No Doubt That Pro-Lifers Have Earned Right To Action On Our Issues

The November elections were a huge win for pro-lifers and resulted in huge gains in the Congress. That's what makes the comments of SOME conservatives and SOME Republicans so unpersuasive when they try to kick pro-lifers to the curb and tell the new Republican House majority not to take on socially conservative issues like abortion. Pro-lifers have earned the right to action on our issues. There would be no Republican majority in the House nor the substantial gains in the Senate without so many candidates taking a pro-life position.

Pro-lifers have known for many years that there is a general pro-life advantage for candidates taking a pro-life position. This year was no different. Right after the election, the Polling Company found that 31 percent of voters said that abortion "affected" their vote. 22% of all voters voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8 percent voted for pro-abortion candidates. That gave pro-life candidates a net pro-life advantage of 14 percent. There are not many legislators who will kick a cause with a 14 percent advantage to the curb.

When asked "did the issue of funding for abortion in the Obama health care law affect the way you voted in today's election?," 31% of all voters said yes. 27 percent of all voters voted "for candidates who opposed the health care law," and 4% who said they voted "for candidates who favored the health care law."

That means 87 percent of the voters who opposed the abortion funding provisions of the Reid-Obama-Pelosi abortion health care law supported the candidate who held our position. National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson says " there has been a net shift in the pro-life direction in the House of 40 to 55 votes, depending on the issue."

It was also a good year to have pro-lifers on your side. Despite being vastly outspent by abortion advocates, National Right to Life notes that their PAC "supported 285 federal candidates nationwide. Of those, 235 (or 82%) won their races." "In the most competitive races, National Right to Life PAC actively worked in 122 federal races nationwide. Of those, 84 (or 74%) won" with nine are still undecided at the time. Of these twenty candidates were in highly competitive races against candidates supported abortion supporting EMILY's List. In 70 percent of those races, the pro-life candidate supported by National Right to Life PAC won.

Now you know why Planned Parenthood, NARAL and others are in hysterics, begging their supporters for more money and promising not to go away. There were exceptions like Harry Reid. But Reid had to pretend to be pro-life and paint himself as the "reasonable" pro-lifer and his opponent as being an extremist. More on that in the days to come.

After the election one conservative Nevada radio personality asked whether the pro-life position is a conservative position. O well. There may be some conservatives who are not pro-life but a substantial majority are. And not only is the pro-life position the conservative position, it's THE American position.

The Polling Company found that 53 percent of those voting in 2010 said they opposed almost all abortions and only 41 percent supported abortion regardless of the reason. And most of that 41 percent (25 percent) would limit abortion to the first three months of life. That's why a spokeswoman for Gallup can call the pro-life position "The New Normal."

That's also why pro-lifers can expect to and will see important pro-life legislation and action not only in the Congress, but in the states. There's no doubt that we've earned it.

Short Video Shows How Obama-Reid Care Funds Abortion

Nevada LIFE, the pro-life group I belong to, has written a lot the last two years on how Obama-Reid Care funds abortion. Here's a short video that makes it easy to understand.  It shows why the Hyde Amendment, contrary to Harry Reid's false claims, does not apply to the health care law, why Obama's executive order is worthless and where the money is going to fund abortion.  See also our Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obama Care Covers Abortion.  Here's the video from Population Research Institute's Dr. Steve Mosher, one of my favorite guests in my seven years as a pro-life co-host at Immaculate Heart Radio.

VERY Good News For Pro-lifers Nationally, Bittersweet For Nevada

There was VERY good news for pro-lifers across America and even in Nevada despite the defeat of our good and longtime friend pro-life Sharron Angle.

In Nevada, pro-life Dr. Joe Heck defeated pro-abortion Dina Titus last night for Nevada's third district Congressional seat. That was a huge pick up for pro-lifers and it means that Nevada's delegation is now a majority pro-life delegation with Senator Ensign, Congressman Heller and Congressman elect Heck being the three pro-lifers and Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Shelly Berkley being the pro-abortion delegation.

Better news is that the United States House of Representatives will be in pro-life hands again. It will provide a powerful check to the abortion funding and health care rationing death panel provisions of Reid-Pelosi-Obama care. The election was a repudiation of health care reform and its abortion and health care rationing death panel provisions.

Another huge positive is that pro-life Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire won in a landslide in New Hampshire. Her election brings a woman's voice to pro-life issues in the United States Senate. Many other pro-lifers were elected last night to the House and Senate and we may still get more seats in both the House and Senate.

Despite this news it's difficult to stomach the loss of our good friend pro-life Sharron Angle to pro-abortion Harry Reid. The Reid ground game won the day in Nevada as much as many Republicans stabbing Angle in the back. Angle was up by a few points in the polls going into the weekend, and Dr. Heck was up by as many as 10 points. Angle lost by about 5 points and Heck barely hung on. In hindsight it should have been clear to anyone on the ground that the Reid ground game was pervasive and relentless. The Reid machine was ignoring the polls and cranking out every voter it could muster through its tentacles.

The results for pro-lifers from last night's elections give us a lot to celebrate. There was a clear repudiation of the abortion funding, health care rationing death panel laden Reid-Pelosi-Obama care. And Mrs. Angle, if you find this note, thank you your long time support of our cause and the willingness to endure the insults you've taken for it. Thank you for taking them for the unborn and taking them for us. Thank you for enduring a filthy, dirty, rotten, lying, vicious assault. We love you and you are still, and will always be, our hero. Nothing could ever change that.

Ten Ways Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare Funds Abortion

There are still people arguing that Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare does not fund abortion. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare does fund and subsidize abortion and represents a dramatic departure from the long standing, widely accepted policy of not covering abortion with government funds. Here are ten ways or things to know about how it funds abortion. For more detailed information, see "The List" in National Right to Life's Media Backgrounder:Abortion Policy and "Health Care Reform"

1. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will directly fund community health care centers, of which Planned Parenthood would be a beneficiary. $11 billion has been set aside for community health care centers with no restrictions to prevent abortion coverage. Abortion advocates are already discussing how these centers can pay for abortion.

2. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare will subsidize health care plans which provide abortion for tens of millions of people. Plans may not be required to do so, but they are NOT prohibited from doing so. This is a departure from the longstanding, widely accepted policy of not covering abortion with government funds. Claims that women would have to pay for them with personal funds through a convoluted book keeping scheme can argue with Barbara Boxer and Kathleen Sebelius who say it's only an accounting procedure and of no consequence.

3. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare contains an abortion mandate. At least one government subsidized health care plan in every area will be required to cover abortion.

4. Enrollees in these government subsidized insurance plans will be required to pay an abortion surcharge whether or not they agree with abortion. To the argument that people do not have to choose an abortion covering plan, if the employer CHOOSES that plan, you'll take it or not have health care.

5. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare gives bureaucrats authority to force health care plans to cover abortion. It does not mandate that they do so, but it gives them the authority. It's hard to see how a president like Barack Obama would not appoint someone to mandate abortion coverage. The Mikulski amendment would require insurers to cover any preventative service. Look for abortion to be defined as a preventative service and private health care plans to be forced to cover abortions.

6. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare allows states to opt out of abortion covering plans, but even where that may happen, residents of those states will still be required to pay for abortions in other states.

7. There are other massive pools of money with no abortion restrictions. National Right to Life says that Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180). This summer National Right to Life found three states applying for funds under this provision. NRL’s discovery of this forced the Obama administration to deny those funds but the administration said its decision “is not a precedent for other programs or policies…”

8. Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare allows plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program to cover abortion. This is a dramatic departure from long standing widely supported policy of not funding abortion with government funds.

9. There is no restriction on abortion in the Indian Health program. This provision negates Reid's previous vote to stop funding of abortion through the Indian health program.

10. Language in the Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare that restricts direct funding (not to be confused with subsidies) of abortion would be attached to the status of the Hyde amendment. That is, if the Hyde amendment-which only covers Medicaid abortions- continues to be reauthorized every year, direct funding restrictions in the health care reform law will remain in place. If the yearly approved Hyde amendment were to not pass, those restrictions of direct funding of abortion through health care will vanish.

In his debate with Sharron Angle, Reid tried once more to fool people into thinking that the Hyde Amendment prevents government funding of abortion through Reid-Pelosi-Obamacare. Reid knows that the Hyde amendment only prevents public funding of abortion through Medicaid but will have NO impact on preventing abortion from being funding through his health care law. He knows that Hyde is not a permanent law but a yearly amendment attached every year for the last thirty three years to the Health and Human Services bill.

Harry Reid had the chance to make sure his health care law would never fund abortion, but he refused to insert language to do so and fought against amendments that would at the behest of the abortion industry. Reid's health care law funds and subsidizes abortion. He made sure it does.

Harry Reid Is The Last Person Who Should Call Anyone An Abortion Extremist

Harry Reid is the last person who should call Sharron Angle or anyone else, extreme on abortion. Reid's actions torpedo his protest that he is pro-life because he has helped implement the agenda of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion industry, including taxpayer funding of abortion in America and around the world.

1. Harry Reid wrote the health care reform law which contains massive government abortion funding provisions and he led the effort to defeat amendments that would have kept abortion out of health care. Americans, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice on abortion, oppose government funding by abortion by wide margins and support the long standing widely held provisions that prevent it.

Reid introduced his health care bill after the House passed the Stupak amendment which would have kept abortion out of health care. Reid could have easily left abortion funding and subsidies out or included the House's Stupak Amendment. Reid knew it takes 60 votes to put abortion language in or take it out. By including abortion language that will fund and subsidize abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason, Reid made his choice to give abortion advocates the advantage.

When an identical Senate version of the Stupak amendment to was submitted, Reid dutifully went to the Senate floor to keep it out. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards explained later, "At a crucial moment, Majority Leader Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver his speech against the Senate version of the Stupak amendment."

2. Harry Reid supports funding of groups who provide and promote abortion around the world at United States taxpayer expense. Reid opposes the Mexico City policy that prohibits taxpayer funding to groups who perform abortions, promote abortion or lobby to change abortion laws in other nations. Reid voted twice against amendments that make sure that taxpayer funding does not go the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which helps fund China's brutal One Child Policy that uses forced abortion and sterilization. The Cato Institute's Stephen Moore says, "This program will go down in history as one of the greatest abuses of human rights in the 20th century."

3. Harry Reid has opposed pro-life nominations to the Supreme Court and supported nominations of pro-abortion justices. In Reid's first year in the Senate, he helped defeat Judge Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. The National Abortion Rights Action League says that, "The defeat of Robert Bork was the single most important victory for pro-choice forces during the 1980s."

But that's not all; Reid opposed the nominations of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Reid voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg (former chief counsel for the ACLU) opposed laws banning brutal partial birth abortions. Harry Reid has been working to make sure abortion stays firmly entrenched by supporting radical justices for the Supreme Court while masquerading as being pro-life.

4. Harry Reid is a key ally of the abortion industry. While other abortion advocates claim friendship and a good relationship with Reid, Reid has a special relationship with abortion leader Planned Parenthood. Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates' 2010 "Voter Guide" rates Reid as "Leans Pro-Choice," defined as "70-99% . . . Pro-Choice on many but not all, issues." Their guide also notes that Reid "carried policy for Planned Parenthood." It's no wonder Planned Parenthood also awarded him their "2008 Voice for Sound Policy" award. Reid has been fighting for Planned Parenthood and has even bragged about this award and being named a Planned Parenthood Nevada legislator of the year while claiming to be pro-life.

Reid deserves Planned Parenthood's ratings and award. Just after casting his vote against the Senate amendment to keep abortion out of health care, ABC News reported that while Reid may oppose abortion rights, Reid said it "doesn't mean I'm opposed to finding common ground for the greater good." Reid was and has been selling out unborn children for his political fortunes and doing the bidding of extremist abortion groups against the will of the American people.

That makes Harry Reid the last person who should call Sharron Angle or anyone else, extreme on abortion. Harry Reid is a phony to call himself pro-life and has long forfeited the right to do so due to his efforts to implement the agenda of Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the abortion industry in America and around the world.

Pro-Life Voting and Where to Vote Early in Nevada

Early Voting has begun in Nevada and for informational purposes, we suggest readers of Nevada LIFE News check out our good friends and colleagues at Nevada Right to Life and Nevada Concerned Citizens who have posted their recommendations to help pro-life voters be informed voters.

Click here to go to the Nevada Right to Life site. Scroll down to two articles, "Nevada Right to Life PAC (Political Action Committee) makes Federal Endorsements" and "LIFEPAC General Election Endorsements" to see what candidates they are recommending.

Click here to go to the Nevada Concerned Citizens site. Their endorsements are on the front page.

Nevada LIFE, the group I belong to, is not a PAC (Political Action Committee) and we do not make endorsements, though our board members are free to and do give personal endorsements.

Pro-lifers can always cross check with pro-abortion Planned Parenthood's voter guide to see what they say about a person's position on pro-life issues. It's important to note that when Planned Parenthood says someone is "pro" or "leans pro", that means they are pro-abortion, not pro-life. Planned Parenthood will favor the pro-abortion candidate, not the pro-life candidate.

Where to Vote. Click here to go to the Nevada Secretary of State's early voting page to find out where to vote early in your county.

How important are elections to our cause? If John McCain were president, McCain would have already appointed two pro-justices and we would have a 5-4 advantage on the court and Roe would be in jeopardy. There would be no abortion funding or subsidies in any health care reform, the Reagan-Bush Mexico City Policy would still be in effect and Americans would not be funding abortion, abortion counseling and abortion advocacy around the world. If McCain were president Americans would not be funding the forced abortion and sterilization China One Child Policy through our funding of the United Nations Population Fund, and we would not be encouraging international treaties through the UN which force other nations to change their pro-life abortion law and more. That's how important elections are.

Don't forget state races. We need pro-life legislators in Carson City to introduce pro-life legislation and to protect important pro-life laws and regulations still on the books.

This is another important election in a series of many more elections. Be an informed voter and vote pro-life.  If you live in California, go the California Pro-Life Council website.

Reid Refused To Say Abortion Shouldn't Be Covered By His Health Care Law In Debate With Angle.

On Thursday night, in his debate with pro-life candidate Sharron Angle, Senator Harry Reid refused to say that abortion should not be covered under the health care reform act that Reid wrote.

When the moderator asked Reid and Angle a simple yes no question, "do you think the health care reform act should include coverage of abortion," Angle said "no," but Reid refused to say no. Instead, Reid said "the law we passed maintained Hyde, the Hyde amendment." When the moderator asked, "That would be it? Yes or no?" Reid said "under the law that exists today, the Hyde Amendment, which has been the law in this country for thirty years, is still there."(click here to watch this exchange)

Harry Reid knows that the Hyde amendment will not prohibit government funding or subsidies of abortion through the health care reform law he wrote. Harry Reid has been in the House and Senate for 28 years and he knows that the Hyde amendment does not apply to the health care reform law that he personally wrote.

Reid also knows that not only is the Hyde amendment not permanent law and that it is a yearly patch that must be voted on every year, Reid knows that the Hyde amendment applies only to funding through the department of health and human services and covers Medicaid. Other prohibitions, like the ban on federal funding for federal employees, the military, Indian health care and others, are covered by separate amendments. The Hyde amendment will continue to be necessary, but will not stop funding through health care reform.

Harry Reid had the chance to make sure that a Hyde type amendment was included to keep government funding and subsidies for abortion out of his health care bill. The Stupak amendment to the House of Representatives' health care bill closely replicated the Hyde amendment and would have excluded government funding and subsidies of abortion under health care reform. But after the House passed its bill with the Stupak amendment, Reid refused to include that same Stupak language in his bill. And when an identical Senate version of the Stupak amendment to keep abortion out of health care was submitted, Reid dutifully went to the Senate floor to keep it out. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards explained later, "At a crucial moment, Majority Leader Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver his speech against the Senate version of the Stupak amendment."

Reid also knew it takes 60 votes in the Senate to take out language keep abortion out of health care and 60 votes to put it in by an amendment. That means that Reid chose to give the advantage to Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates.

Reid's repeated statement that the Hyde amendment will keep abortion out of health care shows his contempt for Nevadans, contempt for the truth and shows that he will say and doing anything to maintain his grip on power and to advance the interests of Planned Parenthood* and the abortion industry. Harry Reid cannot be trusted to tell the truth on abortion and no pro-lifer can trust him when he says he is pro-life. It's time for Reid to "man up" and tell the truth about abortion.

 

* Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates' 2010 "Voter Guide" rates Reid as "Leans Pro-Choice," defined as "70-99% . . . Pro-Choice on many but not all, issues." This guide also notes that Reid "carried policy for Planned Parenthood." It's no wonder Planned Parenthood also awarded him their "2008 Voice for Sound Policy" award.

One Of The Biggest Pro-Life Differences You Can Make Is Helping A Pro-Life Candidate

Right now we can all make one of the biggest pro-life differences of all. One of the biggest impacts anyone can have for the unborn and the pro-life cause is to help a pro-life candidate get elected.  If pro-life John McCain were president, we would have a pro-life majority on the United States Supreme Court and Roe would be in serious jeopardy. Harry Reid's abortion funding, health care rationing death panels health care bill would have been vetoed and dead on arrival at President McCain's desk.

But electing a pro-life president is not the only important office. Candidates for Senate, governor, state legislators, county commissioners and others are also important.  And there are a lot of them. They not only need any money that you can give them, they need prayers, help at their phone banks, literature drops, setting up signs, writing letters and etc. Pro-life candidates need your help. It's the biggest help to the unborn and the cause we can give. Now is the time. Please help them today.

Republicans Promise To Repeal Reid's Abortion Funding, Health Care Rationing Health Care Law.

The "Pledge to America," the House Republicans' proposed new governing agenda, includes vital promises to pro-life Americans, including repeal of Harry Reid's career defining massive abortion funding health care bill.

·  Republicans Promise To Repeal Reid's Abortion Funding, Health Care Rationing Health Care Law.

In their "Pledge to America," the House Republicans have promised to roll back Senator Harry Reid's career defining health care reform bill, which will bring health care rationing death panels and lead to the largest increase in abortion and abortion funding since Roe v. Wade. Reid was solely responsible for the contents of the bill and excluded language like the House's Stupak amendment that would have kept abortion out of health care. And just when it looked like the Senate version of the Stupak amendment might be added to the health care bill, Reid dutifully went to the Senate floor to keep it out. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards explained later, "At a crucial moment, Majority Leader Reid went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver his speech against the Senate version of the Stupak amendment." The House Republicans have promised to roll back the Reid health care law with its abortion funding and health care rationing provisions. There's no doubt that Reid's Republican opponent Sharron Angle will lead the charge to overturn those provisions in the Senate. The House Republicans' Pledge Regarding Abortion: "We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment." p. 6 "Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to using tax dollars to pay for abortion, and the executive order issued by President Obama in conjunction with congressional passage of the health care law is inadequate to ensure taxpayer funds are not used in this manner." p. 26 "We will establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion. This prohibition would go further and enact into law what is known as the Hyde Amendment as well as ban other instances of federal subsidies for abortion services. We will also enact into law conscience protections for health care providers, including doctors, nurses, and hospitals." p. 28 Along with National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson: "We welcome the Republican leadership's commitment to repeal and replace the Obama health care law, which is a top priority for the pro-life movement because that law, when fully implemented, would result in the rationing of lifesaving medical treatments, and an array of federal subsidies for abortion as well." "In addition, a permanent government-wide prohibition on federal funding of abortion is long overdue, and we applaud the inclusion of that legislation in this action plan." Pro-life Nevadans face another consequential election. Harry Reid is up for re-election and is pretending-again-to be pro-life. That's a difficult act when you are the author of the massive abortion funding health care bill and when Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates' 2010 "Voter Guide" rates Reid as "Leans Pro-Choice," defined as "70-99% . . . Pro-Choice on many but not all, issues." This guide also notes that Reid "carried policy for Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood also awarded him their "2008 Voice for Sound Policy" award. Reid deserves Planned Parenthood's award. Just after casting his vote against the Senate amendment to keep abortion out of health care, ABC News reported that while Reid may oppose abortion rights, Reid said it "doesn't mean I'm opposed to finding common ground for the greater good." Reid was willing to sell out unborn children for his political fortunes. The subsequent vote on the abortion funding Reid bill was cast on Christmas Eve while Americans were exchanging gifts and celebrating the birth of a child, Jesus Christ. Pro-life Nevadans have a choice between Harry Reid, who wrote the health care law with its abortion funding provisions that will lead to the most massive increase in abortion since Roe, and Assemblywoman Sharron Angle. Angle is a true pro-lifer who has never made a deal at the expense of unborn children or sacrificed them for some "greater good." If the House Republicans and Senators like Angle get their chance, they promise to roll back the Reid-Obama-Pelosi abortion funding and health care rationing law and write the Hyde Amendment's prohibitions against abortion funding into law.

Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Policy

Judge Royce Lamberth has issued a preliminary injunction against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it violates United States law under the Dickey Amendment.

The Dickey Amendment says "(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for-

(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code).

As Judge Lamberth notes, "The Dickey-Wicker Amendment is unambiguous. It prohibits research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subject to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed under applicable regulations." "ESC (embryonic stem cell) research is clearly research in which an embryo is destroyed." And therefore, "The Guidelines (instituted by the Obama Administration) violate that prohibition by allowing federal funding of ESC research because ESC research depends up on the destruction of a human embryo."

We agree, but the Obama Administration, like the Clinton administration, thought they found a way to legally fund embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) under the Dickey Amendment. Both administrations separated embryonic stem cell research into different "pieces of research," destroying the embryo and creating an embryonic stem cell line/culture, and performing research on the embryonic stem cell line that has been created by destroying the embryo. Both administrations argued that as long as the government didn't fund the destruction of the embryo, it could fund research on embryonic stem cell lines created by private funds.

The judge didn't buy that argument: "Despite defendants' attempt to separate the derivation of ESCs from research on the ESCs, the two cannot be separated. Derivation of ESCs from an embryo is an integral step in conducting ESC research. Indeed, it is just one of many steps in the "systematic investigation" of stem cell research. 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(d). Simply because ESC research involves multiple steps does not mean that each step is a separate "piece of research" that may be federally funded, provided the step does not result in the destruction of an embryo. If one step or "piece of research" of an ESC research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Because ESC research requires the derivation of ESCs, ESC research is research in which an embryo is destroyed. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, by allowing federal funding of ESC research, the Guidelines are in violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment."

The judge also noted that his injunction "would not seriously harm ESC researchers because the injunction would simply preserve the status quo and would not interfere with their ability to obtain private funding for their research. In addition, the harm to individuals who suffer from diseases that one day may be treatable as a result of ESC research is speculative. It is not certain whether ESC research will result in new and successful treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease."

Meanwhile, non embryonic stem cell breakthroughs keep coming.

The injunction is temporary and could be lifted by a higher court. Lawmakers are also threatening to take action and write the Obama policy into law. And since the Dickey amendment is a yearly amendment that has been passed every year since 1996 it and can be left out or vetoed by the President. We'll keep you posted.

Read Dr. Keith Shonnard MD and Don Nelson's Reno Gazette Journal op-ed Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Unethical, Dangerous and Unnecessary on why we oppose embryonic stem cell research and the Obama policy.

Unborn Baby Gives British Mom a Thumbs Up in Rare Ultrasound Picture

 
Here’s an awesome picture from a rare ultrasound showing an unborn child giving a “thumbs up.”  Here’s the story about the ultrasound from LifeNews.com.    

 

Unborn Baby Gives British Mom a Thumbs Up in Rare Ultrasound Picture

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 24, 2010  

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Marie Boswell expected to get the latest information about the status of her unborn child from her physician. In a rare ultrasound picture showing her baby giving her a thumbs up, she got a progress report from the baby boy himself.

Bosworth was stunned by the ultrasound photo of her 20-week-old unborn baby giving her the popular sign when everything's all right.

"It was really funny," the 35-year-old mother said of the ultrasound picture she had at Wythenshawe Hospital, near her home in Manchester.

She told the London Daily Mail newspaper, "I went to the scan with my friend and my mum and we were all just laughing. He was giving us the thumbs up, it was just so clear."

"We couldn't believe it. I have big hands, but nothing on the scale of his," she told the newspaper. "We're thinking he might make a good goalkeeper. I've never seen a scan like this before - but we love it."

"I've been keeping it in a book because I want to show it to him when he is older," she added.

Boswell already has a 10-year-old daughter named Olivia and the doctors informed her that her baby, expected in September, is doing just fine.

Shari Richard, a pioneer of the use of ultrasound, believes it has the power to stop abortions.

More than a million American women will have an abortion in 2010 and 44 percent of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lifetime, Richard says.

With improvements in the imaging taking a two-dimensional picture and moving it into the world of 3D and 4D, Richard is not surprised that more Americans are becoming pro-life and more are opting against an abortion.

"Ultrasound technology is credited with an important role in changing attitudes. If women see images of their unborn children, and are educated about developing life in the womb, they are less likely to abort," she says.

Richard personally experienced the grief and pain of abortion but, in 1990, through Sound Wave Images, she produced the videos Ultrasound: a Window to the Womb and Eyewitness to the Earliest Days of Life.

These powerful videos, seen by millions, showed fetal development and facts related to the emotional and physical trauma of abortion.

As a voice for the unborn, Shari Richard knows a picture is "worth a thousand words."

Note: A law was recently passed in Oklahoma which requires abortion doctors or staff to perform an ultra sound and give the woman considering the abortion a chance to view it. 

 

Good News For MS Sufferers: “Adult Stem Cells, Not Embryonic, Helping Patients With Multiple Sclerosis”

Here's a good story from Life News.  Over the last few years we’ve forgotten about the exaggerated manipulative claims of embryonic stem cell research and cloning supporters and their pandering politicians like Harry Reid.  Not one single human benefit has been derived from embryonic stem cell research-which destroys tiny human beings- despite years and years and billions of dollars of research, though they keep promising it’s the best course if strategy and that we will have a trial next year-for the last several years of course.  If Mr. Reid is so confident, he can try some.  The truth is that they are too dangerous to try in humans.  They cause tumor formation and teratomas.  In fact one of the ways you know you have “pluripotent” cells like embryonic stem cells is that they create tumors.  But adult stem cells, taken from a human’s own body have been providing successes and progress for years.  Here’s an encouraging article by Dr. David Prentice, a fellow at the Family Research Council.  I interviewed Dr. Prentice several times when he taught at Indiana State University and at U Indiana Medical school before they harassed him into retiring for opposing embryonic stem cell research and cloning and promoting adult-non-embryonic stem cell research.

“Adult Stem Cells, Not Embryonic, Helping Patients With Multiple Sclerosis”

by Dr. David Prentice
May 11, 2010

From our friends at Life News.com

 

A groundbreaking new study published in the last week provides more good news for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) with adult stem cells. Researchers at the University of Bristol used patients’ own adult stem cells to treat their MS.

In a Phase I clinical trial, six patients with MS were treated with their own bone marrow adult stem cells and their progress followed for one year. The treatment appeared to stabilized the patients’ condition and showed some benefits. As one measure of the success of the procedure, damaged nerve pathways were able to carry electrical pulses more effectively after the treatment.

Multiple sclerosis is an incurable disease, with the patients own immune system attacking the central nervous system and eventually leaving many patients in a wheelchair.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this trial was the elegantly simple procedure. Patients reported to the hospital and had bone marrow adult stem cells removed, the cells were filtered, and then given back to the patients intravenously. The patients went home before the end of the day.

The research team is led by Professor Neil Scolding, at the University of Bristol and North Bristol NHS Trust. Professor Scolding said:

“We are encouraged by the results of this early study. The safety data are reassuring and the suggestion of benefit tantalising. Research into the underlying mechanisms is ongoing and vital, in order to build on these results. We believe that stem cells mobilised from the marrow to the blood are responsible, and that they help improve disease in several ways, including neuroprotection and immune modulation.”

The team is now planning a Phase II/III study. The report for this trial is published in the Nature journal Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics.

Previous studies have also had good success at stopping MS progression, and in some cases putting patients into remission. Dr. Richard Burt at Northwestern University has published several studies showing good success using adult stem cells to “reboot” the immune system of MS patients. Scientists in Australia have also used the procedure with success, and recently Dr. Mark Freedman of Ottawa, Canada has produced “long-lasting remission” in MS patients.

In these cases, patients had their bone marrow adult stem cells collected, then received chemotherapy to knock the rogue immune cells that were attacking their nervous system. Then their adult stem cells were re-injected. While recent successful treatments have used milder chemotherapy, this is still not a gentle or risk-free procedure for the patient. The new approach by the Bristol team is all the more interesting in this respect, because there is no pre-conditioning with chemotherapy.

An international group of multiple sclerosis researchers have looked at these uses of adult stem cells for treatment of MS, and propose moving forward with additional clinical trials to help patients.

There Will Be A Pro-Life Nevada Candidate For Senate In November.

There's good news for pro-life Nevadans. It's almost certain that Harry Reid, who authored the most massive increase in abortion funding through his health care bill will have a rock solid pro-life opponent in November.

With one or two exceptions, the Nevada Republican candidates for the United States Senate are pro-life. The leading three candidates, Sue Lowden, Danny Tarkanian and former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle are solidly pro-life with endorsements from exceptional pro-life groups or individuals.

Senator Reid will pretend to be pro-life again, but his protestations are meaningless since he wrote and pushed through the abortion funding health care bill. Abortion is not health care and you can't write and vote for the most massive increase in abortion spending since Roe v. Wade and be pro-life. Reid alone wrote the abortion funding health care law and is solely responsible for its contents. He has carried water for Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-choice America, the ACLU and the abortion establishment. Reid is beyond being a hypocrite. He is a phony and an imposter.

Sue Lowden is a former state senator and past chairman of the Nevada Republican party. Although Mrs. Lowden has admitted to supporting abortion twenty years ago, Lowden has become pro-life. We celebrate those who have crossed over from the darkness of abortion to the pro-life cause. Those who have changed their mind and become pro-life have helped create our pro-life majority. Mrs. Lowden is a practicing Catholic and says her views are consistent with her church. Mrs. Lowden has the endorsement of the Susan B. Anthony List. Senator Maurice Washington says she was a strong proponent of a parental notification bill when they served together in 1995.

Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle was one of our favorite guests on the Voice for Life radio show with Toni Berry and me. In the Nevada Assembly, Angle authored a bill that would have required the dangerous connection between abortion and breast cancer be disclosed as part of informed consent to an abortion in Nevada. Though the bill did not pass, Angle was years ahead on this important issue and her bill has been vindicated. Last year a leading pro-abortion critic of the abortion breast cancer connection admitted that abortion is a known risk factor to breast cancer. Mrs. Angle has always run for office as an outspoken pro- lifer. She's been an outspoken opponent of abortion as well as an encourager and supporter of all of us in the pro-life movement. Mrs. Angle has the endorsement of Nevada Concerned Citizens, Pro-life icon Phyllis Schlafly and others.

Danny Tarkanian is another solid pro-life candidate and is endorsed by Professor Francis J. Beckwith, one of the leading pro-life intellectuals. Long time Nevada pro-lifers remember how hard it was being pro-life in 1990, even in our churches. That year the notorious Question 7 initiative was passed. It prevents the Nevada legislature from changing the right to abortion. Because of Question 7, nothing will change in Nevada after Roe is overturned except by another costly initiative. While many Nevada clergy and others who knew better, and who could have made a difference, went into hiding, Mr. Tarkanian was running to the front lines and putting his reputation as a former UNLV basketball star and son of UNLV coaching icon Jerry Tarkanian on the line by cutting commercials against Question 7 and explaining his pro-life views and why Nevadans should oppose the initiative.

More could be said about each of these, but we are thrilled that there will be an authentic pro-life candidate for Senate in November. The best way to make a difference for the pro-life cause this year is to get out and help a pro-life candidate get elected.

Obama Executive Order On Abortion Shows Reid Bill Was Always An Abortion Bill.

Nevada LIFE News Release March 21, 2010

Obama Executive Order On Abortion Shows Reid Bill Was Always An Abortion Bill.

· Reid Knew All Along That Health Care Bill Funded Abortion.
· Executive Order Worthless And Will Not Trump Statutory Law.
· Orders Can Be Changed, Revoked. Obama Not Trustworthy On Abortion.
· Unenforceable Order Will Be New Roe v. Wade.

The following statement can be attributed to Nevada LIFE President Don Nelson:

The agreement between President Obama and Bart Stupak to issue an executive order to prevent government funding of abortion is an admission that the health care bill funds abortion. It also admits that the Hyde Amendment does NOT cover the health care reform bills. Obama's promise of an executive order also demonstrates that Obama, Pelosi and Reid's nine months of insistence that the health care bill is not about abortion, is not an abortion bill, that the status quo on abortion will not change, that the Hyde Amendment would prevent health care funding of abortion, that there will be no funding of abortion and calling pro-lifers liars for doing so shows a callous disregard for the truth and open contempt for the public.

The deal Stupak struck with Obama is worthless. First, the "statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise."

Second, even if an executive order could nullify or correct the statutory abortion funding provisions, it can be revoked or changed. The President, along with Senator Harry Reid who is solely responsible for the Reid Senate health care bill, is dishonest when it comes to abortion. The president has misrepresented, misled, obfuscated and lied about his record on abortion, and along with Senator Reid, is guilty of the same regarding the abortion provisions of the bill and about pro-life advocates who have claimed the bill covers abortion with government funds. Mr. Obama's assurance and word to opponents of government funding of abortion (along with Harry Reid's) are worthless.

The Hyde Amendment stopped the government from paying for 300,000 abortions a year. Passage of the Reid health care reform bill will lead to the largest increase of abortions since Roe.

-30-

Vote To Fund Abortion & Ration Health Care Imminent.

Time is short. The United States government is on the verge of paying for and subsidizing abortion, and rationing health care. The health care bill poses another Roe v. Wade on America and will prove to be as difficult to remove as Roe.

·  Vote To Fund Abortion & Ration Health Care Imminent. How You Can Help

The flurry of emails from abortion leaders today tells us that the health care bill funds and covers abortion.

Nancy Northrup of The Center for Reproductive Rights, "Last night we learned that Rep. Bart Stupak filed a new resolution in his effort to ban abortion coverage."

Nancy Keenan from NARAL Pro-Choice America says "late last night we learned that Rep. Bart Stupak has reached new lows in trying to force his abortion- coverage ban into the health-care bill."

Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood "Right now, congressional negotiations over the final details of the health care reform bill are going on behind closed doors - and Congressman Bart Stupak is still insisting that the final bill include his total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion."

In addition to funding abortion, the bill will also ration health care for seniors and would allow the secretary of health and human services to prevent them from escaping rationing with their own funds or supplemental insurance.

There are some things we can do at the last minute.

1. We need to pray. These kinds of evils require prayer.

2. The Susan B. Anthony list says these congressmen are still undecided. Kathy Dahlkemper, Marcy Kaptur, Paul Kanjorski, Baron Hill, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Chris Carney, Lincoln Davis, Alan Mollohan. Call them at the capitol switch board at 877-762- 8762 or 202-225-3121. If it's busy, keep dialing several times today and tomorrow and jam the switchboard.

3. Pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (202 225-4735) needs and deserves our support and praise. Congressman Stupak is standing against his party, his president, the media, and we suspect, many pro- life democrats.

4. Call and email Nevada Congresswomen Shelly Berkley and Dina Titus and tell them that you oppose any health care bill that funds abortion and that you support the right of people to supplement Medicare with additional insurance or their own personal assets. Contact info is in the side bar.

The health care bill is another Roe v. Wade. The president is showing that he is an abortion radical. He is willing to risk health care for abortion. Time is short. Please make your voice heard and spread the word.

 

Reid Health Care Bill Is A Massive Abortion Funding Bill. Ten Ways The Reid Bill Funds Abortion.

Despite claims to the contrary, President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid all know that the Senate Health Care Bill under consideration is a massive abortion funding and subsidization bill that will radically change the long standing widely accepted public policy of not using government funds for abortion.

They also know that the Hyde Amendment will not apply to government funding of abortion through health care. Hyde is a yearly rider that prohibits abortion funding through Medicaid. The Reid bill is not abortion neutral, will increase abortion access at government expense and does not contain adequate conscience protections.

Ten Ways The Reid Bill Funds Abortion:

1. It directly funds community health care centers, of which Planned Parenthood would be a beneficiary. $11 billion has been set aside for community health care centers with no restrictions to prevent abortion coverage. Abortion advocates are already discussing how these centers can use these funds to pay for abortion and are campaigning for these centers to perform abortions.

2. The Reid bill subsidizes health care plans which cover abortion. These plans will cover tens of millions of people.

3. Massive pools of money are appropriated with no abortion restrictions. National Right to Life says “The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180).”

4. Bureaucrats are granted authority to force health care plans to cover abortion. It does not mandate that they do so, but it gives them the authority. Its hard to see how a president like Barack Obama, who opposed protections for children born during an abortion and promised Planned Parenthood that abortion would be part of health care, would not appoint someone to mandate abortion coverage. The Mikulski Amendment to the Reid bill would require insurers to cover any preventative service. Abortion will be defined as a preventative service and private health care plans will be forced to cover abortions.

5. Plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program will be allowed to cover abortion. No federal plan is currently allowed to cover abortion.

6. There is no restriction on abortion in the Indian Health program.

7. Restrictions related to direct funding (not to be confused with subsidies) of abortion are attached to the status of the Hyde amendment. These restrictions on direct funding will remain in place as long as the Hyde amendment, which bans funding of abortions through Medicare, continues to be reauthorized every year. These restrictions will disappear if the Hyde amendment is not reauthorized.

8. There’s an abortion mandate. At least one subsidized health care plan in every area will be required to cover abortion.

9. Enrollees in government subsidized insurance plans will be required to pay an abortion surcharge whether or not they agree with abortion. If an employer CHOOSES that plan, employees must take it or leave it.

10. The Reid bill allows states to opt out of abortion covering plans, but even where that may happen, residents of those states will still be required to pay for abortions in other states.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid’s insistence that the health care bill is not about abortion, is not an abortion bill, that the status quo on abortion will not change and that there will be no funding of abortion shows a callous disregard for the truth and open contempt for the public.

C-FAM: Chilean Maternal Mortality Study Undercuts Pro-Abortion Claims

Abortion advocates claim that abortion is necessary to prevent maternal mortality and that it has helped maternal mortality go down.  Hogwash.  Education and better health care, not abortion is driving down maternal mortality.  C-FAM February 11 Friday Fax reports new findings in Chile to support this.  The maternal mortality rate has fallen “from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country.”  It’s not due to abortion.  From the Friday Fax:

 

According Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, Chile's promotion of "safe pregnancy" measures such as "prenatal detection" and accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting are primarily responsible for the decrease in maternal mortality. The maternal mortality rate declined from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country.

 

Because Chile is a nation that protects unborn life in its penal laws and constitution, the decline is therefore not attributable to access to legal abortion. In fact, the preliminary study shows, maternal mortality in Chile declined over the last century regardless of whether abortion was legal or illegal. Chile tightened its restrictions on abortion in the late 1980s.

 

According to Dr. Koch, "From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care" in Chile, with resources devoted to the development of "highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centers and the increase of schooling of the population.” Education appeared to be a primary factor in the country’s improved maternal health. Chile today touts a maternal health record comparable to those of developed nations.

 

Statistics released the World Health Organization (WHO) support such conclusions. In South America, according to WHO, Chile boasts of the lowest rate of maternal mortality, whereas Guyana, which significantly liberalized its laws in the mid-1990s citing concern over maternal deaths, has the highest.

 

Indeed, perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the decline of maternal death rates in the developed world, a peer-reviewed article by Irvine Loudon appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 confirms that the “sudden and dramatic decline in maternal mortality rates, which occurred after 1937, took place in all developed countries and eliminated the previously wide country-level differences in national mortality rates. The main factors that led to this decline seem to have been successive improvements in maternal care.” 

 

As with Chile today, these strides in the developed world occurred at a time before access to abortion had been liberalized. Thus it appears that improving access to quality maternal health care, rather than permissive abortion laws, is what drives reductions in maternal death during pregnancy and delivery.

 

Maternal health experts such as noted obstetrician Donna Harrison, MD, point out that introducing abortion in a developing world setting without first improving basic maternal health care increases the risk of maternal death since health systems cannot adequately respond to complications from invasive surgical procedures such as abortion. Indeed, nations such as South Africa, which has one of the continent’s most liberal abortion regimes, has seen an increase in maternal deaths attributable in part to complications arising from legal abortion. 

This underscores pro-lifers claims that improving maternal health care and education decreases maternal mortality, not abortion.  Decreases in maternal mortality to abortion are not from making abortion legal, but from advances in technology and anti-biotics.  There were over one thousand deaths due to abortion decades before Roe.  By the time abortion was legalized, the number of deaths in the year before Roe was 39.

 

Low Birth Rates Undermining Greece. Result of Population Controllers' Foolishness.

Low birth rates, due in large part to the ideology of abortion advocates and population controllers at groups like Planned Parenthood, is contributing to the demise of the Greek welfare state.  There are more to come.

Abortion advocates have long argued that abortion (and massive birth control campaigns) is necessary because societies and the world cannot support increasing populations.  They've scared people into believing that the planet cannot sustain burgeoning populations and so we must "thin the herd" through abortion and birth control to make sure that we all have adequate resources. 

Not only is this untrue, but it is dehumanizing and dangerous.  It argues that we should be able to kill certain classes of human beings, in this case the unborn, so others can prosper.  As always, this endangers every class of humans.  When anyone or any class of humans become expendable, we all become negotiable.  Once we justify the killing of any human being(s) or group(s) of human beings, we make it necessary to justify our own existence.

Well, besides this, there are practical consequences to these low birth rates.  Low birth rates are contributing to the unraveling of societies and their welfare programs. Right now the most obvious and painful is Greece. Today Washington Post economics writer Robert Samuelson notes the impact of low birth rates on Greece's current economic mess and its threat to its welfare state in his column Greece and the Welfare State in Ruins.

"The threat to the euro bloc ultimately stems from an overcommitted welfare state. Greece's situation is so difficult because a low birth rate and rapidly graying population automatically increase old-age assistance even as the government tries to cut its spending. At issue is the viability of its present welfare state.

"Almost every advanced country -- the United States, Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Japan, Belgium and others -- faces some combination of huge budget deficits, high debts, aging populations and political paralysis. It's an unstable mix. Present deficits may aid economic recovery, but the persistence of those deficits threatens long-term prosperity. The same unpleasant choices now confronting Greece await most wealthy nations, even if they pretend otherwise."

I don't presume Samuelson's views on abortion and other population controls.  But the population controllers' propaganda that other people, specifically unborn children, are a threat to us and our way of life is nonsense.  The situation in Greece and what confronts other low birth rate nations (to say nothing of the morally offensive notion that we can dispose of other human beings to benefit others) shows how wrong that notion has always been. 

Billboards Proclaim, "Black Children are an Endangered Species"

"Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."  

7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

There are bill boards popping up around the country saying that“Black Children are an Endangered Species.”  You have to wonder.  Abortion is genocide for a couple reasons.  That of course doesn’t mean that particular people who abort are committing genocide.  Abortion is genocide because it targets a certain class of people for death.  With abortion, it’s unborn children.  They are targeted as a class for death.  They are in the way and can’t defend themselves.

 

 

There’s another way to say abortion is genocide.  One of my former radio guests Rev. Clenard Childress calls abortion black genocide.  The number, rate, percentage, ratio of abortion among black women is staggering.  Dave Andrusko has an article at National Right to Life about a series of billboards that say "Black Children are an Endangered Species"  Andrusko notes studies that show that black women are aborting at 5 times the rate as white women.  Black women account for about 12 percent of all women, but about 35 percent of all abortions.  Hispanic women abort at about half the rate as black women and 2.8 times the rate as white women.  I think that in some big cities like Washington DC, more black unborn children are aborted than born.

All of this has led to concern by some pro-life black Americans to post these bill boards saying that Black Children are an Endangered Species, and to others like Childress calling abortion Black Genocide.  It’s not hard to figure out why.  Is it intentional?  Childress and others think so and Justice Ginsburg’s quote doesn’t do anything to discount that belief.

Click here to read Andrusko’s short story on these bill boards popping up.  Go also to Too Many Aborted.