Winning Pro-Life Strategy (3 views)
To:  ALL    
 
  166.1  
 
This Article discusses the topic of how best to End Abortion.
Generally there are two thoughts Politically, one is to vote for the least evil of the candidates and hope for some progress and for little setbacks. The second option is to vote for radical Pro-Life supporters even though they have practically no chance of winning.

 

I myself have mostly switched from voting for mediocre promise breaking politicians to voting for solid Pro-Life candidates. For example I voted for Allen Keys in the last election, a reputable Pro-Life leader.

 

This article actually refutes those of us who vote for the less popular candidates. I currently feel obligated to vote my conscience and when I stand before God I want to know that I compromised the least that I could instead of the most. 

 

----------

Do you know someone who would enjoy the Pro-Life Infonet? Please encourage

them to sign up at http://www.prolifeinfo.org/infonetform.html

 

--

Roe v. Wade:  28 Years of Life Denied

http://www.roevwade.org 

--

Pregnancy Centers Online

http://www.pregnancycenters.org  

--------------------

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet http://www.prolifeinfo.org 

Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt http:// infonet@prolifeinfo.org 

Subject:  A Winning Pro-Life Strategy

Source:   National Catholic Register/NRL News; July 2001

 

A Winning Pro-Life Strategy:  Better to Save Some Lives Now than None at

All, Ever

by Darla St. Martin

 

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Darla St. Martin is the Associate Executive

Director of the National Right to Life Committee. This editorial is

reproduced from the National Catholic Register's "Commentary and Opinion"

page.]

 

Pro-lifers share a common goal. We want to end abortion and build a world

which respects the lives of all God's children, born and unborn.

 

But not all pro-lifers agree on the best strategy for achieving that goal.

 

The millions of Americans who have worked with National Right to Life, its

state affiliates, or its community chapters during the past 28 years have

saved the lives of countless unborn babies through a carefully thought out

strategy of intensive education, legislation, and political action. Our

strategy is sometimes called "incremental" because we have advanced toward

our goal in increments, rather than waiting to pass perfect legislation.

 

We have seized every available opportunity to save as many lives and make

the maximum progress possible each day and each year without compromising

our ultimate goal.

 

Legislatively, we support full, legal protection for unborn children. We

also support more limited legislation, which can be passed more quickly,

to begin saving lives immediately.

 

Since 1973, National Right to Life and its affiliates have spearheaded the

passage of hundreds of lifesaving bills in Congress and the state

legislatures.

 

A study of just one parental notification law in one state for four years

indicated that abortions were reduced among teenagers by 15%. Restrictions

on public funding of abortion, banning partial-birth abortion, or

requiring that women seeking abortions be given the facts about the

development of unborn babies have saved thousands of lives and advanced

the cause of the innocents. These laws have saved lives not in theory but

in practice.

 

We have also supported thousands of electable pro-life candidates pledged

to support pro-life legislation. When a candidate's pro-life position was

good, but not perfect, we made a careful judgement about how we could best

save the most lives. Sometimes that meant the first priority was defeating

a dangerous pro-abortion enemy.

 

Others have a different strategy. They would vote for a candidate they

think is perfect who has no chance of election rather than a good

candidate who could be elected.

 

These pro-lifers wanted us to stand by and allow Al Gore to be elected

President rather than vote for George W. Bush, who had a strong pro-life

record as governor and who had pledged to pro-life policies which would

save many unborn babies. They were willing to let Al Gore carry out his

campaign promises to the pro-abortionists and unleash a slaughter of the

innocents such as this country had never seen before. Fortunately,

millions of pro-life people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents

alike, knew better and voted for George W. Bush.

 

Our strategy saves real living babies and strengthens the movement. Their

strategy results only in dead babies.

 

President Bush started making pro-life changes immediately. He barred the

government from funding groups which promote abortion overseas; he put

pro-life people in the key cabinet positions; he stopped the promotion of

abortion by U.S. representatives at the United Nations; and he promoted

pro-life bills in Congress. Millions of unborn babies who would have died

in America and worldwide under a Gore administration will live because

George W. Bush is President.

 

Without Bush and the other pro-life public officials our votes have

elected over the years, and without the legislation pro-life work has

passed, millions of children who are alive today would have died a

horrible death in the womb.

 

We understand there are pro-lifers who see our strategy as letting some

unborn babies die. But they need to understand that we see their strategy

as letting all the unborn babies die until we can save them all.

 

But let's look at the bottom line.

 

Our strategy saves real living babies and strengthens the movement. Their

strategy results only in dead babies now and a movement in danger of

withering due to legislative inaction and stagnation; a movement which is

unlikely to ever protect any babies.

 

For those who are unwilling or unable to accept the harsh truth of this

reality, who think that perfection could be achieved if only we worked

harder or were more unified, we ask them to simply count the votes.

Likewise, saying that legislative compromises should be made only by

politicians ignores the fact that without pro-life input, the laws passed

would be far weaker.

 

When there is any real chance of success for perfect pro-life candidates

or perfect pro-life legislation, we will be their strongest supporters.

 

We too pray for a miracle which transcends everyday reality and saves all

the children now. But miracles come in God's own good time and place.

Until then, we believe our mission is to do what we really can do every

day to save real unborn babies. We also passionately believe that this is

the best way to hasten ultimate victory. It will be a tough struggle. We

will mourn the loss of babies we cannot save, but we will not let that

stop us from saving the babies we can.

 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    2/26/2002 9:30 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 13)  
 
  166.2 in reply to 166.1  
 
Subject:   Pro-Life Groups Hold Washington Forum on Ultrasound Technology
Source:   NIFLA; January 15, 2002

Pro-Life Groups Hold Washington Forum on Ultrasound Technology

Washington, DC -- Concerned Women for America & National Institute of
Family and Life Advocates invite pro-life advocates to a free lunch and
discussion on "Opening A Window to the Womb: A Live Ultrasound
Demonstration." The discussion features Thomas A. Glessner, J.D.
President National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).

Women in crisis pregnancies often experience fear, anxiety, and are
desperately looking for answers. As a result, there is a substantial
demand for access to fetal ultrasound imaging in order for these women to
be fully informed on the status of their pregnancies prior to making any
decisions concerning their health and the welfare of their baby.

Thomas A. Glessner, J.D., a national leader in the pro-life movement for
more than 20 years, is the founder and President of the National Institute
of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a legal organization that represents
over 750 pregnancy help centers in 47 states. Of these centers 200 are
currently operating as licensed medical clinics providing free medical
help to women in crisis pregnancies - including ultrasound examinations to
provide a diagnosis of pregnancy and information to enable women to make
full & informed reproductive choices. Mr. Glessner will address the use of
ultrasound in pregnancy help medical clinics and the effectiveness of such
a tool in empowering women in crisis pregnancies to make an informed
choice.

Come prepared to hear the testimony of a woman whose life was forever
changed by viewing her unborn child via ultrasound and then view a live
ultrasound demonstration!

Thursday, January 24, 2002, 12:00- 1:00 PM; Cannon Caucus Room (345 Cannon
HOB); Please RSVP by January 18, 2002 to (202) 488-7000 ext. 131

--
Pregnancy Centers Online
http://www.pregnancycenters.org

 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 4:37 pm  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
Subject:  New Zealand Pro-Life Group Fights for 'Real' Right To Choose
Source:   Cybercast News Service; January 23, 2002

New Zealand Group Fights for 'Real' Right To Choose

New Zealand -- A small group in New Zealand is pressing for women to have
what it says is a real right to choose - including the choice to refuse an
abortion.

Far too often women facing unplanned pregnancies end up having abortions
without ever having the opportunity to make an informed choice, they say.

Some of these women will later succumb to depression or other
repercussions which could last a lifetime.

Philippa Peck of Abortion Concern - which does not describe itself as a
pro-life group - said in an interview that many abortion facilities were
failing to give women the type of information they needed while there was
still time for them to change their mind about having an abortion.

Booklets printed in past years by government departments for use in
abortion facilities were shunned by the abortion businesses, because they
contained images of developing babies in the womb. Women instead report
being told that the unborn child is merely "a blob of tissue" or "90
percent blood," she said.

"Withholding fetal development information ... denies women the right to
conscientiously object to an abortion," she said.

It's argued that providing such information will do nothing but add to a
woman's distress.

Some of these same abortion facilities, however, are asking women whether
they want to take home with them the "fetal remains" afterwards. While
women are not being given the information while there's still a chance to
say no, Peck claimed, they are later offered what is in effect the
information they should have received earlier - in the form of the fetal
remains.

"This raises the question, if the return of the aborted fetus - complete,
in some cases, with identifiable body parts, including arms, legs and toes
- is considered simply a part of 'fully informing women about their
treatment,' why are women not being given this information while they
still have a choice? Put another way, why do women not have the right to
refuse an abortion on the basis of informed consent?"

Peck said that decisions about what will or will not cause women distress
should not be made on their behalf. "Women should not be subject to the
paternalistic notion that information about the fetus should be
misrepresented or censored in their best interests."

Danah Cadman, manager of the Epsom Day Unit in Auckland - where the
majority of abortions in New Zealand are carried out - confirmed Wednesday
that women having abortions were offered fetal remains.

There were a variety of reasons, she said, the most important one being
the cultural tradition among the country's indigenous Maoris that
"anything that's removed from the body has to be returned to the earth."

For some women, it was a case of "wanting to say goodbye in private, part
of a grieving process."

Cadman said about 20 percent of all women having abortions at Epsom take
up the offer and "take their tissue home."

She said offering the service was not intended to be part of the process
of informing women about what was happening, "because we give that
information anyway."

Cadman confirmed that the clinic did not use an information booklet
produced by the government, "but we do talk about fetal development and
have photos, depending on the woman's needs."

Pack argued that much is made of a woman's "right to choose" - but in
reality women are only offered the right to choose an abortion.

There is no conception that a woman may decide rationally not to go ahead
with the abortion. If a woman does make such a decision, it's assumed that
she "can't be properly informed, that it's not a valid choice."

She recalled one case in which a 19-year-old single woman visiting a
clinic had hesitated. "They sent her home, and told her to say to herself
over and over again that having an abortion was the most useful thing she
could do."

In the end she decided against having the abortion, and was effectively
shunned and left to cope alone.

For this reason, Peck said, the counseling function should be removed from
abortion facilities. "If we did this decision-making counseling at a
hospital delivery suite, there would be a huge outcry. It would be seen as
heavily biased. But when it's done in an abortion clinic that's [seen as]
acceptable? I think that's hypocritical.

"If we're upholding choice, we shouldn't be having this counseling taking
place within an organization that only offers one outcome."

Counseling should also be screened for "coercion," she said. "To do
anything less is an absolute failure ... if we're going to uphold the
right to choose."

Peck, a mother of four who had an abortion in the 1970s, does not label
herself as pro-life. But, after seeing identifiable body parts of her
aborted baby, she said: "I couldn't find anything to recommend in
abortion. I suffered from depression for so long."

She said her group's aim is to ensure that women have the right to make an
informed choice, which they cannot do if they are not forewarned about the
possible consequences.

"The most important thing is being able to live with yourself afterwards.
I talk to women who can't even speak because they are so emotional [after
having had an abortion.] I've heard from a woman who said she didn't want
to live any more."

While she did not believe that every woman suffered from having an
abortion, many did, she said.

"Pro-lifers say it hurts all women. I don't believe that's honest. But the
pro-choicers are no better. They say only a minority suffer after an
abortion - too bad. Where's the compassion in that?"

Peck identified another target - "institutional prejudice" against women,
which she said "sends them down the abortion fast-track, even if that's
not what they want to do."

She cited a leading pro-abortion advocate in New Zealand, a doctor, who
has justified her decision as a student to end an unplanned pregnancy by
saying she had to get through medical school.

"My comment would be that she may have advantaged a lot more women if she
had lobbied for the ability to get her medical degree part-time - which
you still can't do. That would enable women to continue studying while
pregnant or parenting.

"No-one should have to sacrifice their conscience for the sake of studying
or employment. There's huge pressure on women to conform ... women get
thrown out of mainstream society when they fall pregnant."

Having suffered herself as the result of an abortion, Peck summed up her
goal as follows: "If I had been raped while walking home in the dark, and
I knew of a woman who was thinking of walking home in the dark, I would
offer her a ride. If she doesn't take it, that's her business. But at
least she's being offered an alternative."

--
Do you know someone who would enjoy receiving the Pro-Life Infonet? If so,
please send their email address to Infonet@prolifeinfo.org




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 4:39 pm  
To:  ALL   (4 of 13)  
 
  166.4 in reply to 166.2  
 
Source:   Indianapolis Star News; January 22, 2002

Indiana Bill Would Show Ultrasounds to Women Considering Abortion

Indianapolis, IN -- Two pro-life Indiana lawmakers want to expand the
state's laws on abortion.  Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Kokomo, and Sen. Michael
Young, R-Speedway, said Tuesday that the goal of Senate Bill 486 is to
ensure that women seeking abortions are well-informed.

Specifically, they want women to have the opportunity to listen to the
fetal heartbeat and view an ultrasound before they make their decision.
Women would be free to decline the option.

Hoosier women currently have to wait 18 hours for an abortion. They also
must be informed of the surgical risks and must be told of abortion
alternatives such as adoption.

Abortion rates in Wisconsin dropped by more than half after the state
offered the so-called look-and-listen option, officials said. Crisis
pregnancy centers across the country have long used ultrasounds to help
women understand fetal development, and most women opt against abortion
afterwards.

As expected, abortion advocates panned the idea.

"To have an ultrasound prior to an abortion has nothing to do with making
the procedure safer or addressing the health of the woman," said Dinah
Farrington of Planned Parenthood. "It's simply a matter of the picture of
the contents of the uterus."

Farrington also said that the option would increase the clinics' costs and
that they would likely be passed on to the women.

The Senate Health Committee currently is considering the proposal.

To keep up with this bill, contact:  Indiana Right to Life, 5001 Plaza
East Blvd, Suite B, Evansville, IN 47715, 812-474-3195

--
You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting
an unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to
Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 4:42 pm  
To:  ALL    
 
    
 
Subject:   Analysis:  How CPCs Use Ultrasound to Decrease Abortions
Source:   MassNews; January 23, 2002

Saving More Babies with Ultrasound:
Crisis Pregnancy Centers Have Success Using Pictures

Boston, Massachusetts -- Rev. John Ensor says, "A woman's health and
well-being is connected to her baby not just by a physical umbilical cord.
The ultrasound helps her find the courage to choose life.

Before ultrasound was available at "A Woman's Concern," about 40-50% of
the clients decided to keep the baby and not abort, Rev. John Ensor
estimates. Recently at their Revere center, 77% of those receiving an
ultrasound decided to keep the baby.

The same results are being reported throughout the country.

Nationwide, about 200 of the estimated 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers
offer ultrasounds to their clients.

In Massachusetts, two centers provide this service. One is "A Woman's
Concern" (AWC), with four locations in greater Boston, and "Problem
Pregnancy" of Worcester. Some other centers in Massachusetts help arrange
ultrasound exams for their clients, but don't have the equipment on site.

Ultrasounds are especially helpful to those who are still considering an
abortion after the initial counseling. The "abortion-vulnerable" woman is
commonly defined as one who faces obstacles that she may feel incapable of
handling or unwilling to experience, but who has not yet decided with
certainty to abort. There is disagreement among centers over terminology,
however, making statistics and comparisons problematic.

Results in Massachusetts Are Positive

Dr. Eric Keroack, medical director of AWC, gave MassNews the results of
his preliminary survey on ultrasound effectiveness.

"There is a real change when a woman sees her baby. Even some of the guys
have tears well up," Murphy said.  From October 2000 through December
2001, a total of 371 new clients were seen in the Revere center. A total
of 238 or 74% did not abort. (As noted above, 77% of all the ultrasound
clients during this period decided not to abort, but this number also
included those women who were not considered abortion-vulnerable.)

Of the total 371 clients, 320 were abortion-vulnerable at the time of the
ultrasound appointment. Fifty-five percent of the abortion-vulnerable
clients who delivered a baby kept it and did not adopt it out.

The number of women who definitely intended to abort but changed their
minds after the ultrasound was 198, or 62%.

Keroack gives the cost of each ultrasound exam as $160, and the cost per
new client $216. The cost to prevent an abortion with an
abortion-vulnerable client was $336. Each ultrasound machine costs about
$25,000. About 30-40 ultrasounds were performed each month during the
period of the study.

Keroack believes every single woman entering a pregnancy center is "at
risk" for deciding to abort. He has chosen to use the term
"abortion-vulnerable" to imply a very strong risk. (Some centers would use
the term "abortion-minded".) Even as he tried to be most careful in his
record keeping, his own understanding of a client's actual state of mind
grew during the period of his study. He suspects that the actual
turnaround rate approached 75%. This compares with a nationally reported
turnaround rate of 75%-80%, he said.

In May 2000, MassNews reported that "over 95% of women who are considering
abortion choose life after seeing an ultrasound image of her child. That
is the experience of [AWC] in Dorchester. It began showing ultrasounds of
unborn babies to mothers in August [1999]." This higher success rate did
not hold up over time.

Three of AWC's centers (in Dorchester, Revere and Brookline) have their
own ultrasound on site.

Rod Murphy, director of Problem Pregnancy center in Worcester, told
MassNews that they acquired their ultrasound machine very recently.  He
said, "Everything we thought is true. It works." In December, five
abortion-vulnerable mothers out of seven who received ultrasound exams
decided to continue the pregnancy.

"There is a real change when a woman sees her baby. Even some of the guys
have tears well up," Murphy said.

Many might wonder how any woman can see her baby moving on the screen, and
in some cases feel the baby moving inside her at the same time, yet still
choose to abort. Teresa Donovan, director of AWC's new Brookline center,
told MassNews that this illustrates the power of the
"end-justifies-the-means" morality, or amorality, that has such a foothold
in our culture.

"The fact that the ultrasounds don't necessarily create 100% turnaround
speaks to the power of utilitarian ethics or moral relativism. For many
years, the abortion industry denied the humanity of the fetus," said
Donovan. "Now, with this irrefutable image of a living human baby, those
who are pro-abortion say, We know they're human, but ' " The emphasis of
the pro-abortion forces is now almost totally on a woman's "right to
choose."

AWC's recent newsletter describes the circumstances of some of their
abortion-vulnerable clients. One 29-year-old single mother of several
children did not want to face severe morning sickness and could not afford
to miss work. A 27-year-old mother with children, a miscarriage and an
abortion a year earlier was not sure who the baby's father was. She lived
a life "full of broken relationships and stress." A 14-year-old mother and
her boyfriend wanted to continue her pregnancy, but the girl was being
pressured by her drug-addicted mother to abort.

It is not hard to see why women in such circumstances would succumb to
today's relativistic ethics, says Donovan. It attests to the effectiveness
of the ultrasound that they were convinced to keep the baby, despite
overwhelming difficulties.

Rev. Ensor says, "A woman's health and well-being is connected to her baby
not just by a physical umbilical cord. The ultrasound helps her find the
courage to choose life. Then it is the responsibility of the community to
come alongside her and offer support."

Tracking the effectiveness of counseling at centers is notoriously
difficult. Often, women who come in for help don't come back or even
telephone, so it's hard for the center to know how successful the
counseling was in preventing an abortion. New studies will need to
standardize category definitions ("abortion-vulnerable" vs.
 "abortion-minded" for example) and counting methods, and offer
comparisons to past outcomes (e.g., pre- vs. post-ultrasound services).

Different from Rest of Country?

How do the Massachusetts results compare to reports from around the
country? Thomas Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family
and Life Advocates, told MassNews that while there really are no reliable
national figures, he would estimate that between 25-50% of
"abortion-minded" clients receiving counseling, but no ultrasounds, at
centers would choose to keep the pregnancy. He added that most Centers
would probably see life choices by about 25-30% of clients, with 50% a
very high-end outcome.

Glessner told of a center in Columbus that has seen a huge positive impact
in offering ultrasound. Without ultrasound, only 20% of their
abortion-minded clients chose life. But that figure increased to 95% with
ultrasound. A center in Dallas saw a threefold increase in the number of
abortion-minded clients coming to the clinic, and a threefold increase in
clients choosing life. A Baton-Rouge center reported that 95% of its
clients now choose life, thanks to the new technology.

According to National Right to Life, at a San Francisco center offering
ultrasound, 60% of the women they worked with who were seriously
contemplating abortion decided to carry to term, after seeing the baby's
ultrasound. The director of Heartbeat International said that as many as
60-90% of clients will change their mind and decide not to abort.

Keroack is skeptical of the nationally reported turnaround rates of
90-95%. He suspects these centers are not keeping careful enough records,
for instance counting follow-up clients two or three times. He also gives
the example of women who come into a center to get a free ultrasound just
for Medicaid certification, but who were never abortion-vulnerable. His
prediction is that when more careful statistics are kept, turnarounds at
centers using ultrasound will come out to 60-75% for abortion-vulnerable
women.

Careless or inflated figures do a disservice to the cause, Keroack says.
Many in the pro-abortion community are waiting to discredit centers in any
way they can. Further, centers just initiating ultrasound services may be
discouraged when they compare their lower success rates with the inflated
figures.

Glessner said it would not surprise him if there were a higher number of
abortions in Massachusetts than elsewhere in the country, even among those
women seeing the baby's ultrasound images. In this liberal state, the
attitude described by Donovan is probably more common. Keroack said this
liberal mindset might explain a small percentage difference, but not a
20-30-point difference.

Lynn Bizbee of CareNet, a national network of about 600 centers, told
MassNews that the availability of ultrasound exams has greatly increased
the number of abortion-vulnerable women visiting centers. She said it is
too early to have a good handle on the success of ultrasound programs, but
that CareNet has a study underway which may provide reliable numbers in a
year or so.

MassNews reported in May 2000 that Planned Parenthood claimed that 50% of
women going to their abortion clinics have received ultrasound exams, yet
of these women (obviously "abortion-minded" if they are at PP), only 5%
decided to keep the pregnancy. Dr. Keroack explained this strange
phenomenon: Abortion clinics prohibit the patient from viewing her own
ultrasound.

Centers that decide to "go medical," offering ultrasound or other medical
services (such as a medical diagnosis of pregnancy), must be very careful
to comply with all state, federal, and OSHA regulations. Glessner has
estimated the cost of converting to medical clinic to be $50,000. His
organization helps centers wishing to convert with legal advice and, in
some cases, acquisition of ultrasound equipment. Massachusetts is among
the handful of states with very complicated requirements, he says.  Dr.
Keroack said that AWC does have medical clinic status.

If compliance could possibly be seen as lacking in the smallest detail,
the pro-abortion forces are ready to strike.

They understand the impact to a mother of seeing the baby in the womb.
These pictures have a powerful effect on anyone who sees them. In one
well-known case, the "silent scream" of a baby meeting its death during an
abortion is credited with transforming a veteran abortion doctor, Bernard
Nathanson, into a pro-life crusader. His documentary film has become a
pro-life classic.

The director of a small center in Massachusetts told MassNews that she was
wary of making the conversion. Her concern is not just the expense, but a
fear of the powerful pro-abortion activists.

In early January 2002, the New York attorney general launched an attack on
Expectant Mother Care, which runs five centers in the New York City area.
Subpoenas were served stating that the "A-G has a good faith belief that
the entities named may have violated one or more statutes by
misrepresenting the services they provide, diagnosing pregnancy and
advising persons on medical options without being licensed to do so,
and/or providing deceptive and inaccurate medical information."

Centers in Massachusetts may be targeted soon, both those with and without
ultrasound.

This development seems to be part of a nationwide campaign by NARAL
(National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to close down
what they term "fake clinics." (NARAL has published a guide, "Unmasking
Fake Clinics.") This may be the best evidence yet that centers, especially
those using ultrasound, are having a significant effect in discouraging
abortions.

You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting
an unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to
Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:01 pm  
To:  ALL   (6 of 13)  
 
  166.6 in reply to 166.5  
 
Subject:   Women Have  Right to Know of Abortion's Risks
Source:   Chicago Tribune; January 28, 2002

Women Have  Right to Know of Abortion's Risks
by Dennis Byrne.

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer and public
affairs consultant. He writes regular columns for the Chicago Tribune.]

Now we're supposed to choose Illinois' next governor on the basis of where
candidates stand on 1 percent of abortions. Even though budgetary,
education, public works and other policy issues wait to be debated.

Lt. Gov. Corinne Wood, running for the Republican gubernatorial
nomination, and Planned Parenthood have unleashed a flood of scary and
cheap-shot ads denouncing Wood's opponents as "too extreme" because they
do not support abortion in cases of rape or incest. Even though a study by
the Alan Guttmacher Insitutute shows that only about 1 percent of
abortions are performed because of rape or incest.

Yet Planned Parenthood trotted out "Gretchen," who denounced those who
would stop rape victims, such as her, from getting an abortion. Even
though we later discover that "her ordeal didn't end in pregnancy."

To be fair, let's tell another story: A real person, with a real name, who
was conceived during a rape, who survived an abortion attempt and now
leads a productive personal and professional life. Attorney Rebecca
Kiessling was adopted by a Jewish couple in Michigan, raised in their
faith and with their deep support, as the New Hampshire Sunday News
reported last week. "The biggest message I have is all life has value,"
Kiessling said. She and her husband Bob adopted a son Caleb, whose was
conceived at a "rave" party. Their adopted daughter, Cassie, lived only 33
days, dying of DiGeorge syndrome, a rare group of abnormalities including
recurring infections and heart defects. "It's so sad that people could
look at Cassie and say she wasn't as good . . . It was an honor to take
care of her . . . It was the most important thing I've ever done." Yes,
carrying a baby who was conceived in violence is a horrible burden to
endure. We must in these cases attend to the mental and physical health of
these victims. Just as we must acknowledge that an aborted child conceived
in violence itself becomes a victim of violence. It is the ultimate
visiting of the sins of a father on his child. It is the ultimate act of
blaming a victim.

But now I'm doing what Wood and Planned Parenthood want me to do: engage
in a debate that is a diversion from the real issues. If abortion is a
real issue in this election, we should conduct the debate on the real
battlefield. Over existing, here-today policies that many pro-choicers
support and which most Americans don't. Such as partial-birth abortion and
live-birth abortion (an aborted baby is delivered live and allowed to
die). Or polices that pro-choicers oppose and many Americans support, such
as parental notification and informed consent.

Take informed consent. Do women have the right to be fully informed of the
risks of abortion before they undergo the procedure? The pro-choice logic
is that abortion poses no risks, so no right to know exists. That's
despite studies to the contrary, such as those that find elective abortion
is a risk factor in breast cancer.

In Texas, a group of women who say they have suffered physical and
emotional harm from abortion, including ruptured uterus, sterility, severe
guilt and depression, have filed suit against the state, charging it with,
among other things, failing to inspect licensed facilities and to
prosecute illegal and unlicensed abortions. One of the plaintiffs is the
mother of a child who had an abortion without parental consent. The child
previously had received medical care for depression; the abortion worsened
her condition and led to her hospitalization.

Now, a study in the British Medical Journal reports that married women who
abort a first pregnancy are "at higher risk" of long-term clinical
depression, compared with similar women who carry an unintended first
pregnancy to term. Even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned today by a new
U.S. Supreme Court and the question of abortion were returned to the
legislative arena, where it belongs, there is no chance--none--that
abortions would be banned in cases of rape and incest, because of
overwhelming public opinion that is unlikely to change soon. Wood and
Planned Parenthood know that, and that is why their ads are pure
demagoguery.

If pro-choicers really were interested in rational debate and, more
importantly, in a woman's right to make a healthy choice, they would can
the ads and back a woman's right to informed consent.

--
You can make a donation on your credit card to support the Pro-Life
Infonet, please go to http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org/creditcard



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:08 pm  
To:  ALL   (7 of 13)  
 
  166.7 in reply to 166.6  
 
Source:   Albany Herald; January, 23, 2002

Georgia Legislature Will Consider Informed Consent Bill

Albany, GA -- A pro-life bill in the Georgia state House has been lying
dormant in the judicial committee since February but may make it to the
floor this session.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Hembree, R-Douglasville, is known as the
Woman's Right to Know Act. It requires abortion facilities to inform women
of abortion's risks, dangers, and alternatives. It also carries felony
criminal penalties for abortion practitioners who violate it.

"I believe that our chances are better at passage (than ever before),"
Hembree said Tuesday.

If passed, the pro-life law would require the woman to be informed of who
is performing the abortion, what risks are associated with it, the
probable gestation age of the unborn child and the medical risks of
carrying it to term.

Also, the woman would have to be told that medical benefits are available
for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, that the father is liable
to assist in support and that she can review printed materials about
abortion and pregnancy on a state-sponsored Web site.

Those printed materials would include pictures and descriptions of unborn
children at two-week gestational increments.

Similar laws in other states have proven to reduce the number of abortions
and the abortion rate.

Abortion practitioners would be guilty of a felony and could be sued in
civil court if the guidelines weren't followed. Also, the bill would
require abortion facilities to report to the state the number of abortions
they performed each year.

--
You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting
an unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to
Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:09 pm  
To:  ALL   (8 of 13)  
 
  166.8 in reply to 166.6  
 
Source:   The Idaho Statesman; January 29, 2002

Idaho Teen Promotes Unborn Victims Bill

Boise, ID -- Lisa Smith spent every dollar she earned on her baby. She
stocked up on bottle liners, tiny hats and coats, shampoo and powder until
she had months of supplies.

And when Noah was born and his heart didn't beat and his skin was cold,
she loved him anyway.

So much so that Smith plans to tell Idaho legislators that the state needs
a law that protects children from people who would hurt or kill them
before they're born.

She told Noah she would.

"I promised him I would make it right somehow," said Lisa, 16.

The Nampa, Idaho teen-ager was starting her ninth month of pregnancy when
she was attacked July 8 in her home. Hit, kicked and stomped, Smith sensed
that the beating had hurt her baby and was rushed to the hospital.

Doctors confirmed her fears. They couldn't find the baby's heartbeat. An
ultrasound revealed damage inside Smith's womb.

Labor was induced, and Noah was stillborn. It had been mere hours since
the attack, and there was little doubt that the baby would not survive.

But "she just loved him and kissed him. Every inch of him. We were so
proud of her and amazed," said Smith's mom, Kathy.

Despite the tragedy, Smith said the delivery "was the happiest moment of
my life."

She adored the infant, though stillborn, and marveled at how big and
otherwise healthy he seemed.

"He was so cold," she recalled later. "I kept rubbing him, and I couldn't
warm him up."

The family buried him in a beige gown adorned with bunnies and bears --
the outfit they expected to take him home in. Smith still sleeps with the
matching blanket that would have been Noah's.

She keeps other reminders of Noah, and the law she wants legislators to
adopt: A mold of his tiny hands and feet, pictures of Noah after he was
born, a printout of her first ultrasound.

Smith's former boyfriend was sentenced to 10 years of probation after
pleading guilty to a sexual-abuse charge for his relationship with Smith,
who was 15 when Noah was conceived.

That's where Smith's plea to legislators begins. Prosecutors from Ada
County say they didn't charge the boyfriend with a more serious crime
because they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed
the attack. The attacker wore a mask, and no one ever saw his face.

But even with proof, there's a question about whether the state could
charge the attacker of an unborn baby with a more serious crime.

It's an untested area of law, said Deputy Ada County Prosecutor Roger
Bourne. He said by piecing together three separate statutes, it might be
possible to make a case.

Smith doesn't want that. She wants a law that leaves no doubts.

Smith gained an ally in David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses
Life. He sought out the Smiths, and they agreed to work together to get
lawmakers to pass fetal homicide legislation.

"Our goal is to honor Noah with this bill," Ripley said. "I personally
have not given up hope on the question of someone being prosecuted for
what happened to Lisa and to Noah."

While the law could not apply to Noah's attacker (the U.S. Constitution
forbids writing laws that apply to people after the fact), it could apply
to any person in the future who harms a baby still in the womb.

The legislation, which is still being written, doesn't come without
controversy. At least three pro-abortion groups are attacking the bill,
which they have yet to see.

"We're not dismissing her pain. Not at all," said pro-abortion American
Civil Liberties Union of Idaho legislative counsel Marty Durand. "In
response to this tragedy, this legislation is not the right answer."

The three said a better approach is to enhance penalties for people who
attack pregnant women.

One such law is already on the books in Idaho. It imposes a fine of up to
$1,000 and one year in jail for assault and battery on a pregnant person.
The fine could be increased, they said.

However, pro-life advocates point out that doesn't acknowlege the standing
of a second victim:  the baby before bith.

Smith isn't turning back. She's been moved and motivated by the outpouring
of support she's gotten since her baby's death, and nothing could sway her
now. Not naysayers. Not the prospect of telling her story again and again,
if necessary, to convince legislators.

"Words can't hurt me," she said. "I'm not invincible, but I've made it
through harder things."

To see Lisa Smith hold a memorial with casts of the feet and hands of her
infant son, Noah, go to:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/daily/20020128/LocalNews/215470-108368.jpg




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:13 pm  
To:  ALL   (9 of 13)  
 
  166.9 in reply to 166.7  
 
Source:   Associated Press; January 30, 2002

President Bush Seeks Increased Abstinence Funding

Washington, DC -- The Bush administration is asking Congress for a 33
percent increase in funding for sexual abstinence education programs,
which bar discussion of birth control or condoms.

Spending on abstinence education has been climbing over the last five
years. Pro-life advocates argue the programs provide crucial balance to
tax dollars spent teaching teens about contraception.

In the budget he submits to Congress next week, the president will propose
a total of $135 million for ``abstinence-only'' programs, an increase of
$33 million over this year, according to an administration official who
spoke on condition of anonymity.

The request fulfills a pledge Bush made while campaigning for president to
spend as much promoting abstinence as some have calculated the government
spends educating teens about contraception.

Supporters of the program note that abstinence from sex is the only
certain way to prevent pregnancy and disease. They say discussing the
benefits of birth control indirectly endorses teen sex.

``The president feels, the administration feels, a lot of people in
Congress feel that this is a much better way to attempt to solve this
problem of teen-age pregnancy,'' Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson said in an interview Wednesday. ``Let's try them out and see if
we can't get it to work.''

Thompson added that he is interested to see the results of extensive
research on the program's effectiveness now under way. ``I'm a
results-oriented kind of person,'' he said.

Proponents argue that the nation has spent considerable money on birth
control services and yet nearly 900,000 teen-agers get pregnant each year.

Opponents say it's unrealistic to push abstinence, given that many
teen-agers are having sex already and that the surgeon general and others
say there is no evidence the programs work.

``I find it stunning that an administration that touts the values of
science when it comes to environmental policy can't run fast enough away
from science when it comes to sexual health,'' said James Wagoner,
president of Advocates for Youth, which supports ``abstinence-plus''
programs. These encourage teens to say no to sex but suggest
contraceptives and condoms for those who do not.

Intense debate over abstinence-only programs began in 1995 and 1996, when
Congress was writing the massive welfare overhaul. The final legislation
included $50 million per year for abstinence education, to be nearly
matched by participating states. The money may not used for programs that
discuss the benefits of contraception.

Under the law, the programs must meet one of eight goals. Among them:
teaching that sex outside marriage is likely to have harmful psychological
and physical effects, how to reject sexual advances and why drugs and
alcohol make that more difficult.

Uncomfortable with the program, some states used their money to run
pro-virginity media campaigns or after-school programs that make little if
any mention of sex or abstinence.

Pro-life advocates in Congress complained that states were dodging the
intent of the program and created new pool of abstinence-only money which
is distributed directly by HHS. This program, which is where Bush is
asking for the increased funding, is meant to pay for programs that
overtly discuss the value of not having sex.

According to the administration official, the Bush budget will ask
Congress for abstinence-only money in three pieces:

$50 million in grants to states through the welfare program. The welfare
law, which included automatic funding for the abstinence program each
year, must be renewed this year. Bush will propose that the program remain
at $50 million, at least for the first year. This request will be
considered as part of the larger debate over what changes are needed in
the welfare law, and proposals to modify the abstinence program are
certain.

$73 million, an increase of $33 million, in competitive HHS grants.

$12 million, the same as this year, for the Adolescent and Family Life
program, which provides money to states through a formula to work with
teen mothers.

--
You can make a donation on your credit card to support the Pro-Life
Infonet, please go to http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org/creditcard



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:15 pm  
To:  ALL   (10 of 13)  
 
  166.10 in reply to 166.7  
 
Source:   Associated Press; February 1, 2002

Congressional Bill Would Help CPCs Purchase Ultrasound Technology

Washington, DC -- Convinced that a look inside the womb will dissuade many
pregnant women from abortion, pro-life advocates hope to provide
ultrasound equipment to hundreds of pregnancy centers that promote
alternatives like adoption.

Backers of the ultrasound initiative confirm their goal is to reduce
abortion, but say their strategy is non-coercive - they're simply giving
pregnant women more information.

``When they get the information to make an informed choice - once they see
the ultrasound - the majority of women chose to carry the pregnancy to
term,'' said Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family
and Life Advocates.

Congressional allies are drafting a bill that would provide federal
funding for the project, which pro-abortion groups bitterly oppose.

``They're using medical technology as political propaganda,'' said Gloria
Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Glessner says his institute represents 750 pregnancy centers across the
United States, out of a total of more than 2,000 which counsel pregnant
women on alternatives to abortion. His goal is to have 1,000 centers
equipped with ultrasound and certified to use it by 2010.

Some centers are acquiring ultrasound equipment with private funds. An
ally of Glessner's in Congress, pro-life Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) plans
to introduce a bill that would help many others by allocating up to $3
million to acquire ultrasound.

``When a woman looks at the ultrasound, she'll have the full measure of
what it means to see a live person in the making,'' Stearns said. ``Our
long-term goal is to reduce the number of abortions.''

Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights
Action League, claimed ultrasound is a valuable technology that is being
misused by abortion foes.

``It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women's
capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,'' Michelman said. ``I
faced a crisis pregnancy after having three children, and I didn't need
anyone to show me a sonogram to inform me that my pregnancy would result
in giving birth to a person.''

Ultrasound can be used only by trained medical personnel working under a
doctor's supervision. Part of Glessner's campaign will be to ensure that
pregnancy centers meet these requirements by qualifying as medical
clinics.

Glessner said data from pregnancy centers suggests the percentage of women
who abandon plans for an abortion more than triples if they see ultrasound
fetal images.

``Shame on NARAL (Michelman's group) for opposing a woman's right to
choose life,'' he said. ``This scares them, because they know what women
do when they see the images.''

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    3/23/2002 5:26 pm  
To:  ALL   (11 of 13)  
 
  166.11 in reply to 166.8  
 
Source:   Lincoln Journal Star; February 5, 2002

Nebraska Legislature Gives Preliminary Approval to Fetal Protection Bill

Lincoln, NE -- Barbara LaTurner wept with joy when she heard the state was
closing in on an unborn victims of violence bill.

The Legislature on Monday voted 41-6 to give second-round approval to a
bill that would make killing an unborn child, by any criminal act, as
serious an offense as killing the pregnant mother.

"I'll never forget that defense attorney who said my grandson did not
exist," LaTurner said. "These babies are people and it's about time
Nebraska recognizes that."

LaTurner's daughter, Billie Griesemer, was eight months pregnant when she
was killed in an auto accident caused by a drunk driver in Omaha. Her
baby, Zachary, suffered severe head and internal injuries and died. He was
delivered by Cesarean section and given a funeral along with his mother.

In December, Vicki Soto was murdered and dismembered in North Platte. She
was more than eight months pregnant and her baby died with her. Jackie Lee
Arthur Soto was also given a funeral.

"If you had any idea of what it is to lose a child and a grandchild and be
told that the grandchild did not exist, you would appreciate what the
Legislature is doing," said Soto's father, Richard Bowker Sr.

When life begins was the focus of debate in the first and second rounds of
LB824.

Sens. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln and Ron Raikes of
Lincoln, offered hostile amendments to the bill to "clarify" and define
"unborn child."

However, Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln, who is the primary sponsor of the
bill, said previous Nebraska law had at least 37 references to "unborn
child." A large number of federal agencies, including the Supreme Court
and Congress, also use the term, he said.

"We had considerable debate that was constructive and considerate," Foley
said. "It was important to keep the focus on the ultimate objective and
get this bill to the governor to sign into law. I think the next logical
step to this bill is something we never talked about - and that is doing
harm to an unborn child, an assault that causes damage to the unborn
child."

Foley and other bill supporters contend that a fetal homicide law will
have no impact on the legality of abortion in Nebraska. "I never said this
is not a pro-life issue, but this bill is also not anti-abortion."

Greg Schleppenbach of the Nebraska Catholic Conference agreed.

"This is not about abortion because it exempts abortion," he said. "We are
recognizing choice of the parents, or mother, who believe that they can
decide when they have lost a child. I challenge the pro-choice supporters
to allow that choice to be determined by the mother as the ultimate
arbiter."

Bobbie Kierstead, of Planned Parenthood Parents For Choice, claimed the
bill was a "Trojan horse."

The bill will reach the final round of debate as soon as it is scheduled.




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    4/5/2002 7:00 pm  
To:  ALL   (12 of 13)  
 
  166.12 in reply to 166.2  
 
Source:   Associated Press; March 18, 2002

Catholic Teacher Sues Union for Using Dues to Promote Abortion

Springfield, MA -- A Roman Catholic gym teacher is suing local, state and
national teachers' unions for requiring him to pay fees he says support
abortion and birth control policies.

In a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Gerard
O'Brien says the ''family planning'' positions taken by the Springfield
Education Association, Massachusetts Teachers Association and National
Education Association go against his religious beliefs.

O'Brien, who teaches gym to students with physical disabilities at
different Springfield schools, says abortion is wrong and opposed by his
church. He says he should not be forced to give money to groups advocating
abortion rights or condom distribution.

He's not a union member, but he's required to pay an agency fee of about
$500 a year, his lawyer said. Agency fees are reduced payments for workers
who don't want to support political activity by a union beyond normal
labor issues.

O'Brien wants to send all his fees to a charity -- something he says the
SEA has allowed in the past.

''Even if I pay the reduced fees to the union, it still shows an
association it's still a form of speech,'' he said. ''I don't want to
support the unions in any way. If I give them money for anything, it looks
like I'm supporting them.''

While the SEA has not taken a formal stand on abortion or birth control,
it does funnel money to the state and national teachers' unions.

The MTA supports health education programs that include information on
birth control and family planning. According to a NEA resolution, that
group supports the ''right to reproductive freedom'' and ''urges the
government to give high priority to making available all methods of family
planning to women and men unable to take advantage of private
facilities.''

''Mr. O'Brien is not anti-union,'' his lawyer, Gregory Hession, said.
''He's against paying for a union that violates his deeply held religious
beliefs.''

O'Brien's religious discrimination case dates back to 1985, when he first
refused to pay fees to the SEA. O'Brien, a Springfield teacher since 1975,
instead put the money in an escrow account which now has about $6,000.

But refusal to pay the fees violates the school department's policies, and
O'Brien says he was suspended for one week without pay in 1995 and in
2001. His lawsuit, which also names the City of Springfield as a
defendant, seeks payment for lost wages and his attorney fees.

Lawyers for the school system would not talk about the case, and SEA
president Timothy Collins did not return phone calls seeking comment.

But MTA officials claim they've tried to accommodate O'Brien.

Laura Barrett, a union spokeswoman, said the MTA offered to let O'Brien
use the money saved in escrow to cover his attorney fees and lost pay, and
give whatever was left over to a charity of his choice.

''We believe his case is entirely without merit,'' Barrett said. ''He's
been told he can contribute to charity. We've offered to give Mr. O'Brien
what he was looking for.''

But O'Brien says he shouldn't use his own money to cover his personal
costs.

''I've been saving this money since 1987 for a charity,'' he said. ''It's
an issue of principle to me.''

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    4/5/2002 7:01 pm  
To:  ALL   (13 of 13)  
 
  166.13 in reply to 166.2  
 
Source:   BBC; March 20, 2002

Chinese Man Sues Over Wife's Abortion

Beijing, China -- The first lawsuit under China's controversial one-chind,
forced-abortion law has been filed at a Beijing court, China Daily
reports.

The plaintiff, a 35-year-old man identified as Mr Li, accused his wife Ms
He, 27, of infringing his right to have a child by opting for an abortion.
The court has refused to reveal the full names of the couple to protect
their privacy.

Wives who refuse to bear a child may incur unfair blame and demands for
compensation

This is the first time a man has sued his wife over his right to be a
father since China's parliament, the National People's Congress, approved
the law, ruling that a woman had no overriding priority over her spouse in
deciding whether to have a child.

The plaintiff told the court that, by opting for an abortion, his wife of
18 months had violated his right to be a father. He said he had been upset
when Ms He, who became pregnant in November last year, had informed him
she had chosen to abort the baby despite his strong opposition.

The court has officially recommended the case to go to trial but refused
to release any further detail before the announcement of the verdict.

China's family planning legislation has been causing controversy in the
media ever since it was passed by parliament last December. The most
controversial provision is that the law now puts a man's right to have a
child on an equal footing with the right of his wife, making both spouses
within the marriage equally responsible for family planning.

The law's opponents say the provisions dealing with fatherhood rights have
not been thought through properly and need further revision.

In its current form, they say, the law clashes with some of China's other
laws, including the one establishing a woman's so-called right to have an
abortion.

The family planning law provides a legal defence for China's current
birth-control policy, which has often been denounced in the past by human
rights organisations for using forced abortions and sterilizations, as
well as leading to the abandonment of baby girls.

The legislation stipulates, among other things, that urban couples should
generally have only one child. Violators face fines.

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and
Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life
info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional
information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
