By Jenn Giroux

Who would have ever guessed that contraception would move to center stage in women’s health and in the political arena in 2010? The New York Post reported that a Wicked actress sued Bayer pharmaceutical company, claiming the popular birth control pill Yaz http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/pill_shock_JpsscICEFM9TiKHLps0iyO caused her to have a stroke at age 27. According to the US Drug Watchdog http://usdrugwatchdog.com/index.htm site, the serious side effects of birth control pills such as Yaz and Yasmin are potentially putting millions of women at risk for stroke, heart attack and even death. Also, women who have used the pill are now getting breast cancer in their 30s. (Prior to the pill era, breast cancer was a postmenopausal women’s disease.) Next time you are at the pharmacy, ask for the insert information inside the very box that is provided to the consumer when they purchase a contraceptive. For instance, on NuvaRing’s (a common contraceptive) web site, risks associated with the drug include blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, heart disease, gallbladder disease, liver tumors, and cancer of the reproductive organs and breasts.

How many doctors are telling women who go in for contraceptives about these stunning statistics? Women who use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full- term pregnancy have a 52-percent higher risk of developing breast cancer (Mayo Clinic Proceedings). Women who use a hormonal contraceptive for more than 5 years are 4 times more likely to develop cervical cancer (International Agency for Research on Cancer).  Instead, many doctors convince married and single women to go on contraceptives when they come into the office.

Natural family planning (NFP) is a highly reliable form of not only spacing children but helping couples to conceive. Recent studies have shown it to be 99-percent effective. It’s amazing more doctors aren’t encouraging their patients to effectively use NFP, which has no risks associated with it.

Now, as the undeniable medical evidence mounts which confirms the damage contraceptives have done and continue to do to women’s health, one may ask why, for years, mainstream and even [some] pro-life organizations have ignored this. In addition, it has been revealed that our elected officials are trying to force our tax dollars to pay for birth control under “preventative” medicine that taxpayers and insurers will be forced to pay for under the Affordable Care Act. It is time that every pro-life organization stands up and resists with all their might. Not only are these contraceptives damaging to women’s health, but these class A-1 carcinogens are also causing chemical abortions (in excess of 250 million since the 1960s). For every U.S. child born, an estimated 2 children are killed in the womb from surgical abortion and abortifacient contraceptives (National Center for Health Statistics Division of CDC, 2003; International Pharmacists for Life, 2003).

It’s clear that it is time for expansive and comprehensive education against contraception use. The very life and health of women and the country depend on it. As we watch this all play out, it is easy to think that “crazy is the new normal”—sex outside of marriage, doctors prescribing class A-1 carcinogens and women, through hormonal contraceptives, chemically aborting possibly one baby every month.

That’s definitely CRAZY. But it will never be normal.

Jenn Giroux is a registered nurse, wife, mother of nine and executive director of HLI America, http://hliamerica.org/ a new initiative of Human Life International. http://www.hli.org/ HLI America brings Americans the truth about human life, the beauty of children, and the devastating and harmful physical and spiritual effects of contraception in America. This article http://hliamerica.org/columns/directors-column/%e2%80%9ccrazy-is-the-new-normal%e2%80%9d/ is reprinted with permission.

 

WesternFront America

Isn’t it interesting that as the United States of America approaches the 50th anniversary of this nation’s most popular recreational drug, the birth control pill, special interest media is ginning up the presses—or in this case, the web sites—with all sorts of ideas for the next 50 years. A sampling of what America’s birth control worshippers are saying may give one pause to rethink.

For example, on May 3, the Los Angeles Biomedical Research institute (LA BioMed) announced http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/labr-obc_1050310.php “that it has received $1.5 million in grant funding to study a contraceptive for men that uses a combination of two hormonal gels applied to the skin of the arm and abdomen.”

The report explains:

The Food and Drug Administration approved the birth control pill on May 9, 1960, giving women greater control over their reproductive choices and their lives.

Drs. Christina Wang and Ronald Swerdloff are LA BioMed principal investigators and directors of one of only two of the National Institutes of Health centers dedicated to clinical research on male contraceptives. They have conducted several studies of male contraceptives, including the current one.

Dr. Swerdloff, the director of the LA BioMed at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center’s Male Contraceptive Clinical Trials Center, says the development of a male contraceptive will change men’s view of their health and their role in reproductive decisions.

“Just as women gained greater control over their reproductive choices and their health with the advent of the birth control pill, a male contraceptive would get men more involved in their personal health care and would give them greater reproductive choices,” said Dr. Swerdloff.

If one is to believe these comments, then the pill is celebrated today as a drug that gives women “control” over their ability to conceive or not to conceive a child, depending on their whims and fancies. Or to put it another way, in blunt but honest terms, the unveiling of the birth control pill in 1960 invited females and their male counterparts to consider, for the first time in our brief history, the idea that fornication and adultery could be a group sport because this little chemical concoction was going to do away with the possibility of conceiving a child. At the same time, the pill created the idea, perhaps subconsciously, that all those who used it would no longer be put in the unpleasant position of having to accept responsibility for their actions. This life-changing prescription meant not having to live with the consequence of—God forbid—being with child (i.e. pregnant). In other words, the pill changed everything, turning the truth about human sexuality—waiting until marriage to engage in relations and welcoming a child as a gift—on its head and then denying those truths because they were merely old-fashioned, outdated ideas.

Now clinical research is investigating the possibility that men should perhaps no longer carry little packages containing latex in their hip pocket or army boot but rather a prescription gel, so that they are always prepared and can take charge of the situation with less delay. Sounds almost like the scientists are arming men for war games with females.

In my humble opinion, any man worth his salt would never consider using a chemical that could, as has been the proven case with the birth control pill, http://www.thepillkills.com/sideeffects.php result in a heart attack, a stroke, cancer or even death. On the other hand, proponents of these various chemicals do not admit to the fact that not only does the birth control pill abort on occasion; it is also not what one would describe as a health benefit. If those concerned with the health and wellbeing of humans were truly consistent, they would point out that no recreational drug is actually healthy, whether one is discussing cocaine, marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes or birth control chemicals.

In addition to the research devoted to men, there are other voices with different bones to pick about the pill’s 50th anniversary.

Susan Reimer’s opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-reimer-pill-20100503,0,2059231.column laments that the pill “didn’t stabilize marriages that might be stressed by too many children or sexual tension. Divorce has only increased since 1960, impacting almost half of all marriages. The pill didn’t stabilize populations in developing countries or control disease, famine and political unrest. The women in those countries couldn’t get the pill.”

“And it didn’t prevent unwed pregnancies, either. Those numbers have nearly tripled.”

But what she says the pill did create was more women in the workforce. Huh?

Reimer suggests that the enormous number of women in the workforce was a byproduct never projected by the lofty promise makers of the 1960s. But she doesn’t seem to get the point that, while the pill made it easier, perhaps, for women to enter the job market, it also, almost simultaneously, created a breakdown in the family. As more and more women entered the workforce, leaving their children in day care and their husbands to fend for themselves, the family unit started to decay http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=323 to a point where today the television or the internet is the babysitter that nobody could have imagined. The pill has been among the most sociologically damaging instruments in history.

But these are the sort of things to which Reimer cannot admit.

Oh yes, and then there’s Geraldine Sealey, http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/05/03/pill_pushback/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/feature who hasn’t got a good word to say about the pill, about her life, about her sexual libido or frankly about anything at all. She is an angry woman, whose article carries the very appropriate title, “Why I hate the pill.” I thought I might be about to read an exposé on what the pharmaceutical companies have done to deceive women, using them as human guinea pigs and lying to them.

But no, that is not where Sealey went in her diatribe.

She just wants women to have more choices. And she wants the industry to do something about it because she is positive that all those “unwanted pregnancies” are happening because there still are not enough choices for females who want desperately to have sex but certainly don’t want to be troubled with a child.

She tells readers:

The birth control pill didn’t just magically appear in women’s medicine chests one day. Its creation was a hard-won victory for women, by women, specifically, Margaret Sanger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger and Katharine McCormick, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_McCormick the activist duo most responsible for its development. As Elaine Tyler May describes in her new book, America and the Pill, these heroines began their fight in the early 20th century against the same sexist forces that once prevented women from voting, as well as conventional wisdom that equated birth control with vice and immorality, but ultimately managed to get the pill introduced here decades later.

Oh, come on, lady! Let’s face facts and tell it straight for a change. Why do women want the pill along with as many other selections on the sex-at-any-price menu as they can get? Because, quite simply, they have become infatuated with the idea of never having to be accountable for anything they do in order to satisfy their sexual urges. It is as if sex alone was worth denying everything that is moral and good about being faithful, pure and chaste before marriage as well as after it. Those values have become near-artifacts in the history of the human race.

Chastity and fidelity are the focus of sneers, derision and mockery. And yet, after nearly 50 years and only God knows how many damaged women, men, families and dead babies, many in our midst are still racing ahead, demanding more … more misery, more heartbreak, more death, more perversion.

Pope John Paul II in his remarkable Gospel of Life, explained this societal negativity http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2EVANG.HTM (Chapter 1: 13):

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the “contraceptive mentality”—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion are specifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment “You shall not kill”.

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.

Until that tree is uprooted, tossed aside and killed, the problems that confront mankind will not soon disappear. The honest response to the pill-loving in our midst and their hackneyed celebratory yammering should be that 50 years of deceit, misery and death is enough.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

by Marie Hahnenberg

As Americans celebrate Earth Day, perhaps some families will plant a tree or buy some energy-saving light bulbs. Perhaps some co-workers will try carpooling or a school will start a recycling project. As stewards responsible for caring for all God has created for us, the above efforts are good. But I’d like to spotlight one issue that receives far less attention: A dangerous drug that is so common that most women don’t even know what they are putting into their bodies is adversely affecting the environment. I’m talking about the birth control pill.

I do not understand why so many women who say that they care about the environment, take steps to eat organic foods and buy earth-friendly cleaning products for their homes are putting a completely inorganic, unnatural and dangerous drug into their bodies every day. If you care about your health and the environment, why would you jeopardize both by taking an oral contraceptive or any other synthetic estrogen replacement drug?

In 2006, the United States Geological Survey performed a study http://www.potomac.org/site/intersex-fish/ on fish in the Potomac River and found that 80 percent of the male smallmouth bass had intersex characteristics, meaning these male fish were growing female reproductive parts. The cause? Synthetic hormones from birth control pills, secreted through a woman’s urine, are contaminating our rivers and lakes. Since synthetic estrogen is part of the reason why male fish are becoming more feminine, then what kind of things will happen if our brothers, fathers and husbands come into contact with it?

According to Conrad Volz http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bringing-cancer-to-dinner-table-breast-cancer-cells-grow-under-influence-fish-flesh , co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute’s Center for Environmental Ecology, “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.” In fact, according to the study that Volz and his team in Pennsylvania did back in 2007, the fish caught in the water they were testing may also carry enough chemicals that mimic the female estrogen hormone to cause breast cancer cells to grow.

This is dangerous stuff! If your family’s drinking water comes from a water treatment plant, it would be important to find out how the plant treats the estrogen that is found in the water, and how much estrogen remains in your drinking water.

Women say that they take the pill for a variety of reasons. Are you or someone you know on birth control pills …

For irregular periods?

Well, guess what! The pill does not fix the reason you have irregular periods; it simply masks the problem while increasing your chances of getting a blood clot or pulmonary embolism. There are doctors trained in NaProTECHNOLOGY http://www.naprotechnology.com/ who can actually solve medical issues and help you! Please inform the women you love, because so many do not realize there are other answers out there that actually work. Remember, too, there are many reasons why women have irregular periods and if you find a doctor who is willing to help you rather than just give you a prescription for the pill, then you are on the right path. To find an expert in your area, go to http://onemoresoul.com/nfp-providers.

For sexual freedom?

Oh, come on, any independent woman today only has to do a quick internet search to find the long list of side effects from the pill (http://thepillkills.org/sideeffects.php). Once you see those, you can easily determine there is no freedom in that at all. Don’t forget about the mysterious part of our creation called pheromones http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11581&search=Marie%20Hahnenberg . These hormones are what help attract a male and female to each other, and this chemical attraction takes place through our sense of smell, the olfactory nerves. However, the pill can affect this natural phenomenon. A woman could fall for a man she would not normally fall for if she were not on the pill. A young woman in her twenties recently told me that while she was on the pill in high school, she ended up giving herself to a guy that she was getting to know. After she got off the pill, she no longer wanted to be with him. All that she could offer by way of explanation for her change of heart is that she couldn’t stand the way he smelled! I sure wouldn’t call that sexual freedom—a teenage girl gives into the pressures of a boy and becomes blinded by the pill? It’s what American Life League calls the “pill goggles” effect. See our video report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoZE4VZhvew.

Then why?

Because women don’t know any better. It’s what our society has accepted as a norm. But that’s where you and I come in, to break down these falsehoods and educate others about the realities behind this deceiving, decidedly un-environmentally friendly drug.

Not only can the birth control pill kill you; it’s not always going to prevent a little baby from being created—and when that happens, the thinning of the lining of your uterus brought about by the pill can cause abortions.

Birth control is certainly not a friend to the environment. The pill, patch and other birth control products cause a lot of harm to our environment. American Life League is calling all of the real environmentalists and earth friendly Americans to join us and protest the pill.

On Saturday, June 5, join women and men across the country as we get the word out that the pill kills! Wearing the Pill Kills T-shirt http://www.thepillkills.com/getshirtsign.php or holding the Pill Kills sign will help us draw a lot of attention, giving us the perfect opportunity to be witnesses in Christ. Sometimes we need to be like St. John the Baptist to get people’s attention, because most people are so wrapped up in their own personal lives that they forget the serious dangers (spiritual, physical and emotional) behind this contraceptive mentality that our society so strongly embraces.

Get out and help spread the word. And let’s clean up our water—not just by purchasing expensive equipment to clean it, but by using more natural ways to control our fertility. Look into the Creighton Model http://www.creightonmodel.com/ , the Billings ovulation method http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/ or another form of natural family planning and spacing http://nfpandmore.org/ . If you’re not married, then respect yourself and those around you by remaining abstinent http://www.chastity.com/ and please, save the rest of us from being in danger. We are already seeing the devastating effects of synthetic estrogen on our fish. Who knows what we may discover years down the road from the “fresh” water we drink.

Marie Hahnenberg is the director of American Life League’s Pill Kills project. Visit www.ThePillKills.com or e-mail protests@all.org.

 

WesternFront America

by Michael Hichborn

An old parable http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html tells of an incident between a frog and a scorpion. As the story goes, a frog was about to swim across a river when a scorpion asked him for a ride. The frog, knowing of the scorpion’s deadly tail, said, “How do I know you will not try to kill me?” The scorpion replied, “If I sting you, we will both drown because I cannot swim.” Seeing the logic of his argument, the frog agreed to give the scorpion a lift. However, halfway to the other side, the scorpion stung the frog on its back. As the poison began to take effect, the frog asked, “Why did you sting me?” The scorpion replied, “It’s my nature.”

Last August, I revealed in the ALL Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1-MCsZ5Kg that the Catholic Health Association was promoting President Obama’s health care reform efforts, even though it called for the expansion of government-funded abortion, birth control, sex education and euthanasia. In an attempt to clarify her position, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, agreed to discuss her support of Obamacare with ALL President Judie Brown on Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over on EWTN. http://vimeo.com/6252379 In the interview, Sr. Keehan said, “We are working closely with our bishops, and have been working with our bishops for years now. We are not at cross purposes with our bishops.” Sr. Keehan stated—at least four times—that CHA would compromise on preferences, but not on principles. And when asked if she was willing to withdraw support for health care reform should it not include strict protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm, Sr. Keehan said, “We’ve already said clearly, unless our principles are met, we are not going to be supportive.”

Other organizations, such as NETWORK http://www.networklobby.org/ and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (currently being investigated by the Vatican made similar statements: They said that they supported the efforts of the bishops and called for protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm. However, when the cards were on the table and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied against the reform bill, CHA, NETWORK and LCWR all broke ranks with the bishops and, instead, supported Obamacare.

What happened? Why did these “Catholic” organizations and individuals directly countermand the USCCB and themselves by supporting a bill that expands abortion, birth control and euthanasia? While Sr. Keehan acknowledged a “major concern on life issues,” she focused primarily on what she hopes the reform law will do. http://www.chausa.org/Contenttwocolumn.aspx?pageid=2147484509&terms=%22major+first+step%22

The following is a brief, but sobering, analysis of the health care reform bill signed into law by Barack Obama last week. H.R. 3590 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf contains the following sections:

SEC. 1302 – ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Under subparagraph (b), the Secretary is charged with defining “essential health benefits” to be included in all federally funded health care plans, such as “preventative and wellness services.” Considering that the phrase “pregnancy prevention service” is rapidly becoming the new code for birth control and contraception, the possibility that essential health benefits will include birth control is a real concern.

But that’s not all that’s wrong with this section. Subsection 4 states:

(4) REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION – In defining the essential health benefits under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

…

(D) ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individuals’ age or expected length of life or of the individuals’ present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, or quality of life;

Should birth control be deemed “essential health care” under the former provision then none of the health care plans may deny coverage for it for any reason.

SEC. 1553. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

(a) In General – The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

…
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to apply to, or to affect, any limitation relating to—

(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;

(3) abortion; or

(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

So, you can’t take direct actions toward killing a patient, but you can take away food, water and oxygen, and administer “dangerous” doses of pain medication (even though it may cause death), so long as that is not the intention. Meant to be a conscience protection clause, this section completely redefines acts that “provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.” Specifically excluded from this definition is the withdrawing of medication or treatment, the withdrawing of nutrition and/or hydration and abortion, which is to effectively redefine euthanasia, assisted suicide, mercy killing, etc. Chillingly, clause (4) implies the notion that doctors and offices can be discriminated against if they refuse to administer dangerous “lethal” doses of pain medication so long as their “intent” is not to harm or kill the patient. The double-edged sword there is that doctors who do such things are protected under the Act and doctors who refuse to administer such doses will be discriminated against. So much for prohibiting discrimination!

SEC. 2303. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

This section is extremely confusing because it amends multiple sections of the voluminous Social Security Act, however it is possible to ascertain certain points by following the leads. After making several alterations to the Social Security Act, Section 2303 amends section:

1902(a)(10) of the Social Security Act … (B) by inserting ‘, and (XVI) the medical assistance made available to an individual described in subsection (ii) shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning setting …

Section 1902 (a)(10) outlines what MUST be included in state plans for medical assistance, and section 1905(a)(4)(C) merely says, “family planning services and supplies furnished (directly or under arrangements with others) 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.”

Current law requires family planning in all state Medicaid programs. However, this new language will allow states to set up special programs to provide family planning (including artificial contraception) to people who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid—for example, if the individual makes too much money to get Medicaid unless she is pregnant (there is a higher income eligibility limit for pregnant women than non-pregnant women). Under this provision, she would be allowed to receive family-planning-only Medicaid in states that choose to participate. In addition, Section 2202, under the title, “Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations for all Medicaid eligible populations” allows family planning clinics to enroll women in family planning under Medicaid on the spot.

Now, “Family planning services and supplies” are not specifically defined in section 1905 (a)(4)(C), and it only provides a circular definition. Since Planned Parenthood and other such organizations define family planning as including all forms of birth control and even abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that this is how it will be defined here as well. To this end, we can say that the new law, as written, requires state plans to provide the full range of birth control, including abortion.

SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), as amended by sections 2951 and 2952(c), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘ SEC. 513. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION.
…

‘ (2) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-

‘ (A) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term ‘personal responsibility education program’ means a program that is designed to educate adolescents on—

‘ (i) both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B); and

‘ (ii) at least 3 of the adulthood preparation subjects described in subparagraph (C).

‘ (B) REQUIREMENTS – The requirements of this subparagraph are the following:
…

‘ (iv) The program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy among youth and sexually transmitted infections.

Title V of the Social Security Act is the MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT. Section 2953 of the new health care law creates a new section under that title, which amounts to sex education. This new section expands new title funds for organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the purpose of indoctrinating children in all forms of birth control. Planned Parenthood already receives social security grants through Titles III, VI and X of the Public Health Service Act and Titles XIX and XX of the Social Security Act; this section provides yet another vein of blood-money to the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continuing in the same section:

(b) Purpose –

‘ (1) IN GENERAL – The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a)(1) to a State is to enable the State (or, in the case of grants made under subsection (a)(4)(B), to enable a local organization or entity) to carry out personal responsibility education programs consistent with this subsection.

Clearly, the intention of the program is to indoctrinate kids in all forms of birth control. Regardless of whether or not there is an “opt-out” clause for individuals to whom this education applies, the fact of the matter is that more federal funds will be used to indoctrinate kids in immoral practices.

SEC. 4101. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS

(1) PROGRAM – The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.

This section opens funds for grants to create school-based health centers. These health centers provide a vast array of services and, while this section specifies that it will not allow for the performance of abortions, it says nothing of birth control or contraception. Given broad statements such as “comprehensive primary health services,” it is not unreasonable to assert that this language includes birth control. And considering the parameters set for establishing and operating these health centers, it is possible that Planned Parenthood could potentially become such an entity.

There have been numerous analyses of this particular piece of legislation explaining other areas of concern, so the real question is why did CHA, NETWORK and LCWR break with the USCCB and support this law? Either these groups did not carefully analyze the bill, as they claimed, or they willfully deny that these sections exist. Either way, one thing is clear. These progressive organizations, which have enjoyed a long relationship with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, did exactly what they will always do; they placed political expediency above Catholic principle. In other words, the USCCB—and by extension, millions of preborn babies now in greater danger because of this law—was stung by these groups because “it’s their nature.”

Michael Hichborn is director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project http://www.canon915.org and a researcher for Reform CCHD Now. http://www.reformcchdnow.com

 

WesternFront America

American Life League recently helped organize an event in Florida with the leadership of the Personhood Florida organization.

As is usually the case when personhood comes to the forefront, pro-abortion extremists immediately begin making wild claims about what the real goal of personhood is. For example, a headline in the Sun Sentinel reads, “Personhood Florida seeks to outlaw abortion, birth control.”

And another headline from the Tampa Tribune reads, “Would proposed amendment make birth control illegal in Florida?”

WJXT-TV’s News 4 reported, “Abortion foes seek signatures for amendment: Constitutional amendment would also ban many forms of contraception.”

The common thread running through these headlines is the use of fear tactics. These are employed so that the average voter will be predisposed, prior to even reading the amendment language on the ballot, or the background behind it, to vote against it. So what’s a pro-life Floridian, or, for that matter, any pro-lifer in a state with personhood on the ballot, to say about this?

Well, let’s start with the facts. That’s always a good place to find information and the last place pro-abortion, culture-of-death radicals want anyone to go.

It’s about rights. During a Reuters interview, American Life League communications director Katie Walker said exactly what each pro-personhood worker should say: “It [personhood] is a very simple concept that is fulfilling the civil rights movement.”

In other words, for close to 40 years, an entire segment of our population—those waiting to be born—have been discriminated against by the law and society. These human beings, who are, in fact, persons in every sense of the word, deserve the very same civil rights, human rights and equal rights as you and me. They are no less people, no less part of the human family and no less important than any single one of us. The only difference is that they are not yet born. That, and the law currently protects the act of murdering them.

Personhood will change that. Personhood will acknowledge that, just like you and me, each of them is a person. As the proposed Florida personhood amendment states:

SECTION 28. Person Defined. –
(a) The words “person” and “natural person” apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

This language does not mention abortion, nor does it mention contraception or birth control. What the language does affirm is what many Americans had taken for granted prior to the U. S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions of January 22, 1973. It clarifies in law that a person is a person from his or her biological beginning.

It is a positive declaration of the individual. The language is a guarantee that human rights, civil rights and equal rights will apply to every person in any state where personhood becomes the law.

Now let’s get to the particulars. It is true that when a state affirms personhood, the state is admitting to the fact that the act of abortion robs a person of his rights and is, therefore, unacceptable. Regardless of how that individual’s life is taken—whether by chemical, medical or surgical means—the act of killing would be addressed by lawmakers subsequent to passage of the personhood amendment. Clearly, procured abortion would be, by definition, a crime.

Those who have been committed to protecting the act of abortion under the law will raise all the hard cases. They will cry that if personhood becomes the law, “even abortion in the case of rape, incest of the life of the mother” would be a crime. They are correct.

There is no legitimate reason, regardless of the circumstance, that can be given to condone an act of murder, an act that results in the death of an innocent person. Doctors know this is true, and that is why, from a medical ethics perspective, a doctor will always do everything he can to save the lives of both the mother and the preborn child, since both people are his patients. And even when that child’s biological father is the perpetrator of a violent act against the child’s mother, it is illogical to suggest that murdering the innocent third party is justified because of the crimes of that child’s father.

Many who condone abortion want the public to believe that my statement is heartless, cruel and disrespectful to women. But how could that possibly be the case? At least half of those who die by the act of abortion are girl babies who will, if allowed to live, grow into womanhood themselves. They are females who should have the same rights and the same respect as those already born.

Catherine Dolinski, who wrote the article for the Tampa Tribune, reported,

That [personhood as law], opponents say, would make it a crime not just to kill a fetus by abortion, but also to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus as birth control pills can.… As described by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), birth control pills and intrauterine devices work partly by causing the lining of the uterus to thin, “making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it.”

Dolinski tries hard to depersonalize the baby by never using the word “baby.” However, it is a biological fact that the “fertilized egg,” accurately described as the single-cell zygote or single-cell human being, is a human being, an individual whose human rights are just as worthy of protection as any other human being. The point is that he or she exists. What else can we say?

Further, whether that person came into being through sexual or asexual means is irrelevant. In either case, we are addressing the rights of a person who deserves to be protected by law. For those who may not have encountered the term “asexual means” before, I want to make it very clear that these human beings are no different than any other class of persons.

A human being can come into existence these days by asexual means. As Dr. Dianne Irving has written,

[E]xtensive human cloning, and other forms of human genetic engineering — all of which can asexually reproduce new living single-cell human organisms (human beings) — are already being done in IVF clinics, for both “research” and for “reproductive” purposes. One of the most common IVF techniques is called “twinning” – and twinning is one of many different kinds of cloning techniques. The procedure mimics the kind of identical twinning that takes place naturally inside the fallopian tube of a women, resulting in the asexual reproduction of an identical twin, triplet, etc.

By the way, it is quite obvious that ACOG has worked hard to legitimize the chemical killing of week-old human beings, because so many of its members are part of the culture of death.

We have to be honest and set forth the facts, while at the same time exposing the jaundiced views of those who have altered truth for the benefit of their income, their ideology and/or their perverse attitudes toward human beings and their value.

Sooner or later, each and every American will have to answer a simple question: Are there human beings who are less important and therefore disposable?

If the answer to that question is “yes,” then the follow-up to it is this: Why would you condone the direct killing of someone based on his size or condition of dependency?

Is it because it is more convenient for you to use a method of birth control that can kill somebody than it is for you to admit the truth and change your lifestyle?

Is it because you have so little regard for the gift of life that your personal opinions are all that matter?

As we know, millions of Americans have already given the wrong answer, which is why we have murdered millions in this nation and described those acts as nothing more or less than personal choices. The “freedom of choice” has obliterated the ability of many to understand the ramifications of always placing one’s self first, even if it means that someone else must die.

As Florida pro-life leader Pat McEwen of Life Coalition International pointed out, “People who care about the life of babies are going to go out and gather signatures.… We will not give up. We are persistent.”

Indeed, we must begin—in every state, not just Florida—to spread the word, open minds, touch hearts and reach out on behalf of those who currently go silently to their death every day because the world waxes cold to truth.

That doesn’t change the facts; it never will and so we must persist.

—————————————–
Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie

http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2771

 

WesternFront America