation but does not end a pregnancy. Nearly half of Americans (46 percent) believe life begins at fertilization. Knowledge that the MAP can terminate a pregnancy could affect a woman’s decision to use it; withholding such information violates the principle of informed consent.

Promoters have relied on junk science to claim it does not affect sexual behaviors. At least one study (from the University of Pittsburgh) included only teenagers already engaged in risky sexual activity, and then concluded that easy access to MAP did not change their behavior.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that low-dose oral contraceptives be available only with a prescription from a licensed health-care provider. Yet it is recommending that Plan B and other higher-dose hormone regimens be available over-the-counter.

ACOG did not poll its members. Its recommendation is not representative of its members. MAP proponents had complained that doctors have not been willing to hand out the drug to anyone (apparently a driving reason for them to seek over-the-counter status – to bypass medical intervention intended to protect women).

MAP promoters demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern for women’s health:

Plan B’s Web site responds to the question, “How often can Plan B be provided,” by stating, “Plan B can be provided as frequently as needed.”

The Web site acknowledges the need for intervention and oversight. “Providers can help a client determine whether Plan B treatment makes sense given the timing of unprotected intercourse and her level of concern about an unwanted pregnancy.” However, over-the-counter access would eliminate “providers,” thereby eliminating the opportunity for counsel, caution, and the screening out of women with contraindications.

The Web site encourages unnecessary use of the MAP for women already taking oral contraceptives — even though women are only fertile within days of ovulation: “Women taking oral contraception do not have true menstrual cycles and are at risk of pregnancy. … [E]mergency contraception may be indicated.”

Advertisements for Plan B include:

One ad portraying 13 young men with the caption, “So many men. So many reasons to have back up contraception.”

Another pictures a fraternity, with the words, “Delta Delta Thi. 27 upstanding young men. 34 billion sneaky little sperm.”

Another is designed like a poster for adolescents, describing “Damian” as “A Renaissance Guy, a Deep Thinker, an Ancient Soul, a Walking Sperm Factory.”

Potential Effect on Public Health

Regions that allow easy access to the MAP experience a significant increase in sexually transmitted diseases. In the United Kingdom, chlamydia cases rose from 7,000 in 1999 to 10,000 cases last year. Gonorrhea cases climbed nearly 50 percent, to nearly 3,000 cases last year, up from 2,000 in 1999. The highest increases were among 16-19 year olds.

Contrary to proponents’ claims, the number of surgical abortions has not declined with easy access to MAP. In some areas, the number of abortions increased.

In a UK study of users of MAP, four out of the 12 women interviewed said their choice to have unprotected sexual intercourse was influenced by the knowledge that they could obtain the pill from a pharmacy.

In response to concern that providing the morning-after pill through pharmacists would lead to more unprotected sex, a user of the pill disclosed: “To be honest, in a way, that is what happened to me. I did previously know that X chemist was just over the road and I think, I think if I hadn’t have known … if I hadn’t have known I could have got it so easily, I would have been more careful, to be honest.”

Risk to Adolescents

Many teenagers would be less confident in resisting sexual pressure, particularly if easy access to the pill is in the aggressor’s arsenal of coercion. It will increase the likelihood of sexual abuse of girls, and that sexual perpetrators will prolong their rapes undetected.

Adolescents are unlikely to recognize if they have medical contraindications, less likely to follow directions for administration or to fully understand a medication label. They are less prone to seek medical help if they suffer symptoms of complications after secretly taking the MAP, and would not be aware that it lacks adequate testing.

Rather than reducing the core problem of young people engaging in sexual activity (which carries life-long consequences), it encourages sexual activity. An official survey revealed that MAP use among teenage girls in the United Kingdom more than doubled since it became available in pharmacies, increasing from one in 12 teen-agers to one in five. Among them were girls as young as 12. A girl who said she was 10 years old told the pharmacist “she had already used it four times.”

Even morning-after pill proponents agree that sexually active girls are likely victims of sexual abuse, and interaction with medical professionals is an important defense.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reported: “The younger women are when they first have intercourse the more likely they are to have had unwanted or nonvoluntary first sex, seven in 10 of those who had sex before age 13, for example.”

“The possibility of sexual abuse should be considered routinely in every adolescent female patient who has initiated sexual activity,” stated Dr. Joycelyn Elders in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The rush to choose “pregnancy outcome options” may preempt efforts to rule out sexual abuse. “Sexual abuse is a common antecedent of adolescent pregnancy, with up to 66% of pregnant teens reporting histories of abuse…. Pregnancy may also be a sign of ongoing sexual abuse…. Boyer and Fine found that of 535 young women who were pregnant, 44% had been raped, of whom 11% became pregnant as a result of the rape. One half of these young women with rape histories were raped more than once.”

Tool for Abusers

The Bangkok Post reported disturbing consequences of easy availability of the morning-after pill for the past 15 years, including:

Random studies showed that men are the most frequent buyers. “They buy the pills for their girlfriends or wives so that they don’t have to wear condoms and feel they’re at no risk of becoming a father afterwards. Some women I’ve spoken to said that they didn’t even know what they were taking; that the guy just said it was a health supplement,” said Nattaya Boonpakdee, program assistant at the Population Council (an agency dedicated to promoting and developing contraception and abortion methods).

“Although many feminists believe that the morning-after pill gives them more control over their own bodies, it would seem, judging from the few studies conducted so far, that it is actually being used by men to exploit women.”

FDA Advisory Committee

The FDA Advisory Committee chairman declared the label comprehension study a “failure” – a full one-third of the women did not understand that the morning-after pill is not to be used as a regular form of birth control.

The committee was presented limited or incomplete information.

Some committee members displayed a disturbing lack of interest in the potential abuse of women, and of practical reality. These members advocated that the morning-after pill should be placed in stores outside the line of vision of pharmacists, so customers would not be embarrassed about obtaining it. The committee members did not say how they expect customers to pay for it without anyone seeing.

The FDA has rejected advisory committee recommendations in the past, most recently regarding silicone breast implants. It is only one of the FDA’s multiple levels for evaluation

By: Wendy Wright
Source: Concerned Women by America
Publish Date: May 6, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040507/1
Friday, April 30, 2004
Pro-Family Lobby Wins at U.N.
Pro-Family Lobby Wins at U.N.

(FNIF - www.family.org/cforum/fnif) A United Nations committee refuses to declare homosexuality and abortion international human rights.

Family advocates are celebrating a major victory from a recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights: the defeat of a resolution declaring homosexuality and abortion international human rights.

Several nations lobbied for classifying "alternate lifestyles" and abortion as protected rights, but in the end morality prevailed.

"The overall impression was that the immoral agenda of the deviants was not a good thing for humanity and for human beings generally," said Dr. Farooq Hassan, a U.N. diplomat and former member of the commission. "I think President Bush's personal intervention in this matter has been a great help, and there's no doubt that the weight the Untied States has put behind this entire agenda (helped)."

The victory is important, Focus on the Family United Nations representative Thomas Jacobson said, because the commission's decisions carry a lot of weight.

"If sexual orientation became an international human right," he explained, "then there would be pressure applied through the U.N. upon nations to remove their laws prohibiting sodomy."

In fact, it's already happening in the United States.

"Even the Supreme Court . . . based the decision in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down a Texas sodomy statute) on a European Human Rights court decision that was a bad decision," Jacobson said.

Both sides in the debate, he added, are preparing to renew the battle over the status of homosexuality and abortion at next year's Commission on Human Rights meeting.

By: Steve Jordahl
Source: Family News in Focus
Publish Date: April 29, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/6
Sounds of Silence
Sounds of Silence

Pro-lifers in peaceful protest.

(FRC www.family.org) To get people to attend this past Sunday's "pro-choice" march, the organizers had to rename the march...twice. First, it was the Choice March. Then it became the Freedom of Choice March. In a final effort, they came up with the winning "March for Women's Lives." While it isn't accurate or honest, it was certainly effective. Still, they needed more people. Not enough people would march for abortion alone; so supporters issued a widespread invitation that encompassed anyone with an anti-Bush gripe or who simply doesn't like pro-lifers.

Say what you may about pro-life organizations, they never offer their opponents as moving targets to satisfy the fetishes of so-called supporters.

After more than 30 years of legalized abortion, pro-choicers can now only gather the public support they need to keep the abortion question alive by confusing the issue. Their message is as mixed up as it was 30 years ago — perhaps even more so. They can offer no convincing argument because women themselves, while willing to identify themselves as pro-choice, believe that most abortions should not be legal. Many of these women believe there's more to women's health than the abortion issue. But while they may be more interested in HIV/AIDS, healthcare, jobs, or even the election, they allowed themselves to be duped into marching for abortion on Sunday.

Other marchers came apparently because the World Bank protests were over and they had nowhere left to go. Or they were angry. Or (and?) they don't like President Bush. At the March, Erica Quest, a pro-lifer from Virginia, noticed, "There was no unified message. [It was] everything from 'We hate Bush' to lesbian rights. Everything crass and violent. Nothing feminine. Nothing dignified. You're just taken back by the anger. I was almost embarrassed to be a woman."

Bevlin Lyons, also a pro-lifer from Virginia, attended the march with her husband, Joe, and their infant son, Sebastian. Holding her son and a pro-life sign she witnessed what she calls "the sadness of it all. They're angry about something. There was no sign of joy at anything."

But wait — pro-choice marchers should be excited about their "choices," and the fact that any pregnant woman can get an abortion at any time for any reason in the United States.

While gay activists have become more and more public about their beliefs, scarcely any women come out with pride — no pun intended — when it comes to talking about their abortions. If the Alan Guttmacher Institute is right in its estimate that about 40 percent of American women have had an abortion, that's a lot of women who have kept quiet. Some of them may have been at the march on Sunday. They'll talk about "choice" in general, then, but not about any particular "choice" they may have made.

The abortion agenda has only been able to offer women freedom from — from a difficult situation, from an annoyance, from the responsibility of a child. Yet, this type of freedom doesn't appear to be a major issue for most women.

Last year, the pro-choice Center for Advancement of Women issued what they titled a "groundbreaking survey of over 3,300 American women." The survey participants identified 12 priority issues. "Keeping abortion legal" ranked eleventh barely beating out "increasing the number of girls who participate in organized sports."

A Zogby poll released last week shows that 49 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-life, compared to 45 percent who consider themselves pro-choice. Overall, upwards of 60 percent of those polled support restrictions on abortion. Perhaps more important, only 13 percent support legal abortion at any time, for any reason — hardly a majority opinion. But this is an extremely vocal minority.

Now that 40 million unborn children have died and abortion has become one of the most common surgical procedures in the United States, a growing voice is emerging. This is the voice of the woman who's had an abortion, who regrets it, and who feels she was never empowered with adequate information to make a real choice. Some of these women and their supporters countered the march with a silent, peaceful protest.

And the silence worked in at least a few cases. Janet Morana, co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign stood at Constitution and Seventh Streets with a group of about a hundred post-abortion women and their supporters. In the midst of their silence, a woman from D.C. named Shirley came up to two of them. She was holding a Planned Parenthood "Stand Up For Choice" sign and she said, "I can't hold this sign and march with them anymore." She explained that she had lost a child to crib death and then she broke down sobbing. She saw the reality of the "choice" for which she had been marching.

Susan Pine, executive director of F.A.C.E. Life, came to the march from Florida. Armed with the experience of her own abortions and subsequent years of pro-life activism, she came to stand in silent witness to the effects of her "choices." Before the march, she spoke with a group of college pro-choicers there. They told her that although they didn't believe in abortion for themselves, as a form of birth control, or after the first trimester, they attended the march to "represent poor stupid women with six babies." Apparently, having six children is a sign of stupidity. So much for personal choice.

Rory Conway, a pro-lifer from Washington, D.C., saw women standing with "I regret my abortion" signs confronted by angry marchers. He commented, "The crowded scene was not so unlike the angry mobs of Jerusalem on Good Friday, and I recall that Christ, in the midst of his detractors, kept his silence. In the midst of a war of words, perhaps only silence can provide the seedbed of peace."

Susan Pine also saw the quiet effects of silent protest. "Some women," she said, "would see our signs, start to cry, drop everything, and leave."

Undoubtedly, most of those who came to march for the so-called right to abortion left with the same convictions that they brought. But they were unable to present a cohesive and peaceful voice. Their anger was frustrated by the few pro-lifers who attended in silence.

The experiences of women who have had abortions, if we are willing to listen, will determine the future of the culture of life in the United States.

- Pia de Solenni is the director of life and women's issues at the Family Research Council.

By: Pia de Solenni
Publish Date: April 29, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/5
National Study Reveals Pro-Abortion, Related Activity At US Catholic Colleges Since 1999
National Study Reveals Pro-Abortion, Related Activity At US Catholic Colleges Since 1999

56-Page Report Documents Scandals in Catholic Higher Education

(LifeSiteNews.com) - The Cardinal Newman Society has issued a shocking new report on scandals at U.S. Catholic colleges and universities that is certain to reignite concerns about the colleges' religious character.

The 56-page report, "The Culture of Death on Catholic Campuses: A Five-Year Review," documents inroads made by advocates of abortion, contraception, premarital sexual activity, and physician-assisted suicide onto Catholic college campuses since 1999. It is the most extensive evidence of problems in Catholic higher education ever compiled in a single source-and yet it only scratches the surface, relying primarily on media reports and college websites.

"'Pro-choice' is no choice for a Catholic institution, which by its Catholic mission must be courageously pro-life," said Erin Butcher, lead researcher and co-author of the report. "Cardinal Newman Society has responded to scandal after scandal on Catholic campuses, but many Catholics still fail to appreciate the scope of the problem."

The report, which can be downloaded free of charge at www.cardinalnewmansociety.org identifies the problems and suggests solutions to ensure that Catholic colleges uphold their Catholic, pro-life mission. Highlights include:

* Pro-abortion presidential candidates at Catholic colleges. In January, St. Anselm College (N.H.) hosted seven pro-abortion candidates for their final debate before New Hampshire's Democratic primary. Other campaign appearances have included John Kerry at Georgetown in January 2003, Dennis Kucinich at Sacred Heart University last June, Howard Dean at St. Anselm last September and at Georgetown last October, Dick Gephardt's daughter at Boston College last November, Gephardt and Kerry at Clarke College (Iowa) in January, Wesley Clark at Rivier College (N.H.) in January, and Kerry at Georgetown again in April.

* Nearly 200 instances of campus speakers and honorees who have been public advocates of abortion or otherwise contributors to the "Culture of Death". These include at least 17 visits and lectures by President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, researchers engaged in human cloning and embryonic cell research at Assumption College and the College of the Holy Cross, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman at Boston College law school, radical feminist Gloria Steinem at Fairfield University, pornographer Larry Flynt at Georgetown University, and National Organization for Women (NOW) president Kim Gandy at Loyola University of New Orleans.

* "Emergency contraception," an abortifacient, provided to students by the College of Santa Fe and Rockhurst University.

* College officials and faculty with ties to pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia organizations, * Pro-abortion politicians serving as college officials and faculty,

* Pro-abortion student clubs

* Internships and service opportunities offered by Catholic colleges, including service as a Planned Parenthood "clinic escort" promoted by Nazareth College's campus ministry and internships with Planned Parenthood offered by Villanova University.

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: April 29, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/4
The mall of shame
The mall of shame

(WorldNetDaily www.WorldNetDaily.com) A pro-abortion marcher in Washington on Sunday said, "I just had to be here to fight for the next generation and the generation after that." I'd like to ask her which generation aborted babies belong to.

This woman was just one of many converging on Washington's Mall to rally for "abortion rights" and "global reproductive freedom." Sadly, her statement, just like the broader "pro-choice" movement, is shrouded in deception and euphemism.

I mean no offense here, but the more you examine the pro-aborts' claims and distortions of language, the less sympathetic their cause becomes. Consider certain statements of the rally's supporters and participants.

Actress Lynda Carter said, "There is a religious and moral superiority and arrogance that so many, not all, Republicans have. It is the ultimate intrusion by government to tell a woman when she can have children, if she has them at all."

No pro-life advocates I know are trying to tell women when they can have children. They can have them any time they want. They just shouldn't be allowed to "terminate" them in the womb.

And if the pro-life position is grounded in religious convictions, on what do pro-abortionists base their casual disregard for life? Aren't they saying the mother's "right to choose" is a moral right? If not, why all the moral outrage?

And if it is arrogant for pro-lifers to stand up for innocent life, how arrogant is it for pro-aborts to ignore the dignity, rights and even existence of the unborn? As for "ultimate intrusion," I wish Ms. Carter would tell us how she justifies intrusions on the baby's body and life.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "The march is about the totality of women's lives and the right to make decisions about our lives." Other pro-aborts insist that women's health is their great concern.

But their zeal has little to do with choice or women's health. If they truly cared about choice, they wouldn't favor government-funded abortion on demand without restriction, including partial-birth abortion.

They'd want pregnant women to make informed choices. They would make sure they were aware of the latest research suggesting that large percentages of women who've had abortions experience emotional or psychological problems. They'd tell them about their babies' possible sensitivity to physical pain.

They'd tell them of the suspected linkage between abortion and breast cancer, even if the evidence is inconclusive. And they'd quit exaggerating concerns over the mother's health as a justification for partial-birth abortions.

Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America said, "Anti-choice extremists are not just against abortion – they also oppose contraception and comprehensive medically accurate sex education." Oh? I wonder if by that she means the routine suppression of the abstinence message and facts about the failure rate of condoms for both pregnancy and HIV transmission? And they lecture us about safe sex?

Another marcher invoked the specious pro-abort battle cry "Stop the violence." What about violence toward the babies? And what about the violence of some of the marchers themselves?

I received an e-mail from a lady who went to the march as a "ProtestWarrior." She said the marchers desecrated her sign, screamed insults and made profane gestures and that one man physically hurled her to the ground. She said, "These tolerant, inclusive, choice liberals were the most hateful 800,000 people the 12 members of PW ever encountered."

Another pro-abort said pro-lifers have no respect for the Constitution. By "Constitution" I don't think she meant the document signed in 1787 that British Prime Minister William Gladstone described as "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

More likely, she was referring to the penumbra-and-emanation-laden "living document" that unelected, unaccountable, lifetime-appointed, activist judges often mold to fit their ideologies by inventing such fictions as the constitutional right to privacy.

The "pro-choice" movement is based on the lie that an unborn human being is not a human being. If pro-aborts had nothing to hide, would they use such misleadingly innocuous words as "choice," "reproductive rights" and "family planning" when they mean the act of terminating life?

If "choice" were so popular with the public, would the pro-aborts' presidential candidate of "choice," Sen. Kerry, feel compelled to dissemble, saying he is personally against abortion but opposed to the government regulating it? That's like saying he's personally opposed to shoplifting but against the government interfering with the thief's choice. Actually, it's much worse than that.

As scientific and technological advances continue to shed light on the darkness of their position, pro-aborts will become increasingly desperate. The marchers treated us to just a little bitter foretaste of that Sunday.

© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

By: David Limbaugh
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: April 27, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/3
Woman Who Gave Birth to Stillborn Infant After Allegedly Refusing C-Section Sentenced to 18 Months of Probation
Woman Who Gave Birth to Stillborn Infant After Allegedly Refusing C-Section Sentenced to 18 Months of Probation

(Kaisernetwork www.kaisernetwork.org) Salt Lake County District Judge Dennis Fuchs on Thursday sentenced Melissa Rowland, who in March was charged with criminal homicide for giving birth to a stillborn infant after allegedly refusing to consent to a caesarean-section delivery of her twins, to 18 months of probation for two counts of child endangerment, the Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News reports (Thomson/Reavy, Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 4/30). According to court documents, Rowland showed "depraved indifference to human life" by failing to seek immediate medical treatment, including a recommended c-section. Rowland consented to a c-section delivery only after a hospital staff member told her that the female fetus was in distress and the male fetus was dead, according to the documents. The female infant was delivered alive and tested positive for cocaine and alcohol, and the male infant was stillborn. State Medical Examiner Dr. Edward Leis determined that the male infant did not have any congenital problems and would have been born alive if Rowland had consented to a c-section earlier. In a plea agreement, Utah prosecutors earlier this month announced they were dropping murder charges against Rowland, and she pled guilty to two third-degree felony counts of child endangerment for using cocaine during pregnancy (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 4/9).

Sentencing Details

Fuchs officially sentenced Rowland to two concurrent terms of zero to five years in prison, but he suspended the sentence and put Rowland on "good behavior" probation instead (Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 4/30). If Rowland does not fulfill the requirements of her probation -- which include an order to do 100 hours of community service -- she will have to serve her prison sentences, Reuters reports. Fuchs also ordered Rowland, who has a history of mental health problems, to move to Indiana, where she has family and friends and where she will undergo mental health treatment. Fuchs also ordered Rowland to undergo parenting classes, according to Reuters (Nelson, Reuters, 4/29). However, Fuchs denied the prosecution's request that Rowland be banned from making contact with her infant daughter, who was adopted by another family after birth, according to the AP/San Diego Union-Tribune (Sage, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 4/29).


Rowland, who served 105 days in prison, said she is "happy to be free," adding that she hopes to attend college, become a legal secretary and "get off Social Security" after undergoing mental health and drug treatment, the Salt Lake Tribune reports (Hunt, Salt Lake Tribune, 4/30). However, Rowland -- who maintains that she did not refuse a c-section -- added that she "should not have been charged with criminal homicide" (Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 4/30). Rowland also said she does not intend to have any more children, the Tribune reports (Salt Lake Tribune, 4/30). Prosecutor Robert Stott said he agreed with the sentence, adding that the district attorney's office was glad that Rowland had "taken responsibility for her actions," according to the Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 4/30). The National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have criticized the prosecution for charging Rowland with murder, alleging that their efforts were an attempt to undermine abortion rights in the state (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 4/9). Stott said that the decision to drop the murder charges against Rowland was not because of political pressure but came after the prosecution learned of Rowland's "long history of psychological and mental health and drug addiction problems" (Salt Lake Tribune, 4/30). Andrea Moore Emmett, president of the Utah chapter of NOW, said that Rowland's case could lead other women with mental health or substance abuse problems to avoid seeking help for fear of being prosecuted. Susan Vogel of the social justice organization CodePink said, "We feel this case was an incredible waste of money for the state of Utah," adding, "I'd like to see the wages of the Salt Lake prosecutors garnished to pay for this" (Salt Lake City Deseret Morning News, 4/30).

Source: Kaisernetwork
Publish Date: April 30, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/2
American Nurses Association Endorses Kerry for President
American Nurses Association Endorses Kerry for President

Comment: With National Nurses week coming up May 6-12, this news is disappointing but not surprising. In 1996, the ANA issued a press release opposing a ban on partial birth abortion saying that "Registered nurses have worked for decades to make real the goal of every birth being planned and wanted. These late-term abortions are rare and tragic, and they occur when something has gone terribly wrong with a pregnancy," said ANA President Virginia Trotter Betts, JD, MSN, RN...This protection of a woman's right to choose safe, reproductive care is the essence of Roe v. Wade."
(source: http://www.nursingworld.org/pressrel/1996/veto.htm)

The latest statistics I found on membership in the ANA is from 2000: 180,000 out of 2.2 million nurses or 8% of all nurses even though the ANA purports to represent the entire profession.

Years ago, I joined ANA to try to make a difference and after a successful idea, I was approached by a national ANA person who told me that I had the potential to go far in the organization-if I would drop the pro-life "stuff." I told her that, if I was indeed considered a good nurse, it was BECAUSE I was pro-life.

- Nancy V.

(Nursing World - www.nursingworld.org) American Nurses Association Endorses Kerry for President Nurses Say Change is Needed to Improve Health Care for All Washington, DC - The American Nurses Association (ANA) will announce today, at a Town Hall meeting in Ohio, its endorsement of U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for president in the 2004 election. Citing the need for dramatic improvements in the nation's health care system, as well as continued support for registered nurses and their role in health care, ANA president Barbara A. Blakeney, MS, APRN,BC, ANP, on behalf of the ANA Board of Directors, declared Sen. Kerry the best candidate to lead health care reform efforts.

"Health care is at a crossroads in the United States," Blakeney said. "Too many Americans are without accessible, affordable, quality health care and nurses can play a critical role in turning that around," she added. "We pledge our support to help Sen. Kerry become the next president because, as president, we can count on him to continue his support for issues that are high on the agenda of nurses."

In the Senate, Kerry has been a consistent advocate for increased funding for the Nurse Reinvestment Act and other nursing workforce development programs. He supported the ANA-backed mandatory overtime bill known as the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act (S. 373); and opposed the repeal of strong ergonomic protections that were passed during the Clinton Administration.

Sen. Kerry was, in fact, co-author of both the Nurse Reinvestment Act and the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act and has been a strong advocate on behalf of nurses throughout his entire senatorial career.

"For ANA, each election is a powerful opportunity to advance nursing's perspectives on health care," said Greer Glazer, RN, CNP, PhD, FAAN, Chair of ANA-PAC. "More than 2.7 million strong, registered nurses represent the largest group of health care professionals. We are acutely aware of the changes that need to be made to improve health care for all and we will use our power at the ballot box to make health care a priority," she added.

ANA has been making presidential endorsements since 1984. The endorsement process included sending a questionnaire on nursing and health care issues to all of the democratic and republican candidates, an invitation to all of the democratic and republican candidates for a personal interview and an online survey of ANA's membership.

The American Nurses Association is the only full-service professional organization representing the nation's 2.7 million registered nurses (RNs) through its 54 constituent member associations. The ANA advances the nursing profession by fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the economic and general welfare of nurses in the workplace, projecting apositive and realistic view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the public.

Source: Nursing World
Publish Date: February 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040430/1
News Links:
News Links:

Tennessee Senate Committee Approves Bill With Amendment To Create 'Pro-Choice' License Plate

(Kaisernetwork www.kaisernetwork.org) The Tennessee Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday approved an amendment to a license plate bill (SB 3323) that would allow for the creation of a "pro-choice" specialty license plate, the Tennessean reports. The committee voted 4-3 to add the amendment to NASCAR license plate legislation, which the committee approved 5-2

Louisiana House Committee Endorses Contraceptive Coverage Bill

(Kaisernetwork www.kaisernetwork.org) The Louisiana House Insurance Committee on Wednesday approved 8-7 a bill (HB 732) that would require health insurance plans that include prescription drug coverage to provide coverage for prescription contraception

Pro-Life group protests school's ban on T-shirts

(Richmond Times Dispatch - www.timesdispatch.com) A Pro-Life group is protesting a school principal's decision ordering students to remove their anti-abortion T-shirts. Erik Whittington, co-founder of Rock for Life, said a 14-year-old Spotsylvania County middle school student was initially permitted to wear the shirt on Tuesday, a day the group had chosen for its "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day" campaign. The girl also distributed about 40 of the shirts at Battlefield Middle School.

Abortion march is ugly

(Citizen Online www.citizenonline.net) All the slogans, chants, posters, stickers, gestures, speeches and slurs from Sunday’s “pro-choice” march congeal in my mind as this single image:

A young woman in requisite belly-baring jeans is crab-walking sideways down Pennsylvania Avenue pointing defiantly toward her baby-bearing parts in graphic retort to three men dressed as grim reapers and bellowing thanks for marchers’ generous support:

“We’re pro-death!” the reapers shout. “We’re with you! 1.2 million more this year!”

Forget gravitas. Forget anything you ever thought about the beauty of free assembly or the power of free speech. We have taken our gravest contemporary concern — the sanctity of human life — and reduced it to a carnival of the grotesque.

Canada OB/GYNs Propose Abortions in Schools via Morning After Pill

(LifeSiteNews.com) - In a pamphlet issued last month, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada advocates early abortions to be available to students in schools with the use of the morning after pill.

The pamphlet entitled Contraception Consensus Guidelines, says that "Hormonal emergency contraception should be available without a prescription in pharmacies, family planning clinics, emergency rooms, walk-in clinics, and school health programs."

See the pamphlet online at:

Abortion lawsuit bill passes House

(Kansas City Star - subscription - www.kansascity.com) - Kansas City,MO,USA ... of Missouri's parental consent law, the House passed legislation Thursday allowing lawsuits against anyone who helps a minor secretly get an abortion.

Quick Note:
Quick Note:

On April 27, James Ridgeway in his Mondo Washington column for the liberal New York newspaper The Village Voice made this scenario. It began, "With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon..." and referred to the "Democratic establishment" as "arrogant and out of touch." It didn't get better for Kerry or the Democrats: "With growing issues over his wealth (which makes Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry ... Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that a candidate who starts each morning having to explain himself is a goner." Again, this appeared in a liberal newspaper inclined toward Democrats, not a conservative publication like National Review or The Weekly Standard.

Ridgeway urged "Democrat biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike."

This is remarkable stuff. While Ridgeway suggested the possibility of resurrecting John Edwards, that isn't about to happen. The only possible candidate who could replace Kerry - should delegates pledged to him abandon his sinking ship - is (drum roll) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (presumptuous-N.Y.).

-Cal Thomas

You can read the entire column at:

You can read related news in the New York Post at:
Reader's Feedback:
Reader's Feedback:

I disagree with all the recent announcements that most Americans are pro-life. If they were truly pro life, they wouldn't be voting for pro-choice candidates. They're sheep in wolves clothing. Our battle will continue until the people match their actions with the words they speak.

God bless you for your work. I can't wait until the day we're all "out of business".

- Christine (Murphysboro)
Thursday, April 29, 2004
National Contest Gives Platform to Pro-Life Teens
National Contest Gives Platform to Pro-Life Teens

(AgapePress - www.agapepress.org) In many states around the U.S., high school students are getting a chance to speak up for the unborn and others affected by sanctity-of-life issues as the teens participate in competitions designed to help them learn to voice their pro-life convictions.

National Right to Life is again sponsoring its annual youth speech competition, the Jane B. Thompson National Oratory Contest, which is scheduled to be held in Arlington, Virginia, in July at the National Right to Life Convention.

The student competition, which is open to public, private, and home-schooled teens, requires the participants to research, write, and present their own pro-life speech on abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide. Eliminations proceed from local and regional speech contests and progress to contests at the state and national levels, with a grand prize of $2,500 awarded to the national winner.

Emerging Pro-Life Voices

The competition attracts a dynamic kind of youth. Tabitha Worrell of Hot Springs, Arkansas, is a 14-year-old high school junior who has been home-schooled for eight years and who keeps busy with her church youth group, debate club, 4-H, her home-school group, and volunteering at a local hospital. After she graduates, the teen plans to pursue a nursing career. In the meantime, the statewide winner will be representing Arkansas at the national competition this summer.

Last year's winner in Colorado was Kristi Burton, another home-school student, who said competing in the oratory contest sponsored locally by Colorado Right to Life was one of the best experiences she had during her high school years. She says the contest was for her "a great opportunity to learn how to speak in a comfortable environment," and that it "also gave me a chance to stand up for what I believe in."

Burton compares the slaughter of the innocent unborn children in America to the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Nazi holocaust. She encourages other youths to get involved in saving babies' lives. And Burton says the Right to Life oratory contest is a great way for teens to learn to speak out on moral issues, a skill that will "be a wonderful asset for you in the years to come."

Regional winner Danielle Parker of LaVergne, Tennessee, agrees that the experience of competing is valuable. The 16-year-old LaVergne High School student, who aspires to be an attorney and an actress -- and maybe to run for public office one day -- placed third in last year's regional contest. But she says she feels a lot more poised this time around. She recently took first place in the Rutherford County division and will go on to contend at the state level on May 22 for a chance to represent Tennessee at the national competition.

Parker's division-winning speech described the parallels between abortion and chattel slavery. She feels it is important for people to realize how allowing the U.S. courts to deny the humanity -- and thereby the rights -- of the unborn threatens the civil rights of all. "Abortion truly does affect everyone," she says, "and it's something we should all be concerned about."

Parker says her father, a pastor and a member of Black Americans For Life, inspired her to learn more about the pro-life movement and to get involved in public speaking about the issue. "There are a lot of things I'd like to change, like ending abortion and improving education. I'd like to be able to influence things for the better," she says.

Last year, Katie Beebe of Cabot, Arkansas, won both her state contest and the national contest. In her winning speech she spoke of the importance of recognizing that life truly does begin at conception. And where a human being's life begins, so, Beebe implied, should their rights.

The teen noted that those rights which the Founding Fathers set forth in the Declaration of Independence were acknowledged as inalienable and given by God, the same "higher power" that gives life and creates human beings in His own image. "It is not up to an unprepared mother or an abortion doctor to take away the precious gift that was given to us when we were conceived," Beebe stated.

The Future Is Now

Through local Right to Life chapters nationwide, impassioned pro-life youth are learning to speak out for the rights of the unborn. And as Bianca Hovey of Human Life of Seattle noted a few years ago when her group organized a youth oratory contest for the first time, the young people are filling their adult counterparts with immediate pride and long-term hope.

Hovey commented that such teenagers are not merely the future of the pro-life movement, but "they are a very important part of it right now. They are on the 'front line,' since many of their peers are the ones seeking abortions. In a unique way, teenagers can be very effective pro-life advocates by supporting and educating their friends."

Meanwhile, contest organizers report seeing tremendous positive effects on the young people themselves as a result of their participation. Many say in preparing competitive speeches the contestants gain the ability to articulate their beliefs while coming to understand the imperative of protecting vulnerable life, whether in the womb, the intensive care unit, or a nursing home. The experience can help form a basis for their immediate influence of peers as well as a foundation for their lifelong involvement in the pro-life movement.

By: Jenni Parker
Source: AgapePress
Publish Date: April 28, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040429/1
Women's Group Tells Cancer Establishment: You're Responsible for Women's Deaths
Women's Group Tells Cancer Establishment: You're Responsible for Women's Deaths

(CABC www.abortionbreastcancer.com) The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer accused the cancer establishment of causing women to die by concealing research dating to 1957 that linked abortion with increased breast cancer risk (ABC link). [1]

The Coalition said cancer fundraising groups deceive women by denying a cause-effect relationship. For several decades, their fact sheets have recognized the risk increasing effects that every common sense person knows can result from abortion - childlessness, reduced childbearing, little or no breastfeeding, and late first full term pregnancy (FFTP). Scientists say these childbearing patterns more than double the number of breast cancer cases in developed nations. [2,3]

The Coalition's accusations came after yesterday's article by Donna Jackel in the Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York). [4] The article discussed presentations on the ABC link planned for tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Rochester Academy of Medicine by Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College and breast cancer surgeon, Angela Lanfranchi, MD of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) falsely claims that research up until the mid-1990's was "inconsistent," with some studies reporting "slightly" increased risk and others reporting no risk elevation.

"If the evidence was 'inconsistent' and abortion 'might' increase risk, then why didn't they feel obligated to warn women?" asked Karen Malec, president of the group. "The NCI's claim contradicts a lie on its Web site in 1999 which said, 'The scientific rationale for an association between abortion and breast cancer is based on limited experimental data in rats and is not consistent with human data.'"

By 1999, 26 out of 32 studies reported risk elevations. Seven reported a more than twofold increase in risk.

Government scientists recognized a cause-effect relationship in 1986. Bruce Stadel of the National Institutes of Health, Phyllis Wingo of the Centers for Disease Control and two others wrote in unambiguous terms, "Induced abortion before first full term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer." [5]

"They didn't warn women then. Why believe their ABC denials now?" asked Mrs. Malec.

An American Cancer Society (ACS) spokesperson said the latest research doesn't report risk increases and falsely claimed it's of the "best quality." That research includes three studies whose authors misclassified thousands of post-abortive women as not having had abortions [6,7,8], and research on Chinese women who are forcibly aborted after one childbirth.

"Americans, by contrast, overwhelmingly choose abortion to delay a first birth. There's no comparison here. ACS scientists know Chinese women gain considerable protection by having an early first birth before aborting," declared Mrs. Malec. "Early childbirth is the effect they're picking up in the Chinese studies, not a protective effect from abortion, and they know it."

Professor Leslie Bernstein claimed abortion provides protection from the disease, but didn't offer a biological explanation for it. A medical text used by breast disease specialists cited her research to support a cause-effect relationship. [11,12] Her research shows that childbearing women have significantly lower levels of estrogen in comparison to childless women. [13]

"Dependence on funding from pharmaceutical companies and governments compromises the integrity of the cancer establishment," said Mrs. Malec. "They've allowed themselves to be used for a population control agenda."

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.


1. Segi et al. (1957) GANN 48 (Suppl.):1-63.

2. Graham Colditz, MD, "Relationship Between Estrogen Levels, Use of Hormone Replacement Therapy and Breast Cancer," JNCl (1998) 90:814-823.

3. Beral V et al. (July 20, 2002) The Lancet 360:187-95.

4. Donna Jackel, "Abortion, breast cancer are focus of talk," Democrat and Chronicle, April 27, 2004.

5. Lancet (Feb. 22, 1986) p. 436.

6. Melbye et al. (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5.

7. Goldacre M et al. (2001) J Epidem Community Health 55:336-7.

8. Erlandsson G et al. (2003) Int J Cancer 103:676-679.

9. Sanderson M, Shu X-O, Jin F, Dai Q, Wen W, Hua Y, Gao Y-T, Zheng W. Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai breast cancer study. Int J Cancer 2001;92:899-905

10. Ye et al. (2002) Br J Cancer 87:977-981.

11. Robert B. Dickson, Ph.D., Marc E. Lippman, MD, "Growth Regulation of Normal and Maglignant Breast Epithelium," The Breast: Comprehensive Management of Benign and Malignant Diseases, edited by Kirby I. Bland MD and Edward M. Copeland III, MD; (1998) W.B. Saunders Company; 2nd edition; Vol 1, p.519.

12. Hendersen BE, Ross R, Bernstein L. "Estrogen is a cause of human cancer: The Richard and Hilda Rosenthal Foundation Award Lecture. Cancer Res (1988) 48:246-53.

13. Bernstein L, et al. "Estrogen and Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin Levels in Nulliparous and Parous Women." J Natl Cancer Inst (1985) 74:741-745.

By: Karen Malec
Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Publish Date: April 28, 2004
Online at: http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/040429/2

Powered by Blogger