Last week in Edmonton, Alberta, appellate court judge Joanne Veit issued a shocking decision regarding the fate of Katrina Effert who killed her newly born baby in 2005.

By law, the maximum amount of sentencing time in prison for infanticide is five years however the local media reported that “Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.”

In 2005, Effert, who was nineteen at the time, gave birth to a baby boy, strangled him with her underwear and then threw his body over the fence into a neighbor’s yard. Mark Steyn from National Review Online appropriately labeled this act a “Fourth Trimester Abortion” in a post earlier this week.

The Calgary Herald reports that “Veit called it a “classic infanticide case” and sentenced her to a three-year suspended sentence with probation.” Judge Joanne Veit also expressed sympathy for Effert. “[M]any Canadians . . . generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support…Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Ethicist Wesley Smith pointed out the irony that had Effert strangled a dog, she would have received no sympathy whatsoever. He’s right. Michael Vick received 23 months in jail for participating in dog fighting. So, in our culture as it stands you can participate in dog fighting (which I am not advocating, by the way – I love animals) and end up in the slammer for close to two years. But strangle your baby and you might be able to get off with a little community service time.  

Comments: 2 |

A study released earlier this week by sociologists at the University of Buffalo shows an area where men and women are NOT equal: oversexualization in the media. “Opportunity Objectification? The Sexualization of Men and Women on the Cover of Rolling Stone”  reveals that women have become increasingly overly-sexualized by the media over the last few decades whereas men are not increasingly viewed in this demeaning and harmful way.

This is a “lose-lose” in that not only does the oversexualization of women have negative ramifications for a healthy understanding and anthropology of the dignity of women, and ultimately lead to exploitation of women and girls with such as things as child pornography and sex trafficking, but it is getting worse and worse as time goes on.

For more information you can read the study here.

Comments: 1 |

For more information on the August 1st HHS interim rule which addresses women’s preventive services that insurance providers are now mandated to cover contraceptives with no co-pay, see this new FRC fact sheet.

You have an opportunity to voice your concerns. HHS is receiving comments from the public on the new rule until September 30, 2011. Please Note: all comments submitted to HHS will be made public so be careful not to include personally identifiable information.

According to the notice issued in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 3rd, you can send comments in a variety of ways:

You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation here. Follow
the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.

2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–9992–IFC2, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244–8010. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS–9992–IFC2, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.

4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses prior to the close of the comment period: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.

Comments: 22 |

Comments: - |

On July 20^th the New York Times published an editorial “Sound Medical Advice” which despite its name ironically included misinformation about the recent IOM report recommending that contraceptives be covered by all health plans with no co-payment.

The writer states that the report was guided by medical evidence but makes no mention of the dissenting committee member who would not put his name to the recommendations because “evaluation for evidence lacked transparency… The process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determination through the lens of advocacy.”

Additionally the writer suggested that “studies show that cost is a major barrier to regular use of contraceptives” when in fact the opposite is the case. The Guttmacher Institute, originally the research arm of Planned Parenthood, a group that stands to benefit enormously from this report, reports that only 12 percent of women not using contraception are doing so because of financial reasons.

Lastly, the writer criticizes groups, such as the FRC, who oppose this mandate but does not delve into the science and rationale behind the opposition: drugs included in this recommendation have modes of action that will not only prevent the creation of life, but also in fact destroy it in its early stages. While this might be an insignificant point to the writer of the editorial, it is of utmost significance to the millions of pro-life Americans who deserve transparency and should not be forced to pay for abortions.

Comments: - |

Last week FRC reported on the most recent adverse events related to RU-486.

The FDA report can now be viewed on their website.

Comments: - |

NPR ran a story today on the Institute of Medicine’s report to be released tomorrow which will include a list of recommended services to be covered with no cost-sharing under the Obamacare law.

But there are a few key points that NPR did not include.  The real issue is not about “birth control” as such but rather about specific contraceptives that can function as abortifacients, in particular, emergency contraceptives. This isn’t a matter of opinion or political ideology.  The FDA approved label for Plan B suggests it can prevent implantation of an embryo. Moreover, the most recently approved EC, “ella”, is chemically similar to RU-486 and it may destroy an embryo after it is already implanted.

Additionally, this is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost. Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients, and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos. The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience.  Non-discrimination laws are in effect for this very reason. The IOM recommendations will potentially require people who are not in favor of these drugs to cover and participate in something they find objectionable. You don’t have to agree with such objections, but at the same time people should not be forced to violate their consciences.

Here is our letter to HHS with more information.

And here is more information on ella, taken from my public comments at the second IOM meeting on January 12, 2011:

“While the FDA approved the drug application of Ella as an “emergency contraceptive,” this drug is known to be chemically and functionally similar to the abortifacient drug, RU-486.  In a study published this month in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, “the mechanism of action of ulipristal in human ovarian and endometrial tissue is identical to that of its parent compound, mifepristone.”[1]

In one study of ulipristal on monkeys, 4 out of 5 fetuses were aborted.[2] On one with rats, all were aborted.[3] “[E]xisting studies in animals are instructive in terms of the potential abortive effects of the drug in humans.”[4]

A recent study concluded that “it can be reasonably expected that the prescribed dose of 30 mg of ulipristal will have an abortive effect on early pregnancy in humans.”[5] This is the dose of ulipristal now available as an EC in the United States.””

Comments: 1 |

A summary of adverse event reports (AERS) recently released by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and obtained through Sen. Orrin Hatch’s office reveal that in the span of almost eleven years since the approval of the abortion drug, popularly known as RU-486, in the United States, at least 11 women have died as a result of complications related to taking the drug.[1]  Internationally, the number of women who have died as a result of RU-486 is at least 17.[2]

That’s not all. The dangerous complications associated with this drug continue include hemorrhaging and infection. In the U.S., at least 612 women have been hospitalized after taking RU-486; and at least 339 women required blood transfusions as a result of serious blood loss after taking the abortion drug.

Clearly highlighting the need for more stringent medical oversight, the report also indicates that 58 women were prescribed RU-486 despite having ectopic pregnancies. Yet, “[a]dministration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy.”[3] To state it more clearly, a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy and takes the RU486 regimen places her life in danger.

It is not only women in the U.S. who are suffering as a result of chemical abortion, it is a worldwide trend. A recent Australian health department audit of nearly 10,000 abortions performed in 2009 and 2010 compared the safety of RU-486 with surgical abortion, with the outcome being in the words of one major media outlet “The Abortion Pill ‘Less Safe than Surgery’”. The Australian report showed that 1 in 18 patients who used RU-486 had to be re-admitted to hospitals (a total of 5.7% of women vs. only .4% of surgical abortions.) The same study revealed that as many as 33% of women who had second trimester RU-486 abortions required some form of surgical intervention.[4]

Marketing the abortion drug as simple and painless, such as taking an aspirin, is dangerously misleading to women. RU-486 is in a class of drugs categorized as selective progesterone receptor modulators, which, in addition to blocking progesterone necessary for the developing baby, also suppresses a woman’s immune system. Additionally, it is sometimes the case that the remains of the pregnancy are not entirely expelled from a woman’s uterus, causing infection and other problems.

Despite the seriousness and intensity of adverse effects related to RU-486, use of this form of abortion is on the rise, and frequently the regimen is dispensed with less medical oversight than surgical abortion. Even more troubling, nationally and internationally, “telemed” dissemination of RU-486 is increasing.[5] Telemed abortions involved doctors proscribing RU-486 through skype or over the internet rather than during a patient visit.

The bottom line is that abortion drugs are not about improving women’s health but are more accurately about advancing a radical pro-abortion agenda regardless of the impact on women’s health, even when it proves deadly.

Comments: 1 |

My colleagues over at Americans United For Life released a very thorough report yesterday providing a glut of information about Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation’s largest abortion provider. I most highly encourage anyone interested in protecting life to take the time to read through this report.

It might seem a bit daunting at 174 pages, but the actual report is really only the first 31 pages, followed by a number of wonderful appendices, including Planned Parenthood’s financial statements from 1988-present, PPFA’s service reports from this same period of time, lawsuits against the abortion giant, and more. The report also gives excellent information on Medicaid fraud and how this relates to PPFA.

For any concerned citizen who really wants to do their part in defunding the abortion giant, I encourage them to read this new report in conjunction with a few paragraphs from our own FRC brochure, “Planned Parenthood–What Every Parent, Teacher, Woman, Community Leader and Elected Official Needs to Know.”

“It is very likely that your local Planned Parenthood receives federal, state and/or local government funding. We are frequently asked by people who want to protect their children and the unborn what they can do to combat the Planned Parenthood message in their community. While every situation is unique, we would suggest the following steps.

a. Information Gathering. Do you have a local affiliate? A simple internet search will reveal any local Planned Parenthood affiliate. Find out its name and the leaders of the organization so that you are more aware of their local influence and whether they are on the local school board, hold public office, own businesses, etc. Not all Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions. Some offer only medical abortion (RU-486), others might also perform suction aspiration abortions, and dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortions. Some might refer patients to abortion clinics in the area. If they don’t perform abortions, find out where they refer patients to. Ask if they perform abortions every day of the week. In some instances doctors fly in from out of state and abortions are performed only once a week. The more information you can find out, the better. It isn’t difficult to obtain this information.

b. Funding. You have many options to learn more about your local affiliate’s funding. Knowledge is power. The more you know, the more you can do something to protect life. A good place to start is with your state’s health department. You can look on their website to see what family planning services and groups are funded through the state and find out which perform abortions.

i. As previously indicated, we suggest looking at federal funding streams to learn more about Planned Parenthood finances, as well. One good source is the previously listed site for HHS grants. You can also look through the HHS Family Planning Database to find who is a recipient of Title X (family planning project) funding in your state or local area. http://www.opaclearinghouse.org/db_search.asp.

ii. IRS 990 tax forms are public information, and can be relatively easily accessed. Request your local affiliate’s 990 form to see how much money they have made, where it is coming from, how much they invest, etc. Another way of accessing this information is through Guidestar. http://www2.guidestar.org/

iii. Check city, county and state budgets. In situations where grant or contract recipients are not listed, we strongly encourage you to ask and keep asking until you obtain a listing of the actual names of the groups providing the services mentioned in this booklet.

c. Familiarize yourself with and befriend city council members and state legislators to identify pro-life champions. Be active in your community. Networking, being knowledgeable about the groups in your local area, and having relationships with leaders in your community is critical in this process. One citizen was actively involved in a local coalition of health organizations, of which Planned Parenthood was a part. She knew that the coalition received significant county funding, but was unable to ascertain if Planned Parenthood was receiving part of that money. After seeing the annual report and finding the recipients were not listed, she began asking more questions of her local elected officials. At this point, having a friend who was equally concerned and had a relationship with a local elected official was important and helpful. In the end, she learned that Planned Parenthood was receiving a significant amount of county funding and helped to ensure that it was ultimately defunded.

d. Legislation. Call upon your state and local elected officials to pass legislation that will protect life and force transparency for Planned Parenthood. Americans United for Life have a variety of draft legislation here.

e. Sonogram. Offering free sonograms across the street from abortion clinics has sometimes led to their eventual closing. Sonograms are a wonderful tool in promoting the truth about the dignity of the unborn. Click here for more information. The provision of sonograms constitutes the practice of medicine and should always be used under the direction and supervision of a licensed physician. For more information on the provision of sonograms click here.

Pray and peacefully protest outside of your local Planned Parenthood. In the words of former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, “Having a vigil outside an abortion clinic is vital…having people out there…praying, pricks the conscience of everyone walking in. Any time you brought a member of the clergy that was particularly effective.””

Comments: - |

Regardless of your denomination or faith tradition, anyone engaged in the battle to protect life will greatly appreciate the most recent statement from the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops on Physician Assisted Suicide, titled “To Live Each Day With Dignity”. I highly recommend reading the short (5 1/2 pages) document.

Here are some excerpts:

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

Earlier this week the American Enterprise Institute held a fascinating panel discussion titled, “A Worldwide War against Baby Girls: Sex-Selective Abortion Goes Global”. Speakers included Mara Hvistendahl, a writer for Science magazine, and author of recently released book on sex selection abortion, Unnatural Selection. AEI scholar and demographics expert Nicholas Eberstadt also addressed the current data on sex selection abortion as well as potential solutions to this severe demographic problem.

I recommend watching the panel discussion, however here are a few interesting points:

— Three factors countries with a high sex-selection abortion rate have in common include:

1) birth rates have fallen

2) availability of new technology, including ultrasound, etc.

3) pervasive abortion

— Americans (and in particular, U.S. government funds) have played a significant role in the situation as it currently stands.

— There is a link between sex selection abortion and the population control movement.

— The most educated classes have the most gender-related abortions.

— Due to the preference for male children, there are approximately 160 million “missing women” in Asia. For perspective, this number is larger than the entire female population of the United States.

— Sex-selection abortion is occurring here in the United States in Asian-American communities.

— The only country that has recovered from such an imbalance of the sexes is S. Korea.

The full one-hour panel discussion, is viewable from AEI’s website.

Comments: - |

While abortion is often touted as a woman’s issue, a woman’s choice, the father is equally a parent to the developing little baby yet often lacks standing when it comes to a decision about abortion.

One such man from New Mexico was recently silenced when he wanted to preserve and protect the life of his developing baby. His girlfriend had the abortion despite his convictions. He was so distressed and angered by his lack of choice in the matter that he commissioned a billboard on a major highway to communicate his experience.

The billboard has a picture of the father holding the outline of a two-month old baby. The caption reads, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not Kill Our Child!”

Comments: 1 |

FRC previously has reported on the allied relationship between Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and the Girl Scouts of America (GSA) as well as their international branch, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAAGGS). Because of the increasingly close connections between these groups, pro-life young women who desire to grow and do good through involvement in the GSA have found themselves in increasingly difficult, and even compromising, positions.

Onto that backdrop, two teenagers and former girl scouts, Tess and Sydney Volanski, using some of the very skills acquired in scouting formation (Discover, Connect and take Action), have come forward in an effort, what they describe as a “moral imperative”, to educate their friends and girls around the country about the relationship between PPFA and GSA; to “speak the truth about the girl scouts” via a new blog.

I would highly recommend the blog — it is very informative, and includes the Volanskis’ personal story about leaving their scout troop after eight years of involvement, as well as other information about GSA and abortion, such as a look at major GSA role models (many who are active abortion advocates). It also includes interesting quotes from Abby Johnson, a former PP clinic director who is now a pro-life activist. In the Volanskis’ words, “It was a very difficult experience to discover that we had unknowingly been promoting and supporting a group that stands for the opposite of the beliefs we hold deeply in our hearts. We want to do everything we can to prevent this heartbreak for other girls and their families.”

For those girls and families who are looking for a wholesome scouting alternative to GSA, the Volanskis make a few suggestions on their website, including American Heritage Girls.

Comments: 5 |

Yesterday in Beijing, China’s National Bureau of Statistics held a press conference where they reported that the country’s population growth has seen a serious decline since the last census, in 2000.  Specifically, overall population growth has slowed from 11.7% in 2000 to 5.8% in 2010. Moreover, the country’s fertility rate has fallen below 1.5 children per couple.

Interestingly the government agency responsible for implementation of China’s infamous one-child policy has reported much higher fertility rates — between 1.7 and 1.8. In the words of Mara Hvistendahl writing for Science, “Some scholars believe that the agency [China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission] deliberately inflates the fertility rate to justify continuing the birth targets.”

While China’s overall population growth decreases, even more startling is the gender imbalance that continues to increase due to sex selection abortion, or, what many are calling, “gendercide”. In 2000, for every 100 girls born in China, there were 116.9 boys born. By 2010, that gap had widened to 118.1 boys born for every one hundred girls born.

With this new data there is some talk of change in the one-child policy and its inhumane pressures on families in China. However earlier this week, China’s President Hu Jintao stated that China will “stick to and improve its current family-planning policy and maintain a low birth rate.”

The WSJ reports that “under China’s one-child policy, many…couples who have more than one child face fines of several month’s salary and can lose their jobs if they work for the state. The program has also led to some forced abortion and sterilizations.”

View here a powerful real-life story (a short youtube clip) of one woman who made heroic choices against the Chinese government so that her unborn daughter could live.

You will also at this link ways you can personally help to fight this devastating human rights battle in China.

Comments: - |

Last week on the day that the House and Senate were set to take a vote on defunding Planned Parenthood, Christianity Today writer Tobin Grant authored a “fact checking” piece on the debate over tax funding for America’s primary abortion provider. The author dedicated much of the article to “fact checking” one of Family Research Council’s pieces about the abortion giant.

Grant quoted a recent alert (the alert was actually from Family Research Council’s sister organization FRC Action) that stated “Income from abortions constitutes 37 percent of [Planned Parenthood’s] total profit” Grant wrote that this statement was “false.”

Continue reading »

Comments: - |

The American Thinker posted a wonderful piece by Susan Wills yesterday explaining in detail some of the major inaccuracies currently being spread about Planned Parenthood services. This is a must-read for anyone interested in knowing the real story about Planned Parenthood.

Comments: - |

Pro-life groups in Chicago unveiled a new billboard PR campaign last night geared towards raising awareness about the disproportionate number of African-American babies that are aborted. The billboard has a picture of President Obama and reads “Every 21 Minutes Our Next Possible Leader Is Aborted”. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion research group originally started by Planned Parenthood, fully 30 percent of the nation’s aborted babies are black, whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau African-Americans compose 12.3% of the population in the U.S.

While the billboards are simply stating data –there is nothing erroneous or even subjective about the information presented on the billboard — not unlike a recent billboard campaign in New York City, the billboards are drawing angry protests from abortion proponents.

The truth hurts.

Comments: - |

This is a video that any woman who is considering choosing abortion should view. She won’t regret spending twelve minutes watching this short movie that could change the course of her life.

Should a woman who has chosen abortion view this clip, there is mercy, hope and healing ahead.

Comments: - |

Anyone who has attended the annual March for Life and has witnessed the thousands of teenagers, children and young adults peacefully protesting abortion in the U.S. knows that the pro-life movement will ultimately succeed in the hands of our young people.

The video clip below is an excellent snapshot of what Gallup polls have been telling us lately. The abortion “tide” is turning, in large part because of the powerful voice of youth in America.

Comments: - |

On February 25^th, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its annual abortion surveillance report with their most recently compiled data and statistics — in this case, from 2007 — on abortion in the United States.

Since 1969, the CDC has reported annually on abortion-related data; typically this information is made public in November, usually during Thanksgiving week. As reported by Erick Erickson earlier this year, the CDC did not release this information as expected in November, 2010, and as late as January, 2011, there was even a rumor that the CDC would not be releasing this information at all.

However, that proved to be false as the report was eventually published on February 25, 2011. The CDC claimed that it was late because of data compilation problems.

So now that we have the report, what does it tell us about abortion and women’s health?

Continue reading »

Comments: 1 |