The reaction of the Planned Parenthood supporters was also irrationally disproportionate to what Planned Parenthood would potentially lose. The amount of grant money that Planned Parenthood received from Komen in 2010 was about $600,000, merely 0.06 percent of Planned Parenthood’s FY2010 revenue figure of $1.05 billion. Yes, that BILLION with a “b.”

Here are some of the comments. From Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post:

Whatever one believes about the motivation behind its decision, the larger point is that Komen has no binding responsibility to allocate any part of its $93 million in grants to any organization. Komen is a nonprofit, free agent, and the good it has performed for millions of underserved women around the world is staggering.

Nevertheless, given the rabid response from abortion-rights supporters, you’d think that Brinker and her organization were running puppy mills for soup vendors. Even if their real reason for ending funding is because they no longer want to be associated with an organization as politically controversial as Planned Parenthood — or even if because some of their potential donors want the relationship severed — it is inarguably their right to change course.

Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times regarding Komen’s decision to change it’s granting criteria and the charge that it was politically motivated: “…it’s no more “political” to disassociate oneself from the nation’s largest abortion provider than it is to associate with it in the first place.”

Regarding the media’s vicious attacks on Komen, Douthat wrote: “… journalists betray their calling when they simply ignore self-evident truths about a story” including this truth, “…for every American who greeted Komen’s shift with “anger and outrage” (as Andrea Mitchell put it), there was probably an American who was relieved and gratified.”

I would also include this truth to Douthat’s list that main stream media ignored: Planned Parenthood does not provide life-saving mammograms for anyone, let alone underserved women.

In the Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook column, they wrote:

Apart from the brutal lesson in the intolerance of abortion advocates, the larger principle at stake is the right of a charity to donate to whomever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. Mr. Bloomberg is free to do whatever he wants with his money. But it is to his great discredit that he would join a campaign to smear Komen for exercising exactly the same right.

Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn summed it up pretty nicely when he wrote about the severity of the attacks on Komen and the disproportionate response: “Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.”

I hope everyone is hearing the real message behind the Komen-Planned Parenthood fiasco: “Beware the Wrath of Planned Parenthood and its Supporters.”

Feb. 4, 2012

This past week was a firestorm of news reports, accusations, and public discussion regarding Susan G. Komen for the Cure® (Komen) and their support of Planned Parenthood.  Komen is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women in the early detection of breast cancer and finding cures for breast cancer.  It is important to understand what really happened and what this means for us as prolife Lutherans.  The ties between Komen affiliates and Planned Parenthood affiliates have been acknowledged and reported on in the past.[1]  Why is this connection a bad thing?  Simply put, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US.  The grants given by Komen were to be used exclusively for breast cancer education and screening and not for abortions.  However, there is legitimate concern with the integrity of these funds and their appropriate use because money can be fungible.

Timeline

12/05/11    As far back as December, LifeSiteNews reported that Life Decisions International, a well respected prolife organization dedicated to exposing companies that support Planned Parenthood (and regularly provides a list of those companies), has removed Komen from its “dishonorable mention” portion of the list.[2]

01/31/12    The news hits the mainstream media: An Associated Press article appearing in the Huffington Post[3] reports that Planned Parenthood will no longer be eligible to receive grants from Komen.  Leslie Aun, spokeswoman at Komen stated that the reason is that “newly adopted criteria [bars] grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.  According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

The article also reported that “Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties … received a Komen grant for 2011 and was able to obtain an additional grant of $120,000 for 2012 by signing the deal … just before Komen’s new criteria took effect.  Under the criteria, no further grants will be allowed unless the pending House inquiry is resolved in Planned Parenthood’s favor.”

02/01/12    Komen responds to the growing liberal media backlash by issuing a statement: “we made the decision to implement stronger performance criteria for our grantees to minimize duplication and free up dollars for direct services to help vulnerable women.  To support this new granting strategy, Komen has also implemented more stringent eligibility standards to safeguard donor dollars.  Consequently, some organizations are no longer eligible to receive Komen grants.”[4]

02/01/12    Nancy Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® created a YouTube video explaining why “any number of long-standing partners” will be affected.[5]

• “recently implemented new granting strategies and criteria”
• “highest responsibility to ensure that these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible”
• “Starting in 2010, I initiated the comprehensive review of grants and standards”
• “We want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the life-saving mammograms”
• “more stringent eligibility and performance criteria to support these new strategies”
• “not pulling any existing grants…current grants are not affected”
• “As we move forward, we will implement these new strategies which will allow us to serve more women.”

02/02/12    Nancy Brinker, on an interview on MSNBC, stated that one of the problems with Planned Parenthood is that they don’t provide cancer screenings (i.e. mammograms) but only refer the patients to other clinics.  In the same interview, Brinker acknowledged that the existing grants to Planned Parenthood “will go on this year, and they will probably be eligible for the next grant cycle.”[6]

It should be noted that the prolife group Live Action had previously documented that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.[7]  In reaction to this investigation, Komen itself acknowledged that it was aware that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.[8]

02/03/12    Komen releases a statement that many news outlets called a reversal.[9]

• “We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.”
• “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”
• “We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

A Reversal in Plans?

Many prolife Lutherans are concerned that there was an apparent reversal on Komen’s new criteria.  As a granting organization, LCMS World Relief and Human Care understands Komen’s attempt to tighten their granting procedures and focus donor dollars where they will be most effective to accomplish their mission.  Poorly executed and monitored granting procedures  minimize the effect of a charity and erodes the trust of both donors and of the grantees. .  From that perspective, most charities can empathize with Komen.

A periodic review of granting criteria and procedures is prudent for granters that value every donor dollar and to be good stewards with God’s gifts.  In the economic condition which we face today, all granters would want to ensure that they only support other organizations that share the same goals and who focus carefully on the mission of the granter.

Since Komen did not release publicly what the new eligibility standards and selection criteria are, we can only rely on what was reported in the media and from Komen’s statements.  Apparently, the change in the Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship was triggered by the on-going Congressional investigation into Planned Parenthood and the fact that they were not direct providers of “life-saving mammograms.”

Was there a reversal by Komen as many media outlets, both mainstream and prolife, claimed?  The wording in the February 3 statement is not conclusive.  The clarification that the “disqualifying investigations must be criminal” should still prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving funds due to several ongoing criminal investigations of the organization: e.g. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast falsifying Medicaid documents,[10] and an ongoing investigation into the shredding of evidence by Planned Parenthood and/or the office of former Governor Kathleen Sebelius (currently the Secretary of Health and Human Services) in a case against Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri.[11]

Does the statement that Komen “will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities” constitute a reversal?  Brinker stated in her February 1 video that the current grants would be honored, so that was not a change.  Additionally, anyone is allowed to apply for a grant from any granting organization.  The key to receiving a grant depends upon an applicant’s ability to meet the granter’s standards of “eligibility and performance criteria.”  As for the statement that the affiliates of Komen would make decisions regarding grant approvals, it is certainly hoped that the affiliates would abide by the rules of the overarching organization under whose name and reputation they reside.

Should prolife Lutherans support Susan G. Komen for the Cure®?  We believe a “wait and see” attitude is warranted.  As we are aware of several grants awarded to Planned Parenthood prior to the change in the selection criteria, we need to be diligent to see if Komen administers new grants according to its self-stated criteria.  Komen’s actions in the future will demonstrate whether it was sincere in creating these new criteria.

The Key Lesson

The important thing to highlight in this rather confusing story is the very-public demonstration of Planned Parenthood’s methodology for destroying anyone or anything that stands in the way of its funding stream.  Planned Parenthood is a pro-abortion, politically-connected machine dedicated to a scorched earth policy against those that threaten its agenda, an agenda that kills nearly 350,000 babies every year through abortion in its facilities.[12]  What Planned Parenthood did this week was unleash its multi-million dollar fury and political might against a group wholly unprepared for such an attack.  Like a wood tick that won’t let go of its host, Planned Parenthood grabs onto its funding organizations and never lets go.  Planned Parenthood has made it clear that any other organization that doesn’t bend to its agenda will suffer the consequences of the Planned Parenthood public relations smear and the blistering wrath of its socially-networked supporters.  And, quite frankly, this nasty tactic was well strategized and executed for maximum public relations gain.  Whether Planned Parenthood strategically engineered the initial campaign against Komen to garner over $3 million in newfound donations[13] is a case for every individual to decide.

What are Lutherans to Think?

As pro-life Lutherans, what are we to think of current public opinion and the effect of the national media?  We should only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off controlling, heavy-handed pressure from Planned Parenthood.  But more than that, we have seen that the forces of an evil worldview are focused and strategically targeted at our Biblical and moral beliefs.  It’s a scary world with which we are asked to engage.

We’ve seen in this ugly media-driven story that Satan can disguise himself in many “socially conscious” ways…this time he disguised himself as support for the abstract and misleading concept of “women’s health.”  Even the apostle John warned of the need to be discerning when it comes to the world’s messaging; “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.  We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”(—1 John 4:5-6)  But this is nothing new.  Jesus Himself said “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (–Matthew 10:16)  But this same Jesus brings consolation when He says, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace.  In the world you will have tribulation.  But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (–John 16:33)

For in Christ, we have the love of a Savior who proclaims the unwavering truth, understands our fears, carries our sorrows, brings us strength, and sustains our faith for the long haul—even when our belief is “controversial” and unpopular with society.  And His love is not just for us, but intended as a gift for all—for us to carry out into a lost, hurting and very confused world.  He has given us the gift of eternal peace among times of disillusionment, and salvation when all seems hopeless, so that we can go out and share that peace with others who so desperately need it…with mercy forever.

I’ve written in the past about the Girl Scout’s support of Planned Parenthood and sexual immorality (see What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?, The Girl Scouts Deny the Allegations, and If it Seems Like I’m Picking on the Girl Scouts…) but the Girl Scouts of Colorado have now taken it to a new low. They allow those who claim to be “transgender” to join the GIRL scouts.

The last time I checked, there is a biological definition of the words BOY and GIRL. It would have to do with how we’re physically made. But more importantly, it would have to do with created order and how God created and continues to create human life. Being a boy or a girl has little to do with how we FEEL.

From Colson’s commentary:

So apparently gender is based more on feelings and decisions rather than an unfair, arbitrary thing like anatomy or the science of biology. The dictionary, which defines “male” as being: “Of, relating to, or being the sex that has organs to produce sperm for fertilizing ova.” A secondary definition of “male” says “masculine.”

Such facts mean nothing amid today’s moral confusion.

Now, let me say that I’m not criticizing Bobby. I don’t know him, his home life, or anything about him other than what has been reported in the media. We all face challenges, and this is a real big one. But if Bobby can’t get clear guidance and help from his own family, not to mention society as a whole, he will likely face a lifetime of devastation.

Such help needs to begin by simply remembering that there is a moral as well as physical order to the universe. It’s inscribed on all creation. The Christian worldview clearly embraces an objective moral order, and living by this is the way to human flourishing.

A basic building block of the Christian worldview is found in Genesis chapter 1: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

And yet, the Girl Scouts decided it was okay to accept a BOY into the Girl Scouts because the boy’s parents have been allowing him to live his life as a girl. This just falls neatly into their ungodly agenda to rid all vestiges of God and Christian faith from this world.

Think about that the next time you buy cookies and what that organization you are supporting wants to do to your daughters.

Today, she wrote a blog for LifeNews.com recounting her second abortion. Her first abortion was surgical abortion, but for the second one, Abby opted for what she thought at the time was the “more ‘natural’ way to abort…the medication abortion.” Here’s an excerpt from her post:

Then came the excruciating pain again.  I jumped out of the shower and sat on the toilet.  Another lemon sized blood clot.  Then another.  And another.  I thought I was dying.  This couldn’t be normal.  Planned Parenthood didn’t ever tell me this could happen.  This must be atypical.  I decided that I would call them in the morning…if I didn’t die before then.  It was around midnight and I had been in the bathroom for a good 12 hours.  I knew I couldn’t leave yet.  I didn’t want to lay in the bed…the bleeding was too heavy.  And the clots were still coming; not as often, but they were still coming.  So, I decided to sleep on the bathroom floor that night…right by the toilet.  The cold floor felt good on my face. I was physically depleted, but I could not sleep.

There’s much more in her article. She had the courage to write about…will you have the courage to read it…and then do something about it? Click here to read the blog.

Now, the country is apparently experiencing some collective angst as they try to figure out “how” something like this could happen – that is, the callousness and apathy of not just the driver(s) who didn’t stop (after committing the crime), but the many people who were not compelled in any way to help a bleeding, helpless child.

“Many people are discussing what they perceive as a loss of morality in Chinese society,” she (CNN’s Enuice Yoon) said to Erroll Barnett. “…some observers have been pointing out that China education system really has failed here, that it’s failed to emphasize and reinforce the need to respect human life at a time when 1.3 billion people all clamoring and rushing to climb up the economic and social ladder.”

It is not China’s education system that has failed; it’s a greater failure; it’s a human failure, and it’s not just China – it’s global. If we, as a world, reject God, then there is no logical impetus for us to be compassionate, kind, or merciful.

The cold indifference to the plight of a little girl so brutally injured should be no surprise to anyone in a country where individual rights mean nothing to the greater machine that runs the society. In a country where the government decides who gets to live and who gets to die, who gets to speak and who gets silenced, and most importantly, where women are forced to abort babies against their will every single day, because the government has decided that “for the greater collective economic success” of the country, families can only have one child….why is anyone surprised? The results are that life has no intrinsic value; the government reigns as “god”; and the only value people hold is what they can offer to the state.

Why are the people surprised? Why is the world outraged? The detachment and indifference to the horror of what happened to this little girl is a natural, and not surprising, result of a world gone mad that has propagated the belief that we can decide and determine which life is valuable and which life isn’t.

If life is not precious in the womb, then life is not precious outside of the womb. Once you draw a line and put some people on one side of that line, and some on the other side, then you have in effect declared that no life has value.

This year, I purchased my first lawn mower. As I’ve done a couple of times already, I poured too much oil into the reservoir. Needless to say, when I started the mower, it looked like I was laying down a smoke screen to hide an invading army. My pride took a big hit…what would the neighbors think? What’s wrong with Ed: he can’t fill the oil properly and when he does it wrong, he can’t figure out how to drain it so it wouldn’t look like the subdivision was burning down!

So here I was, ready to give up and have the repairman come out again. Yes, again, because he’d already been out earlier this year when I ran over a tree stump in the backyard, a move that killed the blade and sheared something off (and I have no idea what that was). My wife was beside herself. Not only did we have the cost of buying a new mower this year, we’ve already had to pay to fix it once already. Her anxiety rose, her spirits dropped.

So I worked in a cloud of smoke and mowed the lawn. I buried my embarrassment and focused on getting the grass cut to an acceptable height. Someone once said to me that owning a home and doing the DIY jobs around the house was worth the pain and fatigue because you could be proud of the a job well done at the end of the day. Not really.

Rather, at the end of the day, I thanked God that I was able to provide my wife with a covering in the form of peace of mind. Even if it meant walking behind a cloud a smoke for an hour.

During his years at medical school, Kevorkian was promoting a utilitarian view of human life as he advocated for allowing murderers on death row a choice to die by anesthesia thus allowing their bodies to be used for medical experiments or organ donation (see NY Times article). His utilitarian view served as the foundation for why he viewed death as a help to a suffering patient. Never mind that suffering is totally subjective and that anyone, at any time, could say that they are suffering too much and wished to die. Rather than offering hope, love and care, Kevorkian only offered death as a solution to pain and suffering.

In today’s world, society tells us that it’s okay to look at someone who is suffering or in pain, shake our heads and say “wouldn’t it be better if we could just end this suffering?” Kevorkian’s promotion of assisted suicide, and even euthanasia, led people only to despair…the despair of thinking there is nothing of value to their lives and that they are a burden to their families, friends, and caregivers.

But there is a different way. We are admonished to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ”  (Galatians 6:2 NKJV). We can help those who are suffering know that they are not alone, that someone does care for and love them. Rather than confirm someone’s fear that they are no longer “useful” to us by helping them kill themselves, we ought to reaffirm that they are valuable and valued. By selflessly bearing one another’s burdens, we fulfill Christ’s commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12 NKJV).

Maybe it’s just me, but…rather than do what Kevorkian did, that is, help or encourage people who are facing seemingly insurmountable pain or suffering kill themselves, or kill them directly at their request, we ought to help someone through their suffering. We can walk beside them and show them that all human life is precious and valuable no matter what age the person is, what condition the body may be in, or what stage of development that human life has reached. Even more importantly, we ought lead them to the one true hope we have, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

May God have mercy on your soul, Dr. Kevorkian.

“But as for me, I trust in You, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God.’ My times are in Your hand.” Psalm 31:14-15 (NKJV)

If I have a child with a woman out of wedlock, I am forced by the courts to pay child support even though I don’t want to. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents choose to not to vaccinate their children, yet the government makes it mandatory for entry into school. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents don’t want to take their children to the doctor when they’re sick, yet the government may take their children away if they don’t. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents don’t think their child should be restrained in a car seat, yet that’ll get the parents a traffic ticket. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents choose to give their children alcohol, yet the government says it’s illegal to provide alcohol to a minor. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents think it’s okay to leave their children at home alone, yet the government will arrest the parents for endangering the welfare of a minor. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some parents think it’s okay to have sex with their child, yet that parent would be arrest for pedophilia. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some men (and women) think it’s okay to have more than one wife at the same time, yet they’ll get arrested for polygamy. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some men think it’s okay to beat their wives, yet that’ll land the guy in jail. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters.

Some people don’t want to purchase health insurance, yet under the health care reform law passed last year everyone will be forced to purchase an insurance plan. So the government DOES intrude on private family matters. (President Obama’s big idea.)

So why is it okay for the government to become involved in all these private family matters (and more), but Obama uses that as an excuse to justify legalized abortion-on-demand? You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President. You cannot, on the one hand, legislate dozens, if not hundreds, of private family matters and then say that the government should not intrude on a private family matter when it is politically expedient for you (Obama has flip-flopped on many things but he has unswervingly supported the right to kill a baby in the womb).

Maybe it’s just me, but…justifying the murder of 1.2 million babies in the womb every year by saying it is a “private family matter” is patently disingenuous and a red herring cop out used to justify receiving pro-abort PAC money.

The bill is not expected to be heard in the Senate, as the Democratic Party, which controls the Senate, has no interest in passing legislation that would limit abortion-on-demand in the United States. When asked if the Senate would hear the repeal bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) simply stated, “No.” Ironically, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged the perfect Law of God when he said, “We … believe that the only perfect law ever enacted was carried down the mountain by Senator Moses.” How then, does he support the health care law that supports taxpayer funded abortions in light of the Fifth Commandment?

Although some are saying that the members of the House who are sponsoring H.R. 2 are merely taking part in a political exercise, it should be noted that they are fulfilling their promise to their constituents: i.e. working on the repeal of legislation that devalues human life by providing taxpayer funded abortions. Since the Health Care Repeal bill was voted on in the House, another pro-life bill has been introduced: H.R. 3 “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” This act is even more important as it will codify the Hyde Amendment banning the use of federal funds paying for abortion through Medicaid.

As Luther teaches, we are citizens of two kingdoms, and as such we have a duty to participate in our civil government. Thus, Lutherans should use this opportunity to let their elected officials know that any taxpayer funding of abortions (including funding of the United Nations as they export abortions worldwide through the International Planned Parenthood Federation or on military bases, as well as the health care system) is not acceptable.

Surgical abortions already end the lives of 1.2 million American babies every year. We should not allow the increase of senseless murders of the innocent pre-born by making it easier to obtain an abortion-on-demand by funding it with taxpayer dollars.

Just as importantly, as Luther also instructs us in the Large Catechism, by not speaking out, and by allowing our tax dollars to be used to pay for murder, we are complicit in the sin of abortion.

Now is the time to contact your representatives to let them know that H.R. 3 should be passed to ensure that future congresses cannot fund abortions with your tax dollars simply by allowing the Hyde Amendment to fall by the wayside. It is also time to contact your senators to let them know that they need to allow discussion on the Senate floor on H.R. 2. By allowing one person (Reid) to deny public discussion on a law that most Americans do not want funded from their own pockets is not how a “representative government” works.

NARAL wants Americans to celebrate the Roe decision that opened up abortion-on-demand in the U.S. during all nine months of pregnancy, but is that something to be celebrated? Because of that US Supreme Court decision, we currently have an estimated 1.2 million surgical abortions every year in the U.S. Since 1973, it is estimated that over 50 million babies have been aborted in America. Please note that these numbers do not include medicine abortions such as those deaths caused by RU-486.

And that’s the “choice” they want to celebrate.

So, pro-life bloggers are sponsoring a counter “Ask Them What They Mean When They Say ‘Choice’ Blog Day” on the same day, Friday, January 21.

The idea is simple: on that day, whenever you see a post or comment on  a blog, website, Facebook, or Twitter espousing how wonderful it is to be “pro-choice,” ask the author: What exactly is that choice you’re talking about?

From Jill Stanek’s blog:

Is it to eat carrots rather than broccoli? To wear red instead of blue? No, of course “choice” is code for killing babies. What’s their problem with the A-word?

Yes, this is a shameless scheme to suck oxygen out of the pro-aborts’ social media universe, to deny them any time whatsoever to support abortion without defending it.

Email Jill Stanek if you want your to show your support by adding your own blog to the growing list. Let’s make sure people know what they’re supporting when they say they are “pro-choice.”

The final version of the bill that was ultimately passed and signed into law did not include separate sections detailing these mandatory annual planning sessions. Instead, the planning sessions were folded surreptitiously into sections that altered Medicare. On January 1, the new regulation, which allows Medicare to pay for end-of-life planning went into effect. Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Do you see the two-step process that was used to circumvent the public’s distaste for this kind of “counseling”? First, the health care legislation allowed for “coverage of yearly physical examinations.” That’s well and good and people on Medicare should have that kind of coverage. But the second step is what is disturbing: an administration official decided, contrary to what the people wanted, that counseling on end-of-life decisions should be part of wellness visits, and included it in the regulations that govern Medicare.

I am a proponent of discussions regarding care in end-of-life situations–that’s not the concern here. The problem  is who is giving this counseling and what resources are used. One example of a government resource would be the Department of Veteran’s Affairs document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” I’ve written previously about the problems with this document in The VA’s “Your Life, Your Choices” Document.

After the news of the new regulation was released, and pro-life bloggers and commentators started pointing this out, the Obama administration had a sudden reversal regarding this regulation and deleted it from the Medicare regulation; from a New York Time article:

The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday. …

While administration officials cited procedural reasons for changing the rule, it was clear that political concerns were also a factor. The renewed debate over advance care planning threatened to become a distraction to administration officials who were gearing up to defend the health law against attack by the new Republican majority in the House. …

Although the health care bill signed into law in March did not mention end-of-life planning, the topic was included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of physician services. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register in late November. The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning.

An administration official, authorized by the White House to explain the mix-up, said Tuesday, “We realize that this should have been included in the proposed rule, so more people could have commented on it specifically.”

“We will amend the regulation to take out voluntary advance care planning,” the official said. “This should not affect beneficiaries’ ability to have these voluntary conversations with their doctors.”

Did the Obama administration get caught with its hand in the cookie jar? The section in the 2009 health care reform bill that mentioned these mandatory visits were removed and provisions which would open the way for it were quietly hidden  in other sections. Then the proposed rule published for public comment last July did not include this regulation, once again hiding it from view. Is this the kind of “transparent government” that then-candidate Obama promised voters in 2008?

Folks, this is just one more reminder that those who are defending the sanctity of human life need to be ever vigilant. Those who want to devalue human life are constantly probing for weaknesses in our defense and will do anything to further advance their agenda where the sanctity of human life takes a back-seat to political expediency.

Follow me on Twitter for daily information .

So, if you have Twitter, follow me @edszeto4life. I also post more on my Facebook page, search for me with szeto4life@gmail.com or edsternj. And if you really want to get connected, look for these two Facebook pages which I contribute to: LCMS Life Ministries and National Pro-Life Religious Council.

Happy New Year!

Planned Parenthood says that “Healthy, Happy and Hot“ has become their most popular booklet.  It was handed out at the World Youth Conference in August and early this year at a Girl Scouts USA sponsored event at the UN. A recent online post by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute sums up parts of the booklet thusly:

Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.

“Some people like to have aggressive sex,” says the brochure.  “There is no right or wrong way to have sex.”    It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to “plan ahead by bringing condoms.”  Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies.

The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics.  “You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.”

Girl Scouts USA continues to refuse to decry the booklet and it continues to deny that the booklet was given out at their event earlier this year (even though reported by a reliable witness).

The report also states that parents will NOT be able to opt their children out from this program. Additionally, no names of students will be recorded; there will be no “paper-trail.” In other words, parents in P-town have no parental rights in the P-town school system.

The long-held plan of “family planning” advocates (to teach sex to children as young as five years old) are now being realized in more ways and in more places than ever before. Does no one see how this will promote and help hide sexual abuse of children by older children or adults? Does no one care?

Click here to see a video of the news report.

Click here for more information about the convention.

Many states already have laws that require women to have ultrasounds performed prior to getting an abortion in order to verify that the women are actually pregnant. These laws were passed because many abortionists performed D&Cs on women who were not pregnant in order to collect money for the abortion (see Carol Everett’s book Blood Money for more information).

But Oklahoma’s new ultrasound law states that women are to obtain “an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly….” Because of the stated allowance of the use of a vaginal transducer, the pro-aborts have been given an opportunity to claim that the law violates women by forcing “rape by implementation.”

Jill Stanek makes a good argument (click here for her article) that the instruments used in an abortion is more like rape than an ultrasound probe. However, my question is this: why even give the pro-aborts this opportunity to strike down a good law? It is estimated that 80-90 percent of abortion-minded women who see ultrasounds of their babies decide not to get the abortion.

Watch your words because words can win or lose a battle.

With a group of over 20 leaders, both clergy and laity, in attendance, we shared a presentation on the work of LCMS World Relief and Human Care as well as Life Ministries; and affirmed our biblical and Lutheran foundation on how we view the various life issues. You’ll be able to read more about this exciting project on the Life Ministries pages in the future.

What I want to share with you is an amazing advertisement in Thursday’s (April 8, 2010) local newspaper, the Sun, which is delivered daily to the hotel where I’m staying. The front page and page 2 are full-page ads for the same thing: a new insurance product called PRUmy child that offers pregnancy and infant coverage, health and education. One tag line is “Comprehensive protection begins before birth“; another states “Protection starts early, even before birth.” The product is being offered by Prudential Assurance Malaysia Berhad, a subsidiary of Prudential plc of the United Kingdom.

The advertisement features Malaysian recording star Sheila Majid. The first page of the ad shows Sheila putting one of her children to bed and the copy reads:

Before you were born, my love for you began. I want to protect my child for as long as I can, starting as soon as I can. Now that’s possible with Prudential’s comprehensive protection plan which starts early, even before birth! Covering health, financial and education security, all your child’s needs are taken care of. When love begins, now protection can too.

Page two of the ad shows Sheila holding an ultrasound picture of one her children and the copy reads thus:

From the moment I saw her, I wanted to protect her. From the moment I first heard her heartbeat, I wanted to be able to keep her safe. And now that’s possible with Prudential’s new plan, comprehensive coverage can begin early, even before birth. And it grows as your child grows, taking care of her health, finance and education. It’s a simple solution to all your child’s needs, from the people who understand.

From Prudential’s product website:

From the moment of conception, this tiny miracle has the power to transform the people around it. Fathers and mothers everywhere find their priorities reordered, goals refocused and their energies centered on ensuring the best for their child.

With this product, you can add an insurance rider to cover congenital conditions for the fetus if the baby is between 18 and 35 weeks into the pregnancy. While it’s not unusual for health insurance companies to cover babies in the womb for congenital conditions (as an example, click here to see Aetna’s policy for fetal surgery in utero), what is most impressive and exciting is the company’s willingness to talk about the baby as a human life from the moment of conception and recognition that the baby in the womb should be loved and protected.

Maybe it’s just me, but…don’t you wonder how long this irrational dichotomy can exist – pregnant women who want their baby know it’s a baby! They want safety and security for their baby! They have love and concern for their baby! Even the insurance companies are savvy enough to know that the preborn baby is a human life, or they wouldn’t be providing a product intended for the protection of that life! And yet, in the US, abortion-on-demand is legal during all nine months of pregnancy and you have organizations like the UN pushing abortion-on-demand worldwide as part of women’s reproductive health care.

Wouldn’t it be great if all insurance companies had the courage to  make such a bold public statement?  I applaud Prudential – I just can’t wait to see an ad like that in the US!

Although the Sun’s online version of the paper doesn’t have the ad, you can click here to go to Prudential’s product website to see a video interview with Sheila. Check back later to see if I’m able to scan the ad and post the ad here.

I am a member of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and therefore I can state clearly that I agree with and support the beliefs and teachings of this church body. Does that mean I agree with what an individual LCMS congregation may teach? Maybe, as long as what they teach is in agreement with the Bible and with the main church body.

Well, I see it that way with political parties as well. I may or may not agree with what a particular person has done or said under the label “Democrat” or “Republican,” but I want to see if what they have done is in line with the larger group with which they claim to align.

So let’s look at what the party platforms of the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee state. The party platform is what a politician supposedly supports while under its aegis. I would also assume that if you support a political party directly, or if you support a politician of that party, then you also support the party platform.

Let’s start with the platform of the Democratic Party. You can read the whole thing by clicking here.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion,  regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. (Page 50)

So, there you have it. If you support the Democratic Party or a politician who is a Democrat, then you also “unequivocally”  support “Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion” and you also “oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

By the way, here’s a little bit of irony from the Democratic Party Platform:

Ending violence against women must be a top priority. (Page 51)

Considering an estimated 1.2 million babies are aborted in America every year and the US Census Bureau estimated in July 2008 that 50.7 percent of Americans were female, I think it’s safe to say that more than half of the aborted babies are female. How can you end violence against women when you also advocate one of the most violent actions that can be taken against baby girls?

In contrast, let’s read what the Republican Party Platform states about human life.  Click here to read the entire platform.

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.

I understand that there other political parties in the US and some of them may also believe in the value of human life. I encourage you to comment here with examples of those parties’ platforms.

Meanwhile, I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating for any particular political party; it’s not the “label” that has my loyalty – it’s the foundation on which they stand that I support – that all human life has intrinsic value, regardless of age or ability.  Ideally, what I wish for is that ALL political parties value human life and will protect it. When that happens, then we can get on with looking at the other issues that differentiate the various parties. But until that happens, the fact that one major political party in the US openly supports the ending of innocent human life should concern everyone.

“Do not put your trust in princes.” (Psalm 146:3a NKJV)

Other people mentioned in the article excerpt below are Guth, Zoe’s husband, and Sarah and “Katherine,” Zoe’s sisters.

Here are some excerpts from the article (click here to read the whole thing):

At a family Christmas celebration in 2000, Mary was still walking. But shortly after a series of painful writhing episodes (uncontrollable jerking and twisting common in Parkinson’s patients), she took to her bed, moving only to use the bathroom. Zoe was never sure whether movement had become too physically painful or just too emotionally exhausting, but either way it was around this time that the woman who had once strived to capture the perfect brogue started pursuing the perfect death.

… A volunteer from the Hemlock Society visited the house and suggested placing a bag over Mary’s head and having her inhale helium; a Dupont Circle doctor met with Mary and Zoe to prescribe the sedative Seconal after a consultation to assess Mary’s mindset. In a catch-22 twist of logic, he would provide a means to die only to someone who was not depressed.

“The scenario of her trying to choke down Seconal was horrifying, and the Hemlock Society was even worse,” Zoe says. She was horrified by the legal implications of assisting her mother — even tacit approval felt like too much — and she was horrified by the casual glibness with which her mother discussed dying.

… Her [Zoe] father had died in 1994; Guth’s had fallen seriously ill in 1995 before eventually passing away in 1998, which was only shortly before Mary began contemplating suicide. “We had seven years of losing parents,” Guth says. “How much time can you put into each process, and what are the consequences if you don’t?”

Zoe was horrified that her mother would no longer be living, or maybe “horrified” is not the right word.

She was sad.

“I didn’t understand why,” she says, “she didn’t want to stay alive and be my mother.”

… After months of discussion, Mary had decided to end her life not with helium or Seconal but by starvation. The family had been told she would die in a matter of days, but after a week her body was still strong, though she appeared smaller each day, wasting into nothingness. She suffered. She begged Zoe and Sarah — “Katherine” hadn’t come down after all — for their blessing to allow her to take morphine.

On a baking hot evening in the middle of July, Zoe, her husband and Sarah said goodbye at their mother’s bedside. To prevent themselves from being implicated in Mary’s death, they had decided not to be in the room when she actually ingested the drug.

Mary FitzGerald Carter died a few days after the night of morphine, on July 11, 2001. Her passing brought grief and peace, both in Zoe’s ongoing relationship with her mother and in her relationship with her sisters.

Do we fool ourselves to think that there is dignity in dying just because we choose the method by and the time at which we die? Is there really dignity in starving oneself to death (a painful and slow process)? Is there really dignity in putting a plastic bag over your head as your body reacts violently while you are suffocating yourself to death?

There is no inherent dignity in dying, no matter how it occurs. It is not natural. The fact that most of humanity resists and struggles against it to the end is evidence that God did not intend for death to be part of life; but because of sin, we do have disease and disability, and ultimately, physical death.

I cannot and will not speak to what the family went through that year, nor am I condemning them for the decisions they chose.  I have never personally experience that kind of despair and can’t imagine how overwhelming the conflicting thoughts and emotions must be.

But feelings lie, and that is why we all need to consider caregiving options for ourselves and for our loved ones before we find ourselves in the midst of the emotional maelstrom that comes with end-of-life decisions.

Believe it or not, there’s a bunch of college-aged men and women who are going to make a pro-life statement by walking across the United States and Canada (click here for more information). In the US, there are three walks which all end in Washington DC. The three starting points are Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

It’s not just about walking across the US, the walkers will also stop at parishes to speak to groups and at abortion clinics to participate in peaceful prayer and sidewalk counseling. If you’ve been looking for a unique way to spread the message of life, think about participating in one of the walks across America.

Click here to see a video made during the 2009 walk.

A team of doctors at the Integrative Neuroscience Laboratory at the University of Buenos Aires has started developing tests to determine if patients have the ability to learn. The director of the lab, Mariano Sigman, said, “We want to have an objective way of knowing whether the other person [the patient] has consciousness or not.” The desire to find this objective method… (click here to read the entire article)

…stems in part from surprising neuroimaging work that showed that some vegetative patients, when asked to imagine performing physical tasks such as playing tennis, still had activity in premotor areas of their brains. In others, verbal cues sparked language sectors. …

To explore possible tests of consciousness in patients, Sigman and his colleagues turned to classical conditioning: they sounded a tone and then sent a light puff of air to the patient’s eye. The air puff would cause a patient to blink or flinch the eye, but after repeated trials over half an hour, many patients would begin to anticipate the puff, blinking an eye after only hearing the tone.

If two stimuli are delivered at exactly the same time, even snails will equate the stimuli. But the team actually delayed the puff after the tone by 500 milliseconds. To associate two stimuli separated by that time gap, “you need conscious processing,” says lead study author Tristan Bekinschtein of the Impaired Consciousness Research Group at the University of Cambridge. In fact, delaying the second stim­ulus by more than 200 milliseconds is enough to demonstrate some learning, he adds. By comparison, people under general anesthesia, considered to be entirely lacking awareness, showed no sign of such learning when given the tone and air-puff test.

…The detection of learning…also opens up questions about when patients should be classified as being in a persistent vegetative state, in which emergence isn’t predicted to be likely.

Why is this an important advance in diagnosing a patient’s condition? The article also states that: “A recent study found that about 40 percent of vegetative state diagnoses are incorrect” [emphasis mine].

In March, another news item on this topic showed up on the Scientific American website. It seems that certain patients in a “minimally conscious state” or a “vegetative state” due to brain injuries may be revived by injecting the patient with apomorphine, a drug used for patients with Parkinson’s disease.

Esteban Fridman of the FLENI hospital in Buenos Aires is one of the leading proponents in of this treatment. This excerpt tells a little bit about the theory and the research to this point (click here to read the entire news item):

Fridman hypothesizes that apomorphine might work by acting in place of dopamine. Flooding the injured brain with the chemical might stimulate it enough to repair the connections, enabling the patients to reach full consciousness. He notes the drug wouldn’t work in cases where the brain has been deprived of oxygen or blood, because the damage is more widespread. Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman whose care sparked a nationwide controversy that peaked in 2005, was in a vegetative state caused by that kind of injury.

…Fridman first tried apomorphine on a patient in 2004. The man had been in a minimally conscious state for 104 days. After he was given the drug the patient’s mother called Fridman to tell him her son had awakened after only 24 hours.

Over the next few years, Fridman and a colleague, Ben Zion Krimchansky at the Loewenstein Hospital Rehabilitation Center in Israel tried the drug on a total of eight patients. Seven recovered consciousness. (One subsequently died of an unrelated problem.) One welcome effect, Fridman says, was that patients did not regress even after the treatment was discontinued. Five improved to where they could walk, and one can now drive by himself.

…But because these clinical observations were not double-blind studies—in which neither the physicians nor the patients know if subjects get a placebo or the drug—Fridman currently is starting a formal clinical study with a total of 76 patients. The apomorphine will be given between one and four months after a traumatic brain injury, and the dosages will be spread over several weeks, given over 12-hour periods. Some patients will get the drug and some will be controls.

Maybe now that science has raised doubts about the realities of “vegetative state,” doctors and health-care professionals will be a little less quick to judge whose life is worth saving and whose is not. Maybe we’ll start honoring all people as human beings deserving of love and care, whether we think they can see us or hear us, or react the way we expect them. And when talking about Terri Schiavo and others in her condition, maybe we shouldn’t be so quick say, “I wouldn’t want to live like that.”

Because maybe, just maybe, that patient in a “vegetative state” can hear every word you’re speaking and is scared to death of what’s going on and that no one will hear her silent cries.

Reading other blogs and press releases, I found an alternative to the Girls Scouts in the United States: the American Heritage Girls. I’m not completely endorsing this organization as I have not spoken to anyone involved in it or contacted the organization directly, but I wanted to let you know that there are alternatives to helping young girls develop a better self-image and confidence.

What interested me the most about this organization is its Statement of Faith. I reprinted the statement below so you can read it for yourself.

American Heritage Girls is a Christ-centered leadership and character development ministry. The following Statement of Faith applies to all American Heritage Girls Charter Organizations, Adult Members and Adult Leaders.

We believe that there is One Triune God – Father, Jesus Christ His one and only Son, and the Holy Spirit – Creator of the universe and eternally existent. We believe the Holy Scriptures (Old/New Testament) to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God. We believe each person is created in His image for the purpose of communing with and worshipping God. We believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit who enables us to live a Godly life. We believe that each individual is called to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength; and to love their neighbors as themselves. We believe that each individual is called to live a life of purity, service, stewardship and integrity.

Clarity is further provided to the following terms:

Purity – An AHG member is called to live a life of holiness, being pure of heart, mind, word and deed, reserving sexual activity for the sanctity of marriage; marriage being a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman.

Service – An AHG member is called to become a responsible member of their community and the world through selfless acts, which contribute to the welfare of others.

Stewardship – An AHG member is called to use their God given time, talents and money wisely.

Integrity – An AHG member is called to live a moral life, demonstrating the inward motivation to do what is right, regardless of the cost.

What I like the most about this (beside being founded in the Triune God so there can be no mistaking which god we’re talking about) is the stance on purity. No wishy-washy “we didn’t distribute that sexually explicit brochure but we’re not going to say we don’t agree with it” sitting on the fence like the Girl Scouts. There it is, loud and clear: American Heritage Girls believes in “reserving sexual activity for the sanctity of marriage; marriage being a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman.” They are not afraid to say to  young girls: “you don’t have to buy into the cultural message that pressures you into having sex just because ‘everybody else is doing it.’”

Let’s support organizations that will help build character and self-image based on the proper foundation: that we are all created in the likeness of God. When we understand that, then there’s nothing on this earth that can take away who we are. Let’s stop supporting organizations like the Girl Scouts that partner with organizations like Planned Parenthood, who believes that sexual promiscuity is good thing for young, adolescent girls and that abortion is considered a part of women’s “health care.”

And besides, wouldn’t be it better for all of us (myself included) if we didn’t pay $3.50 or $4.00 a box to scarf down cookies that contained 9 grams of fat for a single serving? [Tagalongs®, 2 cookies; click here and select the link on the right for nutritional information.]

According the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), the Girls Scouts have denied placing that material in the meeting room and they have stated that C-FAM’s source was not in the room during the Girl Scouts meeting.

In a press release, C-FAM rebuts the claims of the Girl Scouts thus:

1.    The Girl Scouts imply another group left the literature prior to their panel. Understand that the Girl Scout meeting was on opening day of the conference (March 1), which means the room was clean of all literature that morning.

There were four other meetings in that room that day prior to the Girl Scouts meeting. At 10 am the NAACP had a meeting about climate change. At noon the UN had an orientation meeting for NGOs attending the conference. At 2 pm CORAID had a meeting about counterterrorism and women.

Very clearly, none of these meetings were on adolescent topics, which was the target audience of the sex guide.

2.    The Girl Scouts say we were not in the room. That is true. All non-Scout adults were thrown out prior the meeting; and no wonder given what was distributed there. However, even though our source was thrown out of the room, she stayed around and as the doors opened she went right in to see what was being distributed. It was there and then that she found the stack of dangerous sex brochures.

Maybe it’s just me, but…isn’t it interesting that, although they are denying any connection with the distribution of the brochure, the Girl Scouts have not decried the contents of the brochure? Does the Girl Scouts organization really support what is presented in that brochure? If not, then they need to say so. But their silence on the brochure itself can, and should, be taken as support of it. And that’s where you need to tell the leadership of the Girl Scouts that this is wrong for our daughters in the US and around the world.

A simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out who is being truthful and who is lying is to ask yourself, “Who has the most to lose if the truth comes out?”

Click here to read the entire C-FAM press release. Click here if you haven’t read the IPPF brochure and want to see what all the fuss is about.

I got my first magazine byline!

I wrote a short piece for the Lutheran Witness, the official magazine of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. The article is a reflection on the 2010 March For Life and was in the printed magazine (March 2010 issue, no pun intended) and online. You can read the article by clicking here.

I’ve written for several organizations’ newsletters before, and of course I’m writing here on my blog, but there’s something different when you get a byline in a national magazine.

Yes, I know, I’m shameless.

My first byline!

“Rejoice with those who rejoice.” (Romans 12:15a NKJV)

So, what’s so disturbing? Well, firstly, here’s a sample from the brochure quoted from the C-FAM article (click here to read the brochure for yourself; click here to read the C-FAM article):

The brochure claims, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them.”

Secondly, although the brochure is targeted at young people with HIV, the problem I have with this is that WAGGGS and IPPF are encouraging sexual immorality and promiscuity around the world via the United Nations. Not only that, but you need to remember what these organizations also consider to be a part of “women’s reproductive rights”–abortion-on-demand. I wrote about that last year in my post entitled Exporting Death.

Thirdly, there’s a slap against pro-lifers from the IPPF brochure:

Some healthcare workers and service providers think that young people or people living with HIV should not have sex. They may let their personal opinions get in the way of providing good information and services. Remember that you have sexual and reproductive rights.

Well, that just makes sense as Planned Parenthood in the US is the largest abortion provider, accounting for approximately 305,300 abortions in 2007 (click here to see their annual report, go to page 9). That’s 25 percent of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in the US every year.

The question to ask is this: what is the relationship between  WAGGGS  and your local Girl Scout troop that sells you cookies? The Girl Scouts of the USA has been a full member of WAGGGS since 1928 and are supportive of the policies and positions of WAGGGS (click here to see the member status of GSUSA).

And before I could even get this post written, another related item of interest flashed before my eyes. The Susan B Anthony List blog comments on a UN report entitled “Power, Voice, and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific.” Here are two interesting excerpts from that report as quoted in the SuzyB blog (click here for the entire blog):

“Females cannot take survival for granted,” the report says on page 42. “Asia has the highest male-female sex ratio at birth in the world, with sex-selective abortion and infanticide [emphasis mine] leaving approximately 96 million missing women in seven countries. In most regions, women comprise 51% of the population, but only 49% in Asia-Pacific.”

While the world average for the life expectancy of women is 1.06 years longer than that of men, Asia’s ratio of female-to-male life expectancy is below this average. “This discrepancy stems from a lifetime of gender discrimination, starting from the deliberate abortion of female fetuses [emphasis mine].”

I think it’s curious that the UN is decrying sex-selective abortions in Asia when it was the UN who helped China set up its one-child policy (click here to read Forced Abortion in China). Their own ideologies are contradictory when, on the one hand, they protest sex-selective abortion in Asia and yet, on the other hand, actively support and work with organizations like Planned Parenthood, one of whose main goals is the promotion of abortion-on-demand.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t organizations that purport to help girls develop their self-image stop supporting programs that destroy the self-images of girls, and ultimately result in a world-wide cultural view that objectifies girls and women?

How do we turn a blind eye to an organization that might be helping our daughters in our own backyard, but is destroying our values and hurting “all daughters” on a global scale?

[Updated 12 Mar 2010, 1331 EDT]

I wanted to apologize for not writing more often. The past year (2009) has been one of those years that I wish could be erased from my memory. This year (2010) has not been much better (so far).

Through personal trials and tribulations, my thoughts have often wandered to you, gentle reader, and if you were still with me. I hope you are because there is so much going on in the battle for human life that the problems of one man and his wife pale in comparison.

So, if you are still with me, I promise to be with you more often and to help show you some of the thoughts and ideas that are swirling around about human life in our society and culture today.

Respectfully yours, Ed

The first article appeared on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 regarding a recently published study on abstinence-only education programs. Researchers conducted a study between 2001-2004 that had four groups of children involved. Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Post article (click here to read the entire article):

Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.

The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

The lead researcher made a statement that can be seen as almost reconciliatory towards pro-lifers who have fought for abstinence-only education programs.

“I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence,” said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. “Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used.”

The second article was published on Thursday, February 2, 2010. A study was conducted on 54 patients in a “vegetative state” to see if their minds were working or not. The study found that some of the patients could indeed hear, react, and respond to outside stimulation. Here is an excerpt (click here to read the entire article):

One by one, the men and women were placed inside advanced brain scanners as technicians gave them careful instructions: Imagine you are playing tennis. Imagine you are exploring your home, room by room. For most, the scanner showed nothing.

But, shockingly, for one, then another, and another, and yet two more, the scans flashed exactly like any healthy conscious person’s would. These patients, the images clearly indicated, were living silently in their bodies, their minds apparently active. One man could even flawlessly answer detailed yes-or-no questions about his life before his trauma by activating different parts of his brain.

“It was incredible,” said Adrian M. Owen, a neuroscientist at the Medical Research Council who led the groundbreaking research described in a paper published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. “These are patients who are totally unable to perform functions with their bodies — even blink an eye or move an eyebrow — but yet are entirely conscious. It’s quite distressing, really, to realize this.” …

“This should change the way we think about these patients,” said Nicholas D. Schiff, an associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City. “I think it’s going to have very broad implications.” …

As many as 20,000 Americans are in a vegetative state, meaning they are alive and awake but without any apparent sense of awareness, and 100,000 to 300,000 are in a related condition known as a minimally conscious state, in which they exhibit impaired or intermittent awareness. It is unclear what proportion of these patients would be affected by the study’s findings.

The message of pro-life Americans remains the same: all life is precious and valuable regardless of its state of being. For decades Americans have witnessed our values hijacked by a culture that tells us over and over through the popular media that the value of human life, both born and pre-born, is based on what that life contributes or “brings to the table.” “They” set the measuring stick by which “they” determine that value, and “they” use science to bolster their argument for promoting death as a “kind” and “worthy” alternative to life. What will they say as science refutes one of the very yardsticks they use to determine whether it’s time to pull the plug on someone’s beloved family member? Who do you want advocating for your loved one if they end up in a state where they are calling out for your help and compassion but their voices are locked inside them and you cannot hear their cries?

According to the organizers, there were 200,000 marchers present in the District along with almost 75,000 “virtual” marchers on the Virtual March for Life website hosted by AUL Action (see article in the  Washington Times).

LCMS World Relief and Human Care had several staff members (including me) participating. We have posted our photos, articles, and interviews on the LCMS website in the LCMS 2010 March for Life Newsroom.

Here is an excerpt from that message:

A Chinese woman called Wujian—not her real name—recently testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about China’s brutal one-child policy. Four years ago, Wujian became pregnant with an “illegal” baby—one conceived without a birth permit.

In an effort to protect her child, Wujian hid in a shack in a remote area. She was lonely and frightened, but took pleasure in feeling her baby begin to move inside her.

But when family planning officials learned where she was, they broke into the house and dragged Wujian into a van. She was taken to a hospital, where she found dozens of other women who had just undergone forced abortions. Some were crying, some were screaming, and one was rolling around the floor in agony. They were, Wujian said, “just like pigs in the slaughterhouse.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the estimated number of abortions worldwide in 2003 (latest estimate available) was 41.6 million abortions. They estimate that, excluding China, the number of abortions was 26.4 million. That would mean an estimated 15.2 million abortions occurred in China during 2003. That is 37 percent of the entire world’s abortions; and apparently, many of them are forced upon the mothers.

Please read or listen to the message from Chuck Colson, then share it with everyone you know. This kind of brutality against women and babies in the womb must be stopped. Click here to read the entire message and links to how you can make your voice heard.

A new section was added that should cause everyone to question where this so-called “health care reform bill” is heading. The new section is called “Quality Indicators for Care of People with Alzheimer’s Disease” [Sec. 1446].

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop quality indicators for the provision of medical services to people with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias and plan for implementing the indicators to measure the quality of care provided for people with these conditions [Sec. 1446(a)].

Although the wording is ambiguous since this will be a plan that the secretary of Health and Human Services will be creating, it would appear that the services to be provided to patients with mental illnesses will be determined on the quality indicators that are developed. Will this mean that people with a “lesser” so-called “quality of life” be denied medical services? This is but one sign of the intended health care rationing to come if H.R. 3962 were to be enacted.

Meanwhile, an amendment was introduced by Representative John Boehner (OH) (click here to read it) in order to substitute H.R. 3962. It would strike everything after the enacting clause of H.R. 3962 and insert an entirely new bill. This amendment would codify a permanent ban on tax-payer funds from being used to fund abortions and it will codify a conscience protection clause.

The Boehner amendment would explicitly prohibit tax-payer funding of elective abortions, including any monies held in a trust fund to which tax-payer funds were deposited [Sec. 602 of Boehner amendment, amending Title 1 of the United States Code]. Additionally, the amendment would provide for conscience protection by stipulating a penalty for anyone or any entity which discriminates against an individual or any health care entity (e.g. a hospital) for their refusal to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions” [Sec. 602 of Boehner amendment, amending Title 1 of the United States Code].

During the summer, Representative Bart Stupak (MI) and Representative Joseph Pitts (PA) submitted an amendment to H.R. 3200 that would explicitly ban usage of tax-payer funds for abortions (click here to read it). They would like to introduce the same amendment to H.R. 3962, but speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi (CA) is trying to push a “rule” so that there can be no vote on additional amendments to H.R. 3962.

Contact your representative today to tell them to support pro-life amendments and to vote NO on Speaker Pelosi’s rule that would ban a vote on pro-life amendments to H.R. 3962. You can find information on how to call your representative on the National Right to Life webpage by clicking here. This is imperative. The vote on Pelosi’s rule is expected to happen on Friday night (November 6) and the vote on the whole bill is expected to happen on Saturday night (November 7).

After a quick review, I have not seen any changes to the parts of H.R. 3962 that deal with abortion. Therefore, tax-payer funded abortions and all the other concerns I have highlighted remain in the bill (e.g. see “Is Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?“). No one knows for sure when the bill will be voted on, but now that the manager’s amendment has been introduced, the full vote can come as soon as Friday night (November 6).

But what I am really curious about is a new section added to H.R. 3962: “Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit” [Sec. 555]. This new section will amend the Internal Revenue Code so that it covers tax credits for producers of biofuels.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t a health care reform bill actually deal with health care reform? What in the world is a biofuel credit adjustment doing in something as important as this?

It’s not too late to contact your representative and tell them to stop the madness and work on real health insurance and tort reform. Click here to go to the National Right to Life website for more information on how to do this.

Section 240 requires that all companies offering a qualified health benefits plan to “provide for the dissemination of information related to end-of-life planning to individuals seeking enrollment in Exchange-participating health benefits plans offered through the Exchange” [Sec. 240(a)(1)]. This section also explicitly states that the insurance company cannot promote suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing [Sec. 240(a)(3) and Sec. 240(d)(1)].

The problem is that this section does not “preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life decision-making” [Sec. 240(d)(3)]. Oregon, the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, does not consider their legislation to have allowed “suicide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.” Instead, they consider their legislation to have allowed patients to make a choice to face “death with dignity.” In fact, it is called the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, as is the Washington version passed into law last year.

Thus, your health insurance plan will now be required to promote and pay for “death with dignity” consultations in those states that have passed such legislation. Why is it that this bill is interested in promoting life-ending programs rather than life-saving or life-extending programs?

For more information on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Oregon Department of Human Services . For more information on Washington’s Death with Dignity Act, go to the Washington Department of Health.

H.R. 3962 is just plain wrong for America; it does not protect human life and our well-being at any age or any stage as it purports to do; instead it does exactly the opposite: it promotes death and the devaluation of human life.

It is imperative that you contact your senator or representative today via mail, phone calls, and emails. Go to the National Right to life for assistance with how to do this by clicking here.

[Corrected March 21, 2010]

Section 501 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer is not enrolled in a Health Insurance Exchange qualified health benefits plan at any time during the taxable year, then he will be charged “a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) [of the Internal Revenue Code] with respect to the taxpayer” [Sec. 501(a), amendment to Part VIII, subchapter A, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code]. To see what 6012(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code is, click here .

Maybe it’s just me, but…it sounds dangerously “totalitarian” that my government thinks it has the right to tell me what I must buy – whether it’s a product or a service, like insurance, when it affects only me. According the US Census Bureau, 47 million Americans are uninsured; but many of those folks actually are eligible for health insurance but don’t know it through Medicaid or SCHIP and many of those folks actually choose not to have health insurance even though they can afford it. The American Spectator wrote that a Blue Cross Blue Shield study estimated that the actual number of uninsured Americans is really closer to 8.2 million; click here to see the article. More recently, the Wall Street Journal also publish an article questioning the number of uninsured Americans; click here to read the article.

Yes, we need to help those folks who truly can’t afford health insurance, but H.R. 3962 is not the answer since it includes legislation such as taxing people  (substitute the word “fine”) who don’t want to have health insurance for whatever reason; and taxing people who don’t to participate in a health plan that uses it’s conglomerate funds to pay for services that the person has moral or religious objections to.

For example, Section 551 will amend Part VIII of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. If a taxpayer has a “modified adjusted gross income” that exceeds $1,000,000, he will be assessed a 5.4 percent surcharge on the amount over $1,000,000 [Sec. 551(a), amendment to Part VII, subchapter A, chapter 1, Internal Revenue Code]. And oh, by the way, this “shall not be treated as a change in a rate of tax” [Sec. 551(c)].

There is no stipulation in the bill that these funds would or would not be used for health insurance; that these funds would or would not be used to help pay for premiums to the public health insurance option for those who can’t afford it; or that these funds would or would not be used to help offset the start-up costs associated with the public option–set at $2 billion in H.R. 3962.

Maybe it’s just me, but…what in the world does this have to do with health care? And how does this help provide health insurance for those who are uninsured?

Contact your representatives today and tell them to stop HR 3962. Click here to go to the Susan B. Anthony List webpage to send a message to your elected officials.

Section 222 defines what the “Essential Benefits Package” is meant to include. All plans eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange need to meet these minimum services. Unlike H.R. 3200, there is no language H.R. 3962 regarding options for family planning.

Section 321 establishes a Public Health Insurance Option. The public health insurance option is prohibited from providing abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(A)]. However, the public option is allowed to provide abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(B)].

In an effort to defend their claim that there will be no tax-payer funded abortion provision in the bill, proponents of the bill state that the restrictions placed on abortion by the Hyde amendment would fall under this definition and thus prevent the public health insurance option from funding abortions. This defense is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the Hyde amendment only prevents tax-payer funded abortions specifically through Medicaid and appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. It does not address the other potential funding sources for the public health insurance option, such as income tax surcharges and employer penalties for not providing health insurance.

Secondly, the Hyde amendment needs to be renewed every year; so if it is not renewed, then during the next plan year, tax-payer funded abortions can be a part of the public health insurance option.

Finally, this prohibition in H.R. 3962 is placed only on the essential benefits package and does not apply to enhanced or premium benefits packages; thus the public health insurance option can, in fact, provide for tax-payer funding abortions.

For a detailed description of how the Hyde amendment may not apply in this situation, go to the Susan B. Anthony List’s special website called Stop Hyding. Please note that although their website refers to H.R. 3200, the logic and the law are applicable to H.R. 3962 as well.

Aside from the funding issues, as of the time of this writing the only abortion coverage prohibited to the Department of Health and Human Services is partial-birth abortion, which is banned by Federal law. However, if the law changes to allow partial-birth abortions, e.g. if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed as President Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, then tax-payer funded abortions through the public health insurance option would include even these types of abortions.

Do you think it’s right that your tax dollars go to ending human life in the womb? And what about your health insurance provider? Will they be forced to pay for abortions if they morally object to the practice? Will you end up paying for abortions because your premium payments into the health insurance are then used to pay for an abortion that someone else chooses?

H.R. 3962 includes a subsection entitled “Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package” [Sec. 222(e)]. This section prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner to mandate that abortion be covered in the essentials benefits package of a qualified health benefits plan [Sec. 222(e)(1)]. The caveat is that the abortion services are described in Sec. 222(e)(4)(A) and (B) which describe abortion coverage for the public health insurance option. As discussed above, the only type of abortion currently banned is partial-birth abortion and the only funding restriction is based on Medicaid payments.

Thus the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner can, in fact, mandate that your health insurance provider cover abortions in the essential benefits package.

If you don’t want to pay for abortions your tax dollars, it is imperative you contact your representative in Congress today! It is scheduled for a vote by the full House of Representatives later this week. For information on how to contact your representative, see the National Right to Life’s webpage by clicking here.

I had previously written on the LCMS World Relief and Human Care website that this document uses derogatory terms such as “vegetable” when describing a patient. Another problem that I saw was that the document asks the patient to evaluate his life based on what he can or cannot do rather than the inherent value of human life as bestowed upon him by our Creator and through the sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

In H.R. 3200, the advance care planning consultations were mandatory. Enough people made their voices heard and in the current bill in front of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3962, this section has been made voluntary and optional.

But the concerns still remain and the VA’s document is still a good example of what a government document on advance directives and end-of-life decisions would look like. The VA has removed the document from their website and you can no longer obtain it on-line from them. But you can still download it from my blog by clicking here.

What was amazing to me, however, was discovering two pro-life gems in the last few weeks on Desperate Housewives, a show filled with stories of lying, cheating, adultery, murder – yes, sin of every kind.

The first scene is about one of the characters contemplating abortion. Although the word “abortion” was never used, you pretty much knew what they were talking about, and the “choice” she was considering.

The second one has to do with  marriage, and what one husband sees as one of his primary roles within that relationship.

I took the liberty of reproducing the scripts from the two episodes below. Many thanks to abc.go.com where I could watch the scenes repeatedly to get the exact wording from the shows. Enjoy! And keep your eyes open for little pro-life gems in the midst of everyday life.

From Episode 602: Lynette, working mother of four children, is pregnant with twins.  Lynette has been torn between her new position at work and her pre-born babies.  She is not sure if she wants to “keep” the babies;  she cried out to her husband, “I don’t love these babies!” in a previous episode. As we follow the story this week, her friend Susan’s daughter, Julie, was attacked and is in a coma in the hospital. Lynette blurts out that Julie may be pregnant so they won’t perform any harmful x-rays on her, and Susan wants to know how Lynette knows that Julie may be pregnant:

Lynette: I hear Julie opened her eyes; that’s great!

Susan: Yes, yes it is.

L: I’m sorry you’re mad at me.

S: I’m not mad. I just can’t understand why she went to you instead of me.

L: That day that Julie found me crying…the reason she opened up to me was because I told her…and no one else can know about this…that I’m pregnant.

S: You are…that’s amazing! Wait, why were you crying?

L: Oh, let’s see, I’m in my 40’s, my husband is back in school, I’m the sole bread-winner, I don’t know how I’m going to do this whole baby thing again, and also because…

S: What?

L: Because I can’t quiet that one voice in my mind that keeps saying, “Maybe I shouldn’t.”

S: Oh, honey.

L: Yeah.

S: Lynette, uh, you can do whatever you think it is you need to do.

L: (Sadly) Yeah, I know.  Lucky me.

S: It’s weird, everybody talks about a kid being a gift. It’s the only gift where you puke for nine months before you receive it and then scream the day it arrives.

L: (Chuckles) That’s true.

S: But they are a gift, Lynette. I know that because I’ve spent the last few hours thinking that I was going to lose mine. I realized that I would trade everything I own, I would give everything that I ever will have, for just one more day as Julie’s mom…but I’m not telling you what you should do.

L: Actually you are. And I’m glad you did.

If you are facing an unplanned pregnancy and don’t know what to do, please call the Option Line at 800.395.HELP (800.395.4357) or visit their website at www.optionline.org. If you have had an abortion in the past and are experience strong negative emotions associated with that decision, please also call the Option Line or visit their website for more information. They are there for you.

From Episode 605: Lynette fires a handyman (Roy) who told her she emasculates her husband, Tom, because she is always the one making all the decisions in their family. She is upset that Roy is judgmental of the leadership role she assumes in the marriage. Tom sees Roy on the porch across the street and goes to speak with him.

Tom:  Hey Roy, can I talk to you?

Ryan: Sure thing, pally. (Tosses Tom a beer.) Here, take a load off.

R: If it’s about me getting into it with your wife, though, I have to stop you first and say, “I’m sorry.”

T: Well, thanks.

R: I mean, I know times have changed, but a man’s still a man; and you deserve to have your wife respect you.

T: She respects me plenty, Roy. (Roy looks skeptical.)

T: Here’s the thing you gotta understand about Lynette. She grew up without her dad. Her mom was a drinker. So she had to be responsible for everyone.

R: Yeah, well, that’s rough.

T: Yeah..it left her with this constant fear that everything could suddenly fall apart. And that’s why she needs to control everything. Of course she can’t…nobody can…but she can control me…if I let her…so I do…because it makes her feel safe.  And that is my job as her husband…to make her feel safe.

R: You’re a good man, Scavo.

T: I try. Now I have a hamburger to fetch.

If you’d like to read more about biblical manhood and biblical womanhood, click here to go to the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

The bottom line is this: if the supporters of the current so-called health care reform bill wanted to assure the American public that tax dollars wouldn’t be used to fund abortions, why didn’t they support one of the three different amendments that were offered which categorically stated that? Or maybe they should add that restriction to the current bill. The truth is, the current bill contains loopholes that will allow YOUR tax dollars to pay for the murder of innocent babies in the womb.

Click here to go to Stop the Abortion Mandate to see how you can make a difference.

Basically, within a 50-foot zone around the entrance of an abortion clinic, you cannot “come within 8 feet of another person to pass out fliers, display signs, vocally protest, educate or counsel without consent.”

But all is not lost. The ordinance can still be vetoed by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.  His office has installed an automated answering system to tally the votes from the public on the ordinance. If you live in the Chicago area (or even if you don’t–I’ve been told they are taking phone calls from everyone), you can call the mayor’s office at 312.744.3300; press “1″ to let the system know that you want to comment on the bubble zone law; and press “2″ to register your vote against it.

For more information about the bubble zone law go to the Pro-Life Action League website by clicking here.

It provides a beautiful picture of the many hours that volunteers in the PRCs give to serve women and their children around the country. You can download a PDF version of the report. Better yet, purchase copies of the report to spread the word about the important work that these groups in our communities perform every day.

Why is this so important? Due to the success of campaigns like Live Action, Planned Parenthood clinics (the largest abortion provider in the US) have been denied city and state funding in various parts of the country. Click here to read a recent article about Tennessee denying funding to Planned Parenthood.

Now the pro-abortion groups are trying to use similar strategy to discredit PRCs. Click here to see a sample flier advertising one such contest. Click here to see the Feminist Majority Foundation’s plan to “expose” pregnancy resource centers as “fakes”.

Maybe it’s just me, but…if the issue were truly about “choice” why are the “pro-choice” (abortion) groups up in arms about informing women of all the choices available to them during an unplanned pregnancy?  Let’s help women find real choices by funding caring pregnancy resource centers that help women throughout their pregnancy and, very often, after birth, rather than push them to a single option solution to their crisis – abortion clinics where the only outcome is a dead baby and a wounded woman.

I’ll be posting some notable comments and snippets of information shortly.  Meanwhile, if you’re in the Washington DC area, it’s not too late to participate in second day this great conference.  Click here for more information about the conference.

Click here to go to the LCMS web page and see why we should be concerned with three specific areas of the legislation: abortion, end-of-life, and conscience protection.

Additionally, I was made aware of a blog by Jackie Durkee called Faithful in Prayer for America. Since early July, Jackie has been reading H.R. 3200 (yes, all 1017 pages of it!) and has been summarizing each section. If you really want to know what’s in the legislation, make sure you visit her blog.

Finally, if you want your own copy of H.R. 3200, it’s available from the General Printing Office by clicking here.

It’s not too late to let your elected officials know that you are concerned about where this bill may lead us. Click here for the National Right to Life Committee’s easy-to-use form for writing your congressional members.

I’ve been spending part of the last two weeks actually reading the legislation contained in H.R. 3200 — America’s Affordable Health Choices Act 2009 and wanted to share some of what I’ve discovered with you, dear reader.

Although the word “abortion” does not appear anywhere in H.R. 3200, it is important to recognize the words that may imply abortion services are to be provided. For example, in Section 1714 – State Eligibility Options for Family Planning Services, the legislation delineates the eligibility requirements for women who are pregnant and women who are not pregnant to receive taxpayer-funded “family planning services.” The proposed legislation states the following:

… provide for making medical assistance available to an individual … such medical assistance shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) [of Title XIX of the Social Security Act] and, at the State’s option, medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided in conjunction with a family planning service in a family planning setting.

While, this might seem like an acceptable measure, but in reality, actual services received will depend on what limitations are placed on family planning services and supplies by Section 1905(a)(4)(C) of Title XIX of the Social Security Act. It would appear that the only limitation is that these services are provided

… to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies. (See the Social Security website by clicking here for the full text.)

In reality, there is no limit to what kinds of medical assistance, medical diagnosis, or treatment services can be provided at taxpayer expense. Also note that these services can be provided to minors “who can be considered to be sexually active [emphasis added]” and not just to those who actually are sexually active. Nor is there any mention of parental notification or consent before providing “treatment services” to minors.

What could the authors of H.R. 3200 possibly see as treatment services under this legislation? Abortion proponents have long asserted that reproductive rights include access to abortion services. One of the nation’s largest family planning provider, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), lists amongst it women’s health services both the abortion pill (RU-486) and in-clinic abortions.

I have written previously regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton receiving the Margaret Sanger Award from the PPFA. In her acceptance speech, she stated that increasing the level and quality of women’s health care worldwide depended on increasing access to family planning options. Secretary Clinton concluded by stating that PPFA has been a leader in ensuring that

… women’s health and women’s reproductive health is included in any deliberation concerning our – finally adopting – a healthcare system that takes care of all of our people. (See full text of the speech by clicking here.)

When the dots are connected, it is a reasonable and certain conclusion that H.R. 3200, if passed into law, will provide for taxpayer-funded abortions for women—and girls—without any limitations.

For more information, go to these websites: National Right to Life’s Stop the Abortion Agenda website; Family Research Council’s document called “Seven Reasons Abortion is in the Health Care Overhaul”; or Stop the Abortion Mandate’s facts webpage.

But don’t let the this action lure you into complacency. Your voice still needs to be heard. In case you’re still not sure if government-run health care is a good idea or not, I want to bring your attention to the story of Betty Figg in England where nearly all health care is provided by the National Health Service. Long-term care under the NHS also includes social services and oversight of whether a person is in a nursing home (or care home in British parlance).

In 2008, after injuring herself in falls while in the hospital, Mrs. Figg was admitted into a nursing home due to dementia.  Betty’s daughter, Rosalind, noticed that her mother’s care was lacking (click here to see article about Betty’s abduction by the authorities). Rosalind and her partner made renovations to their home in order  to adequately care for her mother.

The application to bring Mrs. Figg home was denied in November 2008. In April 2009, Rosalind decided to remove her mother from the nursing home. She brought Mrs. Figg home to care for her. Shortly thereafter, in a scene reminiscent of a raid on a drug den, police arrived to forcibly remove Mrs. Figg from her daughter’s home, and return her to the nursing home.

More details about the event which led up to the police action can be found in a follow-up article by clicking here. Additional stories about how English nursing homes are caring for their patients can be found by clicking here.

The story of Betty Figg has a happy ending as she was allowed in June by social services to go home with her daughter Rosalind after Rosalind met the requirements set forth by social services. Mrs. Figg was welcomed home by family members and she is enjoying life in the comfort of her own home once again. Click here to read how this story ended.

Maybe it’s just me, but…now is not the time to breathe a sigh of relief…now is the time to continue to share the truth about the so-called health care reform with our friends and families. People need to hear the truth about real people like Betty and Rosalind. Do you want the state to decide whether or not you can take care of your own mother? Are you ready for rationing of health care services based on, for example, how many hip replacements have already been performed in a given year? Or based on some arbitrary mathematical formula that determines just how valuable your life supposedly is worth? (I’ll address this in a future blog.)

Click on these resources to get more information: AUL Action, Stop the Abortion Mandate, FRC Action, The Heritage Foundation here and here, and National Right to Life.

Get the facts…then get involved.

She has some interesting quotes by pro-abortion folks including the following. From jezebel.com:

Surely the episode will fit right into the other hilarious takes on women that Family Guy is so fond of, like, say, rape jokes, or shooting prostitutes as a form of “community service,” or punching them in the face as they cry, “I don’t understand! What did I do wrong?” You know, really hilarious stuff.

And from RHrealitycheck.org [regarding the episode not being aired]:

I’d hope the episode would be an opening salvo for more comics, artists and others to talk about this reality in women’s lives that, like all realities, has to contain fodder for humor.

Jill’s concludes by saying:

The interesting phenomenon is that the longer legalized abortion is with us, the more unfunny and tabooed it becomes. This indicates an increasing unease by everyone – even liberal Hollywood – with abortion. Ultrasounds show abortion kills children. Post-abortion mothers say abortion leaves deep scars. And how many silent post-abortive fathers – including writers, producers, and directors – know that to be true as well.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t we wonder what has happened to our world when people who are pro-abortion, and purportedly advocates for all women, rather than decrying the callousness of shows that find humor in rape and shooting prostitutes,  actually want another assault against women (in this case abortion) to be the subject of crude and obscene jokes?

In November 2008, Washington joined Oregon as the only states in the United States to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. Montana was added shortly thereafter by judicial fiat; the Montana ruling is currently being appealed and will hopefully be overturned.

On May 22, 2009, the Oregonian reported the first death in Washington under the so-called Death with Dignity law. These legislative and judicial gains have emboldened those who want to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia nationwide to step up their efforts.

In fact, 2009 has already seen a number of attempts to pass Oregon-style “death with dignity” acts.  Some bills died in committee, some were defeated, and some are being delayed until the next legislative session.  Here are the six states that have been (or continue to be) targets for attack in 2009:

• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Massachusetts
• New Hampshire
• Pennsylvania
• Vermont

For more information on these and other legislative and ballot initiative attempts to pass so-called death with dignity acts, please see the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide website.

At the Symposium, Dr. Patricia O’Halloran from Washington stated that they learned some hard lessons in the passage of I-1000 (as Washington’s Death with Dignity ballot initiative was called). In polls taken after the vote, it was learned that the following talking points may have influenced the undecided voters to vote against the bill.  These points may be areas to be targeted for those who will be fighting the battle in another state.

• Insurance companies may not pay for treatment (especially if the treatment is deemed too costly), but they will pay for physician-assisted suicide.
• There is no familial notification required in Washington’s Death with Dignity law.
• Depression is considered a legitimate reason  for requesting physician-assisted suicide.
• Seniors and those with disabilities are at a greater risk then the general population.
• The medical profession is against physician-assisted suicide.
• Abuse of the statute in Oregon goes un-reported by the mainstream media.

The coalition that was formed to oppose Initiative-1000 is continuing in their battle as True Compassion Advocates.  Click here to see some of the advertisements they were able to air on television to help educate the public on what physician-assisted suicide really means for those who are terminally ill.

Attorney Margaret Dore, whose area of expertise is Elder Law, has spoken and written on various aspects of how to deal with end-of-life decisions. She said that one of the problems with physician-assisted suicide legislation is that it often states that patients must be able to “self-administer” the lethal doses of medication. According to Margaret, the problem with this wording is that the legal definition of “self-administer” is the act of ingesting. This phrase could mean that you put the pills in your mouth, or someone else can put the pills in your mouth, as long as you are ingesting the pills it’s considered “self-administered”. Margaret also noted that this phrase can be interpreted as someone putting something into your IV bag; so what is touted to be “self-administered” in reality can become, “other”-administered, which would no longer be suicide, but would cross that line into the realm of euthanasia.  She ended her session by encouraging pro-life folks to shape their arguments around “choice” and then show it as a lie. For more information on how to do this, see her article that was published by the King County Bar Association and the Washington State Bar Association.

The final thoughts I’d like to share with you come from William Toffler, MD.  He noted that during the first year that physician-assisted suicide was legal in Oregon, 14 physicians wrote 15 prescriptions for the lethal dose of medication. In 2008, after 10 years of so-called “death with dignity,” 45 physicians wrote 85 prescriptions for death. Click here to see the 2008 annual report from the Oregon Department of Human Services.

Dr. Toffler pointed to the Michigan Law Review Volume 106, Number 8 that has a collection of articles under the theme: “Glucksberg and Quill at Ten: Death, Dying and the Constitution.” Click here to read an article of note called “Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective” that details some of the irregularities in how “death with dignity” has been administered in Oregon and presents a few case studies.

Dr. Toffler said that the Oregon Health Plan (OHP) will not pay for chemotherapy, radiation treatments, or cancer surgery if the patient is expected to survive less than five years. He did note that OHP will pay for physician-assisted suicide as “comfort care.”

He also pointed out some erroneous reports in the mainstream media regarding Barbara Wagner (she was featured in a video during the battle against Initiative-1000 in Washington, click here and scroll down to see her video). Dr. Toffler noted that:

• The drug her doctor recommended, Tarsova, is not an experimental drug;
• Barbara never asked for physician-assisted suicide; OHP took it upon themselves to suggest it as a one of the medical procedures they would cover; and
• No one had said that Barbara had less than six months to live (one of the legal parameters established in the act), yet OHP offered Barbara the option of physician-assisted suicide.

The final thoughts I was left with from the Euthanasia Symposium revolved around questions we should ask of proponents of physician-assisted suicide.

1. Why is this available only to people with six months to live? Why not 6 years? Who set this limit and why?
2. Why are doctors asked to participate in this? Why do we make those who are supposed to care for people the judge, jury, and executioner of someone?
3. Why just overdoses of sleeping pills or other medication? Why not lethal injections as the surety of injections is much higher than taking an overdose of pills?
4. Are so-called “death with dignity” laws in violation of the American with Disabilities Act? Usually, when someone is depressed and suicidal, he is not given a lethal overdose of medication with the blessing of  his doctor. Yet when someone with disabilities (with a terminal illness or not) is depressed and suicidal, the answer is for his doctor to prescribe a lethal overdose. Is this discriminatory?

For more on end-of-life issues, please see the websites such as the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, and Care Not Killing.

As Lionel Roosemont stated at the conference, “Are you ready for the coming ‘E’ battle?” Are you ready to fight for the most vulnerable in our society? Are you ready to speak not only for the pre-born child in the womb but also for those who are told by our society that their “lives are not worth living”?

The purpose of Bobby’s keynote wasn’t to re-tell all the details of Terri’s story, but to urge us to stand for the weak and defenseless. He noted that the most at-risk person in our society today is someone who has a disability; in our culture, having a disability puts you at the mercy of someone else to determine whether your life is worth saving or not–just like Terri.

He made it clear that Terri was not dying in 2005; she did not have a terminal illness and she was not in a so-called “permanent vegetative state” as was reported in the mainstream media. Terri had a severe cognitive disability, and it was decided that her life was not worth saving because her so-called “quality of life” was deemed unsatisfactory. She was refused all nutrition and hydration until she died nearly two weeks later of dehydration–that’s usually called “murder.”

During this time, several people were arrested for attempting to get water to Terri in the hospice facility where she was slowly being killed. One of them was a 10-year-old boy and part of his punishment was to write a letter of apology. The text of the letter is reproduced below; to read the letter in his own handwriting, click here.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Joshua Heldreth, I am 10 years old. I was arrested on Good Friday for trespassing on the hospice center’s property.

I am not a law breaker, I keep God’s law. That is very important to me.

In the Bible it says thou shalt not murder in the 10 commandments. It says to love your neighbor as yourself. It also says in Matthew 25, When I was hungry and thirsty you gave me food and water. Doing it for others was like doing it for God and He called the people who did that righteous and let them into heaven. So I wanted to do the same thing.

Not giving Mrs. Shiavo [sic] food or water was wrong. The reason I had to go on your property was because Jesus would do the same thing. It made me sad that she was so thirsty and it made Jesus sad too. I knew she would die without water and I am called by Jesus to be a defender of the defenseless. So I had to go on your property to try to bring her a drink.

I am sorry that you didn’t like that and wouldn’t allow me to help her when I came on your property. I am also sorry you didn’t help save her life and one day you will have to tell God why. I won’t be able to help you then like I tried to help her.

I will pray for you every day that you will some day have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and serve Him whole heartedly [sic] no matter what.

Joshua Heldreth

Maybe it’s just me, but…if it is so clear to a 10-year-old that it’s not right to cause a person to die by denying him nutrition and water, why do our laws stipulate that it is okay to withhold these things from someone who cannot speak for himself? And if a child can stand up and speak for life, what excuses do we have for not doing the same? Where will we draw the line? Who will decide how much “quality of life” a person with disabilities has to have to make his life worth saving? When will we defend the defenseless?

Another end result of this legislation is the requirement for equal access to abortions for everyone. That could mean, for example, that even if a community doesn’t want an abortion clinic in its neighborhood, they may be forced to accept one because per this legislation everyone is entitled to have access to an abortion if they so choose; and that right to access could trump the rights, and override the objections of, the people living in the neighborhood.

Let’s not forget about the other life issues impacted by the type of health care reform currently being proposed. A rating system is being considered to determine who should be eligible for certain medical treatments. This would create a so-called “quality of life” index – - if you don’t rate high enough, you won’t get the treatment you need.  This is already happening in other countries with nationalized health care systems – it’s called “rationing.” Is this what you want for your future?

Here are some links to help illumine the facts. When you’re done reading these sites, go to the National Right to Life link at the end to send a message to your congressional representatives urging them to oppose the health care reform legislation. You can also participate in a webcast on Thursday evening, July 23 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time with several pro-life leaders (Father Frank Pavone, Dr. James Dobson, Congressman Chris Smith, Congressman Joe Pitts, and many others) by clicking here to register.

Information Links:

Click here for a collection of National Right to Life press releases and articles.

Click here for the Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the health care reform legislation.

Click here for the Family Research Council’s analysis about what is included in the legislation.

Click here for an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal about President Obama’s plans for health care reform. This article is from December 20, 2008 and was a harbinger of what is being discussed now and what will be coming down the road soon.

And since we should look at the other side once in a while, click here for an article by Peter Singer calling for rationed health care which appeared on-line on July 15, 2009 and was published in the July 19, 2009 issue of the New York Time Magazine. By the way, Peter Singer is a professor at Princeton University who supports and promotes abortion-on-demand, infanticide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia.

Action Links:

Click here for the National Right to Life page to send message to your congressional representatives (scroll to the bottom).

Click here to register for a webcast by pro-life leaders discussing aspects of the current health care reform legislation we should be concerned with.

That’s because at the heart of all the life issues is this irrefutable fact: human life is precious and valuable because God created it and Jesus Christ died for it. The members of the NPRC include LCMS World Relief and Human Care, Presbyterians Pro-Life, Lutherans For Life, Anglicans for Life, Priests for Life, Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, LifeWatch (United Methodist Church), CEC for Life (Charismatic Episcopal Church), United Church of  Christ for Life, National Right to Life Committee, and others.

In our efforts to promote ecumenical resources, we have published books and a quarterly newsletter. Click here to see the NPRC information page hosted by the Outreach department of the National Right to Life Committee.  We also have two new on-line resources.

The first is the Pro-Life Prayer Campaign.  We ask that you pray daily for the wonderful gift of human life and to ask for God to show you how you can make a difference.  The prayer can be found by clicking here. Check back often as we will post new prayers at different times of the year.

The second on-line resource is to help pastors with suggestions of pro-life themes they can incorporate into their sermons. Click here to see the current “pro-life preaching hints.”

I hope these new resources will help you to share the love of God for human life.

The Hand of Hope (c) Michael Clancy

I recently met Michael Clancy at the National Right to Life Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.  I could not believe that it’s been 10 years since the famous photo (at right) taken by Michael was first published.

Michael was a freelance photojournalist who was documenting an in utero operation on a baby with spina bifida.  Suddenly, the baby (later named Samuel) reached out of the womb to grab the surgeon’s finger.  Samuel was only 21 weeks old at that time.

Fox News recently published an article about Samuel and what he’s doing now, including winning first place in swimming competitions.

In the article, Michael says that he was pro-choice before the assignment that led to the photograph.  But because of what he witnessed during this surgery, he became pro-life.  Now he is a full-time motivational speaker for pro-life groups.  Click here to go to his website to read the story and see his speaking schedule.

Maybe it’s just me, but…I think we should never forget that the baby in the womb is exactly that–a baby!  Regardless of how the pro-choice folks try to denigrate the life in the womb by calling him a “glob of cells,” “mass of tissue,” or the “product of conception,” we must always return to the one undeniable fact that the life in the womb is a human life that is worthy of our love and protection. With compassion and hope, let’s show mothers (and fathers) struggling with life and death choices understand that there are alternatives to abortion when told that the baby they are carrying is “less than perfect.”

I’d like to bring you the story of Lionel Roosemont and his wife Renate. Lionel is a husband and father of four from Belgium.  He talked about the culture of death in that country and how his family has had to deal with the implications of that paradigm. It should be noted that euthanasia is legal in Belgium.

When Renate was in the 7th month of pregnancy with their 4th child, she felt something was wrong. They went to their local clinic where doctors told them that the baby had hydrocephalus. The doctors immediately advised that Renate get an abortion because the baby would probably not live long after birth. The doctors told the Roosemonts that the baby will most likely be blind, deaf, and paralyzed. Although Lionel and Renate kept asking the doctors for other options, they were continually told that an abortion was the only answer.  Lionel and Renate refused to end the baby’s life.  However, they did begin preparing for the baby dying shortly after birth.  They chose the name Tikvah for their daughter, which means “jewel.” Fully prepared for her death, Lionel was surprised when the doctor came into the waitng room to tell him that the baby was doing fine and scored between 9 and 10 on the Apgar tests.

Although Tikva has significant disabilities, the family loves her and cares for her; she has brought much joy and love into their lives.  Lionel said, “People who cannot accept that we live in a less-than-perfect world will have problems with children like Tikva.” He noted that currently there is pending legislation in Belgium that would legalize euthanasia for minors and infanticide (as the Netherlands have had since 2006). There are also moves to force hospitals to perform euthanasia.

In the 13 years since Tikva was born strangers, after seeing Tikva’s condition or hearing her cry uncontrollably as she sometimes does, have repeatedly come up to the family (even to the other children) and stated that it would be better to just give her an injection so she will die.

Lionel also talked about “the weekend clean-up” that often occurs in Belgian hospitals.  He stated that when the socialized medicine program in Belgium can no longer afford to cover a patient’s treatment, doctors often “help” some of those patient to die. Lionel said that the family never leaves Tikva in the hospital alone in fear of what someone may do to her.

Lionel stated, “Once the beast of euthanasia is released, the future looks bleak.” He concluded with a little family history.  Lionel’s father had fought in World War II at Dunkirk and with the Belgian Underground.  His father and two uncles were captured and put into a Nazi concentration camp. Only his father survived the war.

“Are you ready for the coming ‘E’ battle?” was the question Lionel asked the attendees. He challenged us to remember “Little Belgium” as we did during World War I when the free world came to the aid of Belgium. Now the battle he asks us to fight for is “life”; not only for Belgians, but for ourselves as well.

Click here to read the final part from the symposium, The State of the States.

However, the pro-life community grieves that a vigilante would take matters into his own hands and fatally assault Tiller. Murder is never a right response to a situation, regardless of the victim and the motive. A good commentary is found on the WORLD Magazine website. Unfettered violence against those who perform violence is never the answer. Instead, prayers for those who would harm one of God’s children and peaceful discussion and education would go much further to end the scourge on our land known as legalized abortion-on-demand.

My prayer for Tiller is: “May God have mercy on his soul.”

On another note, even though the police have stated that they believe the murderer acted on his own volition, there are those in the pro-abortion camp who will not hesitate to brand all pro-life individuals as radicals who go around shooting people who don’t agree with them. Unfortunately, this is in concert with how the Department of Homeland Security has previously depicted the pro-life community. Rather than coming together to condemn the actions of a misguided individual, some want to use this sad event to vilify opponents of abortion-on-demand.

Both sides need to see that violence only begets violence. Unfortunately, as long as the violence of legalized abortion-on-demand exists in this nation, we will also live with the possibility that individuals will wrongly resort to violence in an errorneous attempt to stop violence.

Addendum: LCMS Life Ministries issued a statement on the murder, click here to read it.

Dr. Peter Saunders, director of the Care Not Killing Alliance, spoke about past and current efforts in the UK to legalize assisted suicide. He noted the following as important legislative steps towards where the UK is presently:

• 1961 Suicide Act — Suicide was legal, but assisting with a suicide was still illegal.
• 1965 Murder Act — Outlawed the death penalty, but the intentional killing of another person was still illegal.
• 2005 Mental Capacity Act — It is a crime for a doctor to treat a patient against an advance refusal (living will in the US).

After several failed attempts to introduce bills to legalize assisted suicide, the main pro-euthanasia organization in the UK (Dignity in Dying) changed tactics.  Since so many advances have been made in the area of palliative care and pain mitigation, the focus has switched from cancer patients with uncontrollable pain to people with neurological diseases – the argument being that they should have the option to choose when to die. In 2006, the Assisted Dying Bill was introduced in the Parliament.  The main points of the bill included:

• This was physician-assisted suicide (modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act), not euthanasia.
• Nurses would be involved in the process.
• This bill was for England and Wales only.

After much work by the Care Not Killing Alliance, the bill was defeated. However, that has not stopped pro-euthanasia forces in the UK. In September 2008, medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock stated that dementia patients are wasting their families’ lives and wasting the resources of the National Health Service, thus they have a duty to die.

In early December 2008, British television aired a program showing the assisted suicide of an American in Zurich highlighted the growing “suicide tourism” that occurs in Switzerland due to its relatively unrestrictive assisted suicide laws. Shortly thereafter, well-known broadcaster John Humphrys announced he was co-authoring a book in which he will call for the legalization of euthanasia. Finally, assisted suicide was glamorized in a docudrama that aired in January 2009 on BBC called “A Short Stay in Switzerland.”

And now, there are efforts underway calling for an amendment to the Suicide Act to protect from prosecution anyone who helps someone to travel to Switzerland in order to commit suicide.

After you’ve digested all of this, click here to read Part 2, The Coming “E” Battle.

For me, the disturbing undercurrent of all the talk is this: what kind of world do we live in when “the right to choose” [insert: gender-based abortions, infanticide, or eugenics] is so revered that it is not only allowed, but encouraged by governments? Isn’t it bad enough that China has coerced abortions and many are performed due to the gender of the baby, but now other nations want to follow that model as well? In fact, nations around the world that outlaw abortions are being targeted by pro-abortion organizations to relax their laws - recent examples include the Dominican Republic and East Timor.

When will the people of this nation and of other nations stand up and speak for the most vulnerable of our societies? When will we clearly state that the “right to choose an abortion” really means the ”right to kill another human being”? And when will we finally understand what Martin Luther wrote in the Large Catechism about the 5th Commandment–You shall not commit murder:

…under this commandment not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him, so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him, and yet does not do it. …[I]f you see any one innocently sentenced to death or in like distress, and do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him. (LC, Part I, 189-190)

It is not enough to just say “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but it should be legal for those who want the “right to choose”.  We need to speak for those who are innocently sentenced to death (1.2 million every year in America, 41.6 million every year worldwide) and protect all human life, no matter the size, degree of development, or location of that human life.

22weeks (Documdrama)

Synopsis from the website: “A young woman is locked in the bathroom of an abortion clinic after her aborted baby was born alive. A film about decisions, their effects and the echoes they leave behind. Based on the shocking World Net Daily article by Ron Strom, on victim’s testimonies, and real 911 calls about one of the most controversial subjects of our time, “22weeks” achieves to confront both sides of the spectrum and their perspective to the on going question: ‘what would you do?’”

Killing Girls (Documentary)

Synopsis from the website: “In today’s Russia 80% of the women have between 2 and 10 abortions in their life. … Late term abortions became on of the popular methods of solving the problems for the girls aged … 14 to 18. … ‘Killings Girls’ brings us into the world of an abortion clinic that specializes in late term teenage abortions. Here, abortions are sometimes performed even after 6 months of pregnancy. … ‘Killing Girls’ tells the truth about abortion–this film is neither Pro Life nor Pro Choice.”

The Terri Schiavo Story (Documentary)

From the website: “By order of the government, a healthy young woman was denied food and water until she died. … Do we believe in the sanctity of all human life, or do we believe in the sanctity of some human life?”

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family (Documentary)

Synopsis from the website: “One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree – we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe. … The economies of the world will continue to contract as the ‘human capital’ spoken of by Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker, diminishes. The engines of commerce will be strained by the responsibility to support an aging population.”

Come What May (Fiction)

From the website: “When Does Life Really Begin? If college student Caleb Hogan argues what he truly believes, he stands to lose the most important competition of his life and the support of his mother. If he softens his stance, he might win the coveted title…but lost the heart of his teammate Rachel in the process. ‘Come What May’ is a vivid reminder that choosing what is right is never easy…but it is always worth the cost.”

Thine Eyes (Documentary)

From the website: What the film accomplishes: “Provides accurate and artistic coverage of the 36th annual March for Life to be shared with the world … inspires prolife people to give time, talent and treasure to the prolife cause … raises awareness about the March for Life and the prolife position … provides a visual resource to prolife organizations, schools, churches and any person or organization…”

Let the movies speak for themselves.

Maybe it’s just me, but…I thought the whole purpose of a regulatory agency is to act as a “check and balance” to the industry that it regulates. Why is the FDA approving anything at the request of the manufacturer?  Is the FDA supposed to be safeguarding the public or helping the pharmaceutical company make money?  The question that I have which the FDA still has not answered is this: if a high dose of hormonal birth control is safe for self-diagnosing and self-medication, why is a prescription still required for the regular dose of hormonal birth control? In fact, why do low-dose hormonal birth control, such as Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, need a prescription, yet a HIGH DOSE of hormonal birth control is now going to be available to minor children without a prescription?

It still doesn’t make sense to me…unless you frame it all in the context of a hidden agenda.

The April 2009 issue of Scientific American–and no, I have not caught up on my reading, I was just browsing around the Internet–has a short news item on the successful treatment of 21 patients with multiple sclerosis (as I wrote about in “All the News That’s Not Fit to Print“). The treatment involved using bone marrow cells, which are adult stem cells. And yet the little news piece is coupled with the excitement of “data from stem cell therapies in general” becoming available soon because the FDA has approved the first human embryonic stem cell trial.

Maybe it’s just me, but…this is completely deceptive.

First you read about a successful treatment using bone marrow stem cells, then you read about how we’re going to start getting more data on stem cell treatments because human embryonic stem cell trials will start soon. The magazine reports this as if the bone marrow stem cell treatments that have already been proven to work on humans isn’t giving us enough data to pursue this as a regular course of treatment. So who is really holding up medical progress: those who insist on pursuing embryonic stem cell research or those who are already treating people using adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells?

Read the Scientific American news item here (scroll down, it’s the third item called Forward with Stem Cells) and then post a comment calling them on the carpet for their deception.

But that’s the way the media portrays pro-life groups and people. I’m not saying there have never been extreme actions perpetrated by individuals who didn’t quite understand what being “for life” is all about. It’s taken many years and many words to teach people, including pastors, that most pro-life folks love human life and they don’t want to hurt anyone, even someone committing a grievous sin like abortion. Most pro-life folks I know believe life is precious because God created that life and Jesus Christ died for that life. Most pro-life folks that I know believe that the best way to reach those on the other side of the abortion debate is to extend a hand of love with the Good News of Jesus Christ. And all pro-life folks that I know condemn the violent actions that a few misguided individuals have taken. It’s taken many years and many words to dispel the image of the violent “anti-abortion” protester that the media created by only focusing on the negative actions of a few extremists.

And now it looks like we’ll be re-educating all over again.

A disturbing news item was made public on most news sources yesterday. It would seem that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines rightwing extremists to include pro-life Americans. From the DHS assessment entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented…and those that are mainly antigovernment…. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion [emphasis added] or immigration.

Read a short article from Catholic News Agency or a longer one from Fox News.  The Fox News article points out that DHS released an assessment on left-wing extremists in January. However, the DHS states that the leftwing extremists will most likely cause financial losses, like hacking into a corporation’s website in protest; while the DHS portrays rightwing extremists (including pro-life folks) with bloodshed. The Fox News article also has links to the DHS assessments on rightwing extremism and left wing extremism.

Maybe it’s just me, but…can someone explain to me how trying to protect an innocent human life is seen as an extremist viewpoint, but wanting to end (i.e. kill) an innocent human life is not an extremist viewpoint? Or stated even simpler, how is it that wanting to save a life is “bad” and makes you “dangerous”; but wanting to end a life is “good” and you’re not “dangerous”? The preborn baby might have a different take on that idea.’

Am I paranoid to think that there’s agenda to shut down any opposition to the “freedom of choice”? Is it just one more attempt to intimidate those who are dedicated to advocating for everyone’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–the preborn as well as those already born? You tel me…is this the change that people were looking for?

Maybe it’s just me, but…why does it seem that those who want to promote reproductive health and rights around the world don’t ever want to promote the one sure-fire way that someone won’t get an STD or get pregnant: abstinence? Why is it that they won’t teach that it’s okay to not have sex but they will teach that you should be able to indulge in complete sexual freedom despite potential consequences and get an abortion for any reason at any time  if you do get pregnant?

On this topic, I wholeheartedly agree–I believe that women around the world should have free and unhindered access to photocopiers. They should have the right to reproduce anything they want, any time they want. Why shouldn’t women have the same freedom to reproduce as men? Why shouldn’t…wait a second…oh…oh my…my apologies dear reader, that’s not the type of reproduction that Secretary Clinton was speaking about.

My apologies to Secretary Clinton as well because she was talking about human reproduction. Well, on this topic, I also wholeheartedly agree with her–women in China should have the right to reproduce all the children they want. They shouldn’t have to be forced to have only one child. They shouldn’t live in fear that they will be forced to have an abortion if they’ve already had their “quota” of children and they become pregnant with another child. Their families shouldn’t be punished for choosing to have more than one child. The women of China shouldn’t…wait a second…oh boy, this is so embarrassing…I’ve done it again…my apologies to you once more, dear reader, that’s not the type of reproductive rights that Secretary Clinton was speaking about either.

Apparently, the reproductive rights that Secretary Clinton was talking about are the same reproductive health and rights that are listed as goals of the UN Millennium Project. On this topic, I can completely support Secretary Clinton and the UN–pregnant women around the world should have access to good prenatal care.  They should have easy access to vitamins and proper nutrition during their pregnancy.  They should be able to receive care from skilled health providers and have access to decent health facilities so that they have successful pregnancies, and good outcomes with healthy babies. And after birth, women should get competent maternal after-care for themselves, medical care for their babies, and parenting classes to help them raise their children in a healthy and safe environment. Pregnant women around the world should…wait a minute…I think I’ve put my foot in my mouth once again.

Although the UN does endorse the need for the above resources for pregnant women and their children, I guess that’s not all the UN and Secretary Clinton are talking about. It would appear that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is also looking to export abortion as one of their  methods of assuring reproductive rights (see the UN goals for gender equality or this article from CNA).

Wait, I’m confused…if one of their goals is to encourage, promote, and fund abortion world-wide, wouldn’t that goal be more accurately stated as “non-reproductive” rights? Because they’re not really trying to protect a woman’s right to reproduce (e.g. Chinese women), or just make sure a woman has a right to “reproduce healthily”; rather, they’re trying to ensure and promote a woman’s desire to not reproduce, both through contraception and, when contraception fails, through abortion–which definitely results in a bad outcome for that baby.

So, I guess I’m not really in agreement with the UN and Secretary Clinton after all–because I definitely can’t support their continued efforts to export death around the world.

Did I get it right this time?

I know I’m really behind in my reading, but I ran across a item of interest in the November 2008 issue of Scientific American that I wanted to share. In the “In Brief” sidebar of their News Scan section, there was a short item on page 36. It mentions a new successful treatment in mice for strokes. What they don’t tell you is actually much more interesting.

I haven’t been able to locate the original reference to the specific study they mention, so I don’t know precisely what type of stem cells the researchers were using in that study: embryonic stem cells,  adult stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). However, as far back as 2004, researchers were already treating strokes in research animals using adult stem cells, one of the types of stem cells that does not require the destruction of a human embryo.

In fact, successful treatment for stroke, and other debilitating conditions, on research animals has continued and still continues today.  In 2006, it was reported that stem cells from human bone marrow (adult stem cells) were successful in helping research animals recover from stroke. In the same article, it was reported that the researchers also studied stem cells from rodent bone marrow (again, adult stem cells) on research animals with a condition comparable to cerebral palsy in humans. The headline for the article only notes that stem cells were responsible for the success.  It’s only when you move past the headline and read the whole article that you discover that it was bone marrow stem cells from humans and rodents.  On a positive note, the researchers did explain that they were not using stem cells from embryos and fetuses, thus avoiding the ethical and political issues.

In fact, a new successful treatment for stroke in humans using adult stem cells was reported in 2008.  This treatment involves a hemorrhagic stroke, where a blood vessel bursts and there is bleeding in the brain. Once again, the headline shouts out that stem cells were successful in treating a stroke. It isn’t until you read the article that  you realize  the stem cells were taken from bone marrow thus they were not embryonic stem cells.

I have a confession to make here.  I don’t always read the articles.  Yep, it’s true, I often skim the headlines to find out what’s going on and I skip the actual articles. Of course, this is only true for topics that don’t really interest me; for example, I couldn’t care less what the Washington Capitals are up to because I love the NY Islanders. But I imagine that I’m your average middle-aged American, so if I don’t always get past the headlines, it’s safe to say a lot of other people are only reading the headlines, and not getting into the meat of the articles.

Therein lies the problem with reports on stem cells.  The headlines hardly ever differentiate the difference between the types of stem cells. The Washington Post’s articles make it clear that when you talk about stem cells, you talk about them as a group rather than specifying what type you are discussing. What the Post article was lacking in this particular article was an explanation that non-destructive forms of stem cell research were already funded by the federal government.  Now, with President Obama’s lifting of the presidential ban on funding embryonic stem cell research, federal funding will shift from successful adult stem cell research and iPS cell research to embryonic stem cells research, a form a destructive research with limited success in research animals and (to-date) no success in humans.

The successful treatments on humans with adult stem cells continues to be achieved and noted in the scientific community. The April 2009 issue of Nature Reviews Neurology highlights the results of study on human patients with multiple sclerosis. In this study, not only were the patients’ cases of MS stopped from progressing and there was a 100 percent survivability rate, there was also evidence in some patients of a reversal of some of the neurological damage that occurred prior to treatment. And for those who want to understand how a degenerative genetic disease progresses, this issue also reports on researchers that are using iPS cells to study the pathology of spinal muscular atrophy.

Currently, there are 73 diseases and disabilities treatable using human adult stem cells. So you have to wonder, why doesn’t the popular media print this information? Why is there such a dearth of reports on the success of adult stem cell research or iPS cell research?  Why have most media outlets decided that this news isn’t fit to print or if printed, it is hidden or disguised?  And why do the media and the proponents of embryonic stem cell research continue to give patients and their families false hope with the promise of treatments and cures that are not borne out by the research?

The truth is, there is a mainstream media bias and when we read new items and articles, we need to always look deeper than just the headlines in order to find the facts.

One of the main ingredients of Claritin-D is pseudoephedrine and because pseudoephedrine is the main component in the illicit production of methamphetamine, I have to produce identification when purchasing my Claritin-D. Now if you have allergies like I do, then you know the drill: go to Wal-Mart, stand in line at the pharmacy, take out your driver’s license, and let them scan it. Now there’s a record of what I bought and how much I bought.  Presumably, if I tried to go to another Wal-Mart immediately, the computer will scan my ID and inform me that I just bought all the Claritin-D that I need for now at another store and Wal-Mart won’t allow me to purchase more drugs.

So, in order to protect me and others from what I might do with the pseudoephedrine, I am inconvenienced by having to wait in line at a pharmacy, produce my ID, and be placed under the watchful eye of Wal-Mart (or whichever pharmacy you prefer).  I have to waste my time repeating this routine every two weeks, because they will only sell me 15 24-hour pills at a time!  All this for an over the counter (OTC) drug that does not require a prescription.

On March 23, in a bold stroke of judicial activism, the US District Court for Eastern NY decided that the FDA must sell Plan B–emergency contraception (EC), also known as “the morning after pill”–to minors over the counter without a prescription. Plan B is in essence a high dose of the hormonal birth control pill.  Supposedly, it will prevent conception after unprotected sex; but what doctors don’t usually tell you is that if fertilization has already taken place, Plan B  may act as an abortifacient by thinning the uterine lining thus preventing the embryo from implanting in the uterus.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has compiled a list a studies performed in other countries that have allowed emergency contraception to be sold OTC.  The first thing to understand is that in these nations, easy access to EC has not reduced the number of unintended pregnancies or abortions.  Additionally, the USCCB has noted studies which show that easy access to contraception has been correlated to increased promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases.

Maybe it’s just me, but…if the regular dose of hormonal birth control still requires a prescription, regardless of the patient’s age, because of the possible health complications, why would a higher dosage of the same medication not require a prescription and doctor’s supervision?  It just doesn’t make sense.  And if in the name of public safety an OTC drug containing pseudoephdrine is regulated, why is it that  Plan B, which may also be detrimental to public safety, is not regulated and can be freely obtained without a prescription?

Why, in our society’s rush to ensure, and dare I say promote, everyone’s sexual freedom, judicial activists in NY who have no medical background can decide  that parents don’t have a right to monitor their minor daughter’s intake of medication that the doctors and scientists at the FDA have determined may be detrimental to a minor’s health?   Why no safeguarding the health of the underage young girl in the case of Plan B, but that same young girl can’t even take an aspirin in school without parental consent and a  nurse dispensing it?

So, there it is – restrict the rights of responsible adults from buying a non-prescription drug to treat their allergies, but let the vulnerable young girl buy the higher dosage of a prescription drug with no one looking out for her health and safety.  Make sense to you?  Because I just don’t get it.

According to the first item in the code, I “agree to to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.” Now you may think this isn’t a big deal–after all, we’re just talking about engineers--but members of this organization are engineers that work in all aspects of life, from designing weapons systems to electric power plants to the brake controllers for freight trains. In essence, members of this organization touch our lives each and every day in countless ways that we don’t even know about.

Each engineer comes from a different background, and presumably he will use his beliefs, experience, and knowledge to do the right thing. In fact, if my employer “strongly suggests” that I do something that is detrimental to “safety, health and welfare of the public,” I’m bound by my morals and my commitment to the IEEE to oppose such actions; the guiding principle is what I believe to be moral and ethical. In other words, I cannot and will not be forced to do something that I believe is wrong.

In December 2008, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) passed a final rule entitled “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.” In essence this rule protects a healthcare provider from being forced to do something that is against his morals and ethics; i.e. a medical professional under this rule has the choice to refuse to do something that is contrary to his beliefs, morals, and ethics.

However, the current administration has now directed HHS to rescind that rule. If that happens, healthcare providers will no longer have a choice to act according to their morals and beliefs. They will either be forced to do things they consider immoral or unethical or they will risk losing their jobs.  A doctor might be required to perform an abortion against his will; or a physician assistant who believes using contraceptives is acting against God’s command may be forced to write a prescription for the pill; or a pharmacist might be forced to dispense Plan B even though he knows it may cause the death of a human embryo. The possibilities for coercion are endless.

Maybe it’s just me, but…why is it that in a society that values the “freedom to choose” so highly, certain people won’t be allowed to choose to follow their conscience if this rule is rescinded?  Why do we find it honorable for an engineer to obey a code of ethics so that his actions are not detrimental to others but, if this rule is rescinded, a healthcare provider cannot follow his conscience and obey a code of ethics or follow his morals?

To voice your opposition to this attempt to rescind the regulations protecting a healthcare provider’s conscience protection rights, see one of the following websites: Family Research Council, National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, or Freedom 2 Care (an ad hoc coalition of healthcare professionals). Please visit these sites before the public comment period ends on April 9, 2009.