IFRLDaily
News Issue 100702
Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Special Note:
The IFRL Daily
News will not publish on Monday, July 5th, in observation of the July
4th Independance Day Holiday, but will return on Tuesday and with a
brand-new easy to read format. .
Have a Happy and Safe Fourth of July!
_______________________________________________________ DAILY NEWS FOR FRIDAY (see below for full articles)
There are two things you can do to help support the IFRL:
First, you can spread news and action alerts that the IFRL publishes
daily.
Second, you can support the IFRL with a very critical donation to keep the news
and alerts coming, and keep us in Springfield fighting to protect
lives.
Without your support lives will be lost. We need resources to
educate our legislators. Many times members of the General
Assembly do not have the time to read proposed laws before they
vote. They do not know how destructive some of these laws can be
to the families of Illinois. This is where the IFRL comes
in. We alert you, so you can alert your legislators and work with
us to hold back the forces that threaten innocent lives. We are
in this together and we need your help! We need your prayers, your letters, your calls and your donations - now more than
ever! Lives are at stake!
Please make a difference today by making a donation. You do make
a difference!
Elena Kagan testifies on Capitol Hill in
Washington, Tuesday
The following is Dr. Charmaine Yoest's testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee on July 1, 2010:
Thank you Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the
Committee for inviting me to testify on behalf of Americans United for
Life (AUL), the oldest national pro-life public-interest law and policy
organization. Our vision at AUL is a nation where everyone is
welcomed in life and protected by law. We have been committed to
defending human life through vigorous judicial, legislative, and
educational efforts since 1971, and have been involved in every
abortion-related case before the Supreme Court including Roe v.
Wade. In fact, thirty years ago this week AUL successfully
defended the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment before the Supreme
Court in Harris v. McRae, a landmark case in defense of unborn human
life.
I am here tonight because of AUL's strong opposition to the nomination
of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme
Court. Based on our research, we believe that Ms. Kagan will be
an agenda-driven justice on the Court, and that she will oppose even
the most widely-accepted protections for unborn human life.
These hearings have strengthened our opposition to Ms. Kagan's
appointment as the record shows she was willing to manipulate the facts
to pursue her own personal political agenda while serving as an advisor
to President Clinton. Indeed, she demonstrated a pattern of
behavior of letting her passion for a particular policy -- in this case
partial-birth abortion -- overwhelm her judgment.
Tonight I'd like to make three points:
First, I urge this Committee to officially investigate the
discrepancies that have arisen this week between Ms. Kagan's testimony
and the written record about her actions related to lobbying the
American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists during her tenure in the Clinton White House.
The questions surrounding this period are troubling and call into
question Ms. Kagan's ability to adopt an impartial judicial temperament.
Second, Ms. Kagan has an extensive record that demonstrates her
hostility to regulations of abortion and any protections for unborn
human life. We believe that Kagan would undermine any efforts by our
elected representatives to pass or defend even the most widely-accepted
commonsense regulations of abortion like bans on partial-birth
abortion, parental notification and informed consent. Her
testimony this week, particularly her response to Senator Feinstein
that any regulation of abortion requires the Doe health exception, has
added to this concern.
I have not engaged this issue–whether abortion increases the risk of
breast cancer–but have noticed the feverish drive to discredit any such
link–the emotionality of which makes me think that the objections have
more to do with politics than science. Be that as it may, a new
study has come out showing the “ABC” link. From the story:
An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of
developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of
scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how
breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.
While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from
cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in
developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset
of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal
Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between
abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists
at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth
epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with
research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.
Other larger studies have indicated no connection. But recent studies
have convinced a former skeptic:
There has been an 80 per cent increase in the
rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act,
the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.
Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S.
National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her
position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of
breast cancer by about 40 per cent.
Expect there to be a concerted attack on this research, which puzzles
me a lot. Regardless of whether one believes abortion should be legal,
certainly women should make an informed decision if they are thinking
about terminating. Even if the chance of getting breast cancer is
small due to abortion–and again, I am not involved with this at
all–surely women should be told that it seems to exist. Right?
Moments after President Obama signed the health-care legislation into
law on March 23, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a
lawsuit to stop the new mandate.
The federal government argues the mandate to purchase health insurance
falls under its purview under the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States
Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), and states that the U.S.
Congress has power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
"The Commerce Clause has never been invoked to regulate non-activity
before," said Ashley Shaw, federal analyst for CitizenLink. "Forcing
people to purchase a product or service is not part of the Commerce
Clause power, so states are rightfully taking action."
Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Richmond will decide whether the lawsuit can proceed. He has 30 days
to make his decision.
If the case proceeds, the court will return on October 18. If the case
is dismissed, Virginia will appeal.
The Virginia State Legislature passed a law this year – and that goes
into effect today – that prevents mandating health care coverage for
every individual.
Thirteen state attorneys general filed a separate lawsuit.
Although the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan by the
Senate Judiciary Committee has ended, questions remain concerning
serious discrepancies in her testimony and her involvement in
redefining medical policies on partial-birth abortion.
New evidence surfaced last night, revealing Kagan's lobbying efforts of
yet another medical organization.
In addition to possibly rewriting a consequential policy statement by
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Kagan
also lobbied the American Medical Association (AMA) –both groups widely
considered to be nonpartisan.
According to a news release by Americans United for Life, "When
discussing whether the AMA could reverse its policy that there is not
an identified situation in which partial-birth abortion is the only
appropriate method of abortion, ethical concerns surround it, and that
it should not be used unless it is absolutely necessary, Kagan stated:
'We agreed to do a bit of thinking about whether we (in truth, HHS)
could contribute to that effort (convincing the AMA to reverse their
policy). Chuck and I are meeting with the AG on Tuesday; Donna offered
to send over some doctors this week (though we don't know who or when)
to give a medical briefing.'"
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink said further
investigation is needed now that mounting evidence links Kagan to
changes to independent medical policy, in order to politically benefit
the Clinton administration.
"Her brief testimony at her confirmation hearing on this subject was
vague, non-responsive," said Hausknecht, "and failed to answer the
basic question on everyone's mind: Did Kagan suggest the additional
language to the ACOG policy that was later cited in a Supreme Court
opinion as a scientific medical finding? Did she do something similar
with the AMA?
"If so, she effectively interfered with the judicial process that
relied on the scientific accuracy of those medical groups," said
Hausknecht.
"If this urgently needed investigation bears out the truth of these
allegations, then Kagan should be disqualified immediately from serving
on the court, whose integrity and trustworthiness she helped to
undermine."
TMS Special Counsel Authored Unborn Murder Law That Was Challenged
by the Defendant
Adrian
Estrada
The highest court for criminal appeals in Texas has upheld the capital
conviction of Adrian Estrada, found guilty for murdering both 17-year
old Stephanie Sanchez and her thirteen-week old unborn child, citing a
Thomas More Society "friend of the court" brief in its decision.
Representing the Texas Alliance for Life, Paul Linton, special counsel
for the Thomas More Society, authored the brief. Mr. Linton also
drafted the law being attacked by the defendant -- the Texas Prenatal
Protection Act -- which recognizes the crime of murder for killing an
unborn child, no matter his or her stage of gestation.
"We are pleased to have helped the Texas Alliance for Life and the
people of Texas in this successful defense of the Prenatal Protection
Act," said Thomas Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas
More Society. "Cases like this one are a major step toward getting
society to recognize that all unborn children deserve the full
protection of law, not just those 'wanted' by their mothers."
Lawyers for Estrada argued that the Texas Prenatal Protection Act is
unconstitutional, claiming that the law's protection of "an unborn
child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth"
violates Roe v. Wade.
Texas' highest criminal court, the Criminal Court of Appeals, rejected
all these claims, holding that the Prenatal Protection Act "exempts the
conduct of the mother pursuant to the principles in Roe v. Wade,"
thereby averting any clash with federal abortion rights. The Court
concluded that, "By expressly defining capital murder such that one of
the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all
stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct
is proscribed."
Abortion
As 'The Lesser Evil'
"If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill
for it, too."
-- From "Yes, abortion is killing. But it's
the lesser evil," by Antonia Senior, which ran yesterday in the Times
of London.
Dr.
Albert Mohler
Dr. Albert Mohler offered an impassioned critique of Antonia Senior's
op-ed in yesterday's Times of London.
I'm only aware that this disturbing op-ed ran because a thoughtful
reader contacted NRLC to refer us to a column by Albert Mohler which
shrewdly analyzed Antonia Senior's remarkable-by-any-standard column.
Dr. Mohler, a staunch pro-lifer, serves as president of The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary. (His column can be read at
www.albertmohler.com/2010/07/01/when-feminism-kills-abortion-as-the-lesser-evil.)
Obviously, Senior's conclusion is the attention-grabber. In its full it
is part of the concluding paragraph which reads as follows:
"As ever, when an issue we thought was black and white becomes more
nuanced, the answer lies in choosing the lesser evil. The nearly
200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no
matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are
willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too."
I offer the entire last paragraph because it makes her conclusion even
more bizarre. Why is abortion no longer "black and white?" What is that
"paints the world an entirely different hue"? Having a baby, as Senior
has!
Senior starts dramatically, talking about an interactive display in the
Cradle Tower at the Tower of London "that asks visitors to vote on
whether they would die for a cause." For Senior that the ability of
women to "order her own life as she chooses. And that includes complete
control over her own fertility."
You would think with that beginning she'd be off to the races. But in
the very next sentence she tells us, "Yet something strange is
happening to this belief that has, for so long, shaped my core; my
moral certainty about abortion is wavering, my absolutist position is
under siege."
After she recalls her days as a young pro-abortion militant and then
the supposedly complexity about what we mean by "life," Senior writes,
"What seems increasingly clear to me is that, in the absence of an
objective definition, a foetus is a life by any subjective measure. My
daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood
alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting
that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took
place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person --
forged in my womb, not by my mothering."
But there's even more.
"Any other conclusion is a convenient lie that we on the pro-choice
side of the debate tell ourselves to make us feel better about the
action of taking a life.
That little seahorse shape floating in a willing womb is a growing
miracle of life."
Wow, sign her up for a subscription to National Right to Life News.
Only then…" In a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus -- and
thus killable." At that point the unwary reader wonders is she speaking
for unrepentant "pro-choicers" or herself, or is there no difference?
Senior does a nice job talking about the significance of Sarah Palin in
promoting pro-life feminism. "This attempts to decouple feminism from
abortion rights, arguing that you can believe in a woman's right to be
empowered without believing in her right to abort," Senior writes. "Its
proponents report a groundswell of support among young women."
That's good, but still we don't know where Senior is going to wind up.
We do in the next two sentences.
"But you cannot separate women's rights from their right to fertility
control. The single biggest factor in women's liberation was our newly
found ability to impose our will on our biology."
At that juncture she warps into abortion hyper-drive and what was an
interesting and thoughtful piece goes to pieces. By the time she
finishes, Senior has talked herself into believing, as noted at the
beginning, "If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared
to kill for it, too."
After you've read enough of what seem to be pro-abortion mea culpas,
you're wise enough to know that they cannot end well. So, too, here.
All the lovely talk about her daughter, all the wonderful fascination
at the marvelous complexity of our common humanity can never overcome
the iron grip of a certain kind of pro-abortion feminism.
For these women, abortion=freedom and freedom=abortion. Doesn't matter
if over half of the babies aborted are female. Doesn't matter that the
category of the powerless used to include BOTH unborn children and most
women--and therefore they ought to have a highly developed sympathy for
the voiceless unborn child. Doesn't matter that it is simply bizarre to
envision your own child as the "enemy."
Nothing matters except "control" over "fertility," which is synonymous
in their minds with the "right" to retroactively "control fertility" by
abortion.
For Senior where you find the inability to abort you're pretty much
assured of finding misogyny--the hatred of women. More accurately, when
you see protective laws, that's where you find a consensus that there
has to be a better answer than destroying huge swathes of the next
generation.
You have received this email because you subscribed at http://www.ifrl.org.
This is a reoccurring e-mail newsletter. If you feel that you
have
received this email in error, please unsubscribe using the link
below.
Subscribers are encouraged to send this e-mail to others and/or print
it in its entirety. Links to web-based sources are on the
web-version
of this email. Such emails are listed at http://www.ifrl.org.
This
newsletter
is
privately
circulated
by
the
Illinois
Federation
for
Right
to
Life.
Opinions
expressed are not necessarily those of
the
Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Some ISPs now use e-mail
filtering software that allows you to add e-mail addresses to your
'buddy', 'safe', or 'approved' list. Please add us to yours. Thanks!
The IFRL Daily News is (c) 2010 by IFRL Inc. Reproduction of
information on this newsletter is allowed with recognition of source.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in Illinois. A
non-profit organization, that serves as the state coordinating body for
local pro-life chapters representing thousands of Illinois citizens
working to restore respect for all human life in our society. The IFRL
is composed of people of different political persuasions, various
faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. Since 1973
the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has been working to end
abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the human
family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.
Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that every human
being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be
protected. IFRL is dedicated to restoring the right to life to the
unborn, and protection for the disabled and the elderly.
