President Obama held a meeting today with several Catholic reporters to discuss his upcoming trip this month to visit the Pope. Though many topics were addressed, one of the attendees, Father Kearns of the National Catholic Register, said that the most noteworthy part of the meeting was the discussion concerning consciences clauses. During the meeting, Obama tried to assure the Catholic community that he was not against conscience clauses for healthcare providers. Here are Obama’s reassurances about the conscience clause:

"…My underlying position has always been consistent, which is I'm a believer in conscience clauses.  I was a supporter of a robust conscience clause in Illinois for Catholic hospitals and health care providers.  I discussed this with Cardinal George when he was here in the Oval Office, and I reiterated my support for an effective conscience clause in my speech at Notre Dame."

Later Obama said, "…I can assure all of your readers that when this review is complete there will be a robust conscience clause in place."

One has to question why Obama’s administration deems it necessary to create a new "robust" conscience clause instead of letting the robust one of the previous administration remain valid. The conscience clause put into effect at the end of President Bush’s second term allowed health-care workers to refuse to provide services such as abortion based on moral objections without fear of discrimination. President Obama made a couple comments during his meeting with the Catholic media that causes one to wonder just how robust the conscience clause his administration creates will be. Consider this statement from Obama:

We, as I said before, did reverse an 11th-hour change in the conscience clause, partly because it hadn't been properly reviewed and thought through and there were some concerns about how broad it might be and what its manifestations would be once implemented.

Obama also admitted that his administration’s conscience clause "…may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach…"

Perhaps most interestingly, President Obama appeared to show surprise that pro-lifers are worried that his conscience clause will be weaker than the previous one. During the meeting Obama said, "So I think that there have been some who keep on anticipating the worst from us, and it's not based on anything I've said or done, but is rather just a perception somehow that we have some hard-line agenda that we're seeking to push." (Emphasis added)

Pro-lifers’ skepticism is not based on anything President Obama has said or done? Perhaps President Obama has forgotten that in July of 2007 he said that the first thing he’d do in office would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)- a policy that would negate all federal and state limitations on abortion including the current ban on partial-birth abortion. Perhaps President Obama thinks that his answer of it is "above my pay grade" in response to the question of when a baby gets human rights should not be a red flag to those committed to protecting all human life. Perhaps President Obama doesn’t think that his recent proposal to remove the Dornan Amendment so that taxpayers’ money would be used to fund abortions in Washington D.C. should cause pro-lifers to expect Obama to be weak on life issues. Maybe the president thinks it should be no big deal that he overturned the Mexico City Policy which resulted in forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations in foreign countries. Considering all these things (and more) that Obama has said and done with regard to abortion and life issues, I think that it is reasonable that we remain vigilant and watchful of our new president when it comes to his actions concerning life issues.

Sarah Lovato, a resident of New Mexico, was pregnant and excited to be a mother.  She had planned to name her son Isaac Ray and had proudly posted ultrasound pictures of him on her MySpace page.  Sadly, on May 22nd Sarah, her father, and her unborn son were murdered by the father of the child, Mariano Leyba, Jr.  

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, police believe that the unborn child was targeted in this shooting.  Originally, Leyba was going to be charged with three accounts of murder, but that has been dropped to two accounts of murder because under New Mexico Law unborn children, even if they are viable, are not considered to be human beings.  The Santa Fe District Attorney said this about the murder of Isaac:

If they had taken (the mother) to the hospital and delivered the baby and it had taken one breath, then died, it would be homicide.  But if the baby is killed in the womb, it’s not considered homicide under New Mexico law.  It doesn’t matter if the fetus was targeted.

Apparently, under New Mexico law, one breath can transform a fetus into a baby; it can transform an entity with no rights into a human being whose rights are protected by law.

The fact that there is no penalty under New Mexico law for intentionally killing a viable, full-term unborn child is very disturbing to many residents of New Mexico and steps are already being taken to work to pass an Unborn Victims of Violence bill in the New Mexico legislature.  Not surprisingly, pro-abortion groups often oppose fetal protection laws.  As Professor Richard Parker has said, “Organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation . . . oppose the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because they say that by legally enshrining fetal personhood it undermines Roe v. Wade.” 

Advocating for the passage of fetal homicide laws, the mother of Laci Peterson said some strong words on this subject after Laci and her unborn son Connor had been killed:

What about mothers who survive criminal attacks but lose their babies?  I don't understand how any senator can vote to force prosecutors to tell such a grieving mother that she didn't really lose a baby — when she knows to the depths of her soul that she did.  This is a question not only of severity but of justice. … There were two bodies that washed up in San Francisco Bay, and the law should recognize that reality.

Previously, when state Rep. Larry Larranaga (R) introduced the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” in the New Mexico legislature in 2005, the bill died in committee.  According to a Newsweek poll, however, 84% of Americans support some type of fetal homicide law.  Hopefully during the next legislative session New Mexico legislators consider their constituents’ wishes and will pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to help to bring justice for unborn victims of violence.     

Live Action released a new video today exposing further failure by Planned Parenthood to report instances of statutory rape. Posing as a 14-year-old girl, Live Action’s Lila Rose goes to Planned Parenthood in Birmingham, Ala. to procure an abortion. Explaining that she does not want her parents to find out about the abortion, as well as the fact that her boyfriend is a 31-year-old man, the Planned Parenthood counselor assures her that sometimes the clinic manager does “bend the rules a little bit.”

Those “bended rules” are Alabama state laws requiring health professionals to report suspected cases of sexual abuse to state officials immediately, as well as law that requires express written permission from a parent or guardian for a minor to obtain an abortion.

The Planned Parenthood counselor, identified as “Tanisha,” hints that the young girl could skirt the rules for parental consent if she can obtain a signature from an older sister, or other adult with her same last name.

This video is the 6th in Live Action’s “Mona Lisa Project” which aims to expose Planned Parenthood’s refusal—nationwide—to take proper action when confronted with evidence of statutory rape. Of this latest development, Rose had this to say:


To watch more Live Action videos exposing Planned Parenthood, go here.

On June 24^th, the Susan B. Anthony List joined the House Pro-Life Women’s Caucus in a press conference on Capitol Hill, urging Congress to uphold the Dornan Amendment.

Speaking out against taxpayer-funded abortions in the nation’s capital, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) takes a stand for women and the unborn, arguing that abortion is not the answer for women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Take action today to keep your tax dollars from paying for abortion! Contact your Respresentatives and tell them to speak out against the removal of the Dornan Amendment!

After the death of abortionist George Tiller, pro-life groups across the nation sent their condolences.  However, after the attempted murder of pro-lifer James Cantfield in Chico, CA, it appears that abortion supporters do not regret the incident.  “Pro-choice” organizations remain completely silent.  Pro-abortion individuals apparently cannot say enough.

The first comment on Chico’s Enterprise Record’s online article reads, “the tragedy is that he wasn't successfl [sic] in running over the dirtbag.”  Another continues, “its [sic] good to hear about anti-choice folks having to keep on their toes for a change.” Still another commenter writes, “It would sure be great timing for me to be called to jury duty when Mr. Haver's case comes up. Mr. Canfield is way out of line with his poster.”  When the San Francisco Chronicle published the AP story, comments included, “Cantfield should be charged under the RICO statute and be labeled a domestic terrorist,” and “Better luck next time Mr. Haver.”

Pro-lifer James Cantfield has a right to free speech on the public sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic, just as anyone else does. Considering that Mr. Cantfield was simply showing pictures of what abortionist George Tiller did day after day, how can anyone be angered? Tiller was portrayed as a hero for women; why not show his “heroic” actions? Every person who considers themselves “pro-choice” should be denouncing this action, not expressing dismay that murder was not accomplished.  The fact that there has been no condemnation points to an acceptance of violence, just because one disagrees.

It seems that the anger is directed towards Mr. Cantfield solely for holding a picture of a baby victimized by abortion.  Feminist Naomi Wolf, though pro-choice, has made some very insightful comments about the subject of signage in the past:

“How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too: and strong women, presumably do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism. “

Planned Parenthood recently came out with a new television ad-campaign focused on promoting the role it plays in women’s health-care. The video, which will run throughout the Washington, D.C. area during the month of June, outlines the non-abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood, culminating in the claim that more than 90% of what the non-profit organization provides is preventative and/or primary care services.  

The TV spot features a computer image of a woman named Jane. Jane goes to Planned Parenthood “for essential health care—cancer screenings, immunizations and contraception. And Jane's not alone.” According to the advertisement, Planned Parenthood provides almost one million cervical cancer tests and 850,000 breast exams yearly. Coming on the heels of Obama’s push for a nationalized health care system, the ad finishes with: “Planned Parenthood's quality, affordable health care: Good for Jane, great for America.”

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2007-2008 annual report, they aborted 305,310 babies in 2007 alone. Of the 1,787 abortion providers in the United States, Planned Parenthood is the leading provider. Aborted children—what is brushed off in their commercial as just 10% of their services—is actually a huge problem; part of the approximately 1.2 MILLION children aborted in the U.S. every year. If that doesn’t seem bad enough, here is another statistic: For every 1 adoption referral Planned Parenthood makes, they also abort 62 babies. There isn’t much parenthood to all this planning…

It’s an indisputable fact (just check their website) that Planned Parenthood receives one-third of its income—that’s over $336,000,000 (336.7 MILLION) tax-payer dollars per year—in the form of government grants. One can’t help but wonder at the timing of the release of this glowing Planned Parenthood advertisement right around the same moment as the Obama administration is getting ready to make its push for national health care reform. As if the $1.5 billion dollar bailout, and the abortion industry “wish-list” for President Obama weren’t enough, it seems that the symbiotic relationship between the abortion industry and the Obama administration is more obvious than ever.

In the continuing saga of pro-abortion media bias, the attempted murder of a pro-life protestor has gone unnoticed. James Cantfield regular stands outside of the Planned Parenthood and Women's Health Center in Chico, California. The 69 year-old was nearly killed when a man tried to run him over with a car last week, diving out of the way just in time.

The suspect, Matthew Haver, took offense to a sign that Cantfield was holding. Truly heartbreaking is the fact that Haver’s child was in the car as Haver tried to kill a man practicing free speech. In front of his child’s eyes, this father tried to kill an innocent man.

A Google news search turns up only seven separate news stories of the event. The AP story on the event barely had any information on the incidence. Had a pro-choice protestor been targeted in anyway, the media would surely be in an uproar.

New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board has decided to pay women up to $10,000 to give eggs for embryonic stem cell research, according to an article in today’s Washington Post.  New York is the first state to allow taxpayer-funded researchers to do so, which is against the guidelines of scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences.

According to the article, efforts to obtain eggs without payment have largely failed, since the procedure requires that a woman “undergo weeks of hormone injections to stimulate their ovaries to produce eggs and then a painful procedure to extract the eggs. The procedure can in rare cases cause a dangerous overstimulation of the ovaries, and there are concerns about the possible long-term risks of hormonal stimulation.”

In other words, without getting paid a large sum of money, donating eggs to research is something that very few women would want to do.  If their minds are changed by a payment of $10,000, this suggests that the typical donor is desperate.

Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist (the irony), argues, "It is discriminatory against women to ban them from receiving payment. We pay for participation in research that has risks associated with it for other procedures. So why not this? The idea that women cannot make that decision on their own strikes me as sexist.”

However, this is not an issue of how well women can make decisions compared to men, but instead whether it is ethical to take advantage of anyone, man or woman, who agrees to an action that they are opposed to, simply because they are extremely desperate for the money.  Of course, women can make decisions.  But can they make a free, voluntary choice in this matter if money is the issue?  And, are they given adequate information of the risks involved, especially possible long term consequences? Is risking your life worth $5,000 or $10,000?  If the amount is high enough, desperate people will do what it takes to receive the money, no matter how degrading or harmful the action, especially if facing debt collectors on all sides.

Furthermore, there is an even greater ethical issue in using eggs for embryonic stem cell research in the first place, given that embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of human life. In addition, absolutely no cures have resulted from research using embryonic stem cells, despite billions of dollars in funding.

Given that this is an industry built on the destruction of defenseless embryos, it is not surprising that they have decided to further their research by preying on desperate women.

The Washington Post reported good news in Virginia this week. On Wednesday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a state law banning partial birth abortion. In this gruesome procedure, the woman’s cervix is dilated and the baby is pulled out until only his or her head remains in the mother’s body, at which point, scissors are used to open the baby’s skull and brains are sucked out by a catheter. The collapsed skull is then easier to take out of the mother’s body.

This decision by the circuit court was sharply divided and passed only 6-5—overturning an earlier decision made by a panel of only three judges made in May 2008.

To the outrage of abortion advocates, the court ruled that, in concurrence with the existing 2003 Virginia state law; partial birth abortion (or “intact dilation and extraction”) cannot be used, even in cases to protect the life of the mother.

“This decision just really ignores that precedent,” said Stephanie Toti of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It's really insulting to women's dignity that the court would put so little priority on protecting women's health and well-being.”

Its worth noting that in his 1967 writing The Case for Legalized Abortion Now, Alan Guttmacher, founder of Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute said:

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

That statement, made in 1967 is even more relevant today, as the advances in medical technology have all but completely eliminated the “need” for abortion to protect the life of the mother.

Concurring with the majority opinion of the case Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote also that

"A partially born child is among the weakest, most helpless beings in our midst and on that account exerts a special claim on our protection."

On the other side, Judge M. Blane Michael wrote in the dissenting opinion that the partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional because it would impose criminal liability (up to ten years in prison) on any doctor who “accidentally” performs the procedure—in other words, any abortionist that breaks the law.

Its time to stand up and applaud those in our judicial system who recognize the innocence and value of the weakest among us and want to protect the interests of the unborn over the interests of the abortionists who make a living off of ending lives.

Thank you, majority Judges of the 4th Circuit Court!

A Fox News article reports on a unique, state-funded program designed to lower teen pregnancy rates.  The program, called “College Bound Sisters,” was implemented by the University of North Carolina and is for girls ages 12-18 who have an older sister who was a teen mom.  College Bound Sisters attempts to discourage its members from getting pregnant while encouraging them to attend college.  The girls are paid $1 a day to not get pregnant.  The money is deposited into an interest-bearing account and the girls can collect the money once they have enrolled in college, as long as they have not become pregnant.

Supporters of this program contend that it is successful at preventing teen pregnancies and is far less expensive than the “cost” incurred when a teenage girl becomes pregnant.  Critics, however, have a few points that should be considered before giving support to programs such as these.  First of all, the program may inadvertently encourage teen abortions.  Since a member may have thousands of dollars saved up, if she became pregnant she would have an incentive to hide and end her pregnancy.  It does not appear that the organization has a way of knowing if girls become pregnant and have abortions in private.  Thus, instead of decreasing teen pregnancy rates, it is possible that the program may be increasing teen abortion rates.

Second, there is the issue of paying people to do the right thing.  The program may set up a dangerous precedent of requiring incentives for ordinary virtues.  What happens when they no longer get a dollar?  Some critics also say that the program could send a bad message to parents that the only way to teach children about morals and get them to behave is to incentivize such behavior with monetary rewards.  In the Fox News article, Bill Albert, chief program officer at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy made the following remark:

"It's hard to pay people to do something that we think they should be doing regardless. It would be like if you didn't want young people to experiment with marijuana, you'd pay them not to do it." 

Perhaps if communities raised up good role models for young teenagers and parents talked to their children about the consequences of their behavior, there would not even be a need for government programs intended to reduce teen pregnancy.

On Father’s Day in 2008 then-Senator Barack Obama gave a Father’s Day message at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago.  During his address, Obama stated, “We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”  This year, President Obama wrote an article in Parade Magazine about fatherhood.  In the article, he made a remark very similar to the one above.  He said,  “That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception….”

 

From Obama’s statements about fatherhood, it is apparent that he considers a man to be a father at conception and believes that men need to take responsibility as fathers.  President Obama’s position leads to an important question: If fatherhood begins at conception, does that not mean that a daughter or a son must be created at conception?  Tony Perkins has posed a great question to President Obama on this very issue in the following clip.

 

On his blog, Thomas Peters has called Tony Perkins’ ad “smart” because “…it challenges Obama and the pro-abortion movement to face the contradictory nature of the two things they are trying to say. The only conclusion that they can arrive at - but they avoid it at all costs - is that they honestly believe you can end human life when it is inconvenient. That's an inhuman solution.”  Peters is right.  If life begins at conception, if a daughter or a son comes into existence at conception, then abortion is the ending of that daughter or son’s life.

 

Over 154 hours of tape recordings and 30,000 pages of documents from the Nixon White House were released by The Nixon Presidential Library June 24^th, 2009. The recordings offer a deeper look into the inner workings and thoughts of the controversial 37^th US President.

Infamous for accidently recording himself, Nixon’s conversations cover a wide array of topics, a prominent one being the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling. In one taping on January 23, 1973, Nixon and an unidentified aide discuss the court’s decision to legalize abortion on demand. Nixon addresses his concern that the legalization of abortion will “break the family” and his aide adds that it may promote promiscuity.

The conversation, however, does not end there. Nixon continues to state that some abortion procedures are necessary. “I know that there are times when abortions are necessary. I know that” Nixon says to his aide, “When you have a black and a white.” He also states that he excuses cases of rape.

Naturally, Nixon never made his stance on acceptable abortions in the case of a mixed-race pregnancy purposely known. Its discovery holds significant weight for the pro-life cause because it re-emphasizes the foundations of the reasoning behind abortion clinics- population control and race control.

Stemming from the eugenics movement, abortion clinics initially opened in underprivileged neighborhoods, catering to the African American population. Many Planned Parenthood supporters (and eugenicists) advocated racism in abortion proceedings. Nixon’s statement issuing his support for the abortions of mixed raced babies signifies a theme still heavily present in the abortion industry today; abortion and racism are directly linked.

 

For more on this topic:

www.suzyb.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/3/4142690.html

The Susan B. Anthony List joined the House Pro-Life Women's Caucus to defend the Dornan Amendment, a measure that keeps your tax dollars from paying for abortions.  Check out our photos from the Press Conference!

These pro-life women leaders came together to call on Congress to keep American taxpayer dollars out of abortionist's coffers in DC, and elsewhere!  Here are Congresswoman Virginia Foxx's strong remarks:

We'll be posting videos soon, so check back!

Pro-Life women are joining together on Capitol Hill to speak out against taxpayer-funded abortion in the District of Columbia. 

Follow all the action on our Twitter feed.  We'll be live-tweeting beginning at 10:00AM EST. Today.  Check out the tweets at http://twitter.com/sbalist. The tweets are also cross-posted on our Facebook profile, www.facebook.com/sbalist.

We'll post videos and photos later this week!

A few weeks ago, Gian Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican’s unofficial newspaper) stated in an editorial that “Obama is not a pro-abortion president.”  After outcry from American commentators, Vian further explained his viewpoint in an interview with the National Review Online:


Is Obama pro-choice or pro-abortion?  Given Obama’s long list of pro-abortion activities, including the reversal of the Mexico City Policy, appointments of extremist pro-abortions to high positions, and a recent recommendation to federally fund abortions in Washington D.C, how can anyone call him anything but pro-abortion?

“…we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” –Margaret Sanger, founder, Planned Parenthood.

The Susan B. Anthony List interns attended a screening of a new documentary, Maafa 21: Black Genocide in the 21st Century America. “Maafa” is derived from a Swahili term meaning a great tragedy or disaster, an appropriate name for the destruction the eugenics movement has wrought upon the Black community.   

Not only is the documentary well-made with spectacular graphics, it exposes the expansive work of the eugenics movement in the United States, involving the most elite of society, from United States presidents to Hitler’s advisors.   

Trailer Part 1 of Maafa 21



Trailer Part 2 of Maafa 21

 

Trailer Part 3 of Maafa 21



Buy Maafa 21

In case you missed it, the House Pro-Life Women's Caucus just held a special series of speeches on the House Floor to speak out against taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia.  Check out this video of Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper's remarks, where she shares her personal story of unplanned pregnancy and the joys that followed. 



Rep. Dahlkemper is the first Democratic member of the House Pro-Life Women's Caucus, and she is a welcome addition!  Defending Life shouldn't be a partisan issue -- protecting women and the unborn is simply the right thing to do!

A heart breaking discussion has taken over the New York Times parenting blog Motherlode for the past week. A 22-year old graduate student, Emmie, wrote in to the blog asking readers for advice. She recently learned she was pregnant while in the midst of a grueling graduate degree program. After receiving nearly 700 comments back, Emmie sadly decided to seek an abortion. Here is what Emmie wrote about her decision:


Emmie also visited an adoption agency where she said, the director was "so supportive and sweet that I walked away choked up but not in tears — it was the first day I didn’t cry."

The situation that Emmie faces is not uncommon. In fact, one third of all abortions obtained are by women ages 20-24, the age when many women are in college, graduate school, or in the first years of their new career. If the story of Emmie teaches us anything, it is that as a society, we need to show these women our unconditional support.

Pregnancy care centers are vital in this effort to help women who feel unable financially or emotionally to provide for a child. The loving care and support they provide is paramount to stopping abortion. The editor of Motherlode, posted a link to a unique organization called Finished Up. This organization provides help to women in exactly Emmie's situation: pregnant students.

Since Emmie's post explaining her decision, another 650 comments have flooded in to the blog and more are arriving every minute. Few comments, however, asked "How can I help?" If we truly want to eradicate abortion, this is the question we should all be asking ourselves. "How can I help?" Maybe it is by volunteering at a pregnancy care center, maybe it is donating money, or maybe it is calling a friend who is pregnant and listening. Whether it is baby-sitting for a single mother, knitting baby blankets, or offering a warm hug, there are so many ways we can help these women who are frightened and alone.

Whatever the case, the story Emmie reminds us that there is a large amount of work ahead of us, as a movement and as a nation.

This event happened last Saturday, but the irony of the invitation is just too much to pass up.  Ladies and gentlemen, kids are welcome at the abortion advocacy fundraiser!  Perhaps the word "children" should be prefaced with "wanted," considering what abortion advocates stand for.  Discuss!