Barack Obama--the anti-life president

The State Run Media is very slowly coming around to the fact that President Barack Obama is not the Messiah.  It will take many more months, but they'll get there eventually.

But some things will never change.  The SRM will always hate those who stand up for innocent life.  And you can bet that even when they come out of their Obama-induced hallucinogenic haze, they will never divert their criticism toward him, the pro-choice crowd or the rest of the liberal left on life issues.

Obama's increasingly obvious rabidly anti-life positions and actions are making this a reality. And I use the term "anti-life" deliberately because there is no other way to explain the following partial list of positions, promises, votes and appointments.

Let's start in 1997.  Illinois State Senator Obama voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion.  In 2001, Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.  Similarly to Chicken Little, Obama, the only senator to speak on the floor against the bill, harangued that the bill would forbid abortions altogether.

In July 2006, Obama opposed a bill to prohibit taking minors across state lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.  He voted “no” despite the fact that the bill contained an exception to save the life of the minor.

When speaking before a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, Obama said his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (“FOCA”), a radical piece of legislation that many predict would lead to more than 100,000 additional abortions every year.  The Act also would remove barriers from public funding of abortions and some suggest religious hospitals could lose tax exempt status under the Act if they fail to provide abortion services. 

In March 2008, Obama voted (i) against a bill to increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across state lines to circumvent parental notification and involvement laws, and (ii) against modifying the definition of “child” in the SCHIP program to include unborn children.  During the 2008 campaign, Obama notably remarked that he would not want his own daughters “punished” with a baby from a so-called crisis pregnancy.  As U.S. Senator, Obama received 100% ratings from NARAL and also consistently supported expanding the study and use of embryonic stem cells.

As President-elect, Obama appointed former Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius—also a supporter of late-term abortions—to head Health and Human Services, the agency from which Obama’s health care reform plan would eventually flow. 

Then, in January 2009, one day after the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama signed an executive order reversing a ban on giving federal funds (i.e. your tax dollars) to international groups that perform abortions.  This issue was so important to Obama that he executed the order in his first days in office.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record supporting the notion that “reproductive health” includes “access to abortion” so we can now expect aggressive promotion and funding of abortion overseas.  How's that for stimulus?

Admittedly, Obama did not fulfill the promise of signing FOCA upon taking office and the legislation remains unsigned.  In case you haven’t noticed, he’s been a little busy destroying the economy and insulting our allies.  But that has not stopped him from making much more subtle moves to promote his anti-life agenda.  Let’s not forget that Obama recently appointed Dr. John Holdren to the position formerly known as the White House “Science Czar”.  Holdren is infamous for co-authoring a disgusting textbook called Ecoscience wherein he suggests that “The State”, among other things, could force women to abort their pregnancies, sterilize the population by intentionally lacing the nation’s drinking water or food supplies with infertility drugs, and seize babies from single and teen mothers against their will.  Holdren has yet to renounce these ideas.

Scary?  Sure is.  But it's another window into what drives the liberal radically pro-choice left.

Health care reform is certainly on the front burner with Obama’s desire to get coverage for all Americans pushed through before Congress’ summer recess.  Sebelius, Holdren, Clinton and Rahm Emanuel are among his chosen advisors with the goal of entirely remaking the health insurance industry and centralizing control and/or oversight and regulation.  They deny it, but that's the truth.  For example, Obama’s proposed universal minimum-benefits package, required for every health plan, will cover (broadly, and among other things) “out-patient” hospital and clinic treatment and procedures.

If you believe it’s a stretch to include Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers in the “out-patient clinic” category, think again.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is partly responsible for drafting the legislation to reform health care.  What will happen if the legislation passes is that the government agency responsible for implementing it (something to be called the “Health Resources and Services Administration” or “HRSA”) will draft administrative rules and regulations consistent with the intent of the legislation.  The HRSA will by virtually unaccountable to the public because it likely will be staffed by civil servants and career bureaucrats.

In a hearing of the committee last Thursday, Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD, a staunch liberal and abortion supporter, offered an amendment to require all health insurance companies to provide “preventive care and screening” for “pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age.”  You won’t see the word “abortion” anywhere in the amendment.  However, Mikulski’s use of these words is purposefully vague enough so as to give a green light to the HRSA to draft rules to require coverage of abortions as “preventive care”.  Don’t believe it?  She as much as said so in committee.

This type of amendment would not have been inserted without approval from the White House.  You can be sure that Rahm Emanuel and other Obama surrogates are the real source behind the language and Mikulski is the all-too-willing messenger.  If you want to make abortion—including partial birth abortion—a mandated “covered benefit,” what better (and more insidious) way to do it than to mask it in vague language and let the unaccountable administrative agency draft the rules.

It’s called plausible deniability.

But it’s just the latest in a long list of evidence proving that Obama has his radical anti-life agenda at the policy forefront and on the legislative and regulatory fast track.

Author: Leo Shishmanian

 

 

Leo is an Examiner from Boise.

---

How Senator Mikulski Slipped an Abortion Mandate into the Health Care Bill

By Terence P. Jeffrey
At a committee hearing last week, Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland provided a classic example of a morally bankrupt legislator seeking to insidiously force Americans to cooperate with and fund an objectively evil cause.
 
On Thursday, July 9, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee met to consider amendments to the legislation it is drafting to rearrange the entire U.S. health care system.
 
While chairing the hearing, Mikulski offered an obscurely worded, two-part amendment.



The first part required literally all health insurance companies in America to provide unspecified “preventive care and screenings” for “pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age.” The specific services involved would be determined later in guidelines approved by a federal agency called the Health Resources and Services Administration.
 
This part of the amendment said: “A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide coverage for, and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements (other than minimal cost sharing in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) for, with respect to women (including pregnant women and individuals of child bearing age), such additional preventive care and screenings not covered under section 2708 as provided for in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.”
 
The second part of the amendment applied to health insurers participating in government-run insurance networks—so-called “American Health Benefit Gateways”—that the bill directs each state to create. These “gateways,” consisting of a government-run insurance company plus “qualified” private insurance companies, would offer federally subsidized insurance to Americans earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level (currently $88,000 for a family of four).
 
In order to “qualify” to participate in these gateways, Mikulski’s amendment said, the secretary of health and human services must certify that the insurer includes “within health insurance plan networks those essential community providers, where available, that serve predominantly low-income, medically underserved individuals, such as health care providers defined in section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act and providers described in section 1927 (c) (1)(D)(i)(IV) of the Social Security Act as set forth by section 21 of Public Law 111-8.”
 
Like many amendments offered in Congress these days, Mikulski’s was intentionally opaque. It did not plainly state that insurance companies must cover “abortion” and that taxpayers must pay for the abortions of people making up to $88,000 per year who are participating in federally subsidized insurance plans.
 
But Mikulski was outed anyway.
 
When she brought her amendment up, an exceedingly polite and understated—but nonetheless stunning—colloquy ensued.
 
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah quietly asked the necessary questions. Pointing to the language mandating that health insurers participating in government “gateways” must include “essential community providers,” Hatch asked: “Would that include abortion providers? I mean it looks to me like you’re expanding it to where you—well, say for instance, like Planned Parenthood. Would that put them into this system?”
 
Mikulski was evasive.
 
“It would include women’s health clinics that provide comprehensive services, and under the definition of a women’s health clinic it would include Planned Parenthood clinics,” said Mikulski. “It does not in any way expand a service. In other words, it doesn’t expand, nor mandate an abortion service.”
 
“No,” said Hatch, “but it would provide for them.”
 
“It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate,” said Mikulski.
 
In other words, “gateway” insurers would be required to cover Planned Parenthood services, which would include procedures deemed “medically appropriate,” which would include abortions.
 
“Well, I would have a rough time supporting it on that basis,” said Hatch. “But I just wanted to get that clarified.”
 
At this point, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania had a go-around with Mikulski.
 
“You and I had a discussion about it,” Casey said to Mikulski. “The way it is written—and I don’t believe this is the intent—the way it is written, I believe it is too broad. And the way it could be interpreted down the road might include something like abortion. And I am concerned about that, the breadth of it and the scope of it. And for that reason I will oppose it.”
 
To eliminate any ambiguity that Mikulski’s amendment was intended to mandate abortion coverage in the proposed health-care reform, Hatch asked her a final question.
 
“Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, ‘Not including abortion services’?” Hatch asked. “Then I think you would have more support.”
 
Mikulski concluded with a convoluted response, saying, “So, no, I would not be willing to do that at this time.” Mikulski’s amendment passed.
 
On Monday, Hatch offered his own amendment in the committee to prohibit any funding of abortion through federally funded health insurance programs except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The amendment was defeated.

---

 

THE WAGES PAID TO THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE Judie Brown
A friend reminded me of some rather startling numbers that I would like to share with you.  According to a 2002 report, one man was fined $2,500 for taking paddlefish eggs out of the state of Oklahoma. In addition to the fine, the individual could have spent 450 days in jail for smuggling the eggs. Felony violations involving the destruction of various endangered species and their eggs, according to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can amount to as much as $250,000 in fees for individuals and $500,000 for corporations and up to six months in prison. A violation of the Eagle Act can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Penalties for subsequent offenses are significantly higher.  In all three of the examples provided, we are talking about laws that are on the books in our nation and are designed to protect the rights of wildlife including those belonging to endangered species.  These are, I hasten to point out, not considered crimes against human beings, but rather crimes against various types of birds and animals. Now compare these fines with those leveled against individuals who kill children who reside in the womb, in a Petri dish, or are newly conceived and on their way to implanting themselves.  Regardless of which category of preborn child you consider, there are no fines and there is no jail time to be served when one of them is killed.  If this doesn’t make sense to you, then we are on the same page.  But the point I want to make in this regard is far more serious than merely the incongruity of our laws when it comes to protecting wildlife versus protecting innocent human beings.  What we have in America right now is a legal system that places more value on a bird’s egg or a fish’s egg, than on a human being’s life.  Because of this disconnect with logic and common sense, very bad things happen, and they are happening in our communities on a daily basis. Take the case of the child found in a dumpster in Las Vegas on Wednesday of this week.  “Investigators think the child was between the age of 18 months and [two] years old. The coroner says the baby's death is the result of a homicide.”  In other words, this child was brutally murdered by someone.  At this time, “Detectives want to question 20-year-old Darrean Williams and 37-year-old William Marshall. Police believe Williams is the mother of the child and Marshall is her boyfriend.” Consider the case of the five Arizona police officers who are currently on paid leave because a criminal probe is being conducted following the flushing of a preborn child down a toilet.  Yes, that’s right.  Four officers responded to a call of a possible miscarriage Monday at the Motel 6 in Mesa where they arrested a man on suspicion of drug-related offenses and discovered a woman in the room apparently had miscarried a [four]-inch fetus that was an estimated 12 to 14 weeks old, according to [Police Chief] Gascón. Although both Mesa fire and police were present in the motel room, Lt. Lynn Young told the officers and fire personnel over the phone not to take the fetus but to flush it down the toilet, according to Gascón. Since this child was, according to our laws, not considered to be a full-fledged person, will the policemen go on about their daily lives as if nothing had happened?  Will any charges be recommended in this case?  Nobody knows at this point.  The question in my mind is whether or not the public will want to know what would have possessed anyone to tell the officers to flush a preborn human being down the toilet rather than give him a proper burial.  My guess is nobody will care! Finally there’s the case of Arnold Ross, a Louisiana teen charged with rape and the murder of an infant.  The report explains that Ross is suspected of having raped the eight-month-old baby boy Da-Von Lonzo and then beating the baby to death.  The investigation in this case is ongoing, but as Mary Ann Kreitzer, founder of Les Femmes – The Truth, so aptly observed in her blog when she wrote about this tragic case: The comments following the story express horror over what happened to this poor little baby. But I imagine some of the same individuals calling for the blood of the killer would describe themselves as pro-choice and excuse a similar crime provided the baby was murdered nine months earlier at eight months in utero. That's what George Tiller did every day: injected saline solution to scald babies and burn off their skin, stabbed them in the neck and sucked out their brains, thrust a needle full of digoxin into their hearts to stop its [sic] beating – his methods changed over the years, but all guaranteed delivery of a battered and dead baby. Yet Tiller is a hero to the pro-abortion mob while Ross, no doubt, they would consider a monster. Tiller didn't rape the babies; he performed a mechanical rape on their mothers using sterile instruments to violate the sanctuary of the uterus. But he, we are told, was a brave man wielding his murderous instruments against the little ones. He was eulogized at his funeral  as a "passionate and generous man who repeatedly overcame difficult challenges." A friend described him as "Mr. Enthusiasm," which was certainly true of his attitude toward killing children. Well, Mr. Enthusiasm, meet your philosophical twin, Arnold Ross, a young man raised in a culture that allows the dismembering of near term babies in utero. He never knew a time that pornography wasn't rampant, fornication wasn't encouraged, and child killing wasn't legal. He grew up in an age where liberal policies destroyed the black family driving fathers from the home, encouraging mothers to replace them with Uncle Sugar and his welfare checks. How can anyone be surprised when the young treat life as cheap and expendable? They've learned the lessons of the culture too well, perhaps. One can do whatever he likes and eliminate the consequences. The young find out too late that some killing is more equal than others. There's precious little difference between little Da-Von Lonzo and the babies killed at Tiller's abortuary – about ten pounds, in fact. But Tiller performed respectable murders that left him awash in money that he shared with liberal politicians. His politically correct killing filled Kathleen Sebelius' campaign chest and those of other liberal politicians. As the Bible says, "Love of money is the root of all evils" and it can buy a lot of approval from those who lust after it. As for me, I can't see much difference between George Tiller, mass child killer, and Arnold Ross, killer of one. They were philosophical twins. The pro-abortion "martyr" and the child abusing "monster" had more in common than our society is likely to admit. Kreitzer has hit the nail on the head.  And while, at this moment, we do not know what sort of sentence will be handed down in the case involving 17-year-old Arnold Ross, we do know that Da-Von is dead. And we also know that whether it is the Ross case, or the Mesa Arizona police case or the Las Vegas dumpster case, the bottom line is that we are living in a culture of violence.  For more than 36 years, America has denied that aborting a child prior to birth is the moral equivalent of murder; in fact many have glorified abortion as a human right and charged those who know otherwise with disrespectful, dishonest allegations such as fanaticism, terrorism and anti-feminism.  But the results of this disconnect between the price one has to pay for stealing a duck egg and the price one has to pay for killing a preborn child are all around us. It’s time America woke up and saw the brutality that is spawned on a daily basis by America’s violent culture; a culture dedicated to denial, betrayal and sexual saturation.  We are paying the price daily in human lives tossed on the trash heap of our inability to face reality. How many more will have to die?        ~Judie Brown

---

 

Sotomayor Tells Senator She "Never Thought About"

Rights of Unborn on Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- As more evidence comes in that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will likely support abortion and uphold Roe v. Wade if she is confirmed, a new comment she made during a meeting with one senator provides another talking point for pro-life advocates opposed to her nomination.

Sotomayor has been meeting with each member of the Senate privately in preparation for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing expected to take place in July.

Senator Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, says he had a "good meeting" with the appeals court judge, but he came away with a telling comment, according to a OneNewsNow report.

"When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it," he said. "This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings."

Given her comment, DeMint questions whether Sotomayor has an "unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans."

Sotomayor's comment comes as pro-life advocates are putting together a more cohesive case giving them less compunction about putting together a national campaign to oppose her nomination.

The Washington Times profiled Sotomayor's background on Wednesday as a member of the board of directors of a Hispanic group, and a part-time head of its litigation committee, that filed several legal briefs urging support for unlimited abortions.

Sotomayor has also come under fire for saying she regretted the adoption of a Congressional bill that prevented the Legal Services Corporation from spending taxpayer funds litigating in favor of abortion.

 

---

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Todd Jones, Exec. Dir., Missouri Roundtable for Life

- (314) 854-1381 or todd@moroundtable.org

 

MAJORITY WHIP BRIAN NIEVES

FILES TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

 

Once Passed, H.J.R. 38 Allows Voters to Block Tax Dollars

 from Abortionists, Cloners

 

St. Louis - March 25, 2009 – Representative Brian Nieves (R-Union), the Majority Whip in the Missouri House, late yesterday filed a House Joint Resolution, H.J.R. 38 that would prohibit Missouri tax dollars from being spent on abortion services, human cloning, and other destructive research.  A bi-partisan group of 60 other House members joined Representative Nieves as co-sponsors of H.J.R. 38. 

"In these tough economic times, Missouri taxpayers expect us to protect every dime that comes to our state," said Representative Brian Nieves. "The Joint Resolution I have filed would allow Missouri taxpayers to make sure that their dollars never go to abortion services or human cloning or other prohibited research.  This is common sense to all Missourians and I am proud to sponsor it."

Representative Nieves, a well-known fiscal conservative who serves on the fiscal review committee in the Missouri House and has a reputation for being a tax-payer protector, filed the Resolution to remedy a developing problem of money being funneled to abortion services or other research.  A recent court case in Cole County Circuit Court has clarified that certain restrictions passed in 2003 under the authorship of the late Representative Richard Byrd have been struck down.  Those restrictions made clear that Life Sciences Research Trust Fund dollars would not be spent on abortion services, human cloning, and other destructive research. 

 

If passed by the House and the Senate, H.J.R. 38 would allow the citizens of Missouri to vote on the following amendment:

 

Section 38(e).  It shall be unlawful to expend, pay, or grant any public funds for abortion services, human cloning, or prohibited human research, as such terms were defined by the 92nd Missouri general assembly in 2003, in Revised Statutes of Missouri Section 196.1127, L.2003, H.B. 688.

 

This amendment would appear on the ballot during the next general election (2010) or a special election if called by Governor Jay Nixon.

 

“Missouri Roundtable for Life thanks Representative Nieves for taking leadership on this issue to protect Missouri taxpayers and for finding 60 other House members from both parties to co-sponsor H.J.R 38,” said Todd Jones MRFL Executive Director.  “MRFL encourages the House to take up and pass H.J.R. 38 immediately.  Missourians need to stop the raid of the Missouri treasury by fringe special interest groups like Planned Parenthood and others who seek taxpayer dollars for abortion services and human cloning.  The time to stop that raid is now!”

 

To learn more about the Missouri Roundtable for Life, please visit www.moroundtable.org

 

---

 

Family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, Owner of the Nation's Largest Privately Owned Abortion Chain, Dies in Montana Plane Crash

 

Contact: Gingi Edmonds, www.gingiedmonds.com, 559-772-7911

MEDIA ADVISORY, Mar. 24 /Christian Newswire/ -- Some of you may have seen the major news story of the private plane that crashed into a Montana cemetery, killing 7 children and 7 adults.

But what the news sources fail to mention is that the Catholic Holy Cross Cemetery owned by Resurrection Cemetery Association in Butte - contains a memorial for local residents to pray the rosary, at the 'Tomb of the Unborn'. This memorial, located a short distance west of the church, was erected as a dedication to all babies who have died because of abortion.

What else is the mainstream news not telling you? The family who died in the crash near the location of the abortion victim's memorial, is the family of Irving 'Bud' Feldkamp, owner of the largest for-profit abortion chain in the nation.

Family Planning Associates was purchased four years ago by Irving Moore "Bud" Feldkamp III, owner of Allcare and Hospitality Dental Associates and CEO of Glen Helen Raceway Park in San Bernardino. The 17 California Family Planning clinics perform more abortions in the state than any other abortion provider - Planned Parenthood included - and they perform abortions through the first five months of pregnancy.

Although Feldkamp is not an abortionist, he reaps profits of blood money from the tens of thousands of babies that are killed through abortions performed every year at the clinics he owns. His business in the abortion industry was what enabled him to afford the private plane that was carrying his family to their week-long vacation at The Yellowstone Club, a millionaires-only ski resort.

The plane went down on Sunday, killing two of Feldkamp's daughters, two sons-in-law and five grandchildren along with the pilot and four family friends. The plane, a single-engine turboprop flown by Bud Summerfield of Highland, crashed into the Catholic cemetery and burst into flames, only 500 ft. from its landing destination. All aboard were killed.

The cause of the crash is a mystery. The pilot, who was a former military flier who logged over 2,000 miles, gave no indication to air traffic controllers that the aircraft was experiencing difficulty when he asked to divert to an airport in Butte. Witnesses report that the plane suddenly nosedived toward the ground with no apparent signs of a struggle. There was neither a cockpit voice recorder nor a flight data recorder onboard, and no radar clues into the planes final moments because the Butte airport is not equipped with a radar facility. Some speculate that the crash was due to ice on the wings, but this particular plane model has been tested for icy weather and experts have stated that ice being the cause is unlikely.

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp's dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God's blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children's sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6)

A news source states that Bud Feldkamp visited the site of the crash with his wife and their two surviving children on Monday. As they stood near the twisted and charred debris talking with investigators, light snow fell on the tarps that covered the remains of their children.

I don't want to turn this tragic event into some creepy spiritual 'I told you so' moment, but I think of the time spent outside of Feldkamp's - Pam Feldkamp laughing at the fetal development signs, Bud Feldkamp trying not to make eye contact as he got into his car with a small child in tow - and I think of the haunting words, 'Think of your children.' I wonder if those words were haunting Feldkamp as well as he stood in the snow among the remains of loved ones, just feet from the 'Tomb of the Unborn'?

I only hope and pray that in the face of this tragedy, Feldkamp recognizes his need for repentance and reformation. I pray that God will use this unfortunate catastrophe to soften the hearts of Bud and Pam and that they will draw close to the Lord and wash their hands of the blood of thousands of innocent children, each as precious and irreplaceable as their own.

"I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then." (Deut. 30:19)

Gingi Edmonds is a freelance pro-life activist, writer and photographer based out of Hanford, California. Gingi writes a bi-monthly ProLife Opinion Column and is available for pro-life presentations and speaking engagements. Visit www.gingiedmonds.com for more information.

Did Bishop Martino alter Casey Vote on pro-life amendment re: overseas abortion funding?

WATCH VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand!

Check out this new campaign..find your state and sign up!!:

Stop FOCA

"The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That's the first thing I'd do." - Barack Obama,

Take Obama's word for it.  He promised Planned Parenthood he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) - and pro-life Americans need to let Congress know that we OPPOSE this radical legislation.

What is the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA)?

In short, FOCA is a federal bill that would end virtually ALL restrictions on abortion across America.  It is an unlimited right to tax-payer funded, abortion-on-demand.  This bill is so sweeping in its language that it would:

• End parental notification or consent for abortions performed on minors
• Mandate taxpayer funding of abortion
• Allow abortions in military hospitals
• End waiting periods before having an abortion
• Overturn laws requiring informed consent prior to abortion
• Deny doctors the right to refuse to perform abortion for religious reasons
• Force religious affiliated hospitals and facilities to perform abortions
• Overturn many abortion clinic health regulations
• Overturn laws prohibiting abortion after the viability of the child
• Legalize partial-birth abortion

FOCA would overturn the will of the majority of the American people on each of these issues - and prevent them from passing any further common sense restrictions and regulations on abortion. 

Barack Obama promised to sign FOCA - and we should take him at his word!

A new liberal majority is now in control of Congress and working to pass this monstrous bill.  Take action today! 

Stop FOCA Action Items:

• Sign the petition to Stop FOCA
• FAX your members of Congress and tell them how you feel
• Spread the word to others about this important issue
• Help us drive the campaign by contributing to Christian Coalition

Ranking says Pa. most pro-life state

WASHINGTON (BP)--Pennsylvania is the most pro-life state in the country, while California is the least, according to the 2009 rankings by Americans United for Life (AUL).

Released Jan. 22, AUL's sixth annual ratings show the following top 10 of most pro-life states: (1) Pennsylvania; (2) Louisiana; (3) South Dakota; (4) Oklahoma; (5) Mississippi; (6) Texas; (7) North Dakota; (8) Nebraska; (9) Arkansas; and (10) Indiana.

The 10 least pro-life states, beginning with the worst, are: (1) California; (2) Hawaii; (3) Vermont; (4) New Jersey; (5) Connecticut; (6) Nevada; (7) Oregon; (8) New York; (9) Washington; and (10) Illinois.

AUL, with offices in Chicago, based its rankings on such criteria as state laws regarding informed consent for women seeking abortions, parental involvement for minors considering abortions, restrictions on abortion funding, regulations for abortion clinics, funding of embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide and conscience protections for pro-life health-care providers.

--30—

Compiled by Baptist Press Washington Bureau chief Tom Strode.

Copyright (c) 2009 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press www.BPNews.net

Posted on Feb 20, 2009 | by Staff WASHINGTON (BP)--Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says an abortion-rights fundraising campaign in her honor may be "great theater" but does nothing to diminish her pro-life convictions.

After Republican Sen. John McCain named the governor as his vice presidential running mate in September, an e-mail effort seeking donations to Planned Parenthood "in honor of Sarah Palin" spread. Pro-choice advocates expressed strong opposition to Palin's candidacy because of her opposition to abortion. The fundraising effort resulted in more than $1 million in donations to the country's leading abortion provider, a Planned Parenthood official told the Anchorage Daily News.

"I have boxes of thank you notes from people associated with Planned Parenthood thanking me for the donations," Palin said at a Feb. 11 news conference, according to the Daily News. "It's political theater -– it's great theater I guess for some."

In a written statement released later, Palin said, "Making donations to Planned Parenthood in my name might be interesting theater in these politically charged times, but it is not going to change my views or the views of many other Alaskans who believe every life is precious."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America's affiliates performed nearly 290,000 abortions in 2006, the latest year for which statistics are available.
--30--www.BPNews.net

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Tumors triggered by fetal stem cells
Doctor: Results of injection therapies aren't predictable

Evidence of limb, hair and teeth can be seen in teratoma cell 

A new report in the medical journal PLoS Medicine details the case of a boy treated for a rare condition with fetal stem cell injections who developed cancerous tumors as a result.

"This is the first report of a human brain tumor complicating neural stem cell therapy," the report from the Israeli research team said. "The findings here suggest that neuronal stem-progenitor cells may be involved in gliomagenesis and provide the first example of a donor-derived brain tumor.

"Further work is urgently needed to assess the safety of these therapies," the study said.

Word of the warning came just as the Associated Press reported that shares of stem-cell developers rocketed this week in anticipation of an executive order from President Obama that he would institute federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research programs. The funding was sharply curtailed by President Bush under a pro-life agenda he followed.

The report said the ban to be lifted identified only embryonic stem cells, which are collected by cloning human embryos in labs. The use of the cells requires killing the embryo.

The new medical report said the case developed in a patient with the rare ataxia telangiectasia, a condition involving the degeneration of the brain region that controls movement and speech. It apparently is caused by the halt in production of a certain protein.

The report said starting in 2001, fetal neural stem cells were injected several times into the patient's brain and surrounding fluid surrounding during treatments in Moscow.

Then in 2005, recurrent headaches prompted doctors at Sheba Medical Center in Israel to order magnetic resonance imaging scans on the patient.

"The scan revealed abnormal growths in his brain and spinal cord. In September 2006, when the boy was 14, the spinal cord growth was surgically removed. This growth has never reappeared but the mass in the boy's brain has continued to grow slowly," the report said.

"The [study] findings indicate that the growth in the patient's spinal cord was donor-cell derived and contained cells from two or more donors, at least one of whom was female," the study said.

"There are potential dangers associated with stem cell therapy, such as malignant transformation. The injection of pluripotent … cells in rodents leads frequently to the development of teratomas or teratocarcinomas," the report said.

"This first example of a donor-derived brain tumor developing after fetal neural cell transplantation is worrying and suggests that further work should be done to assess the safety of this therapy," the study said.

"Patients, please beware," Dr. John Gearhart, a stem cell scientist in Pennsylvania who wasn't involved in the Israel case, told the AP.

"Cells are not drugs. They can misbehave in so many different ways, it just is going to take a good deal of time" to refine treatments, he said.

Victims of A-T Degeneration typically lose their ability to move, and because of typically faulty immune systems allowing infections and cancers, they usually die in their teens or early 20s.

WND previously reported that Obama, in a closed-door meeting with House Democrats at their retreat at the posh Kingsmill Golf Resort in Williamsburg, Va., gave his "guarantee" he will sign an executive order overturning Bush's executive order restricting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama's reversal of Bush's policy comes in the face of scientific evidence that more than two decades of embryonic stem cell research have failed to produce medically valuable results, while adult stem cell research has resulted in successful medical treatments for a wide range of illnesses.

By using an executive order to approve embryonic stem cell research for human therapeutic uses, the Obama administration plans to bypass congressional discussion and debate, seeking instead to reverse the Bush executive order without introducing any new legislation, the Washington Times reported.

Obama appears determined to push the embryonic stem cell political agenda, despite medical concerns that therapeutic results in human medical treatments over decades have proved that adult stem cells and stem cells derived from human placenta produce results, while embryonic stem cells produce tumors hazardous to human health.

"Most of the media report only 'stem cell' research, not distinguishing between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells," David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, told WND.

"Embryonic stem cell research relies upon the destruction of a young human embryo," he emphasized. "You have to cannibalize a young human life to get embryonic human stem cells, something you do not need to do if you work with adult stem cells."

Florida Doctor Loses License

after Baby Survives Abortion

Protecting the Sanctity of Life in Missouri  

January marked the 36^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. For pro-lifers, the Supreme Court's infamous abortion decisions began an ongoing battle to protect the unborn.

I am strongly pro-life and represent an area with many who share this belief.  As a legislator, I feel it is essential for us to work to guard the sanctity of human life. We live in a country where abortions are legal and hundreds are performed each day.   We have made significant steps to reduce the number of abortions and enable Missourians to choose life.

In 2007, Missouri had the fewest number of abortions performed in the state since 1975. In addition we have reduced the number of abortion clinics operating inside our borders from ten down to three.  This is further proof that our dedication to pro-life initiatives are producing positive results. In just the last few years we have cut taxpayer funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, created programs to promote alternatives to abortion, developed a tax credit program for donations to pregnancy resource centers, instituted new regulations for abortion clinics and strengthened Missouri’s parental consent laws. These progresses are promising; however, we must continue to do what we can to protect the lives of the unborn.  

That is why I am proud to support House Resolution 294. This legislation says the Missouri House of Representatives strongly opposes the federal Freedom of Choice Act. (FOCA).  FOCA undermines the right and responsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy. The protection of women's health through state regulation on abortion is a state interest that should not be abolished by Congress. In addition, FOCA also overthrows numerous commonsense protective laws properly enacted by Missouri including a ban on partial birth abortions. The passing of HR 294 would send a clear message to Congress about how Missourians like you and I feel about abortion.  

I will continue to do what I can as your Representative at our Capitol, to reduce the number of abortions in the state. Again, it is my belief that we must work tirelessly to protect the unborn and hold sacred the sanctity of life.

~Brian Nieves

# # #

AMAZING UK TREE HUGGER INSANE:

COMMUNISM REARS ITS UGLY HEAD

Having More Than 2 Kids Will Destroy Planet, Environmentalist Says

Two children should be limit, says green guru

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square.

The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

“Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

Planned Parenthood Increasingly Targets Hispanic Women
By Rai Rojas

Editor's note. Rai Rojas is NRLC's director of Hispanic Outreach. He delivered these remarks at NRLC's January 22 press conference at the National Press Building. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

There are millions of Latinos in the United States who are completely unaware of what January 22 signifies for them, nor do they know how greatly and negatively impacted they are by Roe v. Wade. For some Latinos, the United States Supreme Court's edict that legalized abortion on demand happened decades before they arrived in this country. Yet the penumbra of that decision looms over the essence of Hispanic culture in this country on a daily basis.

The abortion industry has a special solution for us. For years this huge conglomerate (Planned Parenthood's revenues alone are approaching $1 billion) has gone after the Latino community with fervor and without apology. Examples of how the Latino community is targeted are plentiful, including an over-abundance of advertisements in mono-lingual Spanish papers that publish only in Latino communities; Planned Parenthood's choice of a Mexican-American as its chaplain; and an all-out web campaign that targets Latina women.

As the abortion rate among non-Latin white women declines, the abortion industry realizes it needs to make up for that negative cash flow. Pretending to be a benevolent "family planning" organization is its hook into the Hispanic community.

One of Planned Parenthood's Spanish language flyers claims that they are pro-woman, pro-family, pro-child, and pro-choice. For many Latinos, realizing that these are the blatant lies of an industry desperately in need of a new infusion of cash comes too late.

Pro-abortionists want Hispanics to believe that they are pro-family, but at every turn they fight efforts to keep Latino parents informed before their minor daughters are about to undergo an abortion. The abortion industry claims to be pro-woman , yet they argue against laws that insure a Latina woman's right know what abortion is, what abortion does to her unborn child as well as the long term effects of abortion and the link between abortion and breast cancer.

They try to say that they are pro-child, yet they lobbied against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which affords protection to unborn children against acts of violence.

And finally, they claim to be pro-choice, but the mere mention of a 24-hour waiting period sends them into a shrill panic. The abortion industry wants Latinas to abort and to abort now – and the truth be damned.

Before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said, "Truth is not determined by a majority vote." This statement, when applied to American Hispanics was made palpable and painfully clear this last November.

The truth about abortion is hard to come by for most Americans, but particularly for minorities. When independent sources attempt to educate Latinos, they are shut down and called irresponsible. Such is the case of Eduardo Verastegui.

Mr. Verastegui is an iconic Mexican actor of stage, screen and television. He recently played the protagonist in a movie (Bella) that went on to win the prestigious Toronto Film Festival.

His most recent project however, has not been so swell received by many mainstream media outlets. The film is aptly called La Dura Realidad (The Hard Truth), and Edurado introduces and narrates a film that is difficult, but necessary to watch.

In the film Eduardo enumerates so many of the points that Latinos in this country need to hear about abortion, and he asks the questions that so desperately need to be asked.

Eduardo talks about the fact that minorities and Latinos in particular are targeted by the policy of abortion on demand that he so correctly calls racist. He asks why there are so many abortion clinics in Latino neighborhoods and why there is such a special interest in our population by those who promote and profit from abortion. He reminds the viewers of how lucrative a business abortion is and how many Hispanic lives are lost to the abortion industry's never-ending need to flourish.

The hard truth comes in the middle of the video when for about two minutes beautiful pictures of children in utero are shown with their gestational age noted on screen. Eduardo's voiceover is soft and eloquent as he explains the science of embryonic development. Then the pictures of children who lost their right to life are shown. It is sobering, troubling, and emotionally draining.

When the pictures of the destruction and carnage are over, the camera turns back to Eduardo. He educates Latinos further on the horrors of abortion and its aftermath. He does not mince his words; he is clear, precise, and succinct. There is no question left unanswered. But this hard truth did not see the light of day on any major media outlet: the truth is really that hard.

But the truth is never inconsequential. It's always here. There are people who will try to corrupt it, pervert it, derail it, taint it, but the truth is the truth. It will prevail. Truth is its own defense and it is a complete defense.

There is a pattern with the mainstream media and the issues that surround abortion and its racist overtones. They don't like the truth, they won't tell the truth, they won't report the truth, and they won't let you see the truth. The truth is being subverted.

It is our job at NRLC to make sure that the truth will prevail. One by one, community by community, state by state, Latinos will know that every abortion stops a beating heart and that it is all a bloody messy ordeal.

http://www.nrlpac.org/

HEAVEN SENT

People who support abortion are clearly in the culture of the "fear of life" and or Pro-death.Abortion has unfortunately become a casual thing and once performed, becomes a dont "ask dont tell policy" in their lives.

Visit The Obama Factor at You Tube:
 

http://www.youtube.com/user/theobamafactor

Abortion Rights Advocates Want Abortion to Be 'Pro-Family'

By Matt Hadro

Jessica Arons, director of Women’s Health & Rights Program at the Center for American Progress (Photo courtesy of CAP)

(CNSNews.com) – It is time for abortion rights advocates to include a “pro-family” context in their conversations about reproductive rights, according to Malika Saada Saar, executive director of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights.
 
Saar was a member of a recent panel discussion at the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington, D.C., to discuss the topic “Time for a Change in the Reproductive Rights Debate.”
 
Saar said that much of her generation, the “Roe Generation” that came of age after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, has held a view of the abortion-rights movement as “anti-family” and “anti-child.”
 
“A new leadership that is interested in having a different conversation” has emerged today, she said, referring to the new era that begins when President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20.  
 
Other members of the panel were Jessica Arons, director of Women’s Health & Rights Program at CAP; Geeta Rao Gupta, president of the International Center for Research on Women; and James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.
 
The opportunity has come to “include a pro-child, pro-mother, pro-family, pro-human rights context to how we talk about our movement,” Saar said.
 
“Pro-family” abortion and reproductive rights would include “the sacredness of women, the sacredness of mothering, the sacredness of family, the sacredness of our children,” she said.  
 
“Reproductive rights” should also be defined as “human rights,” Saar added.
 
Saar also advocated an expansion of “family-based treatment” so that mothers don’t have to choose “between treatment and their children.”
 
The panel touched upon multiple issues involving the future of reproductive rights.
 
“With respect to state and local politics, it’s going to be incumbent upon advocates to really mobilize and engage youth as partners on these issue sets,” said Wagoner.
 
Wagoner also advocated comprehensive sex education as the new alternative to abstinence-only education, which he claimed has utterly failed.
 
Abstinence-only education is “totally an anti-science position,” he said.
 
“It would be a tremendous transformation in this country,” he said, that “public health in the reproductive and sexual areas be based on science and evidence,” as opposed to today’s education dictated by “ideology.”
 
When asked at what age he supported comprehensive sex education for children in schools, Wagoner replied that children as young as kindergartners could participate in the curriculum, but such education would have to be “age-appropriate.”
 
“Well, I think it’s got to be age-appropriate,” Wagoner told to CNSNews.com, “so when you’re talking about kindergarten or about elementary school, you’re really talking about puberty … and safety education.”
 
“When you talk about contraception, and the like, you’re really talking about middle and high school,” he added.
 
Wagoner also stated that local communities must maintain the standards. “It’s fine for the federal government to have broad guidelines” sex education, he said, “but the decision about what curricula goes into the classroom has to be left to local communities, local school boards. Because what flies in a suburb of Chicago may not in Birmingham, Ala.

Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama

By Jill Stanek
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com